Virginia Plan Debate

The national government's inability to resist foreign governments convinced many leaders within the thirteen colonies of the need for a new constitution with a stronger national government. Shortly after the convention began in September 1787 delegates elected George Washington to lead the convention and agreed that the meetings would not be made public. The decision for privacy allowed for the consideration of an entirely new constitution, as open consideration of a new constitution would likely have been met with great public outcry. As the convention continued and ideas were being discussed, Virginia's delegates introduced a set of reforms known as the Virginia plan. The Virginia plan proposal wanted a bicameral legislative branch which

meant the legislators are divided into two separate assemblies, or chambers. With the dual principles of rotation in office (term limits) and recall (voters could remove an elected official before the end of their term) applied to the lower house of the national legislature. Each of the states would be represented in proportion to their “Quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants.” States with a large population, like Virginia (which was the most populous state at the time), would thus have more representatives than smaller states. Larger populated states supported this plan, and states with smaller populations generally opposed it. The Virginia plan was not the only state formulated plan as New Jersey would submit a plan of its own as well, however the convention would settle on neither and opted for a plan of compromise by Roger Sherman known as the Connecticut compromise.
The Great Compromise, or the Connecticut Compromise as it is commonly referred to as, proposed a solution to the debate between larger and smaller populated states over their representation in the Freshly proposed Senate.

The Bigger states believed that representation should be based Correspondingly on the contribution each state made to America’s finances and defense, and the smaller states felt that the only acceptable plan was one of equal representation. The compromise proposed by Roger Sherman provided for a dual system of representation (bicameral). In the House of Representatives each individual state’s number of seats would be in proportion to state population. In the Senate, every state would have the same number of seats. On July 16, 1787, the Constitutional convention adopted the Great Compromise by a one-vote margin. The Great Compromise ended the stalemate between patriots and nationalists, leading to numerous other compromises in a spirit of

accommodation.
With the Constitutional convention agreed upon a plan, there was still work to be done.

The final draft of the Constitution was to be worked upon by a set of committees known as the committee of detail and the committee of style and arrangement. The Constitution convention recessed from July 26 to August 6th and awaited news from the detail committee. Once the detail committee presented its draft, the convention would thoroughly comb though every detail, every word, every aspect and discussed every clause, every law, and everything it affected. These discussions led to more compromises and on September 8th the convention handed the draft over to a committee of style and arrangement to be finalized. Twenty three articles were approved for the final constitution draft. The final draft, which was presented to the Constitutional convention on September 12, contained seven articles, a preamble (a brief introductory statement of the constitution’s fundamental purposes) and a closing endorsement. The final Version was presented on Monday, September 17, at the Convention's final session. Several of the delegates were dissatisfied in the result, while some delegates left before the ceremony even began, and three others refused to sign. Of the thirty-nine signers, Benjamin Franklin summarized the document, addressing those in attendance: "There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them." He would accept the

Constitution, "because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best". By 1790, the Constitution was ratified by all 13 states.
The United States Constitution presupposes that every US Citizen is entitled to a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the Foundation of a modern liberal democracy. The strengths of the Constitution lies in its ability to change. Changes can come to the Constitution, but there are protections set in place to protect it from political whims and mass public hysteria. Evidence comes in the form of the limited number of amendments since 1787. Unlike the Articles of confederacy, The Constitution can embrace an expanding country and definitely can protect it. The Constitution has a series of checks and balances designed to ensure that all branches of government have their power checked against the others resulting in a balanced system of government for “we the people”.
Anti-federalists were those who opposed the development of a strong federal government and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, preferring instead for power to remain in the hands of state and local governments. Federalists wanted a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution. the Federalist Party, which existed from 1792 to 1824, was the culmination of American federalism and the first political party in the United States. John Adams, the second president of the United States, was the first and only Federalist president. Federalists were adamant to convince the Vote and voters to ratify the Constitution and published a series of essays called the federalist papers. These essays were published through a few major News paper information outlets. The federalist would use each essay and target a subject and push for the ratification of the Constitution and were opposed to amending for the bill of rights. In "Federalist number 84", Hamilton makes the case that there is no need to amend the Constitution by adding a Bill of rights, insisting that the various provisions in the proposed Constitution protecting liberty amount to a "bill of rights". There were probably more antifederalists in America, but the federalists were better organized, controlled more newspapers, and were in greater positions of power. The two sides finally reached an acceptable compromise when they agreed to add some amendments to the Constitution that protected individual liberties and rights. While it seems foregone to us that a bill of rights should be included in the Constitution, debate over the issue was in fact intense. The Anti-Federalist movement felt that, without the Bill of Rights in place, there was no real assurance that citizens’ rights would be protected, and therefore their inclusion was necessary in order to prevent against an overreaching federal government.
Hamilton, a Federalist, took a sharply different view in his essay. Federalist No. 84, written to counter Anti-Federalist grievances, was an intellectually astute response in which he argued that a bill of rights was not only unnecessary, but dangerous as well. Hamilton put forward several key points. First, numerous protections of rights were already contained in the document. For instance, religious tests for office are forbidden, the insinuation being that individuals have the right to practice their own faith. Also, the writ of habeas corpus can only be suspended during a time of rebellion, and all people, according to the original Constitution, have the right to a trial by jury. Second, Hamilton argued that the specific enumeration of the government’s powers removed the need for new safeguards against what it already did not have the power to do. Hamilton’s most significant argument, however, was that bills of rights “are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.” In his mind, if the government is prohibited from doing certain things but isn’t prohibited from doing everything it isn’t expressly told it can do, then the danger is in its implications. That is, the government can then do anything it’s not expressly forbidden to do.
In the end, in an effort to compromise with opponents in order to ratify the Constitution, the Federalists promised to approve a Bill of Rights as amendments to the Constitution, a promise which they kept, as the ten amendments were ratified in 1791. 1780s America was truly America’s critical period with so much being accomplished and so many hurdles being climbed. From the Articles of confederacy to the United states Constitution and the shift from a weaker government to a very empowered one. The compromises between states and federalists and antifederalists show how resilient and motivated our country was for stability and growth. The 1780s proved to be arguably the greatest 10-12 years in American history in terms of progress.