Explain two of the conflicts that arose during the writing of the Constitution. explain the strengths and weaknesses of each side of these conflicts and also explain how they came to a compromise and what that compromise entailed.
One of the conflicts that arose during the writing of the Constitution was the issue of representation in Congress, specifically between larger and smaller states. The larger states, such as Virginia, believed that representation should be based on population, which would give them a significant advantage in the legislative branch. On the other hand, smaller states, like New Jersey, argued for equal representation for all states, regardless of size.
The strengths of the larger states' argument were rooted in the principle of popular sovereignty and fair representation based on the number of citizens. They believed that this would give more power to the people and ensure that their interests were adequately represented in the federal government. However, this approach could potentially marginalize the smaller states, leaving them with less influence and a greater risk of being dominated by the larger states.
The smaller states, on the other hand, argued for equal representation in Congress as they feared being unjustly overshadowed by larger states in decision-making processes. They believed that all states, regardless of size, should have an equal voice and that this principle would preserve the autonomy and rights of every state. However, this approach could result in an imbalance of power and potential gridlock in decision-making, as smaller states would have the same voting power as larger states, disregarding population differences.
To accommodate these concerns, the framers of the Constitution reached a compromise known as the Great Compromise or the Connecticut Compromise. This compromise resulted in the establishment of a bicameral legislature, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives would be based on population, satisfying the larger states' demands, while the Senate would have equal representation for all states, addressing the concerns of the smaller states. This solution struck a balance between fair representation based on population and the preservation of states' rights and equal influence.
Another conflict that emerged was the debate over the inclusion of slavery and the counting of enslaved individuals for the purpose of representation and taxation. The Southern states wanted enslaved individuals to be counted as part of their population, thus increasing their representation in Congress and reducing their tax burden. Northern states, however, argued that enslaved individuals should not be counted as they were treated as property, not citizens.
The strengths of the Southern states' argument lay in their economic interests. They heavily relied on the institution of slavery and advocated for its protection and expansion. They believed that counting slaves as part of the population would ensure their political power and representation, thus safeguarding their economic system. However, this approach was morally and fundamentally flawed, as it denied the humanity and citizenship of enslaved individuals.
The Northern states, on the other hand, argued for the exclusion of enslaved individuals from representation and taxation. They believed that slavery was a violation of individual rights and should not be given legitimacy in the Constitution. They aimed to undermine the political power of the Southern states, calling for a fair and just representation that did not perpetuate the institution of slavery.
To resolve this contentious issue, the Three-Fifths Compromise was reached. This compromise stated that each enslaved individual would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of apportioning representation and taxation. While not a perfect solution, as it still deemed enslaved individuals as property and allowed for their partial inclusion, it provided a temporary resolution to the conflict. The compromise recognized the economic and political realities of the time while enabling the Constitution to be ratified. However, it ultimately perpetuated the institution of slavery and deferred the question of emancipation for future generations.
Two of the conflicts that arose during the writing of the Constitution were the Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise.
1. The Great Compromise:
The conflict: The main conflict was between the large states, such as Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the small states, like Delaware and Rhode Island. The large states favored representation in the national legislature solely based on population, while the small states advocated for equal representation for each state.
Strengths and weaknesses of each side:
- Large states' strength: The large states argued that since they had a larger population, they should have a greater say in the national legislature. This would ensure that their interests were adequately represented.
- Large states' weakness: Equal representation for each state would give the small states disproportionate influence, potentially undermining the interests of the larger states.
- Small states' strength: The small states believed that equal representation would prevent the larger states from dominating the legislature and ensure that their voices were heard.
- Small states' weakness: Equal representation could lead to a lack of proportional representation for the larger states, which might cause their interests to be disregarded.
The compromise: The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, proposed a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives would have representation based on population, addressing the concerns of the large states. The Senate, on the other hand, would have equal representation for all states, preserving the voice of the small states.
2. The Three-Fifths Compromise:
The conflict: The issue at hand was the question of how enslaved individuals would be counted in determining a state's representation in the House of Representatives and its direct taxes.
Strengths and weaknesses of each side:
- Pro-slavery states' strength: Some Southern states argued that enslaved individuals should be counted as part of the state's population to increase representation in Congress and secure their interests.
- Pro-slavery states' weakness: Counting enslaved individuals for representation purposes but not giving them any political rights raised ethical concerns and was seen as a violation of human rights.
- Anti-slavery states' strength: Several Northern states argued that enslaved individuals should not be counted at all since they lacked political rights and their forced labor was inconsistent with the principles of a democratic society.
- Anti-slavery states' weakness: Disregarding enslaved individuals entirely for representation purposes could alienate the Southern states and potentially harm national unity.
The compromise: The Three-Fifths Compromise determined that enslaved individuals would be counted as three-fifths of a person for both representation in the House of Representatives and direct taxation. It was a controversial solution that aimed to appease both sides without completely ignoring or fully incorporating the enslaved population.
In conclusion, the conflicts surrounding the writing of the Constitution were resolved through compromises. The Great Compromise created a bicameral legislature with a mix of proportional and equal representation, ensuring that both large and small states had a voice. The Three-Fifths Compromise addressed the issue of enslaved individuals' representation by counting them as three-fifths of a person, attempting to balance the interests of pro-slavery and anti-slavery states. These compromises were essential in achieving a united Constitution that could be ratified by all states.