Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Political compromises between 1820 and 1860
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Political compromises between 1820 and 1860
Decisions are difficult, especially between two opposing parties determined to get their way. Most likely, some sort of agreement called a compromise is reached. Compromise, a seemingly perfect concept, can be an essential part of success as it resolves conflicts on both an international or personal level and benefits both sides of any argument. However, if this tool is used incorrectly by means of overuse, underuse, or simply wrong timing, that perfection turns into detriment. Compromise is an almost perfect concept, mutual agreements between two or more sides that can benefit all perspectives. It seems almost too idealistic and yet, it is a daily occurrence all over the globe. Without it, the world may have been thrust into anarchy filled with …show more content…
No matter the problem, compromise usually finds itself solving it. In American history, the Connecticut Compromise is an example of how compromise kept the country from falling into more conflict and confusion that they were already trapped in at the time. There were two plans for the layout of the legislative branch, the New Jersey and Virginia Plans. One favored smaller states by giving each state equal voted and the other favored big states by basing voted on population. At the Constitutional Convention, Roger Sherman proposed the Connecticut Compromise which incorporated both plans by creating a bicameral Congress with one chamber giving two votes to each state and the other basing on population. While the plan did seem to favor the bigger states, the members of the Convention seemed to agree to it and Congress has been using this format to this day. Without it, who knows how bills would be made into laws today or if we would even have a legislative branch. It was thanks to a compromise that America has what it has
Smaller states like Delaware and New Jersey objected to the Virginia Plan saying that the large states would easily outvote them in Congress if the number of votes were based on population. After weeks of debate, William Patterson of New Jersey put forth a plan that called for three branches including a legislature with only one house where each state would have one vote. The New Jersey Plan with a single house legislature and equal representation was more like Congress under the Articles.
After America was recognized as an independent country from England, the new republic went through almost twenty years worth of trial and error to find a government that would satisfy the needs of the citizens, the states, and the central national government. The most memorable, and influential, action of this time would have to be the Connecticut Compromise, proposed Roger Sherman, following the proposal of the Large and Small State plans at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This Compromise directly affected the amount of representation from each state, and created the government system we are familiar with today.
In addition, the Great Compromise guarded against tyranny by making sure the larger states would not have more power than the smaller states. The Great Compromise was an agreement to create a two-house legislature composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate. A state’s amount of representatives in the House would be based off of population, while the representation for each state in the Senate is equal.(Document D) Thus, the larger states, such as New York, would not overpower the smaller states, such as Rhode Island.
The Connecticut Compromise resolved this issue by forming the two houses that we have today. In one house, the Senate, every state is represented equally regardless of population. In the lower house, the House of Representatives each state receives one representative for a set number of people. This satisfied all of the states and helped resolve one of the greatest conflicts while writing the Constitution. Another conflict that arose was with the counting of slaves in the census used to set the number of representatives per state. This was resolved under the Three-Fifths Compromise which stated that every slave would be counted as 3/5 of a person, although these slaves were given no voice or rights.
The most powerful tool an American citizen have is their power to vote. The ability to vote allows a citizen to be heard and allows them to make a change in the government. By, casting your vote you are electing a person to stand up for you and your values and speak on your behalf. This ability to vote came from the 15th amendment which states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The amendment was designed to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves after, the Civil War. Unfortunately, this amendment failed in different ways that lead to the oppression of minorities in America for almost 100
which proved that more than a compromise was needed to resolve it. The
After the Declaration of Independence, U.S. became a nation but didn 't have a government to guide the nation. People, the early settlers, suffered by the excessive power of the Monarch so they wanted to incorporate the ideas of ordered government, limited government, and the representative government. Based on these ideas the Article of Confederation was created. Although it was too weak and inadequate to manage all of the states. As the weakness became palpable, the nation required stronger government system and that 's when the Constitution was created as it saved the nation from the crisis. One thing that made the creation of the Constitution possible was the Great Compromise, which was
A compromise is when two or more parties in disagreement reach an agreement that does not give all sides exactly what they want, but enough of what they want so that they can be happy. Compromise is the best possible solution to a conflict however it does not always work. One needs only to look at situations such as the Bosnia-Herzegovina to see that. During the events prior to the American Civil War, many different compromises were made in an attempt to impede the growing disagreements. However this merely prolonged the inevitable. The differences between North and South were far to great and compromise did not stand a chance at preventing the impending conflict. This was most clearly shown in the ways in which the three main compromises, the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, failed.
The definition of a compromise is an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. The conflict of compromising is that is shows the weakness in a leader. If a leader does not show compromise ever, they are bound to fail one time or another. When leaders do show compromise in certain situations, they tend to be more successful. In “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar,” by William Shakespeare, it is necessary for leaders to compromise in order to succeed.
The Connecticut Compromise was the most important compromise in the history of the U.S. government. The representatives from each state were going to change the government totally, from powerful state governments to a powerful central government, which they vowed not to do when they declared independence from England. Rhode Island was so disgusted with the idea of changing the government that they did not even come to the meeting. Finally, after all the debating and each state getting their say, they "compromised" on a plan where they would have two governmental houses, one being the House of Representatives and the second being the Senate, with the Senate being the stronger of the two houses. The House of Representatives was based on each state's population, that is, the more people in the state, the more representatives that state would get.
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. ISBN-13: 9780073530369
Between the period of 1820-1861 there was a number of political compromises done in order reduce the sectional tension between the North and the South. While each of the compromises created helped the issue that the country was facing at that time, they did not help overall. The compromises were only a temporary fix for the country’s problem of sectionalism. Therefore while political compromises were effective in reducing the tension between the North and the South it did not help in preventing the civil war.
The socialistic idea of compromise has always been a part of human history. To achieve mutual goals, to end conflict, to pursue happiness, there has always seemed to be a need to agree on terms that equally benefit both parties. Ayn Rand, the creator of the philosophy of Objectivism and author of the philosophical novel, The Fountainhead views compromise differently than it is traditionally defined by society. Society says that compromise is generally a settlement of a dispute by both sides making concessions, and Rand affirms this ideal, only however in situations “ only in regard to concretes, or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise.” Basically, the only compromises that are “moral” by her definition, are those that are rational. This poses a question to the reader- What system of morality does Rand follow? To answer this, it’s best to define what a compromise is, according to the author. According to Rand, a true compromise is not about subjecting oneself to a level of inferiority. Rand says “ Accepting a lesser job than one had wanted is not a “compromise.” Taking orders from one’s employer on how to do the work which one is hired is not a “compromise.” Instead, compromise has more to do with not backing
One of the other effects that can be seen is the way it was created as a two-tiered system that considered the needs for persons in the lower house, and how the upper house handled concerns from the states. The Great Compromise of 1787 gave larger states representation in the lower house according to population, and the smaller states attained equal representation in the upper house. In the end, the Convention was kept together by the Great Compromise; it paved the way for the system to have a bicameral Congress based on which the lower house is on a proportional representation, and where each state has an equal representation in the Upper
In conclusion, the theory of principled negotiation is very impressive, although it at times seems to be simplistic and meant for an ideal world. Nevertheless, it allows all sides of the conflict to be examined through the broadening of options. It allows disputants to maintain any relationship that they had before the conflict and negotiation. Overall, principled negotiation is meant to lead to satisfactory results for both sides, creating a win-win situation for all.