Editing Connecticut Compromise (section)

==Compromise==
The problem was referred to a committee consisting of one delegate from each state to reach a compromise. On July 5, 1787, the committee submitted its report, which became the basis for the "Great Compromise" of the Convention. The report recommended that in the upper house each state should have an equal vote, and in the lower house, each state should have one representative for every 40,000 inhabitants,<ref name="yazawa2016p67">{{cite book|last=Yazawa|first=Melvin|title=Contested Conventions: The Struggle to Establish the Constitution and Save the Union, 1787–1789|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MIqfDAAAQBAJ|year=2016|publisher=JHU Press|isbn=978-1-4214-2026-4|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=MIqfDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=%22one+representative+per%22+inhabitants+three+fifths 67]}}</ref> counting [[Three-fifths Compromise|three-fifths]] of each state's enslaved population toward that state's total population,<ref name="yazawa2016p67" /> and that money bills should originate in the lower house (not subject to amendment by the upper chamber).

Sherman sided with the two-house national legislature of the Virginia Plan, but proposed "That the proportion of suffrage in the 1st. Branch [house] should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more."<ref name="usconstitution">{{cite web|url=http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html|author=US Constitution.net|title=Constitutional Topic: The Constitutional Convention|access-date=October 17, 2007}}</ref> What was ultimately included in the constitution was a modified form of this plan, partly because the larger states disliked it. In committee, [[Benjamin Franklin]] modified Sherman's proposal to make it more acceptable to the larger states. He added the requirement that revenue bills originate in the House.

James Madison of Virginia, [[Rufus King]] of Massachusetts, and [[Gouverneur Morris]] of Pennsylvania each vigorously opposed the compromise since it left the Senate looking like the [[Congress of the Confederation|Confederation Congress]].<ref>1 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 489, 490, 551 (Max Farrand ed., 1911)</ref> For the nationalists, the Convention's vote for the compromise was a setback. However, on July 23, they found a way to continue with their vision of an elite, independent Senate. Just before most of the convention's work was referred to the [[Committee of Detail]], Morris and King moved that states' members in the Senate be given individual votes, rather than voting en bloc, as they had in the Confederation Congress. Then [[Oliver Ellsworth]], a leading proponent of the Connecticut Compromise, supported their motion, and the Convention reached the enduring compromise.<ref>2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 94–95 (Max Farrand ed., 1911)</ref>

After six weeks of turmoil, on July 16, 1787, [[North Carolina]] switched its vote to equal representation per state, [[Massachusetts]]' delegation was divided, and a compromise was reached on a 5–4 vote of the states.<ref>{{Cite web |title=3  THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, volume 2, p.15 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) |url=https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llfr/002/0000/00190015.tif |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220530164037/https://memory.loc.gov/ll/llfr/002/0000/00190015.tif|archive-date=May 30, 2022}}</ref> Every state was given equal representation, previously known as the New Jersey Plan, in one house of Congress, and proportional representation, known before as the Virginia Plan, in the other. Because it was considered more responsive to majority sentiment, the House of Representatives was given the power to originate all legislation dealing with the federal budget and revenues/taxation, per the [[Origination Clause]]. 

Since the Convention had earlier accepted the Virginia Plan's proposal that senators have long terms, restoring that plan's vision of individually powerful senators stopped the Senate from becoming a strong safeguard of [[Federalism in the United States|federalism]]. State governments lost their direct say in Congress's decisions to make national laws. As the personally influential senators received terms much longer than the state legislators who elected them, they became substantially independent. The compromise continued to serve the self-interests of small-state political leaders, who were assured of access to more seats in the Senate than they might otherwise have obtained.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Claus |first1=Laurence |date=Fall 2019 |title=The Framers' Compromise |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26866524 |journal=The American Journal of Comparative Law |volume=67 |issue=3 |pages=677–684|doi=10.1093/ajcl/avz022 |jstor=26866524 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>