1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
MrMuchimi
3 years ago
6

What was a major obstacle to drafting a new constitution at the Constitutional Convention of 1787?

History
1 answer:
arsen [322]3 years ago
4 0

Answer: A. a disagreement between the states over representation in Congress.

The main disagreement was over whether representation would be the same for all states, or based on a state's population size.  Then there was also a question, for basing representation on population size, about whether slaves counted in a state's population or not.

The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise were worked out during the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787 in order to resolve these issues.

  • The Great Compromise resolved a dispute between small population states and large population states.  Initially, a unicameral (one-chamber) legislature was envisioned.  The large population states wanted representation in Congress to be based on a state's population size.  The smaller states feared this would lead to unchecked dominance by the big states; they wanted all states to receive the same amount of representation.  The Great Compromise created a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature.  Representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population.  In the Senate, all states would have the same amount of representation, by two Senators.
  • The Three-Fifths Compromise was a way of accounting (somewhat) for the population of slaves in states that permitted slavery.  For taxation and representation purposes, the question was whether slaves should count in the population figures.  (They were not considered voting citizens at that time.)   The Three-Fifths Compromise said that three out of every five slaves could be counted when determining a state's population size for determining how many seats that state would receive in the House of Representatives.
You might be interested in
Please Help Me I will give brainiest!!!
nordsb [41]
That's a lot of questions!  You need not give me the "brainliest," as I may only respond to a couple of those points for the sake of time here.

#2 in your list:  In Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said:  "Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy."  In other words, if states could choose to secede from the union, then there was really no union and no government.  (Anarchy is the absence of government.)  Only if we abide by the constitutional checks we place on ourselves in a democratic republic are we exercising genuine government.  Otherwise, we fall into chaos or some sort of dictatorial state.  Lincoln felt that the whole concept of self-government was at stake, threatened by the South's desire to secede. Lincoln had to treat the secession of several states as an act of rebellion.

#5 in your list (closely related to #2):  The states that had seceded already had caused the civil war, in Lincoln's estimation.  The northern states had to respond to hold the union together.  The southern states claimed to be afraid for their property, peace and safety with an administration like Lincoln's in charge.  But Lincoln saw those fears as unfounded, that all states would continue to enjoy their constitutional privileges. But seceding from the union cut them off from all stability and security.


5 0
3 years ago
What do you think life would be like without a government
vampirchik [111]

Answer: The central government usually makes us abide by much rules. That concluding could be a good thing depending on how you look at that situation, without rules there is no stable economy, that being said will most likely turn into chaos and create problems and bad environment.

Explanation: ...

3 0
2 years ago
Please Help ASAP how can you tell the difference between a primary and a secondary source
Ksju [112]
A primary source is from someone who was apart of the event that’s being sourced, such as a holocaust survivor recounting the events of the holocaust, or someone who witnessed a murder. A secondary source would be someone sharing the primary source, such as a newspaper or a book! Hope this helps!
6 0
3 years ago
Write a sentence about the Constitutional Convention that uses both of these terms. a. proportional b. compromise
Vsevolod [243]
A sentence that uses both give words is:
<span>The Constitutional Convention is a compromise that involves proportional agreements.
</span>
I hope that this is the answer that you were looking for and it has helped you.
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Texas v. Johnson both involved restrictions on free speech based purely on national security.
valentinak56 [21]
<span>national security.
content.
defamation.
libel.</span>
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • How much did Birmingham grow because of the industrial revolution
    5·1 answer
  • What was the foriegn-born population<br> Of Michigan in 1910
    12·1 answer
  • Sometime after the year 2000 B.C., a group of people known as the Aryans invaded parts of modern-day India. They came from an ar
    12·2 answers
  • Explain how the Cold War impacted American culture.
    8·1 answer
  • What two events sparked the exploration of Europe
    7·1 answer
  • Why didn’t Eastern European nations benefit from the Marshall Plan?
    13·1 answer
  • What was the main effect of the Jim Crow system?
    13·1 answer
  • Please answer 40 points and brainliest to who ever answer first. Read the passage from a founding document of the Virginia colon
    11·1 answer
  • Which of this goes in INCOME GAP.​
    15·1 answer
  • Identify the difference in plant domestication between Mesopotamia and
    6·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!