The Pros And Cons Of The New Constitution

Register to read the introduction… In order to resolve the differences, delegates from the majority of the states met at the Annapolis Convention in 1786. But they were not able to reach any agreeable conclusion. That led them to decide to meet again later in Philadelphia. In second convention, delegates observed that there is urgent need to frame an entirely new constitution. A key issue of conflict was the structure of the new legislative branch. Small states were in favour of New Jersey Plan, under which all states would have equal representation in the legislature. On the other hand, large states advocate the Virginia Plan to form a Bicameral (two-house) legislature in which representatives would be appointed according to population. The Great Compromise between the states gave rise to a bicameral Congress in which states were given equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. Roger Sherman played a decisive role in success of Philadelphia Convention. He is remembered as the architect of the Connecticut Compromise. When the Constitutional Convention became deadlocked over the matter of legislative voting, Sherman proposed a system analogous to one he had advocated before as a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1776 (Keith, 2006). The compromise provided for representation in the House of Representatives as per population and in the Senate by equal numbers for each state. Finally, the Sherman compromise was adopted on July 16, 1787 by five states to four. This not only served to save the convention that was set to fall apart, but ultimately provided the effort to resolve the other issues yet to be decided (Keith, …show more content…
Apart from the states ratifying conventions, the debates also took the form of a public discussion, mainly through newspaper editorials, with federalists on one side supporting the constitution, and anti- Federalists objecting to the Constitution. Writers from both sides tried to convince the public that precious liberty and self-government, hard-earned during the late Revolution, were at stake in the question.
Anti-federalists such as Centinel, the Federal Farmer, and Brutus argued that the new Constitution will ultimately lead to the dissolution of the state governments, the consolidation of the Union into “one great republic” under an unchecked national government, and as a result the loss of a free, self-government. Brutus particularly alleged that in such an extensive and diverse nation, nothing short of despotism “could bind so great a country under one