At The Constitutional Convention Of 1787 The Great Compromise Resolve A Disagreement Concerning

The Connecticut Compromise (also known as the Great Compromise of 1787 or the Sherman Compromise) was an agreement reached at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which partly defined the legislative structure and representation that each state would have under the United States Constitution. It maintained the bicameral legislative power proposed by Roger Sherman, as well as the proportional representation of states in the House of Commons or house of representatives, but required that the House of Lords or the Senate be balanced equally between states. Each state would have two representatives in the House of Lords. Smaller states have disproportionate power in Senate.At at the time of the Convention, the population of states varied, but not as much as it does today. As a result, one of the main persistent political effects of the Grand Compromise is that states with smaller populations have a disproportionate vote in the Nation`s Congress. However, the issue of representation threatened to destroy the seven-week-old convention. Delegates from large states believed that their states, because they contributed proportionately more to the nation`s financial and defensive resources, should benefit proportionately from greater representation in the Senate and House of Representatives. Delegates from small States called, with comparable intensity, for all States to be represented equally in both chambers. When Sherman proposed the compromise, Benjamin Franklin agreed that every state in the Senate would have the same voice in all matters except money. “The founders could never have imagined.” the great differences in state population that exist today,” Edwards says. If you happen to live in a sparsely populated state, you`ll have a disproportionate right of scrutiny in the U.S. government. Disagreements over representation threatened to derail U.S.

ratification. Constitution, since delegates on both sides of the dispute have vowed to reject the document if they do not get their will. The solution took the form of a compromise proposed by statesmen Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut. . . .