The european thinkers of the enlightenment were a heavy inspiration on the Framers’ thinking during the convention mainly through these ideas: popular sovereignty, natural rights, social contract and limited powers.

**The Connecticut Compromise** took place on July 16, 1787 and was a proposal by the delegates Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, and Oliver Ellsworth, which submitted a **suggestion to the convention about the formation of the government**. It was instrumental in creating a political structure that provided equal representation of each state in the Congress.

Among other important matters, the compromise was presented to end a dispute between the two opposing parties who did not agree on the structure of the government: New Jersey and Virginia. The compromise proposed that the Congress should be divided into a dual system of representation of the States. The **Congress was divided into two houses**, **the smaller Senate and the House**, and in this way all the states would have an equal chance at representation. The smaller Senate would provide all states with equal representation, while the House would offer the States a population-based representation. There was always a sense of the smaller States trailing and being left out, but in this way the smaller States were satisfied as they would be given an equal chance in the central government. This was significant because it allowed the Congress to overcome a major disagreement over the structure of the government that desperately needed to be resolved in order for the Constitution to be solidified.

The Connecticut Compromise was a stepping stone for future of the new government because it allowed the Congress to overcome a difference of opinion so that it could agree on the same terms that were favorable to all of the States, therefore the Constitution and **the new government** could be **properly constructed**.

The American founding documents are implemented and are the basis of the U.S. government to this day. The documents’ foundation, ideals, and principles draw their reasons from Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Jean Rousseau, Baron de Montesquieu, and William Blackstone. Thinkers were driven people who aimed to contribute to and configure a system with principles that is functional. **The democratic functional system implies theories of popular sovereignty, social contract, checks and balances, and these were the man who argued and believed in such.**

**John Locke** argued that it is only right that the sovereignty rests in the people, which means that the government should be governed by the consent of its people and should be for the people who are protected by the law. This was backed with the idea of natural human rights that belong to all human beings. The founding documents created by the framers are based on the principles of **the social contract and natural rights** that justify popular sovereignty and personal freedoms. Therefore, they are crucial to a healthy running system.

**Jean Rousseau**, like Locke, argued and believed the government should be based on **the social contract theory**. However, Rousseau parted ways with the rest of the framers on slavery, and **he was an abolitionist**, unlike most. It is safe to say the Constitution today is greatly influenced by the principles Rousseau argued because they are of ethical thinking ahead of that time. By taking the ideas of **human freedom and equality** to apply them to the political system, his influence would come to full effect only later, as the other framers supported slavery which today is unacceptable.

**Baron de Montesquieu** was responsible for making the popular sovereignty function by introducing **checks and balances**. It ensures the government keeps the power in people’s hands because the branches (separation of power) check each other. Therefore the government cannot become powerful enough to suppress its people.

**William Blackstone** was an English commentator of the English laws. He believed that there is no human law above a natural law that belongs to everyone. He also simplified the idea of **the common law** that is of great importance to **the legislative branch**. The common law helps maintain a healthy legislative decision-making process that serves the purpose of justice for the people in the big picture. The American government followed through with his famously known commentaries of the English government based on principles as stated above.

The principles of the Enlightenment thinkers influenced the American founding documents in a great margin as the creation of the government based on **the founding documents that revolved around those same principles stated and argued by the Enlightenment thinkers.**

**The common element** in two debates at the convention was **slavery**. There was no part of the Articles that addressed slavery, each of the states could decide whether they will legalize it or forbid it. Nor were there laws that define slavery trade and taxation. Slavery was an important issue that concerned all the states that needed to be resolved. The Articles of Confederation could be adjusted, and the union between the states strengthened. The convention did not have the power to define slavery to be right or wrong.

Many slaves were living in the states during the times of 1787. with most of them living in the southern states. The debate regarded a **question of population representation in Congress** so all the states can get an equal chance to participate in the government. However, when the representation in Congress is population-based, who should be counted? Should free people only be counted, or would slaves be counted as the population as well?

Some of the delegates argued that slaves were people and should be counted like everyone else. Some argued that slaves are property and cannot be counted as a population for representation in Congress. On the other hand, part of the delegate wanted to free all slaves as they believed it was immoral and brought nothing good in the big picture for the states.The southern states favored slaves being counted for representation of population because many of their inhabitants were slaves, and that way, the southern states would ensure a better representation in Congress. The so-called **”three-fifths rule” compromise** was made that five slaves would be counted as three people.

Deciding **whether slaves were people or property** would affect taxes and further development of the states, so this was an essential part of the debate. Southern states proposed to **ban slavery tax exports**, while some states argued that it is not favorable for the national government. There was also a **proposal for not banning slavery**, and that was settled by not allowing any law to ban the slave trade before 1808.

It was hard to oppose slavery and ban it entirely because states were making money and had benefited from slaves. Thus, the convention would probably fail if slavery was banned. Therefore, the states had to settle a compromise for the sake of all the states.

Slavery was a common element in the two key debates, and it affected governmental laws on the **slavery trade and taxes** and the question of **whether slaves should be counted for state population-based representation in Congress.**

The given quote is from one of *the Brutus essays* presented as an argument against federalism. *Anti-Federalists* believed that the representation system of the Constitution would tend to lean towards corruption, as the central government would have too much power.

The Anti-Federalists believed that if all three branches of the governmental system were **located within a single federal city**, it would come with consequences for the officials, as they would be set apart from their constituents. In a federal government, Anti-Federalists argued that six years is too long of a time for a man to be absent from the government he represents. They would likely forget about the state that brought them and would eventually feel unaware of their interest.

**This quote** is a part of an argument coming from **Anti-Federalist**. It suggests that serving six years in a central government is a period that is too long for an official to be absent from his home. The official would likely become **disconnected from his representative state constituents** and perhaps become **indifferent to his personal interest**.