Develop a media piece in which you “Highlight the Virginia, New Jersey, and Hamilton Plans presented at the Constitutional Convention. Present each plan clearly and specifically. Then, discuss the compromises made to draft the United States Constitution. Consider the motives for the compromises and the benefits and consequences of the states. You should note the improvements from the Articles of Confederation and the shortcomings of the final document. Summarize what is accomplished by the Constitution and note any shortcomings.”
Overview
In the years following the Revolutionary War, the United States operated under the Articles of Confederation—a framework emphasizing state sovereignty and limited federal authority. While this arrangement had been appropriate during the revolution, it quickly proved insufficient for governing a growing, complex nation. The Confederation Congress lacked the power to levy taxes, regulate interstate commerce, or enforce its laws, leading to widespread inefficiencies and economic turmoil. Shays' Rebellion in 1786 highlighted the federal government’s failure and intensified calls for reform (Juchno, 2024). When delegates met in Philadelphia in May 1787, they quickly abandoned the idea of simply revising the Articles, opting instead to create an entirely new system.
The debates and compromises of the Constitutional Convention produced a government that was stronger than its predecessor but still rooted in the principles of republicanism. The Virginia Plan brought forward the idea of proportional representation and a strong central government. Edmund Randolph introduced the Virginia Plan, which was written by James Madison and became the main focus of debate at the Constitutional Convention. It proposed a strong central government with three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch would have two houses, both based on population. The lower house would be elected by the people for three-year terms, while the upper house would be chosen by state legislatures and serve for seven years. This setup gave more power to larger states. The plan gave Congress wide authority, including the power to make laws in areas where states could not and to override state laws that went against national interests (National Archives, 2020). The executive, chosen by the legislature, would carry out the laws and possibly have the power to veto them. The judicial branch would interpret laws and handle federal cases. Overall, the Virginia Plan aimed to create a strong national government with more control than the Articles of Confederation allowed.
The New Jersey Plan emphasized state equality. The New Jersey Plan, proposed by William Paterson, aimed to keep the basic structure of the Articles of Confederation while giving the national government a bit more power. It called for a single-house legislature where every state had equal representation, no matter how big or small. This was meant to protect smaller states and keep the original idea of shared power between the states (University of Wisconsin, 2021). Paterson’s plan also gave Congress the ability to collect taxes and regulate trade—changes that many believed were necessary to fix the problems with the Articles (Madison, 1787).
The Hamilton Plan pushed the limits of centralized authority and executive power. Though the final Constitution was a product of compromise, it incorporated key elements from each of these visions. Alexander Hamilton’s plan was the most extreme in favor of a strong central government. In a speech on June 18, he suggested a system like Britain’s, with a powerful executive chosen by electors to serve for life and a Senate with lifetime terms, too (Teaching American History, 2025). Many compared it to a monarchy. Hamilton believed this kind of government would create stability and protect against the chaos of too much democracy. As Bamzai (2022) explains, Hamilton thought strong and lasting institutions were important for protecting freedom—not threatening it. Even though most delegates rejected his plan as too extreme, his ideas about strong executive power influenced later interpretations of the Constitution.
As Bamzai (2022) explains, the legacy of these debates continued to shape American constitutional interpretation long after the Convention. Hamilton’s ideas about energetic and accountable government, Madison’s insistence on a representative republic, and even Paterson’s concerns about small-state sovereignty all found expression in the final document. The clash between these visions—Madison’s strong yet balanced government, Paterson’s defense of state equality, and Hamilton’s call for bold authority—culminated in the Great Compromise, or Connecticut Compromise. As historian Todd Estes (2011) describes, this agreement resolved the deadlock between large and small states by blending proportional and equal representation. The House of Representatives would be apportioned by population, satisfying the Virginia Plan, while the Senate would grant equal representation to each state, fulfilling the New Jersey Plan’s objective. This compromise created a bicameral Congress and preserved the union by addressing the core fears of both blocs.
The Great Compromise was not only a political solution but also a structural innovation. It institutionalized the tension between federal and national principles, embedding them in the legislative process. As the U.S. Senate’s historical overview points out, this dual system ensured that both the people and the states had a voice in national governance, thus legitimizing the Constitution in the eyes of both large and small states (U.S. Senate, 2021). However, the compromise also laid the groundwork for future challenges, including unequal senatorial representation and conflicts over states’ rights.
At the heart of these debates lay the glaring inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, each state had one vote in Congress regardless of population. The national government could neither enforce its laws nor compel states to comply with collective decisions. There was no national judiciary, no executive, and no real way to raise revenue. As a result, internal and external threats, such as economic disarray and foreign diplomatic embarrassment, went unresolved. The Articles reflected a wartime fear of tyranny but proved ill-equipped for peacetime governance.
The Constitution succeeded in stabilizing the fledgling nation and creating a framework adaptable to change. Yet it also preserved systemic inequalities and deferred difficult decisions about power and liberty. Its legacy, like that of the Convention itself, is one of both achievement and incompleteness.
The new Constitution addressed many of these issues. It established a stronger federal government with separated powers, a bicameral legislature, and a judiciary capable of resolving disputes between states. The executive branch was now clearly defined, with a single President elected independently from Congress, albeit through the Electoral College. Congress could now tax, regulate commerce, raise armies, and make laws “necessary and proper” for executing its powers.
Importantly, the Constitution struck a balance between national authority and local autonomy. While it curtailed some state powers, it also preserved significant areas of state control. This federal structure would allow the government to expand and adapt, a flexibility that would prove essential in the coming centuries. As Juchno (2024) discusses, even within this framework, the Constitution permitted divergent paths for states, such as Virginia’s gradual approach to abolition—highlighting both the promise and the limitations of the document.
Nevertheless, the Constitution was far from perfect. It avoided resolving contentious issues such as slavery and suffrage, instead deferring them to future generations. It also entrenched inequalities through mechanisms like the Three-Fifths Compromise, which inflated Southern political power without granting enslaved people any rights. Many of these compromises were motivated not by principle but by political necessity—concessions needed to secure ratification.
While the new Constitution created a more effective and unified government, it did so at a cost. The tension between liberty and authority, federalism and nationalism, inclusion and exclusion was not resolved in Philadelphia. Instead, it was codified in a living document whose meaning would evolve through struggle and interpretation.
As the Convention drew to a close, the delegates had created a framework that could endure crises, expand westward, abolish slavery, industrialize, and become a global power. Yet their achievement was incomplete. They laid the groundwork for a republic, but one still burdened by inequality and compromise.
In sum, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a defining moment in American political development. The competing visions of the Virginia, New Jersey, and Hamilton Plans catalyzed a process of negotiation that ultimately produced a government capable of sustaining the fledgling republic. Through debate and compromise, the framers addressed the immediate failures of the Articles of Confederation and constructed a Constitution that would guide the nation through centuries of change. Their work, however, also ensured that the struggle over democracy, representation, and justice would remain ongoing.