Supporters of the New Jersey Plan
The New Jersey Plan, also known as the Small State Plan or the Paterson Plan, was one of the most consequential proposals debated during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. While the Virginia Plan dominated the early discussions at Philadelphia, the New Jersey Plan emerged as a powerful counterproposal championed by delegates who feared that the interests of smaller states would be swallowed up by larger, more populous ones. Understanding who supported the New Jersey Plan — and why — is essential to understanding how the United States Constitution came into existence.
Honestly, this part trips people up more than it should.
What Was the New Jersey Plan?
Before exploring the supporters, it — worth paying attention to. Introduced on June 15, 1787, by William Paterson of New Jersey, the plan called for:
- A unicameral legislature in which every state, regardless of size or population, would have equal representation (one vote per state).
- A plural executive elected by Congress, rather than a single strong president.
- The power to tax and regulate commerce granted to Congress.
- A supreme court appointed by the executive.
- Preservation of the Articles of Confederation framework, with targeted reforms rather than a wholesale replacement.
The plan was a direct response to the Virginia Plan, which proposed a bicameral legislature with representation based on population — a structure that would have given large states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts a commanding advantage in the new government.
Key Supporters of the New Jersey Plan
William Paterson — The Architect
William Paterson was the primary author and most vocal advocate of the New Jersey Plan. A distinguished lawyer and former attorney general of New Jersey, Paterson understood the legal and political dangers of unchecked majoritarian rule. He argued that the small states had entered the Articles of Confederation as sovereign equals and that any new governing framework had to preserve that foundational principle. Paterson's speech on June 16, 1787, is considered one of the most important orations in American constitutional history. He reminded the Convention that small states would never agree to a plan that reduced them to permanent minorities.
The New Jersey Delegation
Paterson did not stand alone. The entire New Jersey delegation stood firmly behind the plan:
- William Livingston, the governor of New Jersey and the oldest delegate at the Convention, lent his considerable prestige to the cause.
- David Brearley was an outspoken advocate for state equality and later played a key role in brokering compromises.
- Jonathan Dayton, the youngest delegate at the Convention at just 26 years old, supported the plan with the conviction of his small-state constituency behind him.
- William Churchill Houston, though often ill during the proceedings, aligned with the small-state position.
New Jersey's unified front was critical in ensuring the plan received serious consideration That's the part that actually makes a difference. That's the whole idea..
The Delaware Delegation
Delaware's delegates were among the most resolute supporters of equal representation. Delaware was one of the smallest states in the Union, and its delegates were under strict instructions never to agree to proportional representation. Key figures included:
- John Dickinson, a highly respected elder statesman who had also signed the Declaration of Independence. Dickinson warned that abandoning state equality would tear the union apart.
- George Read was willing to entertain some elements of the Virginia Plan but only if small-state interests were protected.
- Gunning Bedford Jr. delivered one of the most passionate speeches of the Convention, declaring that the small states might be forced to seek foreign alliances if their rights were trampled by the larger states.
- Jacob Broom and Richard Bassett also aligned with the small-state coalition.
Bedford's fiery rhetoric was particularly memorable. He accused large-state delegates of seeking to dominate the small states and declared that the small states had the right to walk away from any agreement they found unacceptable But it adds up..
The Connecticut Delegation
Connecticut's delegates occupied a unique middle ground, and their eventual role in crafting the Great Compromise made them central figures. Still, during the early debates, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth showed strong sympathy for the New Jersey Plan's principle of state equality. Sherman, in particular, argued that the Convention had no authority to abolish the existing states and that a national legislature needed to represent states as distinct political communities.
Luther Martin of Maryland
Luther Martin of Maryland was one of the most colorful and passionate supporters of the New Jersey Plan. A brilliant but combative lawyer, Martin spoke for nearly five hours on June 27, 1787, defending state sovereignty and attacking the Virginia Plan as a threat to the liberties of smaller states. He believed that preserving the sovereignty of individual states was essential to protecting individual liberty, and he viewed any move toward a powerful centralized government with suspicion And that's really what it comes down to..
The New York Delegation (Partially)
New York's delegation was divided. **John Lansing Jr.Now, ** and Robert Yates, both staunch Anti-Federalists, sided with the small-state coalition and supported elements of the New Jersey Plan. They feared that a strong national government with proportional representation would erode state power. Still, Alexander Hamilton held very different views and favored an even stronger central government than the Virginia Plan proposed. Hamilton's position isolated him from both the Virginia and New Jersey camps for much of the debate Practical, not theoretical..
Why Did They Support the New Jersey Plan?
The supporters of the New Jersey Plan were motivated by several deeply held convictions:
Fear of Tyranny by the Majority
Small-state delegates understood that proportional representation would create a permanent legislative majority made up of delegates from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and a few other large states. They feared this majority could pass laws that disadvantaged smaller states without any recourse Most people skip this — try not to..
Commitment to State Sovereignty
Many supporters, particularly Luther Martin and John Dickinson, believed that the states were sovereign entities that had voluntarily entered into the Articles of Confederation. They argued that no plan should diminish the equal standing of the states in the new government It's one of those things that adds up. Which is the point..
Protecting Individual Liberty
Small-state delegates believed that state governments were closer to the people and more responsive to local needs. They worried that a powerful national government with proportional representation would become distant and unaccountable, threatening the rights of ordinary citizens.
Legal and Constitutional Principles
William Paterson and others argued that the Convention had been
had been called to revise the Articles of Confederation, not to abandon them entirely. They argued that the Convention's mandate was limited and that any new constitution should preserve the essential features of the existing confederation while addressing its weaknesses The details matter here..
The Great Compromise Emerges
As the debate intensified, it became clear that neither the Virginia Plan nor the New Jersey Plan alone could command a majority. On July 16, 1787, James Madison proposed a compromise that would combine elements of both plans: bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the House of Representatives and equal representation in the Senate. This "Great Compromise" began to take shape through lengthy negotiations.
The key insight was that large states could accept equal representation in one chamber if smaller states agreed to proportional representation in the other. This dual approach satisfied neither side completely but provided a framework that could win broad support.
Luther Martin's Dramatic Exit
In a memorable moment that illustrated the passionate divisions, Luther Martin left the Convention in protest after the Committee of Detail began drafting language that seemed to move toward Madison's compromise. Martin claimed that the delegates were secretly working against the interests of smaller states and declared that he would rather return to the Articles of Confederation than accept what he saw as a Virginia plot to dominate the nation Less friction, more output..
The Path Forward
By late July, the outlines of a new government began to emerge. The bicameral legislature gained acceptance, along with other compromises on executive power, judicial structure, and federalism. The New Jersey Plan's emphasis on state equality found expression in the Senate, while the Virginia Plan's vision of proportional representation shaped the House.
The success of the Great Compromise demonstrated that the Convention's delegates were willing to transcend their initial positions when faced with the necessity of forming a working government. Still, the result was a hybrid system that preserved elements both of state sovereignty and national unity, creating what one observer called "a government of mixed principles, in which the contrary powers are so mingled... that they will counterpoise and control each other.
It sounds simple, but the gap is usually here Simple, but easy to overlook..
Conclusion
The debate between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan at the Constitutional Convention revealed fundamental disagreements about the nature of American government that would define the nation's early identity. While the Virginia Plan's advocates envisioned a strong, unified national government capable of addressing the confederation's weaknesses, their opponents saw such centralization as a threat to liberty itself.
The resolution of this conflict through compromise created a unique constitutional structure that balanced competing interests. The separation of powers between branches of government, the federal system dividing authority between national and state governments, and the bicameral legislature all emerged from the recognition that American democracy required mechanisms for managing disagreement rather than eliminating it Simple, but easy to overlook. Still holds up..
When all is said and done, the New Jersey Plan's advocates achieved significant victories despite losing the broader strategic battle. Their insistence on equal state representation ensured that small states would retain an important voice in national affairs, while their warnings about concentrated power contributed to the checks and balances that characterize American governance today. The Constitution that emerged from Philadelphia reflected not just the wisdom of its framers, but the messy, contentious process through which thirteen former colonies learned to govern themselves as one nation.
