The Four Compromises Honors

This is a five part assignment where you will analyze the text and answer multiple choice questions in the the first four parts. In the final part you will answer the questions, “How did the ability to compromise shape the United States?”

**** Issue #1

How will the states and the people be represented in the new government?

Under the Articles of Confederation, states (and thus the people) were evenly represented in the government. To the founders, the greatest fear was a strong government; naturally, they balanced state power as well to ensure no state had more power than another. Precisely, each state was held to one vote on all matters. Even though a state could send no more than 7 people to represent their state's interest in Congress, when it came time to vote on key decisions, all states were held to one vote.

Largely populated states like Virginia and Pennsylvania felt that the current structure gave smaller states far more power. Is it fair for a state with 500,000 people to have control over a state with 5,000,000 people? Edmund Randolph, a representative from Virginia, crafted the Virginia Plan to address this issue. He proposed a Congress that reflected the entirety of the United States population. His plan involved a bicameral Congress (two sides or two groups) where states received votes in each side based on their population. For example, large states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts would receive more votes than smaller states like Delaware, Rhode Island, and Georgia. Distributing power based on a state's population ensured that Congress would always reflect the desire of the people.

In response, smaller populated states responded with a plan of their own called the New Jersey Plan. Proposed by William Paterson, this plan changed little from the original structure under the Articles. It kept the unicameral Congress with equal state power intact. The argument was simple from the small states: if representation was based on population, then large states will command too much power. The voice of the smaller states would forever be lost.

The debate lasted for weeks until a "Great Compromise" was reached. Also called the Connecticut Compromise, this plan was proposed by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut. It created a bicameral Congress with one side benefiting small states and the other benefiting large states. The House of Representatives would benefit largel states; in the House, states would receive votes based on their population. Each state was guaranteed at least one representative, and would get another for every 30,000 people who lived there. The Senate was created to satisfy small states; here, each state received two Senators regardless of its population. To further balance the power between both sides, all decisions need 51% approval in both sides. Therefore, this compromise guaranteed that both large and small states would have to work together for the government to function.

1. What was one the primary weakness of representation under the Articles of Confederation that led to conflict between states?

Why did Edmund Randolph believe the Virginia Plan would be more democratic than the Articles of Confederation?

What underlying principle drove the small states' support for the New Jersey Plan?

How does the Great Compromise demonstrate the concept of checks and balances?

If a state had 150,000 people under the Great Compromise, how many representatives would it have in the House?

What would most likely happen if only the Virginia Plan had been adopted without compromise?

Why was it significant that the Great Compromise required 51% approval in both houses of Congress?

How did the Connecticut Compromise address the core concerns of both large and small states?

What does the debate over representation reveal about the founders' biggest challenge in creating the Constitution?

Based on the principles behind these plans, which modern situation would most likely create similar debates?

Issue #2

Should enslaved people count toward a state's population?

Once the issue of state representation was settled, the delegates at the convention turned their attention to other matters. Should people who are enslaved count toward a state's total population? That was the issue to be discussed next.

Many at the convention wished to do away with slavery altogether since it went against the idea of liberty and independence. However, southern states refused to compromise on the issue, and northern states did not want to risk the fragile state the nation was in. The founders agreed to push decisions regarding the fate of slavery aside for now.

The southern slave-holding states wanted to count enslaved people toward their total population numbers. Since they were in fact human beings, southerners demanded they be counted as such when looking at the entire state's population. Including enslaved persons in the total population count would mean that southern states would gain more votes in the House of Representatives. This would give the south an overwhelming amount of power since the entire south participated in the corrupt practice, whereas it was extremely limited or prohibited throughout most of the north.

Northerners balked at this idea and favored a plan that prevented enslaved persons from being counted at all. The southern states, northerners demanded, cannot have it both ways: they cannot treat these people as property yet count them as people. If the south can count things they consider property, does that mean the north can count property too? Many northerners, knowing that the south would never accept such a deal, agreed to happily count enslaved people if the south set them free; of course, that idea went nowhere. This is not to suggest that northerners were entirely anti-slavery; many in the north also enslaved others, just not to the extent that southerners did. The reluctance to count enslaved Africans was mainly to prevent the south from gaining too much political power in the House of Representatives.

What was the primary reason southern states wanted enslaved people counted in their population totals?

Why did northern states oppose counting enslaved people in population totals for representation?

What contradiction did northerners point out in the southern position on counting enslaved people?

Under the Three-Fifths Compromise, how would a state with 1,000 enslaved people increase its population count?

What concession did northerners receive as part of the compromise negotiations?

Why did the Constitutional Convention delegates avoid making immediate decisions about ending slavery?

What does the passage suggest about northern attitudes toward slavery?

Issue #3

How can we guarantee this new, strong government will not abuse its power and infringe on the rights of the people?

Once the new Constitution was finalized it had to be voted on by the states. Article VII (7) of the Constitution stipulated that, in order to pass, it needed the support of nine of the thirteen states. Some, like Delaware, Georgia, and New Jersey, overwhelmingly supported the Constitution and the new stronger central government it created. Others like Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York were more unsure; delegates from these states had strong suspicions that this new government would become too powerful. Rhode Island boycotted the convention altogether, citing their concern that the Constitution took far too much power away from the states. Debates took place throughout the young nation over whether the Constitution should become the new law of the land.

Federalists supported the passage of the new Constitution. Led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, Federalists believed a stronger central government was both necessary and prudent. Collectively, the three wrote 85 essays known as The Federalist Papers to support passage of the new Constitution. George Washington, as the leader of the convention, agreed that a stronger government was necessary as the current structure under the Articles left the country handcuffed on a variety of matters. In a 1785 letter to James Madison, Washington stated,

"To me, it is a solecism (mistake): indeed it is one of the most extraordinary things in nature, that we should confederate as a Nation, and yet be afraid to give the rulers of that nation, who are the creatures of our making, appointed for a limited and short duration, and who are amenable for every action, and recallable at any moment . . . sufficient powers to order and direct the affairs of the same."

Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution was too powerful, that it took too much power from the states and created a government that could easily become tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason argued that the Constitution needed a list of guaranteed protections that ensured the rights of the people could not be taken away by an oppressive government. Adding this would ensure the government had clear boundaries on what it could (and could not) do.

Federalists believed such a list was unnecessary. Why create a list of things that government cannot do when the Constitution gives government no power to do it in the first place? Others worried that by creating a "Bill of Rights" that the people had, some rights would be left out. in the end, it was clear that Anti-Federalists would not support the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was added. Ten amendments to the Constitution were approved in 1789 and the Constitution, now with the support of the Anti-Federalists, was ratified by the United States.

What was the primary purpose of The Federalist Papers written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay?

According to George Washington's 1785 letter, what did he find most extraordinary about the nation's situation?

Why did Anti-Federalists like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry oppose the original Constitution?

What was the Federalists' main argument against creating a Bill of Rights?

Which concern did some Federalists have about creating a specific list of rights?

What can you infer about Rhode Island's decision to boycott the Constitutional Convention?

Based on the reading, what was the most likely reason Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York were hesitant about the Constitution?

**** Issue #4

Where should the new nation's government be located?

Upon the ratification and adoption of the Constitution in 1789, the young government of the United States did not have a permanent home. Because of the divide that was developing between north and south, no one could agree on the permanent location of the federal seat of government. It was even proposed that the Capitol should change locations every ten years as yet another check against the creation of a powerful national government. The Compromise of 1790, created between Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, set the eventual location of the Capitol to be at a brand new location, the District of Columbia.

Alexander Hamilton wanted the Capitol to be in his home state of New York. Jefferson and Madison, however, wanted it on the Potomac River in South. Both sides greatly feared that the location of the Capitol would affect national policy; a northern location would produce a government that favored northern ideals, and would force an end to the Southern way of life, whereas a Southern location would promote slavery.

At the same time as this debate, Alexander Hamilton was consumed with trying to get Congress to pass his financial plan to set the country on a bright financial future. A large piece of this plan was that the national government would assume all state debts incurred in the Revolutionary War and thereby create one national debt. Southern states, having already paid off their war debts, despised this policy. “Why should we help repay the debt of the Northern states?”, many southerners asked.

And so a compromise was born between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Hamilton gave Jefferson and Madison their capital in the south; it would be placed along the Potomac River and would be given the name of the District of Columbia. To prevent any northern or southern bias, the capital would not be located in a state. Instead, the capital was created from donated land given by Maryland and Virginia and would lay between them. A temporary capital was created in Philadelphia while Washington D.C. was constructed, and John Adams was the first President to live there when he moved into the White House just days before his presidency came to an end.

What was the primary reason why choosing a location for the nation's capital became such a contentious issue?

Analyze the motivations behind the Compromise of 1790. What does this compromise reveal about the political climate of early America?

Why did Southern states oppose Hamilton's plan to have the federal government assume all state Revolutionary War debts?

What was the strategic reasoning behind creating the District of Columbia from land donated by Maryland and Virginia rather than placing it within an existing state?

Evaluate the effectiveness of the Compromise of 1790 as a solution to the political deadlock. What does this suggest about governance in a diverse nation?

What can you infer about the relationship between economic policy and regional politics based on how Hamilton's financial plan became connected to the capital location debate?

How did the ability to compromise shape the United States?