(a) Describe the main debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. [5] (b) Explain why the Great Compromise was important for the creation of the Const...

Part (a): Main debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787

The Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia from May to September 1787, involved several fierce debates among the 55 delegates:

1. Representation in the legislature: Large states, led by Virginia, proposed the Virginia Plan, which called for representation based on population. Small states countered with the New Jersey Plan, demanding equal representation for each state regardless of size. This was the most divisive issue at the Convention.
2. Slavery and representation: Southern states wanted enslaved people counted for the purposes of determining representation in Congress (increasing Southern power), while Northern states objected. The resulting Three-Fifths Compromise counted each enslaved person as three-fifths of a free person for representation and taxation.
3. The executive branch: Delegates debated how powerful the president should be, how long the term should last, and how the president should be chosen. Some favored election by Congress, others by popular vote. The compromise was the Electoral College.
4. Powers of the federal government: Delegates disagreed over how much power to grant the central government versus the states. Federalists wanted a strong national government; Anti-Federalists feared it would become tyrannical.
5. The slave trade: Northern delegates pushed to end the importation of enslaved people, while Southern delegates resisted. The compromise delayed any ban on the slave trade until 1808.

Part (b): Why the Great Compromise was important for the creation of the Constitution

The Great Compromise (also called the Connecticut Compromise, proposed by Roger Sherman of Connecticut) was arguably the single most important agreement at the Convention, for the following reasons:

• It resolved a deadlock that threatened to destroy the Convention. By late June 1787, the debate between large and small states over representation had become so heated that several delegations threatened to walk out. Without a resolution, the Convention would have collapsed.
• It created the bicameral legislature: The compromise established a House of Representatives based on population (satisfying large states like Virginia and Pennsylvania) and a Senate with equal representation of two senators per state (satisfying small states like Delaware and New Jersey).
• It balanced competing interests: Large states gained proportional influence in the House, where they would dominate through sheer numbers. Small states gained a guaranteed equal voice in the Senate, where every state had the same weight regardless of population.
• It prevented withdrawal: Without this compromise, several small states, particularly Delaware (whose delegation had instructions to insist on equal representation), would likely have refused to ratify any Constitution.
• It embodied the principle of shared sovereignty: By dividing power between a population-based chamber and a state-based chamber, the Compromise established the federal principle that both the people and the states were represented in the national government.
• It set a model for compromise: The successful resolution of this dispute demonstrated that negotiation, rather than force or walkout, could resolve seemingly intractable political disagreements. This approach would be needed many more times in American history.

Part (c): Did the Constitution successfully balance the interests of large and small states?

Arguments that the Constitution achieved a successful balance:

• The bicameral system gave both large and small states meaningful representation. Large states dominated the House; small states had equal weight in the Senate. Legislation required passage through both chambers, ensuring neither group could be ignored.
• The Electoral College gave smaller states a slight advantage in presidential elections, since each state received electoral votes equal to its total congressional representation (House plus Senate), and every state had at least three votes.
• The amendment process (Article V) required supermajorities in both Congress and the states, protecting minority interests from being overridden by a simple population majority.
• The system proved workable in practice: the Constitution was ratified and endured, suggesting the balance was functional.

Arguments that the balance was flawed:

• The Three-Fifths Compromise gave Southern slaveholding states disproportionate power in the House by counting enslaved people (who could not vote) for representation purposes. This inflated Southern political power for decades.
• The Electoral College did not always reflect the popular will, as later elections would demonstrate.
• Large states still dominated the House of Representatives, and population growth widened this advantage over time.
• The Constitution failed to address slavery as a moral issue. By compromising on slavery to secure ratification, the framers stored up a conflict that would ultimately lead to the Civil War.

Balanced judgment: The Constitution achieved a workable compromise for the political circumstances of 1787, and its basic federal structure has endured for over two centuries. However, the compromises on slavery created a fundamental imbalance of power between free and slave states that peaceful politics ultimately could not resolve. The Constitution balanced large and small state interests, but it failed to balance the interests of free and enslaved people, which proved to be the more consequential fault line.