Pros And Cons Of Compromise

U2Q3T6
In Federalist Papers 2 and 3 Publius asserted that “nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government.” Publius recognized that the basic nature of government, consistent with Locke’s natural rights philosophy, is compromise; regardless of how “it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.” Publius saw benefits to the delegates creating compromises that “would conduce more to the interest of the people” since the many delegates, “being convened from different parts of the country...brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information.” Each delegate, coming to the convention, “carried into it their accumulated knowledge
and experience.” Publuis felt that this was advantageous because the Constitution would be sensitive to the many opinions and situations that the delegates represented, assuring the best possible outcome. Without the consideration of loyal opposition, pride would hinder states and delegates from “acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses.” The consideration of multiple viewpoints leading up to a compromise would ensure the creation of a government that would protect “the safety of the people.” Compromise would facilitate the creation of a new government, avoiding a stalemate which would leave the country vulnerable to “hostilities from abroad.”
Unlike Publius’s positive view on compromise, many delegates to the Philadelphia Convention debating slavery felt refusing to compromise would yield the greatest advantages.
Delegates with the strongest opposition to slavery, Martin, Mason, Dickenson, and Randolph, held that it was “inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution.” Dickenson believed any compromise allowing “the importation of slaves… [to] be authorized to the States by the Constitution” would jeopardize the “honor and safety” of the country. These delegates felt so strongly on the topic that they were unwilling to compromise, and would “sooner risk the constitution” than agree to permit slavery or let it go untaxed. Of those four men only one signed the Constitution, clearly demonstrating their reluctance to compromise. Those advocating states’ rights in regards to slavery held an equally unmovable position, and believed that “we [the delegates] had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to Slaves,” that right should be reserved to the states. A few of these delegates felt that in time “they will themselves cease to import slaves,” but the federal government had no power “to force anything down, not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.” They saw the attempts to control or abolish the slave trade as infringing on states’ rights; therefore, they would not agree to a compromise for fear of setting the precedent for an officious federal
government.