Connecticut Compromise

The Connecticut Compromise was a 1787 developed solution for the question of how the legislative power should be organized in the new United States. The compromise is an association of the Virginia Plan, which provided for parliamentary representation according to population, with the New Jersey Plan, which called for equal representation of all states.

The compromise

Content of the compromise was the creation of a bicameral system: the members of the lower house are elected in proportion to the population, while the states are equally represented in the upper house with two representatives. The compromise was implemented accordingly in today's House of Representatives and the Senate today.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention had each of the thirteen former colonies except Pennsylvania a parliament with two chambers. So This could already be assumed that a consensus for a similar structure at the federal level. The real conflict was not the question of whether there should be two chambers, but how the states would be represented. The smaller States called this equal representation, as it was contained by the unanimity clause in the Articles of Confederation.

In fact entered by the major authors of the Constitution, including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Edmund Randolph or Gouverneur Morris, none for equal representation of the states of a. Benjamin Franklin spoke as a representative of Pennsylvania's also made for a distribution of votes according to population size. George Washington refused equitable representation on principle, because they affected his view, the sovereignty of the national government.

Proponents of equivalence were mainly representatives of the smaller states, including Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware and William Paterson of New Jersey. Their main argument was that small states could be surprised by the large States would be distributed seats based on population. In particular, the three largest states would be able to determine the policy in the Senate. James Madison argued, however, that the large states would have no common interests and the fears of the small states are unfounded:

" What a combination of the large ones [ states ] dreaded? This must do arise Either from some interest common to Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania and distinguishing them from the other states ( of from the mere circumstance of similarity of size). Did any seeking common interest exist? In point of ... manners, religion, and other circimstances, Which sometimes beget affection in between different communities, theywere not more assimilated than the other states. In point of the staple productions theywere as dissimilar as any three other States in the Union. The Staple of Massachusetts what fish, of Pennsylvania flour, of Virginia tobacco. What a combination to be Apprehended from the mere circumstance of equality of size? Experience suggested no such danger. "

" If a connection to the large [ State ] fears? This has probably grow out of an interest that Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania share and which differs from the other states ( for the simple fact that they are similar in size). Was there such common interests? ... In terms of habits, religion, and other circumstances that sometimes reignite the passion of different communities, they were not assimilated than the other states. With respect to the usual economic production similar they are as little as any other group of three states in the covenant. The main product of Massachusetts was fish, flour Pennsylvania and Virginia tobacco. Then was an alliance for the simple fact of similar size perceptible? Experience suggests no such danger. "

The smaller states replied that they would lose their freedom if they would be outvoted by their more populated neighbors. Hamilton commented that the states are artificial creations that would exist even from individuals:

" It has been said that if the smaller States renounce Their equality They renounce at the sametime Their liberty. The truth is did it is a contest for power, not for liberty ... the State of Delaware having 40,000 souls will loose power, if she has 1/10 only of the votes allowed to Pennsylvania having 400,000: but will the people of Delaware be less free, if each citizen [ of Delaware ] HAS to equal vote for each citizen of Pennsylvania? "

" It has been said that the states at the same time lose their freedom with their equivalence. The truth is that there is a struggle for power, not for freedom is ... the State of Delaware with its 40,000 souls will lose power if he would have only one-tenth of the votes of Pennsylvania, with its 400,000. But the people of Delaware are less free, if each citizen ( Delaware ) has the same number of votes as every citizen of Pennsylvania? "

Several arguments for the equality of the States were clearly born out of self-interest. Gunning Bedford was also open to this when he remarked:

" Can it be expected did the small states will act from pure disinterestedness? Are we to act with purity Greater than the rest of mankind? "

" Can really be expected that the small states would act out of pure altruism? Shall we act as the rest of humanity from a greater purity? "

After threats of the representatives of the small states, they would join other nations, equal representation of the states should not come into being, the other representatives relented. North Carolina changed his voice to support Equality and Massachusetts abstained. In the final decisive vote represented the five states were in favor of the equal distribution of votes - Delaware, North Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey and Connecticut - only a fifth of the American population.