# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Comparison chart

Anti-Federalist

Federalist

Introduction

In U.S. history, 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.

In U.S. history, federalists wanted a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution.

Position on Fiscal and Monetary Policy

Felt that states were free agents that should manage their own revenue and spend their money as they saw fit.

Felt that many individual and different fiscal and monetary policies led to economic struggles and national weakness. Favored central banking and central financial policies.

Position on Constitution

Opposed until inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

Proposed and supported.

Prominent Figures

Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams.

Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Jay, John Adams.

Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist Debate

The American Revolution was a costly war and left the colonies in an economic depression. The debt and remaining tensions-perhaps best summarized by a conflict in Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion-led some founding political members in the U.S. to desire for more concentrated federal power. The thought was that this concentrated power would allow for standardized fiscal and monetary policy and for more consistent conflict management.

However, a more nationalistic identity was the antithesis of some founding political members' ideals for the developing states. A more centralized American power seemed reminiscent of the monarchical power of the English crown that had so recently and controversially been defeated. The potential consequences of centralized fiscal and monetary policy were especially frightening for some, reminding them of burdensome and unfair taxation. Anti-federalists were closely tied to rural landowners and farmers who were conservative and staunchly independent.

The most important parts of this debate were decided in the 1700s and 1800s in U.S. history, and the Federalist Party dissolved centuries ago, but the battles between federalist and anti-federalist ideologies continue into the present day in left and right wing American politics. To better understand the history behind this ongoing ideological debate, watch the following video from author John Green's U.S. history Crash Course series.

Articles of Confederation

Prior to the Constitution, there was the Articles of Confederation, a 13-articled agreement between the 13 founding states that covered issues of state sovereignty, (theoretical) equal treatment of citizenry, congressional development and delegation, international diplomacy, armed forces, fund raising, supermajority lawmaking, the U.S.-Canadian relationship, and war debt.

The Articles of Confederation was a very weak agreement on which to base a nation-so weak, in fact, that the document never once refers to the United States of America as being part of a national government, but rather "a firm league of friendship" between states. This is where the concept of the "United States"-i.e., a group of roughly and ideologically united, individually ruling bodies-comes from in the naming of the country. The Articles of Confederation took years for the 13 states to ratify, with Virginia being the first to do so in 1777 and Maryland being the last in 1781.

With the Articles of Confederation, Congress became the only form of federal government, but it was crippled by the fact that it could not fund any of the resolutions it passed. While it could print money, there was no solid regulation of this money, which led to swift and deep depreciation. When Congress agreed to a certain rule, it was primarily up to the states to individually agree to fund it, something they were not required to do. Though Congress asked for millions of dollars in the 1780s, they received less than 1.5 million over the course of three years, from 1781 to 1784.

This inefficient and ineffective governance led to economic woes and eventual, if small scale, rebellion. As George Washington's chief of staff, Alexander Hamilton saw firsthand the problems caused by a weak federal government, particularly those which stemmed from a lack of centralized fiscal and monetary policies. With Washington's approval, Hamilton assembled a group of nationalists at the 1786 Annapolis Convention (also known as the "Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government"). Here, delegates from several states wrote a report on the conditions of the federal government and how it needed to be expanded if it was to survive its domestic turmoil and international threats as a sovereign nation.

Constitution

In 1788, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, greatly expanding the powers of the federal government. With its current 27 amendments, the U.S. Constitution remains the supreme law of the United States of America, allowing it to define, protect, and tax its citizenry. Its development and relatively quick ratification was perhaps just as much the result of widespread dissatisfaction with a weak federal government as it was support for the constitutional document.

Federalists, those who identified with federalism as part of a movement, were the main supporters of the Constitution. They were aided by a federalist sentiment that had gained traction across many factions, uniting political figures. This does not mean there was no heated debate over the Constitution's drafting, however. The most zealous anti-federalists, loosely headed by Thomas Jefferson, fought against the Constitution's ratification, particularly those amendments which gave the federal government fiscal and monetary powers.

A sort of ideological war raged between the two factions, resulting in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, a series of essays written by various figures-some anonymously, some not-for and against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

Ultimately, anti-federalists greatly influenced the document, pushing for strict checks and balances and certain limited political terms that would keep any one branch of the federal government from holding too much power for too long. The Bill of Rights, the term used for the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, are especially about personal, individual rights and freedoms; these were included partly to satisfy anti-federalists.

Prominent Anti-Federalists and Federalists

Among anti-federalists, some of the most prominent figures were Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. Jefferson was often considered a leader among the anti-federalists. Other prominent anti-federalists included Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee.

Alexander Hamilton, a former chief of staff to George Washington, was a proponent of a strong federal government and founded the Federalist Party. He helped oversee the development of a national bank and a taxation system. Other prominent federalists of the time included John Jay and John Adams.

Other figures, such as James Madison, greatly supported Hamilton's federalist intentions for a constitution and national identity, but disagreed with his fiscal policies and were more likely to side with anti-federalists on matters of money. Without Madison's influence, which included acceptance of anti-federalists' desire for a bill of rights, it is unlikely that the U.S. Constitution would have been ratified.

Quotes From Anti-Federalists and Federalists

"One can hardly expect the state legislatures to take enlightened views on national affairs." -James Madison, Federalist

"You say that I have been dished up to you as an Anti-Federalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but, since you ask it, I will tell it to you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore, I am not of the party of Federalists." -Thomas Jefferson, Anti-Federalist

"...that if we are in earnest about giving the Union energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the States in their collective capacities; we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America; we must discard the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions, as equally impracticable and unjust." -Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 23

"Congress, or our future lords and masters, are to have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. Excise is a new thing in America, and few country farmers and planters know the meaning of it." -A Farmer and Planter (pseudonym) in Anti-Federalist Paper No. 26

"Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers." -John Jay in Federalist Paper No. 2

"This being the beginning of American freedom, it is very clear the ending will be slavery, for it cannot be denied that this constitution is, in its first principles, highly and dangerously oligarchical; and it is every where agreed, that a government administered by a few, is, of all governments, the worst." -Leonidas (pseudonym) in Anti-Federalist Paper No. 48

"It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person: in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region." -James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 14

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What's the difference between Anti-Federalist and Federalist? In U.S. history, 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...

# data[].attributes.headline
federalists and anti-federalists picture  

# data[].attributes.subject
federalists and anti-federalists picture  

# data[].attributes.body
Federalists- Believed a bill of rights unnecessary because a strong national government would protect the people.
Anti federalists- believed that the bill of rights was essential to protect freedoms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. What Were the Fugitive Slave Acts?

2. Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

3. Prigg v. Pennsylvania

4. Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

5. Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts

The Fugitive Slave Acts were a pair of federal laws that allowed for the capture and return of runaway enslaved people within the territory of the United States. Enacted by Congress in 1793, the first Fugitive Slave Act authorized local governments to seize and return escapees to their owners and imposed penalties on anyone who aided in their flight. Widespread resistance to the 1793 law led to the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which added more provisions regarding runaways and levied even harsher punishments for interfering in their capture. The Fugitive Slave Acts were among the most controversial laws of the early 19th century.

What Were the Fugitive Slave Acts?

Statutes regarding refugee slaves existed in America as early as 1643 and the New England Confederation, and slave laws were later enacted in several of the 13 original colonies.

Among others, New York passed a 1705 measure designed to prevent runaways from fleeing to Canada, and Virginia and Maryland drafted laws offering bounties for the capture and return of escaped enslaved people.

By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, many Northern states including Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut had abolished slavery.

Concerned that these new free states would become safe havens for runaways, Southern politicians saw that the Constitution included a "Fugitive Slave Clause." This stipulation (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3) stated that, "no person held to service or labor" would be released from bondage in the event they escaped to a free state.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

Despite the inclusion of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the U.S. Constitution, anti-slavery sentiment remained high in the North throughout the late 1780s and early 1790s, and many petitioned Congress to abolish the practice outright.

Bowing to further pressure from Southern lawmakers-who argued the slave debate was driving a wedge between the newly created states-Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

This edict was similar to the Fugitive Slave Clause in many ways, but included a more detailed description of how the law was to be put into practice. Most importantly, it decreed that owners of enslaved people and their "agents" had the right to search for escapees within the borders of free states.

In the event they captured a suspected runaway, these hunters had to bring them before a judge and provide evidence proving the person was their property. If court officials were satisfied by their proof-which often took the form of a signed affidavit-the owner would be permitted to take custody of the enslaved person and return to their home state. The law also imposed a $500 penalty on any person who helped harbor or conceal escapees.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was immediately met with a firestorm of criticism. Northerners bristled at the idea of turning their states into a stalking ground for bounty hunters, and many argued the law was tantamount to legalized kidnapping. Some abolitionists organized clandestine resistance groups and built complex networks of safe houses to aid enslaved people in their escape to the North.

Refusing to be complicit in the institution of slavery, most Northern states intentionally neglected to enforce the law. Several even passed so-called "Personal Liberty Laws" that gave accused runaways the right to a jury trial and also protected free blacks, many of whom had been abducted by bounty hunters and sold into slavery.

Did you know? The passage of the Fugitive Slave Acts resulted in many free blacks being illegally captured and sold into slavery. One famous case concerned Solomon Northup, a freeborn black musician who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. in 1841. Northup would spend 12 years enslaved in Louisiana before winning back his freedom in 1853.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

The legality of Personal Liberty Laws was eventually challenged in the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg v. Pennsylvania. The case concerned Edward Prigg, a Maryland man who was convicted of kidnapping after he captured a suspected slave in Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prigg, setting the precedent that federal law superseded any state measures that attempted to interfere with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Despite decisions like Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 remained largely unenforced. By the mid-1800s, thousands of enslaved people had poured into free states via networks like the Underground Railroad.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

Following increased pressure from Southern politicians, Congress passed a revised Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.

Part of Henry Clay 's famed Compromise of 1850-a group of bills that helped quiet early calls for Southern secession-this new law forcibly compelled citizens to assist in the capture of runaways. It also denied enslaved people the right to a jury trial and increased the penalty for interfering with the rendition process to $1,000 and six months in jail.

In order to ensure the statute was enforced, the 1850 law also placed control of individual cases in the hands of federal commissioners. These agents were paid more for returning a suspected runaway than for freeing them, leading many to argue the law was biased in favor of Southern slaveholders.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was met with even more impassioned criticism and resistance than the earlier measure. States like Vermont and Wisconsin passed new measures intended to bypass and even nullify the law, and abolitionists redoubled their efforts to assist runaways.

The Underground Railroad reached its peak in the 1850s, with many enslaved people fleeing to Canada to escape U.S. jurisdiction.

Resistance also occasionally boiled over into riots and revolts. In 1851 a mob of antislavery activists rushed a Boston courthouse and forcibly liberated an escapee named Shadrach Minkins from federal custody. Similar rescues were later made in New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts

Widespread opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 saw the law become virtually unenforceable in certain Northern states, and by 1860 only around 330 enslaved people had been successfully returned to their Southern masters.

Republican and Free Soil congressmen regularly introduced bills and resolutions related to repealing the Fugitive Slave Act, but the law persisted until after the beginning of the Civil War. It wasn't until June 28, 1864, that both of the Fugitive Slave Acts were repealed by an act of Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fugitive Slave Acts - Definition, 1793 & 1850 | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fugitive Slave Acts, passed in 1793 and 1850, were federal laws that allowed for the capture and return of runaway enslaved people within the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
Run away slaves sent back to south.

# data[].attributes.body
Wait 20 years to vote to ban slavery

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether and, if so, how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787.

Confederation Congress

The three-fifths ratio originated with an amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation on April 18, 1783. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes". The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the Southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only".

After proposed compromises of one half by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and three fourths by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison. But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles of Confederation (only New Hampshire and New York were opposed).

Constitutional Convention

When he presented his plan for the frame of government to the Convention on its first day, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed that for the purposes of apportionment, a "House of Delegates" be determined through the apportionment of "one Member for every thousand Inhabitants 3/5 of Blacks included." The Convention unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations, but it initially rejected his proposal regarding apportionment of the black population along with the rest of his plan. However, since slaves could not vote, leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

The proposal to count slaves by a three-fifths ratio was first proposed on June 11, and agreed to by nine states to two with only a brief debate. It was debated at length between July 9 and 13, inclusive, when it was initially voted down by the members present at the Convention. A few Southern delegates, seeing an opportunity, then proposed full representation for their slave population. Seeing that the states could not remain united without some sort of compromise measure, the ratio of three fifths was brought back to the table and agreed to by eight states to two.

Compromise and enactment

After a contentious debate, the compromise that was finally agreed upon-of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers-reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position. An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

A contentious issue at the 1787 Constitutional Convention was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation of the states in the Congress or would instead be considered property and, as such, not be considered for purposes of representation. Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation, but as property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population. Delegates from states where slavery had become rare argued that slaves should be included in taxation, but not in determining representation.

The proposed ratio was, however, a ready solution to the impasse that arose during the Constitutional Convention. In that situation, the alignment of the contending forces was the reverse of what had been obtained under the Articles of Confederation in 1783. In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did.

Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own.... They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together.... Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?

The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War. Along with this must be considered the number of slave and free states, which remained mostly equal until 1850, safeguarding the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.

Historian Garry Wills has speculated that without the additional slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost the presidential election of 1800. Also, "slavery would have been excluded from Missouri ... Jackson's Indian removal policy would have failed ... the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in territories won from Mexico ... the Kansas-Nebraska bill would have failed." While the Three-Fifths Compromise could be seen to favor Southern states because of their large slave populations, for example, the Connecticut Compromise tended to favor the Northern states (which were generally smaller). Support for the new Constitution rested on the balance of these sectional interests.

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and explicitly repealed the compromise. It provides that "representatives shall be apportioned ... counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." A later provision of the same clause reduced the Congressional representation of states who denied the right to vote to adult male citizens, but this provision was never effectively enforced. (The Thirteenth Amendment, passed in 1865, had already eliminated almost all persons from the original clause's jurisdiction by banning slavery; the only remaining persons subject to it were those sentenced for a crime to penal servitude, which the amendment excluded from the ban.)

After the Reconstruction Era came to an end in 1877, however, the former slave states subverted the objective of these changes by using various strategies to disenfranchise their black citizens, while obtaining the benefit of apportionment of representatives on the basis of the total populations. These measures effectively gave white Southerners even greater voting power than they had in the antebellum era, inflating the number of Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives as well as the number of votes they could exercise in the Electoral College in the election of the president.

The disenfranchisement of black citizens eventually attracted the attention of Congress, and in 1900 some members proposed stripping the South of seats, related to the number of people who were barred from voting. In the end, Congress did not act to change apportionment, largely because of the power of the Southern bloc. The Southern bloc comprised Southern Democrats voted into office by white voters and constituted a powerful voting bloc in Congress until the 1960s. Their representatives, re-elected repeatedly by one-party states, controlled numerous chairmanships of important committees in both houses on the basis of seniority, giving them control over rules, budgets and important patronage projects, among other issues. Their power allowed them to defeat federal legislation against racial violence and abuses in the South, until overcome by the civil rights movement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether and, if so, how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years.

# data[].attributes.body
Southern states allowed to count slaves 3/5 of a person.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 between delegates of the states with large and small populations that defined the structure of Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress according to the United States Constitution. Under the agreement proposed by Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman, Congress would be a "bicameral" or two-chambered body, with each state getting a number of representatives in the lower chamber (the House) proportional to its population and two representatives in the upper chamber (the Senate).

Key Takeaways: Great Compromise

Perhaps the greatest debate undertaken by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 centered on how many representatives each state should have in the new government's lawmaking branch, the U.S. Congress. As is often the case in government and politics, resolving a great debate required a great compromise-in this case, the Great Compromise of 1787. Early in the Constitutional Convention, delegates envisioned a Congress consisting of only a single chamber with a certain number of representatives from each state.

Weeks before the Constitutional Convention convened on July 16, 1787, the framers had already made several important decisions about how the Senate should be structured. They rejected a proposal to have the House of Representatives elect senators from lists submitted by the individual state legislatures and agreed that those legislatures should elect their senators. In fact, until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, all U.S. Senators were appointed by the state legislatures rather than elected by the people.

By the end of its first day in session, the convention had already set the minimum age for senators at 30 and the term length at six years, as opposed to 25 for House members, with two-year terms. James Madison explained that these distinctions, based on "the nature of the senatorial trust, which requires greater extent of information and stability of character," would allow the Senate "to proceed with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the popular[ly elected] branch."

However, the issue of equal representation threatened to destroy the seven-week-old convention. Delegates from the large states believed that because their states contributed proportionally more in taxes and military resources, they should enjoy proportionally greater representation in the Senate as well as in the House. Delegates from small states argued-with similar intensity-that all states should be equally represented in both houses.

When Roger Sherman proposed the Great Compromise, Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate in all matters-except those involving revenue and spending.

Over the Fourth of July holiday, delegates worked out a compromise plan that sidetracked Franklin's proposal. On July 16, the convention adopted the Great Compromise by a suspenseful margin of one vote. Many historians have noted that without that vote, there would likely have been no U.S. Constitution today.

Representation

The burning question was, how many representatives from each state? Delegates from the larger, more populous states favored the Virginia Plan, which called for each state to have a different number of representatives based on the state's population. Delegates from smaller states supported the New Jersey Plan, under which each state would send the same number of representatives to Congress.

Delegates from the smaller states argued that, despite their lower populations, their states held equal legal status to that of the larger states, and that proportional representation would be unfair to them. Delegate Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware notoriously threatened that the small states could be forced to "find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice."

However, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts objected to the small states' claim of legal sovereignty, stating that

"we never were independent States, were not such now, and never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States and the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty."

Sherman's Plan

Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman is credited with proposing the alternative of a "bicameral," or two-chambered Congress made up of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Each state, suggested Sherman, would send an equal number of representatives to the Senate, and one representative to the House for every 30,000 residents of the state.

At the time, all the states except Pennsylvania had bicameral legislatures, so the delegates were familiar with the structure of Congress proposed by Sherman.

Sherman's plan pleased delegates from both the large and small states and became known as the Connecticut Compromise of 1787, or the Great Compromise.

The structure and powers of the new U.S. Congress, as proposed by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, were explained to the people by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers.

Apportionment and Redistricting

Today, each state is represented in Congress by two Senators and a variable number of members of the House of Representatives based on the state's population as reported in the most recent decennial census. The process of fairly determining the number of members of the House from each state is called " apportionment."

The first census in 1790 counted 4 million Americans. Based on that count, the total number of members elected to the House of Representatives grew from the original 65 to 106. The current House membership of 435 was set by Congress in 1911.

Redistricting to Ensure Equal Representation

To ensure fair and equal representation in the House, the process of " redistricting " is used to establish or change the geographic boundaries within the states from which representatives are elected.

In the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all of the congressional districts in each state must all have roughly the same population.

Through apportionment and redistricting, high population urban areas are prevented from gaining an inequitable political advantage over less populated rural areas.

For example, if New York City were not split into several congressional districts, the vote of a single New York City resident would carry more influence on the House than all of the residents in the rest of the State of New York combined.

How the 1787 Compromise Impacts Modern Politics

While the populations of the states varied in 1787, the differences were far less pronounced than they are today. For example, the 2020 population of Wyoming at 549,914 pales in comparison to California's 39.78 million. As a result, one then-unforeseen political impact of the Great Compromise is that states with smaller populations have disproportionately more power in the modern Senate. While California is home to almost 70% more people than Wyoming, both states have two votes in the Senate.

"The founders never imagined ... the great differences in the population of states that exist today," said political scientist George Edwards III of Texas A&M University. "If you happen to live in a low-population state you get a disproportionately bigger say in American government."

Due to this proportionate imbalance of voting power, interests in smaller states, such as coal mining in West Virginia or corn farming in Iowa, are more likely to benefit from federal funding through tax breaks and crop subsidies.

The Framer's intent to "protect" the smaller states through equal representation in the Senate also manifests itself in the Electoral College, as each state's number of electoral votes is based on its combined number of representatives in the House and Senate. For example, in Wyoming, the state with the smallest population, each of its three electors represents a far smaller group of people than each of the 55 electoral votes cast by California, the most populous state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 between delegates of the states with large and small populations that defined the structure of Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress according to the United States Constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
The delegates agreed on two houses in congress.