More Perfect, The Role of Compromise in the Constitution

The Constitution didn’t materialize from harmony; it was hammered out line by line by people who disagreed on almost everything except one urgent fact: the Articles weren’t working. We sit down with Julie Silverbrook, Vice President of Civic Education at the National Constitution Center, to unpack how compromise created a nation—its brilliance, its fractures, and its moral costs.

We start in 1787, where large and small states, commercial and agricultural interests, and slaveholding and non‑slaveholding delegates collided. Julie explains the Great (Connecticut) Compromise that split representation between the House and Senate, then confronts the slavery‑related deals—the Three‑Fifths Compromise and the Slave Trade Compromise—that secured ratification while embedding deep injustice. Along the way, we clarify a crucial distinction: consensus means everyone gets what they want; compromise means nobody does, yet the system moves forward. Madison’s “spirit of amity and mutual deference” and Franklin’s realism offer a durable lens for modern politics.

From the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 to Reconstruction and the civil rights breakthroughs of the 1960s, Julie traces how negotiation shaped every major chapter of American constitutional development. We talk about why compromise is fragile, how legitimacy of opponents is the precondition for progress, and what it takes to balance listening, boundaries, and action in a social‑media age that rewards speed over reflection. If you care about civic education, constitutional history, and the practical craft of governing a diverse republic, this conversation offers both context and a blueprint.

If this resonates, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review with your biggest takeaway—where do you think we should bend, and where must we hold the line?

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Chapters

• 1:32 Introducing Julie Silverbrook
• 1:59 Why Compromise Was Unavoidable
• 3:56 Defining Consensus vs. Compromise
• 5:26 Founders’ Views and Hard Trade‑Offs
• 8:07 Compromise Across American History
• 10:22 Disagreement as a Democratic Feature
• 11:52 A Blueprint for Today’s Compromise

Transcript

SPEAKER_01: 0:46

Today we're joined by Julie Silverbrook, Vice President of Civic Education at the National Constitution Center, where she leads the center's national strategy to strengthen civic learning and constitutional literacy. Julie has spent more than a decade advancing civic education with leadership roles at iCivics and the Constitutional Sources Project. She's also been widely recognized for her scholarship and public service. Julie, welcome to Civics in a Year. Our question today is: what role did compromise play in writing our constitution?

SPEAKER_00: 1:20

Yes, it's interesting. The delegates arrived in Philadelphia in 1787. They represented states with really vastly different interests, right? There were big states, small states. Some came from the north, some came from the south, some had agricultural interests, some had commercial interests, some were slaveholding states, some were not. And really, the only thing that they agreed on was that the Articles of Confederation weren't working. And after that, census and agreement kind of falls apart. And so the only pathway forward was compromise. Without it, the convention would have failed, would have collapsed, they would have all gone home. And it is very possible, had the convention failed, that you don't end up with a contiguous nation afterward, right? Of the 13 states staying together as a single nation. So it's really important to know when they're writing the constitution, they're not just writing it, they are negotiating the constitution line by line, branch by branch of government. So the process that they model and why I think it's actually really important to study the constitutional convention, that's what we think about when we think about a functioning, healthy constitutional democracy. What it would require is deliberation, humility, a willingness to see beyond one's own perspective or side. And to really know that our system of government, our constitution is not a product of consensus. It is a product of disagreement managed through compromise. And that's going to require people to make concessions on both sides.

SPEAKER_01: 2:57

So, what were some of the biggest compromises then that help shape this and help shape our comp constitution?

SPEAKER_00: 3:04

So there are three that really stand out. And I think most historians would would list these as the three big standouts. The the Great or Connecticut compromise, which solved the issue of representation by creating a bicameral legislature, a house based on population, a Senate based on equal representation. The other two are related to slavery. The three-fifths compromise, which counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for representation and taxation. This is largely, well, all I think universally considered a moral failure, but it was a political necessity at the time. If they could not get past the issue of slavery and representation, the southern states would have left the convention. And again, you wouldn't have a constitution. You probably wouldn't have a contiguous nation. The next one is also related to slavery. It's the slave trade compromise. This gave Congress the power to regulate trade, but delayed action on the slave trade for 20 years. And so these compromises, while flawed, uh were foundational and they reveal, I think, both the brilliance and the moral cost of compromise in our founding moment.

SPEAKER_01: 4:21

Can you really quickly, because you talked about consensus versus compromise? I think sometimes, you know, generally people think compromise is like this very flowery term. Can you just very quickly kind of define what you mean between consensus and compromise when you're talking about the constitutional convention?

SPEAKER_00: 4:38

Consensus is like everybody agrees. Everybody is getting what they want. Compromise is a recognition that everyone is, well, some group is getting some of what they want. And some group is also getting some of what they they don't necessarily want. It's that give and take. And look, it's right in the preamble, right? They created a more perfect union, not a perfect union. And I think that's a great way to think about compromise. It's it's it is more perfect, it will never be perfect. There will always be trade-offs. In many instances, like many of the compromises at the convention themselves, the self itself, they were suboptimal, right? I think all of the compromises related to slavery are very clearly morally wrong, right? But it would, there was also an acknowledgement that they weren't going to move forward with a with a system of government that could sustain itself if they didn't make those compromises.

SPEAKER_01: 5:40

So how did the founders themselves think about compromise?

SPEAKER_00: 5:44

Yeah, so many of them thought compromise was a virtue. James Madison called the constitution the result of a spirit of amity and mutual deference. Benjamin Franklin famously said that he didn't agree with every part of the document, but would consent to it because I expect no better. So they really understood something profound, which is that a constitutional republic requires that give and take, that is in inherent to compromise. And that again, they weren't creating a perfect system, they were creating a more perfect one. They were creating something that was hopefully for them sustainable. And they understood that some of the compromises they made, especially those over slavery, which even those who were slaveholders understood the moral wrongness of slavery, even though they uh benefited from the economic advantages uh of it. And they knew that that would kind of haunt the history of the nation. But they they really were thinking about could we create something for the long term? I don't know if they thought that it would sustain over 250 years, but next year we're going to celebrate 250 years, not under the constitution, but you know, starting from 1776. In 2037, we'll celebrate 250 years living under the constitution that they created through compromise. And I think in this period between 2026 and 2037, we should be thinking about compromise. We should be thinking about our constitutional history, we should be thinking about our role in sustaining constitutional democracy for the next 250 years.

SPEAKER_01: 7:21

But then how has compromise shaped our nation since 1787?

SPEAKER_00: 7:27

I think every major chapter in American history has involved some kind of constitutional compromise. So the Missouri compromise in the 1820s tried to balance free enslaved states, the number of free enslaved states. The compromise of 1850 delayed but ultimately didn't prevent the civil war. There's a series of compromises that happen over Reconstruction, which are designed to pull the nation back together after Civil War, but also really eliminate in as many ways as the federal government was able to the vestiges of slavery and allow for there to be more equality in the nation. There's the great compromises of the 20th century, which produced landmark legislation like the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act of the 1960s. And those were really born out of negotiations that actually happened across party lines. So I would say compromise is really the heartbeat of constitutional democracy, but we have to recognize that compromise is really fragile, right? And when Americans stop believing that their opponents are legitimate participants in this process, in the messy process of constitutional democracy, then you can't compromise. And when that collapses, it puts an incredible amount of strain on our system of government. So I really think as a people, we need to get back to a place where hopefully we're less ideologically siloed and more open to one. I think an essential feature of compromise is hearing people out from opposing perspectives. And then thinking about, you know, analyzing this. What is a pathway forward for that is inclusive of the views of a variety of different perspectives and allows for us to move forward in a productive but sometimes provisional way? Like it's not going to be perfect. It's going to require more action in the future, but we got to move forward. We can't be stuck here.

SPEAKER_01: 9:29

And then what can we learn from the founders about compromise today, especially in an age of, I think, social media, right? Founders didn't have social media. So they had, you know, to really think about things and to really, when they put their arguments down on paper, it was well thought out. But social media has kind of made it so that things are so quick and people aren't really, you know, having these long drawn-out conversations or thoughts.

SPEAKER_00: 9:55

So yes, they wrote things down, but if you ever read any of the writings of the major figures, they they're quite, there's a lot of invective. Like they're not uh not holding back on their. Let's not forget, like this is a generation when they disagreed with jewel, right? And so, you know, I want us to get past this idea that like disagreement is bad, right? Like disagreement is not a bug, it's a feature of constitutional democracy. The question isn't, are we going to disagree? We are going to disagree, right? It's how we resolve our differences. So I think if you accept we're not all going to agree. And that's okay. I expect that in a diverse society, but we have a common commitment to finding a reasonable path forward for the greatest number of people in the service of the common good, then you will move forward through a compromise. And that feels really essential and is something that I hope we can learn from the founders is finding that shared or common ground to move forward. And also just keeping in mind, compromises are never going to be perfect, right? It does require that sometimes you bend, right? And then there are going to be other instances where you're going to have to stand firm because justice requires it, right? And so I would just say that the frameworks left a blueprint for what compromise could look like for future generations. Each generation has to decide for itself if it wants to act on that blueprint or if it wants to take a different course. If you take a different course, I think you start to pivot away from the system that was created in 1787.

SPEAKER_01: 11:45

Julie, thank you so much, not only for your expertise today, but for all the work you're doing at the National Constitution Center and for Civic Education. We really, really appreciate having you on today.

SPEAKER_00: 11:56

My pleasure. Thanks so much for having me.