Ch. 2.5. Primary Source: The Connecticut Compromise Proposed (June 29-July 7)
Friday, JUNE 29
Oliver Ellsworth introduced the “Connecticut Compromise,” which would ultimately be accepted as the solution to the long-running disagreement between the large-state Virginia Plan and the small-state New Jersey Plan.
(Text from Teaching American History, Constitutional Convention, June 29.)
Mr. ELLSWORTH [CT] moved, “that the rule of suffrage in the second branch be the same with that established by the Articles of Confederation.” He was not sorry, on the whole, he said, that the vote just passed had determined against this rule in the first branch. He hoped it would become a ground of compromise with regard to the second branch. We were partly national, partly federal. The proportional representation in the first branch was conformable to the national principle, and would secure the large States against the small. An equality of voices was conformable to the federal principle, and was necessary to secure the small States against the large. He trusted that on this middle ground a compromise would take place… Let a strong Executive, a Judiciary, and Legislative power, be created, but let not too much be attempted, by which all may be lost. He was not in general a half-way man, yet he preferred doing half the good we could, rather than do nothing at all…
Mr. BALDWIN [GA] … He thought the second branch ought to be the representation of property, and that, in forming it, therefore, some reference ought to be had to the relative wealth of their constituents…
Friday, JULY 6
The Convention continued an ongoing discussion about how the number of representatives in the lower house would be allocated (or as it would soon be called, “apportioned“). Although the dominant view favored a calculation based on each state’s total population, several delegates continued to argue that property should be counted too, or even instead of population. In developing a standard measure for how many people a representative would represent, here the Convention used the figure of 40,000; the Constitution would revise this to 30,000 (Art. I, section 2). In coming up with this number, note that it was similar to Delaware’s total population, i.e., to that of the smallest state.
(Text from Teaching American History, Constitutional Convention, July 6.)
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS [PA] moved to commit so much of the Report as relates to “one member for every forty thousand inhabitants” [here ‘to commit’ = send to the committee for further consideration]. His view was, that they might absolutely fix the number for each State in the first instance; leaving the Legislature at liberty to provide for changes in the relative importance of the States, and for the case of new States.
Mr. WILSON [PA] seconded the motion; but with a view of leaving the Committee under no implied shackles.
Mr. GORHAM [MA] apprehended great inconvenience from fixing directly the number of Representatives to be allowed to each State. He thought the number of inhabitants the true guide; though perhaps some departure might be expedient from the full proportion…
Mr. GERRY [MA] … He favored the commitment, and thought that representation ought to be in the combined ratio of numbers of inhabitants and of wealth, and not of either singly.
Mr. KING [MA] … He thought… that the number of inhabitants was not the proper index of ability and wealth; that property was the primary object of society; and that, in fixing a ratio, this ought not to be excluded from the estimate… Delaware does not contain, it is computed, more than thirty-five thousand souls…
Mr. BUTLER [SC] agreed to the commitment, if the Committee were to be left at liberty… He contended strenuously, that property was the only just measure of representation. This was the great object of government; the great cause of war; the great means of carrying it on.
Mr. PINCKNEY [SC] saw no good reason for committing. The value of land had been found, on full investigation, to be an impracticable rule. The contributions of revenue, including imports and exports, must be too changeable in their amount; too difficult to be adjusted; and too injurious to the non-commercial States. The number of inhabitants appeared to him the only just and practicable rule. He thought the blacks ought to stand on an equality with the whites; but would agree to the ratio settled by Congress…
Mr. DAVIE [NC] was for committing the clause, in order to get at the merits of the question arising on the Report. He seemed to think that wealth or property ought to be represented in the second branch; and numbers in the first branch.
On the motion for committing, as made by Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye — 7; New York, New Jersey, Delaware, no — 3; Maryland, divided.
…..
Saturday, JULY 7
The Convention approved one of the key provisions of the Connecticut Plan, the equality of states in the Senate. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania made a passionate speech against this decision.
(Text from Teaching American History, Constitutional Convention, July 7.)
The question, shall the clause “allowing each State one vote in the second branch, stand as part of the Report,” being taken up, —
Mr. GERRY [MA]. This is the critical question. He had rather agree to it than have no accommodation…
Mr. SHERMAN [CT] supposed that it was the wish of every one that some General Government should be established. An equal vote in the second branch would, he thought, be most likely to give it the necessary vigor. The small States have more vigor in their Governments than the large ones; the more influence therefore the large ones have, the weaker will be the Government. In the large States it will be most difficult to collect the real and fair sense of the people. Fallacy and undue influence will be practised with the most success; and improper men will most easily get into office…
On the question, Shall the words stand as part of the Report? — Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, aye — 6; Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, no — 3; Massachusetts, Georgia, divided. …
Mr. MADISON [VA] … He was apprehensive that if a just representation were not the basis of the Government…, that… the new Government would be rendered as impotent and as short-lived as the old.
Mr. PATTERSON [NJ] … The small States would never be able to defend themselves without an equality of votes in the second branch. There was no other ground of accommodation. His resolution was fixed. He would meet the large States on that ground, and no other…
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS [PA]. … He was against the Report because it maintained the improper constitution of the second branch… It had been said (by Mr. GERRY), that the new Government would be partly national, partly federal; that it ought in the first quality to protect individuals; in the second, the States. But in what quality was it to protect the aggregate interest of the whole? …
Particular states… were originally nothing more than colonial corporations. On the Declaration of Independence, a Government was to be formed. The small States aware of the necessity of preventing anarchy, and taking advantage of the moment, extorted from the large ones an equality of votes. Standing now on that ground, they demand, under the new system, greater rights, as men, than their fellow-citizens of the large States…
We must have an efficient [national] Government, and if there be an efficiency in the local Governments, the former is impossible. Germany alone proves it [where] no union is maintained… [note: Germany was divided among many small principalities before its unification in 1870] … The same circumstances which unite the people here, unite them in Germany. They have there a common language, a common law, common usages and manners, and a common interest in being united; yet their local jurisdictions destroy every tie. The case was the same in the Grecian states [the warring city-states of ancient Greece] … With these examples before our eyes, shall we form establishments which must necessarily produce the same effects? … He must be against [the second branch] being drawn from the States in equal portions…