Differences between the plans. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a critical moment in American history as it marked the birth of the United States' governing framework. Delegates from 12 states gathered in Philadelphia to address the failures of the Articles of Confederation, which had proven inadequate in managing national issues. The central point of contention among the delegates was how to structure the new government, particularly the representation of states in the national legislature. The Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, and the Hamilton Plan each proposed distinct solutions to this problem, and their debates reveal the underlying tensions between large and small states, federalism and states’ rights, and the balance of power between branches of government.
The Virginia Plan: Strong Central Government and Proportional Representation
The Virginia Plan, presented by James Madison and Edmund Randolph, proposed a radically different structure from the Articles of Confederation. It called for a strong national government with a bicameral legislature, where both houses’ representation would be based on a state’s population. This proportional representation gave more power to larger states, which stood to gain more legislative seats based on their population sizes (Madison 1787). The Virginia Plan also called for the creation of an executive branch to enforce laws and a judiciary to interpret them. By centralizing power in a more robust federal government, it aimed to correct the inefficiencies and weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
The Virginia Plan was appealing to larger states such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, which believed that they should have more influence due to their larger populations. However, the plan was not without its detractors. Smaller states, such as New Jersey, worried that the Virginia Plan would render them politically irrelevant as they would have far less representation in the national legislature due to their smaller populations. This divide set the stage for the intense debate that followed and eventually led to the consideration of other plans, particularly the New Jersey Plan (Madison 1787).
The New Jersey Plan: Protecting Smaller States
In contrast, the New Jersey Plan, introduced by William Paterson, proposed a much more conservative solution. Rather than creating an entirely new system, the New Jersey Plan sought to amend the Articles of Confederation and strengthen the existing framework. The plan maintained a unicameral legislature in which each state, regardless of population, would have an equal vote. This would preserve the political power of smaller states, ensuring that they would not be overshadowed by larger states, as was the case under the Virginia Plan.
Paterson’s proposal also granted the central government the power to regulate commerce and levy taxes, but it stopped short of the sweeping reforms called for by the Virginia Plan. In particular, it retained a system of equal representation that emphasized state sovereignty over national power (Wisc 2021). Proponents of the New Jersey Plan argued that this was the best way to protect the interests of smaller states, which feared being dominated by the larger states in a government structured around population-based representation.
However, the New Jersey Plan faced strong opposition from figures such as James Madison, who argued that equal representation for states, regardless of their size or population, would undermine the efficacy of the national government. Madison emphasized that such a system would allow a minority of states to obstruct the will of the majority, thus preventing effective governance. He argued that a stronger central authority was necessary to unify the states and manage national interests. By granting equal representation to all states, the New Jersey Plan failed to address the root cause of the nation's difficulties under the Articles—the inability of the federal government to enforce its authority (Madison 1787).
The Hamilton Plan: A Vision for Strong Executive Power
While the New Jersey and Virginia Plans offered contrasting approaches to the balance of state and national power, Alexander Hamilton’s plan pushed the boundaries of centralized authority even further. Hamilton, a staunch advocate for a powerful federal government, proposed a government with a bicameral legislature, but he envisioned a more aristocratic form of governance. His plan suggested that the upper house of the legislature should be composed of life-term members, resembling a form of monarchy, and that the executive should have far-reaching powers (Bamzai 2022).
Hamilton’s plan was radical, advocating for a stronger executive branch than either the Virginia or New Jersey Plans. He argued that the Articles’ failures required bold reforms, and his vision reflected a belief in the need for energetic and accountable authority to ensure national survival. However, his proposals were viewed as too extreme by many delegates, who feared that such a strong central government could lead to tyranny. Hamilton’s ideas on executive power and constitutional authority would have far-reaching implications, and they would eventually shape later interpretations of presidential power (Bamzai 2022). Although his plan was not adopted, it highlighted a crucial ideological spectrum in the Convention—ranging from those who feared an over-concentration of power to those who believed that only a strong central authority could stabilize the nation.
The Great Compromise
The debates between the Virginia and New Jersey Plans nearly derailed the Convention. With both sides firmly entrenched, the delegates recognized the need for a compromise that could satisfy both large and small states. The result was the Connecticut Compromise, also known as the Great Compromise, proposed by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth. This compromise established a bicameral legislature that combined elements of both the Virginia and New Jersey Plans, addressing the contentious issue of representation.
Under the Great Compromise, the new legislature would consist of two houses. The House of Representatives would be based on proportional representation, ensuring that larger states had more representatives, while the Senate would have equal representation for each state, regardless of size. This compromise struck a balance between state sovereignty and national unity, allowing both large and small states to feel adequately represented (Wisc 2021). The creation of this bicameral legislature effectively resolved the conflict between population-based and equal representation and helped bring the delegates closer to a consensus.
Slavery and Commerce
In addition to resolving the debate over representation, the Constitutional Convention also addressed other contentious issues through compromise. One such compromise was the Three-Fifths Compromise, which allowed states to count three-fifths of their enslaved population for purposes of both taxation and representation. This provision gave the Southern states, which had large enslaved populations, more representation in the House of Representatives, but it also exacerbated the divisions over slavery that would continue to shape the nation for decades.
Another crucial compromise was the Commerce Compromise, which granted Congress the authority to regulate interstate and international trade but prohibited the taxation of exports. This compromise reflected the differing economic interests of Northern and Southern states—Northern states favored free trade and regulation, while Southern states relied heavily on agricultural exports. These compromises showcased the pragmatic nature of the Convention as delegates worked to create a government that could garner support from a wide range of political, economic, and regional interests (Wisc 2021).
The Compromise and its Impact on the Constitution
The debates and compromises at the Constitutional Convention resulted in a government that was stronger than its predecessor, the Articles of Confederation, but still rooted in republican principles. The Virginia Plan, with its focus on proportional representation, introduced the idea of a strong central government, while the New Jersey Plan emphasized the importance of state equality. The Hamilton Plan, though rejected, pushed the boundaries of executive power and provided a basis for future discussions about centralized authority (Bamzai 2022).
As legal scholar Aditya Bamzai notes, the legacy of these debates continued to influence American constitutional interpretation long after the Convention. Hamilton’s ideas about an energetic and accountable government, Madison’s emphasis on a representative republic, and Paterson’s concerns over small-state sovereignty all found expression in the final document. The compromises made at the Convention, especially the Great Compromise, ultimately resulted in a Constitution that was acceptable to all states and provided a functional framework for governance (Bamzai 2022).
The New Jersey Plan, though not adopted, played a critical role in shaping the debates. It highlighted the tension between equality and proportionality and helped illuminate the competing visions of governance held by different delegates. Its rejection did not signal the end of its influence; instead, it contributed to the broader discussions and compromises that would ultimately secure the passage of the U.S. Constitution (Wisc 2021).
In conclusion, the debates over the Virginia, New Jersey, and Hamilton Plans were crucial in shaping the U.S. Constitution. These plans, though not all directly adopted, each contributed to the formulation of a balanced government that addressed the diverse needs of the states. The compromises reached at the Constitutional Convention—particularly the Great Compromise—established a bicameral legislature that blended the interests of both large and small states. This framework, along with other critical compromises over issues such as slavery and commerce, laid the foundation for the United States government, which continues to evolve but remains rooted in the principles established in 1787. The legacy of these debates underscores the importance of compromise and the delicate balance of power in the American political system.