3 ms·

The Virginia Plan (also known as the Randolph Plan, after its sponsor, or the Large-State Plan) was a proposal by Virginia delegates for a bicameral legislative

The Virginia Plan (also known as the Randolph Plan, after its sponsor, or the Large-State Plan) was a proposal by Virginia delegates for a bicameral legislative branch.[1] The plan was drafted by James Madison while he waited for a quorum to assemble at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.[2][3] The Virginia Plan was notable for its role in setting the overall agenda for debate in the convention and, in particular, for setting forth the idea of population-weighted representation in the proposed national legislature. Quoting this because it's important to note it's not nearly as simple as that. Virginia was the largest state (and largest slaveholding state).

emodendroket 8y ago
Yes, but looking at the larger picture, the tidewater aristocracy's interests were protected by the disproportionate power given to the South up till the Civil War, so I think the claim you're responding to is compelling.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia voted for the Virginia Plan, while New York, New Jersey, and Delaware voted for the New Jersey Plan, an alternate that was also on the table. The delegates from Maryland were split, so the state's vote was null. It's pretty evenly split. It's difficult to suggest it's all or mostly about slavery. It may be compelling but claims like that need evidence, and when you pull in the evidence it's not so convincing.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Certainly for a state like Connecticut it was more about preserving the influence of a smaller state, but why would Virginia throw its support behind a plan that would seem to weaken its own influence? That's a question worth asking (and honestly I don't know enough about the views of all the individual delegates to answer it). And in reality the plan did benefit slaveholder interests -- certainly by the time Southerners were trying to conquer every piece of Latin American territory they could get their hands on to increase the slave vote they were conscious of these dynamics.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      Virginia threw its support behind this plan because it was the best possible constitutional plan available. Madison was pushing for a stronger National government at the time but being blocked, and as a part of that national government, he was advocating the Senate have the ability to essentially veto state laws - remember that there was no Judicial Review in the system at the time. So for the Senate to have that power, they needed to have equal representation from each state otherwise populous states would have too much influence on the internal government of other states. That's part of it, anyway. It's more complicated and I'd recommend you read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention if you're really curious.
    - aaron-lebo 8y ago
      Certainly for a state like Connecticut it was more about preserving the influence of a smaller state, but why would Virginia throw its support behind a plan that would seem to weaken its own influence? Because while they were aware of that, there was more at play than racism and slavery, as Virginia voting against its interests suggests. Slightly pedantic, I could be wrong, but no serious attempts were ever made to conquer south; less than the attempts to conquer Canada, anyway. History is complex!
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        Such as? What I am suggesting is that when we take slavery into account Virginia was not actually voting against its interests, despite surface appearances.
        aaron-lebo 8y ago
        You said it yourself in another post: they were just copying the British. The Virginians, that aristocratic lot, would have and did prefer features like the Senate, which would have provided a counterweight to the more radical House. It's that way even today. I can't speak further to the historical context, but everything I've read about federation/modern/consensus democracies suggest that bicameralism is a benefit (ex http://wikisum.com/w/Lijphart:_Patterns_of_democracy http://wikisum.com/w/Lijphart:_Patterns_of_democracy). Again, that's not saying that's what they were considering then, but also read some of the Federalist Papers (Madison in particular) and how much they were weighing factions/balance of power into some of these solutions.

emodendroket 8y ago

Yes, but looking at the larger picture, the tidewater aristocracy's interests were protected by the disproportionate power given to the South up till the Civil War, so I think the claim you're responding to is compelling.

aaron-lebo 8y ago
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia voted for the Virginia Plan, while New York, New Jersey, and Delaware voted for the New Jersey Plan, an alternate that was also on the table. The delegates from Maryland were split, so the state's vote was null. It's pretty evenly split. It's difficult to suggest it's all or mostly about slavery. It may be compelling but claims like that need evidence, and when you pull in the evidence it's not so convincing.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Certainly for a state like Connecticut it was more about preserving the influence of a smaller state, but why would Virginia throw its support behind a plan that would seem to weaken its own influence? That's a question worth asking (and honestly I don't know enough about the views of all the individual delegates to answer it). And in reality the plan did benefit slaveholder interests -- certainly by the time Southerners were trying to conquer every piece of Latin American territory they could get their hands on to increase the slave vote they were conscious of these dynamics.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    Virginia threw its support behind this plan because it was the best possible constitutional plan available. Madison was pushing for a stronger National government at the time but being blocked, and as a part of that national government, he was advocating the Senate have the ability to essentially veto state laws - remember that there was no Judicial Review in the system at the time. So for the Senate to have that power, they needed to have equal representation from each state otherwise populous states would have too much influence on the internal government of other states. That's part of it, anyway. It's more complicated and I'd recommend you read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention if you're really curious.
  - aaron-lebo 8y ago
    Certainly for a state like Connecticut it was more about preserving the influence of a smaller state, but why would Virginia throw its support behind a plan that would seem to weaken its own influence? Because while they were aware of that, there was more at play than racism and slavery, as Virginia voting against its interests suggests. Slightly pedantic, I could be wrong, but no serious attempts were ever made to conquer south; less than the attempts to conquer Canada, anyway. History is complex!
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Such as? What I am suggesting is that when we take slavery into account Virginia was not actually voting against its interests, despite surface appearances.
      - aaron-lebo 8y ago
        You said it yourself in another post: they were just copying the British. The Virginians, that aristocratic lot, would have and did prefer features like the Senate, which would have provided a counterweight to the more radical House. It's that way even today. I can't speak further to the historical context, but everything I've read about federation/modern/consensus democracies suggest that bicameralism is a benefit (ex http://wikisum.com/w/Lijphart:_Patterns_of_democracy http://wikisum.com/w/Lijphart:_Patterns_of_democracy). Again, that's not saying that's what they were considering then, but also read some of the Federalist Papers (Madison in particular) and how much they were weighing factions/balance of power into some of these solutions.