Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Virginia Plan and New Jersey Plan

No description
by

Samera Taki

on 6 November 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Virginia Plan and New Jersey Plan

Virginia Plan and New Jersey Plan While creating the federal government in the Constitutional Convention, many conflicts and topics were discussed, and many propositions were made. Two suggestions were the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. Both plans differed in several ways. State issues were a considerable factor in the debate over the federal government's structure. Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia, proposed a new federal constitution that would give sovereignty to a central government. The central government would have three branches: Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, with checks and balances to ensure equal power. The executive branch would have a leader who would run the government. The judicial branch would be headed by a Supreme Court and would ensure laws were constitutional and appropriately obeyed. The legislature would be bicameral and would make laws. The House of Representatives members would be elected by the people and the Senate members would be elected by the House of Representatives. The number of members per state for both houses would be based on each state’s population. Larger states have larger populations, which means more representatives and more votes in Congress, and therefore more power in the central government. Smaller states’ delegates thought larger states would have too much power. These plans were for a national government, supreme over all states, in which many strongly disagreed or agreed. William Paterson proposed a federal government with power to tax citizens from all states and regulate commerce. It was planned to keep the larger states from gaining too much power. The legislature would be unicameral with several executive authorities. Each state would have an equal number of representatives and therefore votes and voice in the central government. The New Jersey Plan was also called the Small-State Plan. Larger states thought this unfair as they had bigger populations and therefore more people concerned. Great Compromise
!!!! It took the Virginia Plan’s idea of a bicameral legislature of an upper Senate and lower House of Representatives.
Also from the Virginia Plan, it was decided that the number of representatives per state is based on each state’s population in the House of Representatives. From the New Jersey Plan, it was decided the number of representatives per state is equal in the Senate, with the amount being 2. What is each plan’s design for a government system? How did state issues lead to debate over the structure of the central government? Many delegates attended the Constitutional Convention to develop the policies of the new federal government. Edmund Randolph was a Virginia delegate who proposed the Virginia Plan at the Constitutional Convention. William Paterson was a New Jersey delegate who proposed the New Jersey Plan at the Constitutional Convention. The lower house would be the House of Representatives and the upper house would be the Senate. Together the two houses would make up Congress. By: Samera Taki and Nicole Somerville
Period 6 Southern states' economies depended on agriculture and slaves. Northern states' economies depended on manufacturing. Some other issues in the structure of the federal government were if an aristocratic, privileged, wealthy group or common people group would govern, in which case they would not be fair or able to handle the job. Middle states' economies depended on a balanced mixture of both agriculture and manufacturing. Some Constitutional Convention members wanted small edits to Articles of Confederation. Others wanted to rewrite it. Delegates from different sized states disagreed on representation, economic concerns like tariffs, slavery, and the strength of the central government. Northern and southern states also conflicted with decisions. More delegates from the north were in the House of Representatives than from the south.
Since the House of Representatives had the power to tax US imports and exports, the northern members majority could vote to tax the exports the southern states produced, like tobacco, rice, and indigo. They could also vote slavery off, which was a necessary factor in the functioning of the southern states’ economies. The slavery disagreement was settled over an agreement that the northern states would continue the slave trade until 1808, southern states would stop demanding a two-thirds vote of both Houses to pass commercial regulations, and no one would need to pay over ten dollars in tax when buying a slave. Southern states’ economies depended on agriculture and slaves, northern states’ economies depended on manufacturing, and middle states’ economies depended on a mixture of the two. All states questioned if the federal government would benefit them and their economies. The delegates could not agree on where the federal government would be located, so they left the decision to Congress. Some delegates disliked the phrase, “We the People,” that begins the Constitution and how it seemed to rid the states of their individual identities. The combination of the Virginia and New Jersey Plans made the Great Compromise. Some delegates could not tolerate the absence of the Bill of Rights and did not sign the document. The absence of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution kept some delegates from signing the document. Some delegates disliked the famous beginning phrase of the constitution because it seemed to rid the states of their individual identities. The Virginia and New Jersey Plans were held accountable for their faults as well as their benefits. Both made up the significant Great Compromise. State issues led to debate over the central government's structure. Some disputes were between smaller and larger states, while other disputes were between northern and southern states. The individual states' sizes and economies led to many arguments. These brought up considerable points that were clarified to be useful and clear for the rest of America's generations. http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/virginia-plan/ http://www.wpunj.edu/university/history/WilliamPaterson_Bio.dot STUDY GUIDE


1. What was the New Jersey Plan's design for a government system?

2. What was the Virginia Plan's design for a government system?

3.What were the three branches of central government?

4. Which plan appealed more to smaller states?


TRUE OR FALSE:

1. The judicial branch would be led by a supreme court.

2. The Virginia Plan was made to prevent larger states from gaining too much power.

3. In the Virginia Plan, the legislative branch would have one house.

4. In the Great Compromise, each state was given equal representation in the Senate.

5. After the Great Compromise, the House of Representatives would have representation according to population.

6. Larger states would have more power in the central government with the Virginia Plan. Bibliography http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/creation/framing/va_nj_plans.html http://teacher.sduhsd.net/tpsocialsciences/american_govt/virg_njplans.htm Deverell, William Francis., and White Deborah G. Holt United States History. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2006. Print. Fritz, Jean, and DePaola Tomie. Shh! We're Writing the Constitution. New York: Putnam, 1987. Print.
Full transcript