Читать книгу American Democracy in Context - Joseph A. Pika - Страница 72

The two questions of state representation dominated the next few weeks of discussion at the convention: (1) Should there be proportional representation in Congress, as called for in the Virginia Plan, or equal representation (one state/one vote), as called for in the New Jersey Plan? (2) In the event that proportional representation was chosen, who would be counted in determining the number of representatives? The Virginia Plan called for representation in Congress to be based on the “numbers of free inhabitants” in a state. This concerned smaller southern states because slaves made up such a large proportion of their populations (see Figure 2.3); if slaves were not counted, those states’ power in Congress would be diminished.

Description

Figure 2.3 Slaves as a Percentage of State Populations, 1790

Source: “1790 Census: Return of the Whole Number of Persons Within the Several Districts of the United States,” United States Census Bureau, accessed July 21, 2019, https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1793/dec/number-of-persons.html

New Jersey Plan A plan, favored by small states, to amend (rather than replace) the Articles of Confederation. It would have retained the one-state/one-vote system of voting in the national legislature, with representatives chosen by state legislatures.

Three-Fifths Compromise The decision by the Constitutional Convention to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation.

To lure small southern states to accept the idea of proportional representation, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a supporter of the Virginia Plan, introduced the so-called Three-Fifths Compromise: Each slave would count as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation. This obviously deplorable solution would give southern states strong enough influence in Congress to prevent the legislature from abolishing slavery (a possibility that was already a concern to these states), but not as much influence as they would have if slaves were fully counted. (Of course, slaves did not have the right to vote and therefore would not be represented in Congress. Women did not have the constitutional right to vote either, but white women did count as full persons toward determining the number of representatives a state would have.) On June 11, the convention endorsed the Three-Fifths Compromise by a vote of 9–2, with only Delaware and New Jersey voting against it.³⁷

It soon became clear, however, that even with the Three-Fifths Compromise, proportional representation was not a done deal. Quite to the contrary, that issue continued to dominate discussion for weeks and threatened to deadlock the convention. Finally, another compromise ended the impasse. Devised by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, this so-called Great Compromise (sometimes referred to as the Connecticut Compromise) called for a bicameral legislature, as in the Virginia Plan, with a different method for determining representation in each house and different procedures for selecting representatives in each house.

In the lower house (which eventually became the House of Representatives), the Virginia Plan would prevail:

 Representation would be proportional.

 Representatives would be elected by the people.

In the upper house (which eventually became the Senate), the New Jersey Plan would prevail:

 Representation would be equal (each state would have two representatives).

 Representatives would be selected by state legislatures.

Great Compromise The decision by the Constitutional Convention to resolve the debate over equal versus proportional representation by establishing a bicameral (two-house) legislature with proportional representation in the lower house, equal representation in the upper house, and different methods of selecting representatives for each house.

In keeping with the principle of “no taxation without representation,” all legislation dealing with raising and spending money would originate in the lower house.

The Convention debated the Great Compromise for 11 days, and, on June 29, finally passed it. The compromise ended the deadlock and resolved the fundamental question of representation in the legislature. Now the delegates shifted their attention to the other two branches of government.