Before this ruling it was apparent that the issue of representation had "overshadowed every lesser disagreement" (Banning, 423). Larger states often tried to insert provisions regarding the payment and selection of federal officials and this brought a backlash from smaller states who were unsure if they were protected from this majority. Representation was visible in even the smallest provision because if it related to the state it also related to the states role in the senate. Banning believed this issue had so much prominence because the founders did not want to replicate the issues of the Articles of Confederation and feared the terrors of "majority misrule". This fear of the majority explains why the larger states conceided power during the Great Compromise. These larger states understood that the wills of the many are often inconsistent with the long term needs of the country. When describing the moral character of the national majority, James Madison said, "however strong this motive may be in individuals, it is considered as very insufficient to restrain them from injustice" (Madison 393). This knowledge of the unreliability of the majority made the larger states willing to sacrifice some power so that the unrestricted majority was kept in check. Once the Great Compromise was accepted on July 16th the smaller states no longer feared being ruled by the majority possessed in the larger states. .
The states were focusing on their own personal issues and this is where the effect of the Great Compromise becomes apparent. With the power of the Senate laid out the delegates from each state now had an idea of how the central government affected their states and ambitions. On August 24th the Southern states fought for a ban on export taxes and the prohibition of legislative interference on the slave trade until 1800. This proposal is obviously fueled by the South's self-interest that was hidden before the compromise.