1787 Constitutional Convention: Conflict and Compromise

However, an uprising led by Revolutionary War captain Daniel Shays that took place in western Massachusetts in 1786 was the event that got the attention of the founding fathers. The Shay’s Rebellion demonstrated to the founding fathers that the Articles of Confederation brought commercial problems, threaten civil order, and conflicts between states. Likewise, at the constitutional convention the founding fathers crafted and ratified the U.S constitution to address the problem the Articles of Confederation could not tackle. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the divided the powers of the national government into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Furthermore, the constitution established a one true currency system and presented the job duties and requirements the three branches and individual states. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the constitution presented the rights of its people (Bill of Rights) and a system of check of balance and separation of powers that the United States as democratic country. The Articles of Confederation was a popular democracy with its chaotic results and the constitution was a responsible democracy with its civilized outcomes.

What were the two main compromises of the Constitutional Convention and how did they affect the government?

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to address problems in governing the United States which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation since it’s independence from Britain. Fifty-five delegates from the states attended the convention to address these issues. The delegates consisted of federalists who wanted a strong central government to maintain order and were mainly wealthier merchants and plantation owners and anti-federalists who were farmers, tradesmen and local politicians who feared losing their power and believed more power should be given to the states. The Constitutional Convention dealt with the issue of the debate between federalists and anti-federalists. The debates, arguments and compromises

The Great Compromise of 1787 or the Connecticut Compromise of 1787 refers to the settlement of the dispute that rose due to conflicting views put forward by the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey plan. These plans proposed changes in the Articles of Confederation that was the aim of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. However, whereas the Virginia Plan seemed to provide a greater representation of the more populous states in the national government, the New Jersey Plan was proposed by the smaller states aimed at preventing the balance of the US government from tilting in favor of the more populous states as per the Virginia Plan.

In the “Virginia Plan vs. New Jersey Plan” both plans called for a strong national government with 3 branches which led to the Great Compromise. The Great Compromise provided for a bicameral congress. The bicameral structure wanted to accommodate both large and small states unlike the unicameral which only included the small vote.

55 delegates of twelve states wrote the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 and in 1788 the states ratified it. That gathering at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall brought nearly all of the nation’s most prominent men together, including Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and George Washington. Several of the men appointed had records of service in the army and in the courts and others were experienced in colonial and state government. When Thomas Jefferson found out who had been appointed he wrote “It is really an assembly of demigods” to John Adams. That summer in Philadelphia, the men, drew out a document defining the distinct powers for the the president, the federal courts and the Congress. This division of authority that was established is known as the principle of separation of powers, and it ensures that none of the branches of government can overstep their boundaries.

The most politicized debate in American history has been the arguments made by the Federalists and the Antifederalists over the ideas and powers stated within the United States Constitution. A large number of authors who write about the debates between these two political groups present the ideas of the Federalist and Antifederalist as separate, opposing ideologies about how the U.S. Constitution should either stay the same for the sake of the country or be amended to grant border rights to the public and states. To begin a paper about how this assumption of the two factions always being at odds, first there should be an explanation about the Federalists’ and Antifederalists’ main arguments. The Virginia debate over ratification will be the used as the platform to present the details of their arguments. After those two main objectives are complete, the presentation of information found on the topics that the two parties had arguments between themselves over the true future of the Constitution, and that certain Federalists and Antifederalist shared certain ideas about the problems this Constitution could cause or solve for the United States. To conclude those ideas, a presentation of the political figures of this time period will be used to understand the similarities and differences between the parties. Towards the end of the paper, there will be an explanation of how the ideas of the two parties, mostly Antifederalists, have led to the creation of amendments added to the

The Articles of Confederation was a loose “league of friendship” between the thirteen colonies that would create a confederation in contrast to Great Britain 's unitary system. While the Articles of Confederation helped establish a systemic role in trying to unify many of the states under a weak central government, it later created many more problems than solutions. One of them being that Congress had no ability to propose taxes to deal with war debts and running the government. Another weakness was that Congress did not have the ability to regulate commerce among states and foreign nations which hurt Congress’s credibility. One of the most considerable weaknesses of Congress under the Articles of Confederation was its failure to provide for a strong central government. The Articles of Confederation was created to not compare with the totalitarian regime of the British and made sure of not creating a strong central government. The problem was that without a strong central government it eliminated all sovereignty that the central government had, giving increased sovereignty to states which lead to increased chaos. It is seen that Shays Rebellion was that nail in the coffin of The Articles. Lead by David Shay a group of farmers who had served in the Continental Army marched to Springfield, Massachusetts to stop the state court from foreclosing on the veterans farms. Congress’s failure in being able to formulate a militia and stop the disgruntled farmers was the end of The

The 1787 Constitutional Convention was paramount in unifying the states after the Revolutionary War. However, in order to do so, the convention had to compromise on many issues instead of addressing them with all due haste. This caused the convention to leave many issues unresolved. Most notably were the issues of slavery, race, secession, and states’ rights. Through the Civil War and the Reconstruction, these issues were resolved, and in the process the powers of the federal government were greatly expanded.

Discuss the problems of government in terms of the history of the constitutional convention. What was the Great Compromise and how does this relate to what type of government is best? Does it work (is it workable)? How does it relate to current politics? Would you change anything?

This was essential towards the growing abolitionist movement and emancipation movement. Due to the weakness of the Articles of Confederation, a completely new and different Constitution was finally “agreed” upon by all thirteen states by 1790.Virginia called for a convention to modify the Articles of Confederation in 1786, and state representatives from every state, except Rhode Island, gathered in Philadelphia in 17887, numbering 55 in all. The representatives at this gathering all could be considered nationalists, and desired a strong, central government. None of the Representatives were from the lower/poorer classes. They aimed to strengthen America’s foreign affairs and weaknesses in negotiating with the European powers. They aimed to give the federal / national government genuine power and authority in dealing with issues, domestic or overseas. They wanted to preserve the union from runaway anarchy and “mobocracy”. They wanted to halt runaway and unrestrained democracy in the various states. This was accelerated by the fears caused by Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts.Deciding to completely scrap the ineffective Articles of Confederation, the members and representatives of the convention disobeyed orders from the Congress to revise. Choosing a compromise between “the large state plan“ of Virginia (bicarmel house in Congress of which representation would be based on population) and

Since the beginning of creation, human life has been afflicted with compromises. According to oxford dictionary “compromise” is define as an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. In political system compromises is very important and it use daily. It helps to shape the system and the well being of the citizens. Would this great nation ever be united if not because of compromise?

This essay is a review of the Decisions in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. The body of this work will highlight a few of the differences found in Collier and Collier’s Decision in Philadelphia (2007) and Middlekauff’s The Glorious Cause (2005) and paint a picture for the reason for the convention, the need for a change from the Articles of Confederation, as well as some of the key takeaways from the Constitution that impact us still today. The Decision in Philadelphia highlights well the overarching theme of compromise. Compromise was and still is the cornerstone to the government in the United States of America. This essay will showcase this theme over and over as it was critical to allow for the collective good to succeed. Webster’s dictionary defines compromise as the settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions. Compromise is further defined as the blending qualities of different things, those different things were the ideals, principles, and values of the Constitution’s framers.

Before the Convention of 1787. George Washington and the other delegates from Virginia had abstract a plan called the Virginia Plan. This plan laid out a “completely new instrument of government” which is embedded in our government today. The plan provided for three separate branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch would have two houses, with the first house to be elected by the people of each state, and the second by the first house from a list created by the state legislatures. The idea was that no one branch becomes too powerful. Each branch “checks” the power of the other branches to make sure that the power is balanced between them and the fear of a monarchy. was a “Farmer, Slaveholder, General

The last half of the 18th century was very important for the United States. During this era, the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was very important in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of the constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.