The problem was referred to a commission made up of a delegate from each state in order to reach a compromise. On 5 July, the Committee presented its report, which became the basis for the “great compromise” of the Convention. The report recommended that each state have the same voice in the House of Lords, and in the House of Commons, each state should have one representative for every 40,000 inhabitants, [5] slaves should be counted as three-fifths of one inhabitant[5] and that the money bills should come from the House of Commons (not subject to a change by the upper chamber). “The founders could never imagine… the large population differences of the states that exist today ,” explains Edwards. If they happen to live in a state of population, you will have a broader say in the U.S. government. He called for the creation of a single chamber of Congress, in which each state had a voice, similar to the system that exists under the statutes of confederation. Fewer populous countries like Delaware feared that such regulation would scuttle their voices and interests by larger states. Many delegates also felt that the Convention did not have the power to abolish the articles of Confederation completely[1], as envisaged in the Virginia Plan. [2] In response, William Paterson of the New Jersey delegation proposed on 15 June 1787 a single-house legislative power. Each state should be represented on an equal footing in this body, regardless of population. The New Jersey plan, as it was called, would have left the Confederal articles in place, but changed them to expand the powers of Congress a little.
[3] After the Great Compromise, there would be two national parliaments in a bicameral congress. Members of the House of Representatives would be divided according to the population of each state and elected by the people. Until July 16, the Convention had already set the minimum age for senators at 30 and the term at six, compared to 25 years for members of the House of Representatives for a two-year term. James Madison explained that these distinctions, based on “the nature of the confidence of senators, which requires a greater degree of information and character stability,” would allow the Senate to continue “with more freshness, with more system and with more wisdom than the popular branch [ly] chosen.” Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both from the Connecticut delegation, created a compromise that somehow mixed the proposals of Virginia (Greater State) and New Jersey (small state) regarding the division of Congress. But in the end, his main contribution was the determination of the division of the Senate. Sherman placed himself on the side of the two-headed national legislator of the Virginia plan, but proposed: “The share of the right to vote in the first branch should be according to the number of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch or in the Senate, every state should have a vote and no longer have. [6] Although Sherman was highly regarded and respected among delegates, his plan initially failed. It was not until July 23 that the performance was finally settled. [6] When the debate began, it became clear that the two parties were much further apart than originally thought. And it was not only a difference of opinion on how to proceed that divided the Convention; Rather, it was a completely different understanding of the main purpose of the Convention. When the Connecticut compromise was voted on on July 16, the Senate resembled the Congress of Confederations. In previous weeks of the debate, James Madison of Virginia, Rufus King of New York and Governor Morris of Pennsylvania strongly opposed the compromise for this reason. [7] For the nationalists, the vote of the Convention in favour of compromise was a crushing defeat.
Please scroll down…