The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781-1789.

Abernethy, Thomas Perkins; Jensen, Merrill

doi:10.2307/2198349

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relationship between the Great Compromise and a successful nationalist agenda is repeatedly described in the literature (Berkin, 2003;Farrand, 1913;Jensen, 1950;Ketcham, 1990;Klarman, 2016;Rakove, 1987). Delegates from the large states supported a strong national government with proportional representation in both branches of the legislature.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…As we use it here, a nationalist is someone who supported a stronger, more effective national government at the time of the convention. Although Jensen (1950) thought the nationalists believed in executive and judicial control of state and national governments, we remain agnostic on such claims. We also do not associate nationalism with any Beardian interpretation.…”

Section: Declaration Of Conflicting Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effects of the Great Compromise on the Constitutional Convention of 1787

Dougherty,

Hitefield

2023

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success of any constitutional convention can depend on its provisions for power sharing. We test three claims about the effects of the Great Compromise, a power sharing agreement, on the Constitutional Convention of 1787. First, we find that the convention was not more likely to pass proposals to strengthen the national government after the compromise than before, contrary to claims made by historians. Two small states increased their support, but other states did not. Second, Southern states (and large states) were more likely to support weakening the national government after the compromise. Third, large states were more likely to support proposals to strengthen the power of the House relative to the Senate after the compromise, and small states were more likely to resist. However, the opposite was not true for strengthening the Senate. Our results suggest a new narrative about the effects of Great Compromise on the Constitutional Convention.

show abstract