Practical guide
Virginia Plan vs Constitution: Compare the June 1787 Revised Draft
The Virginia Plan page at the National Archives displays the revised June 13, 1787 resolutions, not Randolph’s missing May 29 original. Compare that identified draft with the original signed Constitution: their legislative terms, Senate representation and executive selection differ.
Name the June revision before comparing it
Edmund Randolph presented the Virginia Plan on May 29, 1787; the National Archives attributes its main drafting to James Madison. But the archive expressly says the item displayed on its page is the June 13 revised plan, “as Altered, Amended, and Agreed to in a Committee of the Whole House.” The originally submitted draft of fifteen resolutions has not been found. The displayed revision has nineteen. [1]
That warning changes how a comparison should be written. A feature in this revision can be called part of the June 13 plan. It cannot automatically be assigned to the missing original merely because a page is headed “Virginia Plan.” The signed Constitution belongs to a later stage, September 17, 1787. [2]
Both drafts have two houses, but their terms and representation differ
On a small screen, scroll the table sideways to read every column.
| Feature | June revised Virginia Plan | Original Constitution |
|---|---|---|
| First-house election and term | People of the states; three years (resolution 3). | People of the states; two years (I.2). |
| Second-house election and term | State legislatures; seven years (4). | State legislatures; six years (I.3). |
| Second-house representation | Same representation rule as the first branch (8). | Two senators per state; each has one vote (I.3). |
| Executive selection and term | National legislature; seven years; ineligible a second time (9). | State-appointed electors; four-year term (II.1). |
| Supreme judges’ appointment | Second legislative branch (11). | President nominates; Senate advice and consent (II.2). |
| Executive veto | Two-thirds of each branch to pass afterward (10). | Reconsideration and two-thirds in each house (I.7), with additional procedures. |
The important representation difference is not simply “both favor population.” Resolutions 7 and 8 apply the same specified ratio to both houses; the Constitution gives the Senate equal representation by state. Both documents’ original apportionment language also includes the three-fifths category associated with slavery and excludes “Indians not paying taxes” or “Indians not taxed.” These are discriminatory historical counting rules, not evidence that the counted people enjoyed equal participation or that this is current apportionment law. [1][2]
A legislature-chosen executive is not the same election route
Resolution 9 calls for one executive selected by the national legislature for seven years and ineligible a second time. Article II.1 instead supplies an elector system and a four-year term. The original constitutional text also contains a contingent House choice if the electoral vote conditions are not met. Thus “the legislature could never have a role” would overstate the contrast. [1][2]
Keep the main selection route, term and exceptional procedures in separate columns. This comparison concerns the original constitutional text, including passages subsequently changed. It is not a guide to voting in a modern U.S. election, and it does not substitute today’s direct senatorial elections for the original Article I.3 wording.
Do not import a council of revision into this June text
The displayed resolution 10 gives the national executive a negative over legislative acts, subject to two-thirds of each branch passing afterward. Resolution 11 gives appointment of Supreme Tribunal judges to the second legislative branch; resolution 12 permits the national legislature to appoint inferior tribunals. These are the actual June clauses to cite. [1]
A discussion of another draft’s proposed council of revision needs that other version as its source. Do not paste such a council into resolution 10 on the basis of a general summary of the convention. In the Constitution, Article II.2 describes presidential nomination and Senate advice and consent for Supreme Court judges, while Article III.1 authorizes the judicial framework and inferior courts Congress establishes. [2]
Test the source labels before drawing conclusions
These cases are original reading exercises, not reconstructions of a delegate’s private intentions.
Case 1
An essay quotes resolution 4’s seven-year second-house term and cites “Randolph’s original May 29 proposal.” What is the defensible correction?
Show answer and explanation for case 1
Identify it as the June 13 revised plan displayed by the Archives.
The archive explicitly separates its amended nineteen-resolution document from the missing original fifteen-resolution submission. The quotation can support a statement about this June revision. To establish what the original contained, use appropriately identified manuscript copies and scholarship rather than silently changing the version label.
Case 2
A comparison says: “The plan and Constitution both used equal state representation in the upper house because both used state legislatures to select its members.” Is that inference valid?
Show answer and explanation for case 2
No; who selects members and how seats are apportioned are different rules.
June resolution 4 names the selectors, but resolution 8 applies the first-branch representation rule to the second branch. Original Article I.3 gives two senators to each state. A shared selection institution does not establish an identical allocation of seats.
Use a feature-by-feature comparison, not a resemblance score
For each claimed similarity or change, write the version, resolution or article, and the exact feature: number of branches, selection method, term, apportionment or power. The common three-branch outline does not prove the institutions functioned identically. A rule that survived in broad form may have acquired different procedures.
The table is an original comparison of the displayed June resolutions and the selected original constitutional provisions, not a transcription of every convention proposal. It does not resolve historians’ reconstruction of the missing May draft or cover every later constitutional amendment. The Bill of Rights numbering guide shows another reason to preserve a proposal’s identity before assigning it a later label.
Sources and further reading
- National Archives — Virginia Plan: June 13 revisionDisplayed nineteen resolutions and the archive’s explicit distinction from the missing May 29 original.
- National Archives — Original Constitution transcriptComparison uses Article I.1–3 and I.7, II.1–2 and III.1; original wording may differ from provisions after later amendments.