Why was the Virginia Plan introduced and amended and the New Jersey Plan introduced and rejected

Note: This is not a transcription of the original Virginia Plan as submitted by Edmund Randolph on May 29, 1787. This is a transcription of the document from June 13,1787, showing the proposed resolutions "as Altered, Amended, and Agreed to in a Committee of the Whole House," a third of the way through the convention.

State of the resolutions submitted to the consideration of the House by the honorable Mr. Randolph, as altered, amended, and agreed to, in a Committee of the whole House.

1. Resolved that it is the opinion of this Committee that a national government ought to be established consisting of a Supreme Legislative, Judiciary, and Executive.

2. Resolved. that the national Legislature ought to consist of Two Branches.

3. Resolved that the members of the first branch of the national Legislature ought to be elected by the People of the several States for the term of Three years. to receive fixed stipends, by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service to be paid out of the National Treasury. to be ineligible to any Office established by a particular State or under the authority of the United-States (except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the first branch) during the term of service, and under the national government for the space of one year after it's expiration.

4. Resolved. that the members of the second Branch of the national Legislature ought to be chosen by the individual Legislatures. to be of the age of thirty years at least. to hold their offices for a term sufficient to ensure their independency, namely seven years. to receive fixed stipends, by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service — to be paid out of the National Treasury to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State, or under the authority of the United States (except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the second branch) during the term of service, and under the national government, for the space of one year after it's expiration.

5. Resolved that each branch ought to possess the right of originating acts.

6. Resolved. that the national Legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the confederation — and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent: or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation. to negative all laws passed by the several States contravening, in the opinion of the national Legislature, the articles of union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the union.

7. Resolved. that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation: but according to some equitable ratio of representation — namely, in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex, and condition including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes in each State.

8. Resolved. that the right of suffrage in the second branch of the national Legislature ought to be according to the rule established for the first.

9. Resolved. that a national Executive be instituted to consist of a single person. to be chosen by the National Legislature. for the term of seven years. with power to carry into execution the national Laws, to appoint to Offices in cases not otherwise provided for to be ineligible a second time, and to be removable on impeachment and conviction of mal practice or neglect of duty. to receive a fixed stipend, by which he may be compensated for the devotion of his time to public service to be paid out of the national Treasury.

10. Resolved. that the national executive shall have a right to negative any legislative act: which shall not be afterwards passed unless by two third parts of each branch of the national Legislature.

11. Resolved. that a national Judiciary be established to consist of One Supreme Tribunal. The Judges of which to be appointed by the second Branch of the National Legislature. to hold their offices during good behaviour to receive, punctually, at stated times, a fixed compensation for their services: in which no encrease or diminution shall be made so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time of such encrease or diminution.

12. Resolved. That the national Legislature be empowered to appoint inferior Tribunals.

13. Resolved. that the jurisdiction of the national Judiciary shall extend to cases which respect the collection of the national revenue: impeachments of any national officers: and questions which involve the national peace and harmony.

14. Resolved. that provision ought to be made for the admission of States, lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of government and territory, or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the national Legislature less than the whole.

15. Resolved. that provision ought to be made for the continuance of Congress and their authorities until a given day after the reform of the articles of Union shall be adopted; and for the completion of all their engagements.

16. Resolved that a republican constitution, and its existing laws, ought to be guaranteed to each State by the United States.

17. Resolved. that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the articles of Union, whensoever it shall seem necessary.

18. Resolved. that the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary powers within the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of Union.

19. Resolved. that the amendments which shall be offered to the confederation by the Convention, ought at a proper time or times, after the approbation of Congress to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of representatives, recommended by the several Legislatures, to be expressly chosen by the People to consider and decide thereon.

Received this sheet from the President of the United States, with the journals of the general Convention, March 19th, 1796. Timothy Pickering

Secy of State

State of the Resolutions submitted by Mr. Randolph to the Consideration of the House, as altered, amended and agreed to in a committee of the whole House. Received from the President of the U. States, March 19, 1796. by Timothy Pickering

Secy of State

In response to the Articles of Confederation’s inadequate government system, several states decided it was important to draft a new constitution that would grant the union’s government more power. It would also ensure both the individual states and people retained many of their respective rights and liberties.

While this process may have seemed pretty simple, the reality was anything but.

From May 25th to September 17th, 1787, delegates debated several aspects of the new constitution, including slavery, the different branches of government, and what rights were protected and reserved for individual citizens (i.e., the Bill of Rights).

One of the more intensive debates centered around creating a bicameral legislature. In particular, this introduction into the constitution would establish both a Senate and a House of Representatives.

And while that in and of itself wasn’t an issue, what was contentious was how many votes each state would be allowed in terms of representation.

This is where the Virginia Plan and New Jersey Plan came into being. Below, we’ll examine what the Virginia Plan offered, what the New Jersey Plan proposed, how they compare to one another, and what the ultimate decision the Founding Fathers took between the two was.

What Is the Virginia Plan?

The Virginia Plan, also known as the “Large State Plan,” was first drafted by James Madison, a Virginian delegate. The plan argued for three branches of government (the executive, legislative, and judicial), with the legislative branch comprising the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Creating the House of Representatives & the Senate

Compared to the original method of election for members of the Confederation Congress, who were elected by state legislature, the House of Representatives would be elected by that state’s people. 

In contrast, House members would choose the Senate from a list of nominated candidates by their state’s legislature. National legislatures would retain all of the existing powers of the Confederation Congress while also having the power to veto any state law deemed “incompetent.” 

Creating the executive branch 

The national legislature could also decide on a national executive with the authority to execute all national and executive laws, including the power to start wars or create treaties.

The national executive could also work alongside several judges to create a “council of revision,” which had the power to veto any state or national legislature and could only be overridden if the respective legislature managed to get enough votes.

Creating the judicial branch 

The plan gave the judicial branch of government oversight and jurisdiction over felonies on the high seas (such as piracy) as well as jurisdiction over enemy captures, the impeachment of an official, cases that revolved around tax collections, or any case that dealt with citizens from multiple states or foreign countries.

The plan also made state officials and officers take an oath to support the constitution while making any amendments to the constitution possible without the assent of the national legislature.

The Virginia Plan’s greatest change

The most contentious aspect of the Virginia Plan was a provision that a state’s representation, as part of the legislative Congress, should be primarily based on either the size of its population or its “quotas of contribution” (i.e., the amount of money raised via taxes to the federal government).

Regarding a state’s population, the sentiment only extended to non-slaves, meaning smaller states with a larger slave population would have less say than wealthier states or larger states with a smaller slave population. 

Because of this radical departure from the Articles of Confederation, in terms of representation (each state got a single vote regardless of its size or wealth), it was given the title “The Large State Plan.”

Why the Virginia Plan deviated so much from the Articles of Confederation 

The reason for this inclusion was that these larger states naturally carried a greater burden on them than the smaller states, both through innate size and the size of their contribution to the nation via taxes. 

As such, it was argued that, along with the increased share of responsibility in relation to the others, larger states should have a greater degree of representation as a consequence.

Reaction in Congress

When the Virginia Plan was introduced, it understandably was argued on all sides for most of its points. In particular, when it came to its call for larger representation of Congress based on the size and wealth of the state, there was considerable dissent.

Larger states supported the plan, like Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, many smaller states opposed it, arguing that every state should have equal representation regardless of size.

Because of this inclusion in the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan was presented.

What Is the New Jersey Plan?

The New Jersey Plan, also aptly titled the “Small State Plan,” was presented by William Paterson and was created in response to the Virginia Plan. 

The plan largely opted to retain much of the inherent structure from the Articles of Confederation, including its unicameral legislature and the one vote per state status. 

It argued that, by giving too much power to the larger states, they were creating an unnecessary imbalance throughout the country, ultimately leading to larger states having greater power and sway over the union’s direction as a whole.

The New Jersey Plan’s propositions

The New Jersey Plan also included several other propositions that stood in stark contrast to the Virginia Plan.

These included: 

• The amending of the Articles of Confederation rather than the installation of the constitution.
• Congress receiving additional powers and authorities to regulate commerce from within the country and with other nations.
• Congress having the authority to raise funds through taxes, tariffs, and other methods. 
• Establishing the Articles of Confederation as the law of the land, with the ability to enforce compliance among states if needed.
• A criminal can be convicted under the law of any state he commits the crime in, regardless of his state of origin.

Ultimately, the New Jersey Plan opted to fix many of the Articles of Confederation’s recognized issues while still attempting to maintain much of the state’s rights and state sovereignty originally granted.

How Do They Compare to One Another?

The Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan were almost complete opposites. While the New Jersey Plan essentially sought to maintain much of the Articles of Confederation, the Virginia Plan wanted to replace it. Because of this glaring discrepancy, both plans shared almost no similarities.

Legislative representation

Arguably their biggest point of contention (so much so that one was called the “Large State Plan” while the other was called the “Small State Plan”), both the Virginia Plan and New Jersey Plan had two very different views surrounding representation in Congress.

The Virginia Plan argued for two branches of the legislative Congress: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Under this new bicameral legislature, representation would be based on a state’s overall size or its “quotas of contribution” (i.e., the amount of taxes given). 

In addition, House members would be elected by the people, while The House would choose senators from nominated state legislatures.

By contrast, the New Jersey Plan argued for the retention of the Articles of Confederation’s unicameral legislature and its “one vote per state” policy. Their position was that the states were independent entities that should remain as such upon joining the union. 

As expected, this sentiment was largely shared by many smaller states, including New York, Delaware, New Jersey, and (initially) Connecticut.

The branches of government

Their second largest difference was their respective views regarding the dispersal of power and the checks and balances.

The Virginia Plan established both the executive and judicial branches and the existing legislative branch. 

Under the executive branch, a “National Executive” would have the power to execute national laws, make war, or establish treaties with other nations. 

The judicial branch would consist of a “Supreme Tribunal” (later known as the Supreme Court) that would hold jurisdiction over impeachments, felony crimes, or individuals that committed crimes in numerous states.

Like its stance on the legislative branch, the New Jersey Plan wanted to maintain the previous status under the Articles of Confederation, leaving much of the individual power in the hands of the states, making only slight changes. 

Congress would elect a federal executive that consisted of several people, all of which were unable to be re-elected and recalled if requested by the majority of state executives.

The plan also included its own Supreme Tribunal, which would rule strictly over impeachment cases and the last stage of appeals when dealing with national matters.

Their ultimate objectives

Both plans were largely steeped in their respective views surrounding the nation itself. While initially presented to the Constitutional Convention as a way to remedy many of the weaknesses and deficiencies attributed to the Articles of Confederation, the Virginia Plan was determined at its very outset to completely reshape and restructure the government as a whole.

By contrast, the New Jersey Plan was developed as somewhat of a reaction to the Virginia Plan. It attempted to actively retain the Articles of Confederation while addressing many of the perceived flaws surrounding it, such as its inability to enforce compliance among the states or establish interstate commerce.

Ultimately, their overall objectives were the biggest differences in comparing the Virginia Plan vs. the New Jersey Plan. While state representation was their most glaring difference, it came down to the fact that the Virginia Plan had no intention of fixing the Articles, whereas the New Jersey Plan did.

What Was Ultimately Decided?

Despite both plans having legitimate arguments for either side, on June 19th, 1787, the New Jersey Plan was rejected, with the majority of votes going towards the Virginia Plan.

Because of this, many smaller states threatened to withdraw from the union. As Connecticut was the one state that sat divided between the two (particularly surrounding the representation given to all states), an agreement was established known as the Connecticut Compromise.

The Connecticut Compromise

Also known as “The Great Compromise of 1787”, the Connecticut Compromise was an agreement that was ultimately reached between the two parties. 

In the compromise, the bicameral legislative structure was retained from the Virginia Plan. However, it established that the House would be chosen by popular vote whereas the Senate would stay as a one vote per state policy.

Unbeknownst to the smaller states and the proponents of the New Jersey Plan, while it was agreed that Senate members would only receive one vote per state because the Virginia Plan was largely agreed upon earlier, this included senators having longer terms than state legislators. 

Consequently, senators would have much more freedom and independence than was initially considered by those against the Virginia Plan.

The End Result

Though much of the Virginia Plan was pushed through, that did not mean that some aspects of the New Jersey Plan did not make their presence known. 

They ultimately forced a level of equal representation between the states in terms of the Senate while also having many of its views regarding the judicial and executive branches be recognized.

A number of these sentiments were instrumental in forcing James Madison and others to draft the Bill of Rights, ensuring many of their ultimate fears regarding federal overreach would be greatly restricted. At the same time, state and individual liberties would largely remain protected.