Such as? What I am suggesting is that when we take slavery into account Virginia was not actually voting against its interests, despite surface appearances.

You said it yourself in another post: they were just copying the British.

The Virginians, that aristocratic lot, would have and did prefer features like the Senate, which would have provided a counterweight to the more radical House. It's that way even today.

I can't speak further to the historical context, but everything I've read about federation/modern/consensus democracies suggest that bicameralism is a benefit (ex http://wikisum.com/w/Lijphart:_Patterns_of_democracy).

Again, that's not saying that's what they were considering then, but also read some of the Federalist Papers (Madison in particular) and how much they were weighing factions/balance of power into some of these solutions.

> Consensus democracies also have "kinder, gentler" traits: lower incarceration rates, less use of the death penalty, better care for the environment, more foreign aid work, and more welfare spending.

Uh, I'm not convinced it's working here, chief.

On the Convention count, as you can see, I find some logic in both explanations.

> Slightly pedantic, I could be wrong, but no serious attempts were ever made to conquer south

Florida and Texas?

Privateers were constantly trying in places like Cuba and Nicaragua too (this practice is the origin of the term "filibustering;" look up William Walker if you're interested) but yeah the Mexican-American War is the obvious answer. Somehow I missed that paragraph when I replied earlier.