Latest news with #GreatCompromise
Boston Globe
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Without compromise, American democracy has no future
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The following day, Bacon announced that he'd also had enough of the intolerant partisanship dominating Congress. The former Air Force brigadier general, Advertisement Tillis and Bacon aren't rebels. They just don't believe their job is to elevate hardline ideological rigidity above all other considerations. In that sense they are like former Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two Democrats who likewise found themselves demonized for occasionally making common cause with members of the opposing party. Last year, they too chose not to run for reelection. Advertisement Of all the developments that have sickened American politics in this generation, the abandonment of democratic civility and the resulting hostility to compromise are the most toxic. The virtues of moderation and magnanimity, the willingness to engage respectfully with others' views, the assumption that individuals with contrary opinions may be wrong but are not evil — without these, our political institutions cannot function. The first and most vital task of liberal democratic politics is to accommodate strong differences without tearing society apart. But that becomes impossible when conciliation is regarded as treachery — and when politics stops focusing on persuasion and debate and becomes obsessed instead with defeating enemies by any means necessary. Granted, Yet compromise has been the lifeblood of the American experiment from its earliest days. The very possibility of self‑government is grounded in the presumption that citizens with intensely held but divergent views can find ways to cooperate. The American founders knew perfectly well that there would always be deep disputes over principles, tactics, means, and ends. That is why they regarded compromise not as a necessary evil but as an essential element of our constitutional system. Advertisement 'Those who hammer out painful deals perform the hardest and, often, highest work of politics,' the American thinker Jonathan Rauch wrote in In ' America's independence holiday is a good time to remember that some of this nation's greatest achievements emerged from political give‑and‑take, not from unilateral assertions of power. The Constitution itself was born of compromise. At the convention in 1787, delegates were deadlocked between a population-based legislature (favored by large states) and one that would treat all states equally (favored by small states). Had the impasse not been broken by what was later called the Great Compromise — a bicameral Congress with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate — the convention would have collapsed and the fragile confederation of states might never have endured. American progress has depended time and again on the ability of political leaders to transcend their partisan, sectional, or ideological loyalties and reach a compromise all sides could live with. Advertisement Consider the bargain struck in 1790 between Alexander Hamilton of New York and Virginia's Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume all state debts, which would amount to a dramatic expansion of national power. That prospect alarmed Southern leaders like Jefferson and Madison — but they agreed not to derail the plan in exchange for locating the new national capital on the Maryland-Virginia border instead of in one of the major commercial centers of the North. Though each side had to swallow a bitter pill, the deal achieved two vital ends: national creditworthiness through debt assumption, and a seat of government accessible to both North and South. And it showed that even foundational questions about the scope of federal power could be resolved through negotiation rather than force. Congress similarly chose compromise over caustic stalemate in 1964, with a Civil Rights Act that combined Southern concessions on federalism with Northern demands to outlaw segregation. The law was far from perfect, but it transformed American society and politics. It passed despite the opposition of hard-core segregationists, thanks to a bipartisan coalition hammered together by President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican minority leader — proof that compromise, when linked to moral conviction, can dismantle entrenched injustice. To mention one more, recall the 1997 budget agreement. When Republicans under Newt Gingrich won control of the US House for the first time in decades, their ' surpluses . It was one more illustration of how ideological opponents, if they are motivated to do so, can find ways to compromise. Advertisement None of this is to suggest that all compromises are good. That would be as ridiculous as insisting that any compromise is bad. The point, rather, is that without the ability to compromise — and without the civility and mutual respect that make that possible — our democratic republic cannot survive. Maybe we've already crossed that point. Is there any reason to be optimistic about a Congress in which fanatics like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Bernie Sanders flourish while thoughtful legislators such as Thom Tillis and Kyrsten Sinema are marginalized until they resign? In ' What would have happened if those men hadn't been able to reason together — if they had abandoned all efforts to persuade and had resorted instead to invective and intimidation? The American experiment might have ended before it even got off the ground. If today's leaders continue to scorn compromise and civility, ours may be the generation that brings it crashing back to earth. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
National Geographic
6 days ago
- Politics
- National Geographic
The story behind the Great Compromise—the 1787 deal that made the U.S. possible
STANDING UNITED George Washington, standing at right, presides over the signing of the Constitution of the United States, made possible by the brokering of the Great Compromise two months before. This 1940 painting by Howard Chandler Christy hangs in the House wing of the U.S. Capitol building. Tempers were fraying in the muggy chambers of Pennsylvania's statehouse. Excluding Rhode Island, delegates from 12 states had been meeting in Philadelphia for seven weeks to reshape the young country's Articles of Confederation into a new, more functional national constitution. The convention included some of the nation's most respected leaders, including Gen. George Washington, 81-year-old Benjamin Franklin, Virginia legislator James Madison, and the young firebrand Alexander Hamilton. Many had served in the Continental Army; all were male, white, and prosperous landowners. Yet by July they were deadlocked over a key issue: how to allot power in the newly formed United States. (He was a Founding Father. His son sided with the British.) The argument came down to big states versus small ones. Big states backed the Virginia Plan, drafted by James Madison, which called for the government to be divided into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The legislature would consist of the Senate and the House of Representatives, both of which would have members proportional to the state's addition to deciding that states would be represented proportionally, delegates agreed on how people within those states would be counted. This led to the Three-Fifths Compromise; white and other free people would be counted as whole persons, and enslaved Black individuals would be counted as three-fifths of a person for state representation for taxation. Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where the U.S. Constitution was debated in 1787. Small states backed the New Jersey Plan, crafted by the state's former attorney general, William Paterson. Like the Virginia Plan, it gave the government three branches, but the legislature consisted of a single house in which each state had equal representation. This accorded the smaller states power not proportional to their size. As state faced off against state, the convention was in danger of collapsing. A return to the Articles of Confederation would mean, among other things, that the country could not pay off its war debt. The articles created a weak central government that lacked a necessary enforcement power. Additional debates over territory and taxation threatened to divide the nation. It was time for a committee. (He was the last king of America. Here's how he lost the colonies.) Crafting the compromise On July 3 a small group, led by Connecticut representative Roger Sherman, began meeting to hammer out a solution. Sherman was ideal for this task. Then in his 60s, he was a calm, hardworking businessman, professor, politician, and judge who had already played key roles in drafting the Declaration of Independence and the original Articles of Confederation. John Adams praised his 'accurate Judgment, in Cases of Difficulty' and described him as 'one of the most sensible men in the world.' Sherman and his committee drafted what came to be known as the Connecticut Compromise, or the Great Compromise. As in the Virginia Plan, representatives would be divided into Senate and House, but with a key difference: Each state would have equal representation in the Senate but proportional representation in the House. (How the Declaration of Independence wooed Americans away from Britain) The Articles of Confederation, National Archives, Washington, D.C. The terms were enough to win by a one-state margin on July 16. Washington wrote to Benjamin Harrison: 'I wish the Constitution which is offered had been made more perfect, but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time.' This story appeared in the July/August 2025 issue of National Geographic History magazine. Magazine for all ages starting at $25/year
