[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13288-13291]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          THE GREAT COMPROMISE

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 214 years ago today, on July 16, 1787, the 
members of the Constitutional Convention agreed to what is known as the 
Great Compromise. Edmund Randolph, on May 29, 1787, had introduced the 
``Virginia Plan'', drafted by James Madison, which provided for a 
Senate and a House of Representatives and would replace the unicameral 
legislature under the Articles of Confederation. Randolph had described 
the plan as designed to promote ``peace, harmony, happiness, and 
liberty.'' Under the Virginia plan, both Houses of Congress would be 
apportioned by population, an arrangement that would favor larger 
states like Virginia, the State of Pennsylvania, the State of 
Massachusetts.
  On June 15, William Patterson had countered with the ``New Jersey'' 
plan, which was really a series of amendments designed to strengthen 
rather than replace the Articles of Confederation. Its supporters, 
representing the smaller States, worried that the Virginia Plan went 
too far in creating a central government and that it would diminish the 
power of the individual States. However, the Delegates rejected the New 
Jersey Plan and committed themselves to the creation of a new form of 
government.
  The smaller States had lost the first battle, but they had enough 
votes to keep the Convention from succeeding, unless it was agreed that 
the new government would firmly protect their rights, the rights of the 
smaller States. They demanded the same equality of the States that had 
existed under the Articles of Confederation. On July 1, the Convention 
split 5 to 5 on the issue. The Georgia Delegates were split and did not 
vote. This tie represented a deadlock between the conflicting demands 
of the larger and smaller States.
  When the Convention recessed to celebrate the Fourth of July, the 
Delegates appointed a special Committee to solve the dispute. Elbridge 
Gerry of Massachusetts chaired the Committee which devised a compromise 
that apportioned the House by population and gave the states equality 
in the Senate. Inasmuch as the idea for the special Committee had been 
proposed by Roger Sherman, a Connecticut Delegate, the ``Great 
Compromise'' is also known as the ``Connecticut Compromise.'' In 
promoting the plan, William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut explained 
that under this arrangement the two Houses of Congress would be 
``halves of a unique whole.''
  The Great Compromise is one of the more momentous events in our 
country's history. Most people are probably unaware of it or have 
forgotten their high school days during which they should have learned 
about it. But for the Great Compromise, the course of our country's 
history might have been forever altered.
  Fortunately for us, the men who attended the Philadelphia Convention 
were some of the ablest and brightest leaders of the time, in fact, of 
any time. What a gathering that was. Never before, since the Last 
Supper at which our Lord sat and broke bread with those about the 
table, was there a gathering like ths one in Philadelphia, 214 years 
ago today.
  What a gathering that was! Never before had there been such an 
abundance of wisdom and learning, grace and dignity--not since the 
Roman Senate had gathered and been observed by Cineas, the Ambassador 
of Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, who visited the Roman Senate at the behest 
of Pyrrhus.
  Cineas, the philosopher, was charged by Pyrrhus to present a peace 
proposal to the Roman Senate. Cineas had brought with him bribes for 
Roman Senators. He had brought with him rich robes for the wives of 
Senators. But he had found no takers--none. Cineas was impressed. The 
sight of this great city, the city of Rome of the seven hills, its 
austere manner, and its patriotic zeal, struck Cineas with admiration. 
When he had heard the deliberations of the Roman Senate and he had 
observed its men, he reported to Pyrrhus that here was no mere 
gathering of venal politicians, here was no haphazard council of 
mediocre minds, but, in dignity and statesmanship, veritably ``an 
assemblage of kings.''
  How fortunate to have been one of the members of the Constitutional 
Convention. Never before or after, since conclaves on Mount Olympus, 
attended by the ``gods of Greece'' in Rome, has there been a gathering 
like it. From Virginia alone, there were George Washington, James 
Madison, George Mason, Edmund Randolph. From Massachusetts, there were 
Elbridge Gerry and Rufus King. From Pennsylvania, there were James 
Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, and the man with the peg leg, Gouverneur 
Morris. And from New York, there was the great Alexander Hamilton--
small in stature but large in wisdom. Here was a constitutional ``dream 
team'' for the ages. Fifty-five men, in all, presented their 
credentials at the Convention, representing every State, save one--
Rhode Island. And with passion and gusto, they had set about devising a 
plan that would create a new nation.
  In our own time, in these sometimes disgustingly partisan days, many 
of us are prone to overlook the tremendous physical and mental effort 
expended in drafting the Constitution. In reading this short document--
here it is, the Constitution of the United States. I hold it in my 
hand. In reading this short document with its precise and careful 
phrases, it is easy to forget the toil, the sweat, the prayers, the 
concerns, the frustrations, the shouting, and the argumentation and the 
thinking and the pleading and the speeches that went into its creation 
during that hot Philadelphia summer.
  Progress was so slow that upon one occasion, we will remember that 
Benjamin Franklin, the oldest man in the gathering, stood to his feet 
and addressed the chair in which sat Gen. George Washington. He said:

       Sir, I have lived a long time, and the longer I live the 
     more convincing proof I see that God still governs in the 
     affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground 
     without our Father's notice, is it possible that we can build 
     an empire without our Father's aid?

  The greatest sticking point, and the most threatening that was 
encountered in framing the Constitution, according to Madison, was the 
question of whether States should be represented in Congress equally or 
on the basis of population. The question was far from academic. The 
small States feared that they would be swallowed up in a more 
centralized union; The Constitution must be acceptable to the small 
States, as well as to the large States. The large States of Virginia, 
Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania were looked upon by the smaller States 
with fear and distress. The small States feared that a Congress based 
on population would be dominated by the large States. Virginia would 
have 16 times as

[[Page 13289]]

many votes as would Delaware. And this fact led New Jersey's Delegates 
to declare that they would not be safe to allow Virginia to have such 
power. They rejected the Virginia Plan, which had been presented by 
Gov. Edmund Randolph, and they proposed a Congress with a single 
legislative chamber in which the States had an equal vote, as had been 
the case with the Congress under the Articles of Confederation.
  The Continental Congress had been a single chamber. It was followed 
by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation in 1781, again a 
unilateral legislative branch. It was the legislative, it was the 
executive, and to a degree it was the judicial--all in one. There was 
no chief executive, no president, no king, in the form of an 
individual. Congress was the executive under the Confederation.
  There had been days and weeks of prolonged and acrimonious debate, 
but the issue had not been resolved. There were suggestions that the 
State boundaries should be redrawn so that the States would all be of 
roughly the same size. Connecticut advanced a proposal, initially made 
by Roger Sherman, calling for equal representation of States in the 
Senate. This had failed to win support, with James Madison, 
surprisingly, labeling it as unjust.
  Can you hear the rafters ring? The doors were closed. Sentries were 
at the door. Nobody outside knew what was going on. Rufus King of 
Massachusetts had angrily announced that he would not listen to any 
talk of equal representation in the Senate. James Wilson of 
Pennsylvania maintained that the small States had nothing to fear from 
the larger States. Whereupon, Gunning Bedford of Delaware retorted, ``I 
do not, gentlemen, trust you.'' And he warned his colleagues that the 
small States might form a confederation among themselves, or even find 
``some foreign ally of more honor and good faith who will take them by 
the hand and do them justice.''
  Can't you sense the tense feeling of the moment? Of course, Bedford 
was roundly rebuked for his words, but the threat of foreign alliances 
hovered above the Convention in the stale and sticky summer air. There 
was no air-conditioning, much like it was in this Chamber until 1929. 
That was the year of the great stock market crash--1929. That same 
year, though, air-conditioning came to the Senate Chamber. Ah, how 
great it is--air-conditioning. Efforts to resolve this question, this 
nettlesome question ``nearly terminated in a dissolution of the 
Convention''--it came just that close. Washington, who kept his 
thoughts mostly to himself, confided to Alexander Hamilton in July that 
he ``almost despaired'' of success. Roger Sherman of Connecticut 
lamented that ``it seems we have got to a point that we cannot move one 
way or another.''
  But the Delegates finally did settle the question on Monday, July 16, 
1787--there it was--Monday, just as today--on Monday, July 16, some 2 
months after the Convention began. The matter was finally resolved.
  It may have been a fear of failure that led the delegates to settle 
the matter, because they knew that the country's future was in their 
hands. Exhaustion may have played a part, for the members had already 
spent many long days and nights in heated debate in this vert heated, 
small Chamber. It may have been because of the heat that had tormented 
them for so long. Or perhaps the open exchange of opinions in that 
wrenching but vital process of debating and questioning and 
argumentation. Franklin had described the Convention as ``groping . . . 
in the dark to find political truth''; perhaps they had at last 
stumbled upon it. In any event, on that great day, 214 years ago, the 
Delegates agreed that Congress would be composed of a Senate with equal 
representation for each state and a House based on proportional 
representation. This was the Great Compromise. That is what it was 
called then, and that is what it has been called ever since--the Great 
Compromise.
  Thank God for the Great Compromise. The Senator from New Mexico, who 
is now presiding over this Senate, would not be here were it not for 
the Great Compromise. The people who sit at the bar, the officers of 
the Senate, the pages of the Senate, the galleries of the Senate, the 
Democratic whip, Senator Reid of Nevada, would not be here were it not 
for the Great Compromise. I would not be here. None of us would be 
here. Think of that.
  The outcome of the Convention had for so many days held by a single 
thread. At the very first session of the Convention, when the Delegates 
presented their credentials, it had been noted that the members from 
Delaware were prohibited from changing the Article in the Confederation 
which declared that ``in determining questions in the United States in 
Congress assembled, each state shall have one vote.'' Delegates from 
the small states had declared that ``no modification whatever could 
reconcile the smaller States to the least diminution of their equal 
sovereignty.'' They would have left Philadelphia without accomplishing 
their goal.
  After weeks of anxious debate, it had been voted that the ``rule of 
suffrage in the first branch ought not to be according to that 
established in the Articles of Confederation''. In other words, the 
Delegates from the large states succeeded in defeating equal 
representation in the lower branch--Ellsworth moved that ``the rule of 
suffrage in the second branch be the same with that established by the 
Articles of Confederation.'' In supporting this motion he declared that 
he was ``not sorry on the whole that the vote just passed, had 
determined against this rule in the first branch. He hoped it would 
become a ground of compromise with regard to the second branch.''
  Ellsworth later said: ``We were partly national; partly federal. The 
proportional representation in the first branch was conformable to the 
national principle and would secure the large states against the small. 
An equality of votes was conformable to the federal principle and was 
necessary to secure the small States against the large.''
  This conciliatory proposal formed the basis of the most important 
compromise in the history of this Republic--the Great Compromise, 
probably the greatest single compromise ever reached in the history of 
the human race. The Great Compromise.
  Its acceptance was not easily attained. Wilson feared minority rule 
when one-third of the population in seven States might dominate two-
thirds in six States. Ellsworth insisted that this fear of minority 
rule was groundless--groundless. Madison had considered suggesting that 
representation in one branch should be computed according to the number 
of free inhabitants only and in the other branch according to the whole 
number, counting the slaves as if free.
  When Ellsworth's motion for allowing each State an equal vote in the 
second branch was brought to a vote, it was lost by a tie. This 
deadlock gave rise to tense debate. Can you imagine the tension in that 
Chamber? We have seen tensions in this Chamber during the great debate, 
the great civil rights debate, the Civil Rights Act of 1964--tension--
the North and the South pitted against each other, and the great 
tensions during the Panama Canal debates.
  The result was the adoption of a proposal that a special committee 
consisting of one member from each State should be appointed to devise 
and report some compromise. Three days later, on July 5, the committee 
presented two recommendations ``on the condition that both shall be 
generally adopted.''
  The first recommendation, in effect, provided that in the first 
branch of the legislature each state would have one Representative for 
every 40,000 inhabitants, counting three-fifths of the slaves; and that 
all bills for raising or appropriating money should originate in the 
lower branch and not be altered or amended by the second branch; and 
that no money should be drawn from the public treasury but in pursuance 
of appropriations to be originated in the first branch. According to 
the second recommendation, each State was to have an equal vote in the 
second branch.
  This compromise proposal was under debate for 10 days. And you know

[[Page 13290]]

what? Madison hoped for its rejection. But on the morning of July 16, 
today, 214 years ago, God be thanked for the rising of the sun that 
morning 214 years ago--the whole compromise was adopted.
  But the vote was close. Five states--Connecticut, New Jersey, 
Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina--had voted ``aye''; four 
states--Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia--had voted 
``no''; while Massachusetts' four votes were equally divided. Thus, 
this momentous question had been decided by one vote!
  Without the Great Compromise, it is hard to see how the Federal 
Convention could have proceeded; since the beginning it had been cause 
for battle. The effort to resolve it, Luther Martin had written later, 
``nearly terminated in a dissolution of the Convention.'' Swords 
stacked upon swords and shields upon shields.
  The small states were jubilant over the compromise; the large states, 
alarmed, tried to reorganize, recover their position. The rules of the 
Convention would have let them reconsider the subject, but it was 
hopeless. The large states knew that they were beaten, and, after July 
17, they let the question die. From then on, matters moved more easily, 
the little states were more ready to meet the big states and were 
willing to yield on many questions. They felt safe, and they were no 
longer threatened by Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, to them, 
the towering bullies. Caleb Strong told his colleagues in Boston that 
the federal Convention had been ``nigh breaking up,'' but for the 
compromise. Luther Martin declared in Annapolis that even Dr. Franklin 
had only conceded to equality in the Senate when he found that no other 
terms would be accepted.
  Catherine Drinker Bowen, in her book, ``Miracle at Philadelphia,'' 
states that Madison ``in his old age sat down a clear testimony in 
letters to his friends. The threatened contest in the federal 
Convention, he said, had not turned, as most men supposed, on the 
degree of power to be granted to the central government but rather on 
`the rule by which the states should be represented and vote in the 
government'. They questioned `the most threatening that was encountered 
in framing the Constitution.' '' Those were Madison's words.
  Mr. President, we should thank Providence for this miraculous 
document. Let me hold it again in my hand. There it is, the 
Constitution of the United States. We should thank Providence because 
Providence had to smile upon this gathering of illustrious men. Never 
had such a gathering of men, a gathering of superior minds, taken place 
anywhere in the world. We should thank Providence for this document.
  One thing is clear: Without the Great Compromise, the Senate of the 
United States would not exist, for this body was conceived on that day 
214 years ago. In Philadelphia, when the Framers agreed to an upper 
house of Congress in which each State--small, like West Virginia, which 
did not exist then but very surely exists now--would have an equal 
number of votes, each State would have equal representation.
  The Senate is the forum that was born on that day. But for the Great 
Compromise, this beloved institution--the Senate--to which so many of 
us have dedicated our lives and our hopes and our reputations, our 
strength and our talents and our visions--might never have seen the 
light of day, let alone played an often pivotal and dramatic role in 
our national history over the course of more than two centuries.
  The Chamber in which we sit today owes its existence to that 
remarkable instance of compromise and conciliation.
  But for that Compromise, no Senator could wear the great title of 
Senator.
  It recalls to my mind Majorian, who, in the year 457 A.D. when he was 
made emperor of the west, said he was ``A prince who still glories in 
the name of `Senator.' '' None of us would be here today--the pages who 
are here, the Presiding Officer, the officers of the Senate--none of us 
would be here today. Thank God for the United States Senate. Thank God 
for the Great Compromise that was reached by the Framers on that day so 
long ago in Philadelphia.
  The Romans spoke of the SPQR--Senatus Populusque Romanus: The Senate 
and the Roman people. Let us today, looking back on that great victory 
of our Framers 214 years ago, think in those Roman terms about our own 
Republic--Senatus Populusque Americanus.
  Mr. REID. Before the Senator from West Virginia leaves the floor, I 
would like to say to him I watched most everything from my office and 
came to watch the finish.
  I remind the Senator, when you were the Democratic leader, you 
allowed this young freshman Senator to go to the 200th anniversary of 
the Great Compromise in Philadelphia. We took a train over there. I had 
just come from the House of Representatives. It was 1987, as I recall. 
It was a wonderful experience to do the reenactment. You brought back 
many memories.
  I say to my friend, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, 
presently many people in America are thinking about the Founding 
Fathers. The reason they are doing that is because of the great work 
David McCullough has written about John Adams, the forgotten President. 
It is on the best seller list. It is a straight history book, very well 
written. I still have about 70 or 80 pages to go. But as I said, he is 
a man to whom we have not, until now, paid much attention. He was the 
first Vice President, the person who became our second President. He 
was involved from the very beginning with the very difficult decisions 
made by this country. He spent 7 years of his life in Europe. He had 
never traveled at all. He traveled to Europe, trying to work out things 
during the Revolutionary War. It is a wonderful story.
  Truth is stranger than fiction. As the Senator from West Virginia has 
so well portrayed here today, every day we should be thankful, in 
whatever private time we have. We should think about how fortunate we 
are to be able to be part of this Government and especially to be part 
of this Senate, which was the Great Compromise.
  I extend my appreciation to my friend for reminding us of how 
fortunate, how blessed we are to be able to be part of this Senate and 
to represent the people from the various States we represent. To think, 
as a result of this Great Compromise, we have developed a country that 
is certainly imperfect but, based on this tiny little document--which, 
by the way, is signed by Robert C. Byrd--even though imperfect, is the 
finest set of standards, the finest country in the history of the world 
to rule the affairs of men and women.
  Again I express my deep appreciation to the Senator from West 
Virginia for tearing at my heart a little bit, recognizing what a real 
patriot is. The Senator from West Virginia exemplifies that.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his observations.
  He might well have sat in that gallery of men who debated, who 
disagreed, who compromised, who agreed, and who wrote that document. He 
cherishes it. He carries it in his pocket.
  Yes, I very well remember that occasion when we went to Philadelphia. 
Our friend, Senator Domenici, the Senator from New Mexico, was there 
that same day.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, sir.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I remember that day. I am glad we three were blessed, 
among others, in our being able to attend that celebration in the City 
of Brotherly Love, on that august occasion.
  The Senator's reference to David McCullough reminds me of what a 
great part women have played in the creation of this country. Senator 
Reid has mentioned John Adams. John Adams' best friend, his most 
trusted confident--and that is the way it should have been--was his 
wife, Abigail. Walt Whitman said:

       A man is a great thing upon the earth, and through 
     eternity--but every jot of the greatness of man is unfolded 
     out of woman.

  I am reading the book also. I have had three copies given to me, 
three copies of this new book by David McCullough, the book titled 
``John Adams.''
  He is, to a very considerable extent, in the shadows. Some years ago 
I read

[[Page 13291]]

his ``Thoughts On Government.'' He distributed these writings to the 
Framers at the convention in those critical days, and the Framers, I 
think, were wise in reading the words by Adams and I think their work, 
their work product, reflected the thoughts of John Adams.
  One of the great books I have read in my lifetime was ``The Path 
Between The Seas'' by David McCullough, about the Panama Canal. David 
McCullough was kind enough to send me a copy of the book. The Senator 
who delivered it to me also autographed it. That Senator was Ted 
Kennedy. So I prize that book. But I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield.
  I am glad you mentioned Abigail Adams for the wonderful letters the 
two of them wrote for each other. Here he was going to become President 
of the United States--he thought. He wasn't quite sure, you will find, 
as you get through the book. He wound up winning that election by three 
votes over Thomas Jefferson.
  The letters from the very beginning, from Abigail to John, are 
wonderful. I mean, you could put those letters together--I am sure we 
have only seen a few of them that David McCullough selected. But they 
were love letters. These two people were madly in love with each other 
from the time they started writing, when he went away to do his 
government stuff, clear across the ocean. They would wait months, 
sometimes, to get answers to letters they had written. But I was 
terribly struck by the letter she wrote to John Adams when he learned 
he was going to be President of the United States. In this letter she 
expressed her love for this man that she couldn't bear to be away from, 
and that they would be together soon.
  So you are absolutely right. John Adams could not have made it but 
for Abigail.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was present indeed at your invitation for that 
wonderful event. The reason I rise is to express to you what a great 
institution the Senate is, but the reason I say it to you is that over 
time you have, more than anyone else here, continually reminded people 
such as me what a great institution the Senate is. And you know, if you 
are not steeped in history, like I wasn't, or if you really didn't 
spend a lot of time other than in normal schooling on the 
constitutional framework, then you don't know about the heroes of the 
Senate. You may only know that the Senate is over there in Washington. 
But, essentially, when the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator 
from New Mexico, about 6 or 7 weeks ago got up on the floor and 
debated--I think the Senator from West Virginia wanted 3 hours and got 
3 hours--on the issue of whether the Budget Act of the United States, a 
statute, in this instance, changed the basic Jeffersonian rules of the 
Senate or not, which the Senate voted with this Senator saying it did--
50-49 is my recollection--I recall how passionate you were about 
reminding everyone what the rules of the Senate meant to the rights of 
the American people, to have their issues debated as long as the 
Senator, under the rules, could get them debated.
  Who would have thought that was an important thing, until you figure 
out what they really had in mind for the Senate.
  We are a very different institution than the House. Sometimes we get 
into arguments and deride each other--the House does this, the Senate 
does that, the upper and the lower, whatever the people say. But the 
truth is we are tied inextricably to the notion of there being 
sovereign States that make up America.
  As a Senator, you find a way to tie that into the Senate and what we 
do; to the fact that the States have a tremendous amount of authority 
and autonomy in the United States. That is the way it is and should be. 
You represent your State and I represent mine. In a very real sense, we 
are permitted to do that because of what our Founding Fathers 
sacrificed to put the Senate into this basic governance approach.
  Remind us, once again, of our origins and how important the Senate 
is, how much it was debated, of the great concern there was, and then 
to bring it current, as you do frequently, reminding us of what we are 
and who we are. I think it requires that somebody from way off in New 
Mexico congratulate you for how you do that.
  What you had to say about the Senate, not just today but over these 
years, will be for however long we exist and clearly will never be 
forgotten as part of our fabric.
  I am very pleased to be here as that fabric is woven by the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a long time ago, I was a boy in the coal 
fields of southern West Virginia. My coal miner dad bought a fiddle for 
me. There was a lad in that coal mining community named Emanuel 
Manchini. I remember that little boy and his family. In those coal 
camps were Hungarian families, Czechoslovakians, Germans, Scotch, 
Italians, and Greeks. This little boy, Emanuel Manchini, also had a 
fiddle. We took lessons together at the high school.
  So I have often listened to and looked at my friend here--this man of 
Roman stock. My, what a heritage he has. I don't know where his 
forbears may have originated--whether it was in the Apennines 
Mountains, or along the shore of the Tyrrhenian Sea, or the Adriatic or 
the Po Valleys, or on the boot of Italy. But there were stalwart people 
in that Roman Senate. I often speak to Senator Domenici about the Roman 
Senate; what a great Senate.
  Again, I refer to Majorian, the Emperor of the West in 457 A.D. As he 
was being made Emperor, he said he was ``a prince who still glories in 
the name of `Senator'.''
  I thank the Senator for his reminiscing time. I also thank the 
Senator from Nevada. I have been blessed by serving with both of these 
Senators.

                          ____________________