The First Great Compromise in US History - Research Paper Example

The First Great Compromise in US History People referred to the proposal by small states as the New Jersey Plan because the proposal came from William Peterson from New Jersey. The initial draft kept in place making features of the, then government. It retained one Congress, but with additional powers to regulate trade and raise taxes. Delegates from small states ensured that they maintain one vote for each of them without considering the population of the state. The refusal by small states to reject the Virginia Plan because large-state delegates did not agree with their plan almost plunged the Constitutional Convention into a deadlock. The answer to the deadlock came from Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut. Delegates and the media referred to the proposal as the Connecticut Compromise while others called it the Great Compromise. It was the brainchild of the existing federal government. The Congress would have two houses namely, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The population of each state would determine the number of members in the House of Representatives. On the other hand, each state would send two members to the Senate. State legislators received the powers to elect the Senators. Somehow, Sherman gave delegates what they wanted. Whereas large states got more members in the House of Representatives, small states got equal representation in the Senate. The writing and creation of bills became a preserve of the House of Representatives in the Congress, something that made large states happy. Small states derived further satisfaction from the fact that the Senate became officially, The Upper House. The Biggest problem came from the powers of the Presidency. Resistance came from Anti-Federalists. The terminology Anti-federalists referred to a group of people who opposed the ratification of the constitution vehemently. This coalition of people continues to remain subservient to the Federalists. This is despite the fact that the group had famous political leaders in national politics. Anti-federalists were very popular towards the end of the eighteenth century. The same time the people of America were struggling to promulgate their supreme law. This source clearly indicates that the leading pack of this team included among others James Winthrop a delegate from Massachusetts, George Mason, who hailed from Virginia, as well as Patrick Henry a representative from Virginia as well, in addition to the New York representative, Melanchthon Smith1. It is evident that these leading anti-federalists popularized their ideologies in the rural areas especially the yeomen farmers, who joined the group in large numbers. Taking the initiative to market their concepts in the rural turned to have both advantages and disadvantages to the group. The capacity of the group to sell their ideas among the people who settled in the western parts of the United States appeared to work well with the group. Opposition to the group came from different fronts. However, the proponents of the same ideas shared central views of politics in the United States similar to those held by Federalists. Their main theme was against ratifying a constitution that bestowed too much power in the central government. The constitution provided for a presidential system of leadership with the Senate and the Congress as well as the Judiciary offering checks and balances. Anti-Federalists opposed the creation of an imperial president. To them, this carried the potential of creating a corrupt and irresponsible president immune to the law. The president would eventually govern with impunity. The resistance came of the foothills of rejecting and defeating what they referred to as the tyranny of the British King. This perspective appeared to provide actual parts of political life. Together the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists believed in the significance of checking the power of any government in place. However, they averred that the three arms of the new government posed a threat to the same belief. James Winthrop and others held that the new constitution formed a precursor to corruption, which was a very familiar voice in the United States society at the time. In their analysis of the new constitution, Anti-Federalists held that it provided many powers to the president including the power to overturn of reject decisions by the representatives of the people in both the Senate and the Congress. This was tantamount to the veto power. In his observation, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia in the Philadelphia conference posited that draft constitution was subversive to the gains made by the people of the United States in terms of their governance2. Anti-Federalists opposed the process of exalting the national power at the expense of the federal or state power. The second main feature of their opposition fell in the failure of the draft constitution to provide statutes that protected individual liberties. The greatest undoing of Anti-Federalists was their failure to popularize their ideas among the urban population. The source fails to quote most of the weaknesses of the coalition that opposed the ratification of the constitution. In quoting elements that both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the article only identifies that the two opposing groups agreed on the fact that their continued wrangling and bickering affected the process of getting the constitution negatively. The source delves into the struggles between Federalists and Anti-Federalists in the process of ratifying the constitution of the United States. The source provides a clear difference at the start that Federalists favoured the process of ratification while Anti-Federalists opposed the entire process. The constitutional Convention marked the start of the fight between opposing camps to control the content of the constitution. The seventh volume of the article series explains that it was mandatory for a minimum of nine conventions states out of thirteen to ratify the draft constitution before promulgation. Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey formed the first three states to ratify the constitution within the three months of its publication. Delaware led the pack with a vote of thirty in favour with none opposing. New Jersey ratified with a vote of thirty-eight against nil while Pennsylvania delivered a vote of forty-six in favour with twenty-three against the constitution. This was in seventeen eighty-seven. In January, seventeen eighty-eight Connecticut and Georgia followed suit with none of the delegates from Georgia opposing the draft constitution. The trend in the first eight months pointed to a state of ratifying the constitution within the shortest time. The source is efficient because it offers additional search links for related areas apart from giving a chronological flow of events3. The source clearly indicates that one hundred and twenty-eight delegates from Connecticut voted for the ratification of the draft with a paltry forty delegates opposing the same idea. The effectiveness of the source becomes more to a person interested in getting information because the same acts as a link to other areas related to the topic of discussion or research. It qualifies as a one-stop shop. The source introduces the subtopic that is of value to this analysis, which is a group of states that opposed the ratification exercise. The states led by New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia were important in terms of both stature and population size of the voters. The proponents of the constitution in Massachusetts were forced to assure Anti-Federalists that the chapter on the bill of rights could be added to the constitution before delivering a yes vote with a difference of nineteen votes. This followed a heated discussion on the issue among their congressional representatives. The sequence of information in this article contains an important flow not available in many other sources. The author is sequential in his arrangement of ideas. Anti-Federalists knew that they would overhaul the entire constitution but they were prepared to trod a difficult journey to have their say among them inclusion of the bill of rights. It was clearly when shortly after delivering Massachusetts, South Carolina, Maryland, and New Hampshire fell in line. New Hampshire was complex with the Federalists defeating Anti-Federalists with a margin of ten votes. The success of the three states filed the number of states to mandatory states for ratification of the constitution. However, the biggest challenge came from Virginia and New York, two states that still held that the draft deserved changes. Other states also believed that it would be difficult for constitution to survive without the two crucial states. New York and Virginia agitated for a more concentrated federal constitution. Among other reasons enlisted in the article, Anti-Federalists held that a republican form of government would not distribute the national cake effectively among Americans. George Clinton, George Mason, Martin Luther, Patrick Henry, as well as Thomas Paine appear in the article as the front leaders of the Anti-Federalist coalition. The article quotes some of the rue philosophical differences between Federalists and Anti-Federalists besides personal animosity that existed between individuals. Notable examples supporting this factor were the rivalry between James Madison and Patrick Henry in Virginia as well as the tense relationship between Alexander Hamilton and John Jay on end against George Clinton on the other end of the continuum4. The article quotes a series of letters written in various newspapers collectively referred to as The Anti-Federalist papers with aim of winning over the federalist states. The letters included Brutus, Cato, Cincinnatus, and the Federal Framer. Publius was a group of eighty-five letters written and distributed by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison to counter the Anti-Federalist papers. Opinions of great personalities worked to the disadvantage of Anti-Federalists. Among the public officials were Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. The thoughts swept away the thoughts of people in most states most notably the defiant states of Virginia and New York. The source gives a precise chronology of events including the fact that the delivery of Virginia with a difference of ten votes swept the decision in New York that delivered a yes vote with a difference of three votes. However, the source does not cover the aftermath of the struggle in detail leaving the reader with little knowledge in the same area. Without giving any background information, the source begins by elaborating factors that drove Anti-Federalists in their quest to have the draft constitution amended before ratification. First, Anti-federalists relied on the Articles of Confederation in their effort to create a weak national government with more powers moving down to the states or federal governments. Since the group focused in the rural areas, they agitated for the support of small landowners, small farmers, and small entrepreneurs. They held that a strong legislature would take care of the interests of ordinary citizens as opposed to a strong central government proposed in the draft constitution. The paper associates Richard Henry Lee from the state of Virginia with a series of articles that appeared in the dailies from seventeen eighty-seven to eighteen eighty-eight. The strength of this source is that it gives excerpts of some letters that carried the strongest views of Anti-Federalists. In doing this, the journal gives firsthand information as written in the first account. Unidentified from the two other sources are worries by Anti-Federalists that the draft constitution did separate powers equally between the three created arms of the national government. Furthermore, they opposed powers allocated to the national government to regulate commerce. Centinel is unknown Anti-Federalist who wrote articles in the dailies presenting his views without giving identity. The source lacks the chronological flow of ideas through the time of the United States. More so, the article contains information in a haphazard manner, which lacks the necessary flow for any person interested in getting information from the source. The first section of the Congressional debate in seventeen seventy-five declared a resolution that the United colonies had the right and therefore ought to be free and independent. Freedom and independence would absolve them from the British rule. They declared that any connections whether political ought to be dissolved completely. The second debate occurred in Philadelphia, presented the Lee Resolution by the Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee.5 The delegates resolved to declare independence and form a confederation after developing alliances with foreign nations. The thirteen colonies voted to pass the declaration of Independence after a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson, and Roger Sherman approved a document written by Thomas Jefferson. During this voting, the delegation from New York abstained because it had failed secure an approval from the New York Convention. By spring of seventeen seventy-six, most of the colonies experiencing fighting were ready to acknowledge and embrace the idea of independence with exceptions coming from middle colonies among them New York and Pennsylvania. The middle colonies were more peaceful compared to the rest that were in turmoil. Other factors that guided the Congressional debate included the wounds of an entire year of war, the gathering armament overseen by General Howe, persistent hostility of the British administration, as well as the failure of the colonial master to respond to issues raised by the eloquent speakers such as Paine. Bibliography Duncan, C. M. (1995). The anti-federalists and early American political thought. DeKalb, Ill: Northern Illinois University Press. Ehrike, (2014). Ratifying the Constitution: Anti-Federalists; Accessed on from http://www.ushistory.org/us/16b.asp Hamilton, A., Jay, J., Madison, J., Rossiter, C., & Kesle, C. R. (2006). Federalist & Antifederalist papers. United States: BN Publishing. The History Press (1787). The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debate accessed from http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h374.html Wootton, .D. (2008). The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Journal of the American Constitution; Accessed on Jan 21, 2014 from, http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_faf.html Read More