To their contentions, Randolph of Virginia replied:  “When the salvation of the republic is at stake, it would be treason to our trust not to propose what we find necessary.”  Hamilton, reminding the delegates that their work was still subject to the approval of the states, frankly said that on the point of their powers he had no scruples.  With the issue clear, the convention cast aside the Articles as if they did not exist and proceeded to the work of drawing up a new constitution, “laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form” as to the delegates seemed “most likely to affect their safety and happiness.”

=A Government Founded on States or on People?—­The Compromise.=—­Defeated in their attempt to limit the convention to a mere revision of the Articles, the spokesmen of the smaller states redoubled their efforts to preserve the equality of the states.  The signal for a radical departure from the Articles on this point was given early in the sessions when Randolph presented “the Virginia plan.”  He proposed that the new national legislature consist of two houses, the members of which were to be apportioned among the states according to their wealth or free white population, as the convention might decide.  This plan was vehemently challenged.  Paterson of New Jersey flatly avowed that neither he nor his state would ever bow to such tyranny.  As an alternative, he presented “the New Jersey plan” calling for a national legislature of one house representing states as such, not wealth or people—­a legislature in which all states, large or small, would have equal voice.  Wilson of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the more populous states, took up the gauntlet which Paterson had thrown down.  It was absurd, he urged, for 180,000 men in one state to have the same weight in national counsels as 750,000 men in another state.  “The gentleman from New Jersey,” he said, “is candid.  He declares his opinion boldly....  I will be equally candid....  I will never confederate on his principles.”  So the bitter controversy ran on through many exciting sessions.

Greek had met Greek.  The convention was hopelessly deadlocked and on the verge of dissolution, “scarce held together by the strength of a hair,” as one of the delegates remarked.  A crash was averted only by a compromise.  Instead of a Congress of one house as provided by the Articles, the convention agreed upon a legislature of two houses.  In the Senate, the aspirations of the small states were to be satisfied, for each state was given two members in that body.  In the formation of the House of Representatives, the larger states were placated, for it was agreed that the members of that chamber were to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population, counting three-fifths of the slaves.