summarize the following
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.
The conflict over representation in Congress between larger and smaller states during the writing of the Constitution was resolved through the Great Compromise, which established a bicameral legislature with the House of Representatives based on population and the Senate providing equal representation for all states.
Another conflict emerged over the inclusion of slavery and the counting of enslaved individuals for representation and taxation. The Southern states wanted enslaved individuals to be counted, while the Northern states argued against it. The Three-Fifths Compromise was reached, which counted each enslaved individual as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation and taxation. While it provided a temporary resolution, it perpetuated slavery and deferred the question of emancipation for future generations.
During the writing of the Constitution, conflicts arose regarding representation in Congress and the inclusion of slavery. Larger states wanted representation based on population, while smaller states argued for equal representation. To address this, the Great Compromise established a bicameral legislature with the House of Representatives based on population and the Senate granting equal representation to all states.
Regarding slavery, Southern states wanted enslaved individuals to count towards their population for representation and taxation purposes, while Northern states disagreed, viewing slavery as a violation of individual rights. The Three-Fifths Compromise was reached, counting each enslaved individual as three-fifths of a person for representation and taxation. This compromise acknowledged the economic and political realities of the time but perpetuated slavery, leaving the question of emancipation for future generations to resolve.