Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseBy 1787 many American leaders thought the first plan of government, the Articles of Confederation, was failing. Congress could not tax, and Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts had shown that the national government could not keep order. In May 1787 delegates from the states gathered in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention.
The convention was meant to improve the Articles. It soon decided to write a completely new plan of government instead. Fifty-five delegates took part over the summer, from twelve states. Rhode Island refused to send anyone. George Washington was chosen to lead the meetings, and the delegates kept their debates secret so that they could argue freely.
Key terms:
The biggest argument was about power. Under the Articles, every state had one vote in Congress, whether it was large or small. If the new government was based on population, large states such as Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts would have far more say. Small states such as Delaware and New Jersey feared being outvoted for ever.
Put forward by Edmund Randolph in May 1787 and mostly written by James Madison. It wanted a strong national government with three parts (law-making, running the country and courts) and a two-house Congress. Seats in both houses would depend on population. This favoured large states.
Put forward by William Paterson in June 1787 for the small states. It kept a one-house Congress with one vote for each state, as under the Articles, but gave Congress new powers, such as the power to tax. This favoured small states.
Neither side would give way. The argument became so bitter that some delegates feared the convention would break up without any agreement. This was the tension between large and small states, and it was linked to one of the themes of the whole option: the relationship of the separate states to the whole.
The way out came from delegates from Connecticut, mainly Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth. The Connecticut Compromise, agreed in July 1787, gave each side something:
A law had to pass both houses. The vote was close and nobody got everything they wanted, but the convention could now carry on. This kind of agreement is often called the Great Compromise. Its impact was lasting: the United States Congress still has a House based on population and a Senate with two senators for each state.
A second argument came from slavery. By 1787 slavery was still legal in many states, but it mattered much more to the southern states, where large numbers of enslaved people worked on plantations. The delegates faced two linked questions.
If representation in the House depended on population, should enslaved people be counted? Southern states wanted them counted, so that the South would have more seats. Northern delegates objected, since enslaved people had no vote and were treated as property. The result was the three-fifths clause: each enslaved person counted as three-fifths of a free person for seats in the House and for direct taxes.
Some northerners wanted to ban the import of enslaved people from Africa. Delegates from South Carolina and Georgia said their states would not join a union that did this. The compromise was that Congress could not ban the slave trade before 1808.
Many delegates disliked slavery, yet most put keeping all the states together first. The Constitution never uses the word "slavery", but it protected the system in these ways. So the clash was settled for the moment rather than solved. The issue of slavery runs through the whole option, and this compromise helped to keep it alive.
What changed, and what stayed the same? The Constitution, signed on 17 September 1787, created a much stronger national government than the Articles. But the states kept important powers, equal votes in the Senate gave small states a lasting voice, and slavery stayed legal.
This is a Paper 2 Section B (b) question. You need two causes, each with precise knowledge and an explanation of how it led to the outcome. One cause alone cannot score more than half marks.
Explain TWO causes of the Connecticut Compromise of 1787. [8 marks]
One cause was the deadlock between large and small states. The Virginia Plan, written mainly by James Madison, wanted seats in both houses of Congress to be based on population, which would have given Virginia and other large states most of the power. The small states, backed by William Paterson's New Jersey Plan, wanted to keep one vote for each state. Neither side would give way, and some delegates feared the convention would collapse. This led Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut to suggest a House based on population and a Senate with equal votes, so that each side gained something.
A second cause was the delegates' fear that the United States would fail without a stronger government. Shays' Rebellion in 1786-87 had added to fears that Congress under the Articles could not keep order or raise money, and it pushed leaders such as Washington to support the convention. Most delegates therefore wanted an agreement rather than a break-up, which made the small states willing to accept a House based on population and the large states willing to accept an equal Senate.
What lifts it to the top level: two different causes, each backed by accurate facts and an explanation of how it led to the compromise.
Write two paragraphs, one per cause. Start each with the cause, add a precise fact such as a plan or a name, then use a phrase such as "this led to" to link it to the outcome.