2025 Knight Essay Contest

Third-place winner nationally

A New Nation: The Role of Compromise in the U.S Constitution

Sydney Bueno Linn, 12th Grade

Brookline High School, 115 Greenough St, (617) 713-5000

Learned from https://www.fastweb.com/

A New Nation: The Role of Compromise in the U.S Constitution

In May of 1787, 55 delegates from across the 13 states gathered in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. While their initial goal was to improve the Articles of Confederation, the founding document struggling to hold the new nation together, by mid-June many attitudes began to shift towards a complete rewrite instead of a revision (“The Constitution”). As thinking began to diverge, two different visions were brought to the convention’s attention. Edmund Randolph presented the Virginia Plan, written primarily by James Madison, which was a new governing document (Wilson et al, 28). The New Jersey Plan, presented by William Patterson had a likeness to the Articles of Confederation (“Connecticut”). As both plans were discussed, a clear separation began to form. Although there were many similarities, like the need for three branches of government and the expansion of Congressional power to impose taxes, the plans were seen more for their differences. Those who sided with the Virginia Plan likely became Federalists, and New Jersey Plan advocates became Antifederalists (Metych). The reality was, a constitution was needed for the young nation to establish a strong identity, and both sides would have to find common ground for the sake of the new government’s future.

The Great Compromise was one of the largest areas of collaboration in drafting the U.S. Constitution. The need for compromise became clear when considering the Legislative branch. The Virginia Plan included a bicameral legislature based on proportional representation, which favored large states (Wilson et al, 29). Alternatively, the New Jersey Plan called for a single legislative body with an equal number of representatives for each state, regardless of size and population (“Connecticut”). While the New Jersey Plan ultimately failed, due partially to objections from key Federalists like Alexander Hamilton, some elements were incorporated in

the final version (Gilder Lehrman). Given the 13 states were of different sizes, this ensured all states had importance and weight in congressional decisions. The Great Compromise itself became the revision to the Upper house of the bicameral legislature, now the Senate, which gave equal representation for all states (Metych, “Virginia Plan”). Without integrating aspects of the New Jersey Plan, the final document may not have had the popularity among delegates to be approved.

Another compromise within the Constitution’s ratification process resulted in the addition of a Bill of Rights, which in many ways was the most crucial element of the document's establishment. Inspired by Magna Carta and the Petition of Right, James Madison’s draft initially drew significant criticism from the Federalists (Finkelman 301). The first ten amendments of the Constitution were written in the hopes of protecting the civil liberties of people from any overreach of federal power (Finkelman 310). While this addressed the concerns of many Antifederalists, their opposition argued that the Constitution delegated the protection of liberties to the states which could not be encroached on by the federal government (Finkelman 309). The prohibited powers listed in Article 1, already forbade ex post facto laws and bills of attainders, while Article 3 guaranteed jury trials for criminal cases (Monk 61,104). Federalists like Hamilton also believed that any rights excluded in the Bill of Rights could be limiting to the people’s implied liberties (Finkelman 309). Even Madison said a Bill of Rights had to “be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration” (Finkelman 311). And yet, when it came time to ratify the document in each state’s special conventions, only 6 of the 13 states reported a pro-Constitution majority (“The Constitution”). In Massachusetts, the ratifying convention had an antifederalist majority and after excessive debate, federalists finally sought compromise. It was decided by a vote of 187-168 that the state would send its ratification

with amendments recommended (Finkelman 323). This “Vote Now, Amend Later” sentiment began to spread across the states, and so a Bill of Rights was added. This compromise was crucial for the adoption of the Constitution, and highlights the importance of receptivity to the people as a whole. With enough of the country supporting a Bill of Rights, the founders had to respond.

While both the Great Compromise and the Bill of Rights represented the flagship achievement of compromise, a third provision was embedded in the midst of these discussions which attracted less notice but established a harmful legacy. Found in Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Three-Fifths Compromise reads “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned... according to their [States] respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons” (Constitution of the U.S. art 1, sec 2). Though not named directly, other Persons referred to thousands of enslaved Americans. Originally in the New Jersey Plan, the Three-Fifths Compromise was a point of contention since state population directly affected representation, tax collecting, and votes in the Electoral College (Johnston). Southern states argued to count all enslaved people as the community made up significant portions of their population, and Northern states wanted to count only free black Americans (Johnston). Even with several differing opinions, the racism of the time kept any attitudes of equality and true “liberty and justice for all” in the minority. A need to approve the Constitution overshadowed any objections to the inhumane referral to Black Americans, effectively sacrificing the rights and well being of millions of people for decades to come.

With today’s growing polarization between the Republican and Democratic Parties, compromise has never seemed so challenging. We criticize our elected officials for changing

their stance on an issue or not fulfilling campaign promises, forgetting that compromises are needed for progress. This often requires listening to the other side, working to gather bipartisan support, and ultimately giving up parts of their agenda. In recognizing this, the founding fathers worked to create a document of lasting importance that laid the framework to maintain democratic ideals as we continue to evolve. The passage and ratification of the Constitution reminds us that finding common ground while staying true to our founding principles, is to create lasting progress towards the country we aspire to be.

Works Cited - MLA Format

“Connecticut Compromise | Date, Context, & Key Details.” Encyclopedia Britannica, www.britannica.com/topic/Connecticut-Compromise.

Finkelman, Paul. “James Madison and the Bill of Rights: A Reluctant Paternity.” The Supreme Court Review, vol. 1990, University of Chicago Press, 1990, pp. 301–47, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3109663?seq=1

Gilder Lehrman Institute Staff. “Infographic: Differences between Federalists and Antifederalists | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.” Www.gilderlehrman.org, 2009, www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teacher-resources/infographic-differences-between-federalists-and-antifederalists.

Johnston, Mindy. “Three-Fifths Compromise | United States History.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 7 Feb. 2022, www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise.

Metych, Michele. “New Jersey Plan | United States History.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 17 Sept. 2024, www.britannica.com/topic/New-Jersey-Plan.

Monk, Linda R. The Words We Live by : Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution. Hachette Books, 2015.

“The Constitution: How Did It Happen?” National Archives, 30 Mar. 2016, www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution/how-did-it-happen.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription. National Archives, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 4 May 2020, www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript.

Wilson, James Q., et al. American Government : Institutions and Policies : The Essentials. Cengage, 2019.

Biography

Sydney Bueno Linn is a current senior at Brookline High School. Her school does not weight GPA or include rank, and she has earned a 3.92 on a 4.0 scale. Sydney scored a 1520 on the SAT, and a 4 and 5 on the AP English Language and AP United States History exams respectively. She is a member of the National Honors Society and received a National Merit Letter of Commendation, College Board National Hispanic Recognition Award, and School Recognized George Eastman Young Leaders Award for Outstanding Academic Achievement in Social Studies courses and extracurriculars.

Since eighth grade, Sydney has taken academic courses through Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth every summer including Constitution in Crisis, American Legal History, and International Politics. During the school year, she was elected as a Brookline High School Government Legislator for her class, and also serves on the Student Council managing funding for clubs across her school community.

Outside of her academics, Sydney has played on the Girls Varsity Lacrosse Team for the last four years and is now a Captain. She also plays Field Hockey at the Varsity level in the fall season, and was recognized as a Bay State Conference All Star in 2024. In addition to athletics, Sydney interns at St. Mark Community Education Program in Dorchester, where on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, she teaches English to immigrants in preparation for the U.S. Citizenship Test. She plans to major in Political Science and the top three schools she has applied to are Georgetown University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Virginia.