None
EN
The Great Might-Have-Been of the Constitutional Convention
['Jack Rakove', 'More Jack Rakove', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus', 'Display Inline', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Avatar', 'Where Img', 'Height Auto Max-Width', 'Vertical-Align Bottom .Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow .Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Avatar']
Washington Monthly
The first of these moments occurred shortly before the Constitutional Convention mustered a quorum on May 25, 1787, 11 days late.
Although some historians have called it “the Great Compromise” between large and small states, this decision was manifestly not a compromise.
When Virginia Governor Randolph suggested that the Constitutional Convention should adjourn—meaning to adjourn overnight—William Paterson thought he meant adjourn for good.
That discussion took place the following morning, when delegates from the large states caucused, along with some members from the small states.
Suppose circumstances did force us to hold a new constitutional convention, what rule of voting would it follow?
['madison'
'equal'
'vote'
'states'
'constitutional'
'small'
'convention'
'great'
'constitution'
'senate'
'mighthavebeen'
'state']