Both plans involved how the new Constitution would define representation in Congress. The Virginia Plan proposed that the number of delegates be based upon population, thus favoring larger states with more people. The New Jersey Plan proposed that each state have an equal number of delegates, thus favoring smaller states with fewer people.
Under the Virginia Plan, a state like Virginia would have had a much greater say in Congress than smaller New Jersey since Virginia had a larger population. Under the New Jersey Plan, New Jerseyans would have had a disproportionate say relative to Virginians. Consider this, if each state had two delegates (under the NJ Plan) let's say New Jersey had 500,000 people and Virginia had 1,000,000 (not the real numbers). With two delegates, New Jersey would have had 1 say in Congress per 250,000 voters while Virginia would have had 1 say in Congress per 500,000 voters.
These differences were resolved by creating a bicameral legislature. Today, the House of Representatives is a remnant of the Virginia Plan. States with larger populations have more seats in the House than those with smaller populations. For example, California has far more Representatives than Wyoming meaning California has a much greater say in the House. The Senate, on the other hand, is a remnant of the New Jersey Plan. Each state has two Senators regardless of population, which means each state has an equal say. Again, California has two Senators and Wyoming has two Senators despite the fact that California is much larger than Wyoming - this gives Wyoming a much greater say per voters than California. No law can pass through Congress without approval from both chambers of Congress, which means that smaller states are not overpowered, while larger states still have the ability to set the agenda.
Explanation:
<em>In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights. ... One faction opposed the Constitution because they thought stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states.</em>
At the end of the 19th century, about a third of Americans worked in agriculture, compared to only about four percent today. After the Civil War, drought, plagues of grasshoppers, boll weevils, rising costs, falling prices, and high interest rates made it increasingly difficult to make a living as a farmer. In the South, one third of all landholdings were operated by tenants. Approximately 75 percent of African American farmers and 25 percent of white farmers tilled land owned by someone else.
Every year, the prices farmers received for their crops seemed to fall. Corn fell from 41 cents a bushel in 1874 to 30 cents by 1897. Farmers made less money planting 24 million acres of cotton in 1894 than they did planting 9 million acres in 1873. Facing high interests rates of upwards of 10 percent a year, many farmers found it impossible to pay off their debts. Farmers who could afford to mechanize their operations and purchase additional land could successfully compete, but smaller, more poorly financed farmers, working on small plots marginal land, struggled to survive.
Many farmers blamed railroad owners, grain elevator operators, land monopolists, commodity futures dealers, mortgage companies, merchants, bankers, and manufacturers of farm equipment for their plight. Many attributed their problems to discriminatory railroad rates, monopoly prices charged for farm machinery and fertilizer, an oppressively high tariff, an unfair tax structure, an inflexible banking system, political corruption, corporations that bought up huge tracks of land. They considered themselves to be subservient to the industrial Northeast, where three-quarters of the nation's industry was located. They criticized a deflationary monetary policy based on the gold standard that benefited bankers and other creditors.
All of these problems were compounded by the fact that increasing productivity in agriculture led to price declines. In the 1870s, 190 million new acres were put under cultivation. By 1880, settlement was moving into the semi-arid plains. At the same time, transportation improvements meant that American farmers faced competitors from Egypt to Australia in the struggle for markets.
The first major rural protest was the Patrons of Husbandry, which was founded in 1867 and had 1.5 million members by 1875. Known as the Granger Movement, these embattled farmers formed buying and selling cooperatives and demanded state regulation of railroad rates and grain elevator fees.
Early in the 1870s the Greenback Party agitated for the issue of paper money, not backed by gold or silver, with the idea that a depreciating currency would make it easier for debtors to meet their obligations.
Another wave of protest grew out of the National Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union (the Southern Farmers Alliance) formed in Lampedusa County, Texas in 1875, and the Northwestern Farmers' Alliance, founded in Chicago in 1880. By the late 1880s, the cooperative business enterprises set up by the Farmers' Alliances had begun to fail due to inadequate capitalization and mismanagement. By 1890, the Farmers Alliances had begun to enter politics. In 1892 the Alliance formed the Peoples' or Populist Party. Among other things, the Populists financed commodity credit system that would have allowed farmers to store their crop in a federal warehouse to await favorable market prices and meanwhile borrow up to 80 percent of the current market price.
Answer:
The fall of the Berlin Wall/end of the Cold War
Explanation:
On November 9, 1989, as the Cold War began to thaw across Eastern Europe, the spokesman for East Berlin’s Communist Party announced a change in his city’s relations with the West. Starting at midnight that day, he said, citizens of the GDR were free to cross the country’s borders. East and West Berliners flocked to the wall, drinking beer and champagne and chanting “Tor auf!” (“Open the gate!”). At midnight, they flooded through the checkpoints.
More than 2 million people from East Berlin visited West Berlin that weekend to participate in a celebration that was, one journalist wrote, “the greatest street party in the history of the world.” People used hammers and picks to knock away chunks of the wall–they became known as “mauerspechte,” or “wall woodpeckers”—while cranes and bulldozers pulled down section after section. Soon the wall was gone and Berlin was united for the first time since 1945. “Only today,” one Berliner spray-painted on a piece of the wall, “is the war really over.”
cite: https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/berlin-wall
Based on what little information that I have read, it is a
debate about what is easier: Voting or
buying a gun? These are very sensitive
issues but there is very little information on how to answer this. Still, what
matters here is that voters do the right thing.
