Constitutional Convention Versus The Great Compromise

520 Words3 Pages

In the summer of 1787, a Constitutional Convention was called to revise the Articles of Confederation. Many of the delegates intended to use this convention as a way of drafting a new constitution. The main issue discussed in the convention was representation of the states. The Articles stated that each state had a single vote in Congress, but the bigger states wanted representation based on population. James Madison then proposed the Virginia Plan, and the larger states supported his idea. However, William Paterson proposed the New Jersey plan, which received an equal amount of support from the smaller states. This conflict nearly tore the convention apart, but Roger Sherman came up with the Great Compromise, or the Connecticut Compromise. The compromise proposed of having two houses, one of which would be based on proportional representation, and the other being of equal …show more content…

The Constitution was to be ratified by a special ratifying convention instead of the state legislature. The people fought hard for ratification of the Constitution for a long time. Those who supported the ratification were called Federalists, and those who opposed it were called Anti-Federalists. The Federalists went against the Articles of Confederation, whereas the Anti-Federalists supported a House of Representative which consisted of substantive power.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, whom are all Federalists, wrote The Federalist Papers - a series of essays. The essays talked about the Constitution and "defended its provision." They defended the Bill of Rights, which is the weakest point of the Constitution. Patrick Henry, an Anti-Federalist, believed that the Constitution could bring a "dangerously powerful government," so that is why he attacked the Constitution. Eventually, most of the Anti-Federalists were persuaded by the Federalists'

Open Document