American Democracy in Context. Joseph A. Pika

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ after all, a distinctly political process, which involved consensus on some issues (such as the need for a limited, republican form of government) and conflict on others (such as what system of representation to adopt). Ultimately, compromise (on issues such as slavery, representation, presidential selection, and the court system) and creativity (the embrace of federalism, for example) led to success. Keep these “4 Cs” in mind—consensus, conflict, compromise, and creativity—as you read the rest of this chapter.

      Virginia Plan A plan, favored by large states, to replace (rather than amend) the Articles of Confederation and create a strong national government consisting of three branches. It also called for replacing the one-state/one-vote system used under the Articles of Confederation with proportional voting power in the legislature.

      Once the convention formally assembled on May 25, Virginia’s power became immediately evident. The delegates unanimously chose Virginian George Washington as its presiding officer. After the group had established the rules of the convention, Edmund Randolph, the head of the Virginia delegation, rose and introduced his delegation’s proposal for a new constitution, the result of the daily strategy sessions they had held. This so-called Virginia Plan, primarily authored by Madison and consisting of 15 draft resolutions, was designed to replace rather than amend the Articles of Confederation and to establish a strong central government consisting of three branches: a bicameral legislative branch, an executive branch, and a judicial branch (see Figure 2.1).

      Description

      Figure 2.1 Central Government Under the Virginia Plan

      The Virginia Plan called for members of the lower house of the legislature to be elected by the citizens of each state. Members of the lower house would, in turn, select members of the upper house. In addition to replacing the unicameral legislature that existed under the Articles of Confederation with a bicameral legislature, the Virginia Plan also called for the replacement of the one-state/one-vote system with proportional voting power in both houses: the number of representatives from each state would be based on the state’s population, and each of their representatives would have one individual vote. This new voting plan would increase the power of more populous states at the expense of less populous states. It also raised a nasty question: Were slaves to be included when counting the population of a state? Bluntly put, were they to be counted as people or property?³⁵

      Small states strongly opposed the Virginia Plan. On June 9, William Patterson of New Jersey stood and proclaimed that he was “astonished” and “alarmed” at the Virginia Plan’s proposal to base a state’s voting strength on its population.³⁶ He then introduced an alternative set of proposals that came to be known as the New Jersey Plan, aimed at merely amending the Articles of Confederation. It, too, called for three branches, but unlike the proposals under the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan called for maintaining a unicameral legislature, a weak executive branch comprising multiple officers (elected by Congress and subject to removal only upon majority vote of the state governors) rather than a single president, and a Supreme Court whose members would be elected by the executive officers (see Figure 2.2). Representatives to the legislature would continue to be chosen by state legislatures rather than being elected by the people. The New Jersey Plan also retained the one-state/one-vote system, thereby garnering support from small states.

      Description

      Figure 2.2 Central Government Under the New Jersey Plan

      The Three-Fifths Compromise and the Great Compromise

      The two questions of state representation dominated the next few weeks of discussion at the convention: (1) Should there be proportional representation in Congress, as called for in the Virginia Plan, or equal representation (one state/one vote), as called for in the New Jersey Plan? (2) In the event that proportional representation was chosen, who would be counted in determining the number of representatives? The Virginia Plan called for representation in Congress to be based on the “numbers of free inhabitants” in a state. This concerned smaller southern states because slaves made up such a large proportion of their populations (see Figure 2.3); if slaves were not counted, those states’ power in Congress would be diminished.

      Description

      Figure 2.3 Slaves as a Percentage of State Populations, 1790

      Source: “1790 Census: Return of the Whole Number of Persons Within the Several Districts of the United States,” United States Census Bureau, accessed July 21, 2019, https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1793/dec/number-of-persons.html

      New Jersey Plan A plan, favored by small states, to amend (rather than replace) the Articles of Confederation. It would have retained the one-state/one-vote system of voting in the national legislature, with representatives chosen by state legislatures.

      Three-Fifths Compromise The decision by the Constitutional Convention to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation.

      To lure small southern states to accept the idea of proportional representation, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a supporter of the Virginia Plan, introduced the so-called Three-Fifths Compromise: Each slave would count as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation. This obviously deplorable solution would give southern states strong enough influence in Congress to prevent the legislature from abolishing slavery (a possibility that was already a concern to these states), but not as much influence as they would have if slaves were fully counted. (Of course, slaves did not have the right to vote and therefore would not be represented in Congress. Women did not have the constitutional right to vote either, but white women did count as full persons toward determining the number of representatives a state would have.) On June 11, the convention endorsed the Three-Fifths Compromise by a vote of 9–2, with only Delaware and New Jersey voting against it.³⁷

      It soon became clear, however, that even with the Three-Fifths Compromise, proportional representation was not a done deal. Quite to the contrary, that issue continued to dominate discussion for weeks and threatened to deadlock the convention. Finally, another compromise ended the impasse. Devised by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, this so-called Great Compromise (sometimes referred to as the Connecticut Compromise) called for a bicameral legislature, as in the Virginia Plan, with a different method for determining representation in each house and different procedures for selecting representatives in each house.

      In the lower house (which eventually became the House of Representatives), the Virginia Plan would prevail:

       Representation would be proportional.

       Representatives would be elected by the people.

      In the upper house (which eventually became the Senate), the New Jersey Plan would prevail:

       Representation would be equal (each state would have two representatives).

       Representatives would be selected by state legislatures.

СКАЧАТЬ