Connecticut Compromisers: Oliver Ellsworth

Since the Great Compromise is also called the Connecticut Compromise, and since Connecticut to this day calls itself the Constitution State because of its critical role in negotiating that compromise, what about the Connecticut delegates?   The Connecticut delegation showed a certain ambivalence on the subject.   When the New Jersey Plan was first introduced, Oliver Ellsworth moved to retain the legislative power in “Congress,” i.e., the old Continental Congress under the Articles, which would have meant that he supported the New Jersey Plan.  Three days later, a vote was taken which plan to adopt and Connecticut broke ranks with the small states and supported the Virginia Plan, effectively dooming the New Jersey Plan.  Yet the very next day Roger Sherman (another Connecticut delegate) was seconding and Connecticut supporting yet another motion to vest all powers in “Congress,” which sounded very much like backsliding to the New Jersey Plan.  At this point, the New Jersey Plan was taken off the table and Connecticut could begin its role in establishing the Connecticut Compromise.

 Ellsworth began by proposing to drop the inflammatory word “national” from the Virginia Plan and simply say “of the United States.”  When the issue of representation in the lower house came up, Connecticut voted to keep representation by states, but when the proposal was defeated, Ellsworth said he was not sorry on the whole.  He proposed conceding proportional representation in the lower house as a ground for compromise with regard to the upper house, which would have representation by states.  

We are partly national; partly federal.  The proportional representation in the first branch was conformable to the national principle & would secure the large States agst the small.  An equality of voices was conformable to the federal principle  & would secure the Small States agst the large. 

The New England states other than Massachusetts might split from the U.S. if not given an equal voice.  The large states’ size alone would give them greater weight despite equality in the Senate; the small states needed equal representation in the Senate to protect themselves.  It would be easier for large states to combine against small ones than vice versa.  Although he favored a stronger government, he warned against attempting too much lest all be lost.  Ellsworth argued that equal representation in the Senate would not unjustly allow the minority to thwart the will of the majority; the minority needed to protect itself from the might of the majority, just as the House of Lords in England protected its own special interest from the majority.  He also appealed to the states’ good faith under the Articles of Confederation to allow all states an equal voice.  

Ellsworth was thus a leading advocate of the Great Compromise.  When Morris and King proposed the final form of that compromise, that each state have an equal number of Senators, but that they vote as individuals instead of by states, Ellsworth made the conciliatory remark that he had always approved of voting in that mode.

Unlike Dickinson and Franklin, Ellsworth was not generally a nationalist by inclination, and even after the Great Compromise was reached, Connecticut remained one of the most skeptical states about increasing federal power.  He wanted the national legislature to have only a few great, national objects and believed that a federal veto of all states laws would be so slow and awkward that it would require federally appointed state governors.*  He opposed allowing federal intervention in state rebellions without an invitation from the state, although he would allow the state executive to make the invitation if the legislature were unable to meet He also opposed giving the general government authority to make rules for the militia unless in actual federal service or if states neglected their militias, saying that without their militias states would “pine away to nothing.”  Giving the general government over a part of the militia would merely weaken the rest of it, and the people of different states would never submit to the same discipline.  Alternately, he would allow a common rule of discipline, so long as the states were the ones to actually carry it out.  His views on pay for the national legislature changed over time.  At first he favored pay by states, since the general scale of pay was different in different states.  He later proposed having at least the Senate paid by the states so they would have confidence in the Senate.  In the end, however, he decided that payment by the states would make Congress too dependent on them and that legislators should be paid from the national treasury.  Finally, he believed that ratification should be by state legislatures instead of by conventions.  He granted that if any state legislature considered itself incompetent to ratify the Constitution, it could call a convention instead, but he did not trust conventions.  If legislatures were competent to ratify the Articles of Confederation and all subsequent changes to it, why not the Constitution, which he regarded as a compact among states.

            Oliver Ellsworth had gone home by the end of the convention and so was not present to sign.  However, he was one of the strongest supporters of ratification and wrote a series of articles under the pseudonym of Landholder that were considered some of the best arguments in favor of the Constitution.

___________________________

*It was in response to this comment that Charles Pinckney said he did think state executives should be federally appointed,