Pros And Cons Of The Great Compromise

445 Words2 Pages
In Philadelphia, a heavily disputed convention took place between May and September of 1787, often referred to as the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention addressed the conflicts of the fragile U.S government that emerged from the Articles of Confederation. The U.S Constitution that originated from convention established various major compromises that are currently in use today. The Great Compromise and Three-Fifth Compromise validate that the creation of the Constitution was a “bundle of compromises”,these being two of the major compromises. The Great Compromise also known as Connecticut Compromise, proposed by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellworth, permitted both large and small states to agree to the Constitution without immensely decreasing their power in Congress. The small-population states yearned for a Congress that approved of equal representation from all states, and the large-population states demanded a Congress with representation proportional to the number of citizens of each state. Sherman proposed a two house Congress with a House of Representatives depended on population and a Senate composed of two members from each state, regardless of its population. This dual system of representation is still…show more content…
Although, decisions were not easily concluded Benjamin Franklin stated “the Constitution had its faults, but it is possible that no better document could have been created.” The Great Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise were and still are major parts of U.S Constitution. The Great Compromise admitted both large and small states to agree to the Constitution without critically depreciating their power in Congress. The Three-Fifths Compromise presented the meaning of population to settle the dispute of what slaves counted as. Although, the Three-Fifths compromised wasn’t effective for the Southern states, the Great Compromise did and is still in use
Open Document