This compromise settled fears by Northern delegates of the South being overrepresented in the House of Representatives, but it made the Southern delegates nervous. They feared that giving Congress power over commerce would create disproportionate taxation on slaves or lead to the omission of them altogether. They were also afraid of navigation acts, which led to them asking for navigation and commercial laws to need a two-thirds vote in Congress to pass. There was a compromise reached by a committee who was handed the responsibility of making a decision on the matter. Two Southern states agreed with three New England states that, if they would admit slaves for a few years, then the Southern states would change the stipulation for navigation
…show more content…
Natelson focuses on the development of Madison 's support for Article V and how it could be utilized to prevent federal government overreach. Labunski, on the other hand, focuses on the fact that while Article V had a significant impact on the course of the Convention, especially its influence on the call for a second convention, the other delegates did not give it much …show more content…
Article V required that Congress need a two-thirds vote in order to pass new amendments and to call a convention in which to propose new amendments. However, the delegates were worried about the call by anti-federalists for a second constitutional convention. Madison, along with others, worried that if the anti-federalists succeeded in their pursuit, the Constitution would be substantially changed. However, Benjamin F. Wright points out in his review of Cecelia M. Kenyon 's book The Antifederalists something that no other article makes mention of. He discusses how the introduction to Kenyon 's book includes an analysis of the principles the Antifederalists held and the reasons for those beliefs. The delegates who were states ' rights advocates did not believe that a national government would stay a republic, but would eventually turn oppressive. Therefore, they turned to increasing the power of the states in order to prevent a governmental structure they believed would turn into a tyrannical federal
Natelson focuses on the development of Madison 's support for Article V and how it could be utilized to prevent federal government overreach. Labunski, on the other hand, focuses on the fact that while Article V had a significant impact on the course of the Convention, especially its influence on the call for a second convention, the other delegates did not give it much …show more content…
Article V required that Congress need a two-thirds vote in order to pass new amendments and to call a convention in which to propose new amendments. However, the delegates were worried about the call by anti-federalists for a second constitutional convention. Madison, along with others, worried that if the anti-federalists succeeded in their pursuit, the Constitution would be substantially changed. However, Benjamin F. Wright points out in his review of Cecelia M. Kenyon 's book The Antifederalists something that no other article makes mention of. He discusses how the introduction to Kenyon 's book includes an analysis of the principles the Antifederalists held and the reasons for those beliefs. The delegates who were states ' rights advocates did not believe that a national government would stay a republic, but would eventually turn oppressive. Therefore, they turned to increasing the power of the states in order to prevent a governmental structure they believed would turn into a tyrannical federal