Before the Constitutional Convention, the United States had been governed by the Articles of Confederation, a system that reflected the states’ fear of centralized power. The Articles established a weak central government where the states retained most of their sovereignty. While this framework allowed the states to maintain their independence, it left the central government unable to address crucial national issues such as economic instability, defense, and interstate conflicts. The lack of a strong federal government became increasingly problematic as the United States faced foreign challenges and internal unrest, most notably Shays’ Rebellion, which exposed the inability of the Articles to maintain order and stability (Juchno 2024).
Recognizing the need for a more effective system, delegates from 12 of the 13 states (Rhode Island did not participate) convened in Philadelphia in May 1787 to revise the Articles. From the outset, it became clear that simply amending the Articles would not be enough. A new system of government was required. It was at this convention that the Virginia Plan, New Jersey Plan, and Hamilton Plan were introduced, each proposing different methods for structuring the federal government.
The Virginia Plan, proposed by James Madison and presented by Edmund Randolph, called for a radically different structure from the Articles of Confederation. It envisioned a government with a strong central authority and a national legislature that was proportional to the population of each state. Under this plan, the larger states—such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts—would have more representation and thus greater influence over national decisions. The Virginia Plan also proposed the creation of an executive branch to enforce laws and a judiciary to interpret them, marking a significant departure from the decentralized system of the Articles (Madison 1787).
The Virginia Plan was appealing to the larger states because it promised them more power in the new government. However, it was met with strong opposition from smaller states, which feared they would be overwhelmed by the larger states and lose their political influence. The centralization of power, combined with the lack of safeguards for smaller states, made the Virginia Plan unpalatable to many delegates, particularly those from less populous states (Bamzai 2022).
In contrast to the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, introduced by William Paterson, proposed a more conservative approach that sought to amend the Articles of Confederation rather than replace them entirely. The New Jersey Plan retained the principle of equal representation for each state, regardless of population size, thereby protecting the interests of smaller states. Under this plan, the central government would have the authority to regulate commerce, levy taxes, and enforce laws, but it would still be a relatively weak body compared to the executive branch and judiciary proposed by the Virginia Plan. The New Jersey Plan also called for a unicameral legislature, where each state would have one vote, similar to the structure of the Articles of Confederation (Wisc 2021).
While the New Jersey Plan addressed the concerns of smaller states, it failed to address the broader issues facing the nation. Critics, such as James Madison, argued that the plan did not create a strong enough central government to manage national affairs effectively. Madison's critique centered on the fact that a single-chamber legislature, with equal representation for each state, would allow a minority of states to block important national initiatives, thereby undermining the federal government's ability to function efficiently (Madison 1787).
The third proposal at the Constitutional Convention was the Hamilton Plan, put forward by Alexander Hamilton. This plan called for a government with a strong executive branch and an upper house of the legislature that would resemble a life-term monarchy, with members selected for life. Hamilton argued that the crisis under the Articles required bold reforms and that a more energetic and centralized government was necessary to preserve the Union. While his plan was viewed as too extreme by many of the delegates, it nevertheless provided important insights into the debate over executive power and the need for a more active federal government (Bamzai 2022).
Hamilton's vision was inspired by his belief in the necessity of strong executive authority to ensure effective governance. He argued that a weak executive would lead to instability and inefficiency, and his ideas would later influence the structure of the U.S. presidency under the Constitution. However, Hamilton's proposal was far too radical for most of the delegates, who rejected his suggestion for a near-monarchical system. Nevertheless, his ideas on the importance of a strong and independent executive would shape the later development of the executive branch (Bamzai 2022).
As the debate over the Virginia, New Jersey, and Hamilton Plans intensified, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention recognized the need for a compromise that could bridge the gap between large and small states. The result was the Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, introduced by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut. This compromise established a bicameral legislature that combined elements from both the Virginia and New Jersey Plans.
Under the Great Compromise, the new legislature would consist of two chambers:
The House of Representatives, where representation would be based on population, allowing larger states to have more influence. This aspect of the compromise reflected the ideas of the Virginia Plan and addressed the concerns of larger states that felt they would be underrepresented under a system of equal representation.
The Senate, where each state would have two senators, ensured equal representation for all states regardless of size. This aspect of the compromise was based on the New Jersey Plan, which sought to preserve the political power of smaller states (Madison 1787).
The Great Compromise provided a balanced solution that satisfied both large and small states by ensuring that no state would have absolute control over the national government. It also established a system of checks and balances, where each branch of government would have a role in overseeing the actions of the others. This framework became a central feature of the Constitution and would help ensure the stability and longevity of the U.S. political system (Juchno 2024).
The Great Compromise had far-reaching consequences for the structure of the American government. It resolved the immediate deadlock between large and small states, paving the way for the creation of the U.S. Constitution. The balance struck between population-based and equal representation in the legislature ensured that both large and small states could participate in the federal government on equal footing. This compromise was instrumental in securing the ratification of the Constitution, as it helped address the concerns of states that had been hesitant to join a union dominated by larger, more populous states.
However, the Great Compromise also had significant consequences that would play out over the next several decades. One of the most important issues was slavery. The Constitution's framers were deeply divided over the issue of slavery, and the Great Compromise allowed for the continuation of slavery in the South. The Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted three-fifths of a state's enslaved population for purposes of representation, was a direct result of the Great Compromise. This provision ensured that Southern states would have more political power in the House of Representatives, as enslaved people were counted in the population totals despite not having rights as citizens (Estes 2011).
Moreover, the Constitution’s failure to include a Bill of Rights initially led to concerns about the potential for government overreach. Alexander Hamilton argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution already limited the powers of government. However, public pressure led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, which helped secure protections for individual liberties and assuaged fears of governmental abuse (Madison 1787).
The Great Compromise remains one of the most significant moments in the history of the United States. It established the framework for the U.S. government that balanced the interests of both large and small states, and its principles continue to shape the legislative process today. The bicameral system of Congress, with its distinct chambers representing different interests, remains a cornerstone of the American political system.
While the Great Compromise resolved some immediate issues, it also set the stage for future conflicts, particularly over slavery and representation. The compromises made at the Constitutional Convention laid the foundation for a government that was stronger and more unified than its predecessor under the Articles of Confederation. Yet, it also reflected the deep divisions that would continue to shape American politics, particularly concerning slavery, states’ rights, and the limits of federal power.
In conclusion, the Great Compromise was pivotal in shaping the U.S. Constitution by merging the Virginia Plan's proportional representation with the New Jersey Plan's equal representation for states. This balanced approach allowed for a more unified and functional government, with lasting implications for the structure of American politics. However, it also set the stage for future conflicts, particularly over slavery and the exclusion of certain groups from political participation. The compromises made at the Constitutional Convention continue to influence the U.S. government today, highlighting the enduring relevance of the Great Compromise in American political history.