Philadelphia –

Well over a month into the convention, the delegates are still at odds over how to settle the question of representation in the new government. All believed that the answer to this question would determine whether the states would continue as distinct political societies, or whether the new national government would form one political society.

The notion of a national government had gained enough support that the delegations accepted a national legislature that would represent citizens, not states. For some, like Luther Martin, the Convention’s movement to this point appeared to have made an old world disappear. He “remarked that the language of the states being sovereign and independent, was once familiar and understood; though it seemed now so strange and obscure.” Others, like Madison, feared that the continuing attachment of some delegates to the sovereignty of the states would lead the states to perpetual war against one another.

Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, however, “did not despair. He still trusted that some good plan of government would be devised and adopted.” Declaring that “we were partly national; partly federal,” Ellsworth pushed the need for compromise. He proposed that if the lower house of the national legislature is elected on the “national principle,” the upper house should be elected on the “federal principle”. Madison reports, “He trusted that on this middle ground a compromise would take place. He did not see that it could on any other. And if no compromise should take place, our meeting would not only be in vain but worse than in vain.”

The following day saw even more division among the delegates. Madison and James Wilson argued against this compromise, challenging that it would allow a minority to overrule a majority. Madison even went so far in defense of proportional representation as to propose that one house draw its representatives on the basis of all free inhabitants, and the other on the basis of free inhabitants plus slaves. Some defenders of state sovereignty actually called for the Convention to inform the governor of New Hampshire to send its delegates (who were not present) to help defend the interests of small states.

Help for the resolution came from an unexpected place. North Carolina delegate William Davie – who had yet to speak up during the Convention’s proceedings – agreed with Ellsworth, stating, “We were partly federal, partly national in our Union, and he did not see why the Govt. might (not) in some respects operate on the states, in others on the people.” James Wilson warmed to the idea, then Dr. Franklin offered warm words in support of compromise, then Madison indicated he might be open. There were dissenters on both sides, but at the end of the week, Saturday June 30, the makings of a compromise were there.

Davie’s support for Ellsworth’s compromise helped bring the issue to a vote. On July 2^nd the resolution was defeated in a 5-5-1 tie. Roger Sherman, seeing the delegations equally divided, complained, “We are now at a full stop.” But he challenged his fellow delegates not to give up, and suggested giving this complicated question over to a committee to solve. The delegations agreed, and appointed one delegate from each of the eleven states represented in the Convention. Led the Elbridge Gerry, the Committee would spend the next several days debating the fate of state representation in the new government. With that, the Convention adjourned, leaving the delegates a chance to escape debate and celebrate the eleventh anniversary of independence on July 4.

For more detailed information on the Constitutional Convention, please visit Prof. Gordon Lloyd’s web companion to the Philadelphia Convention.

New evidence indicates that there’s no better time to educate young people about the Constitution than before they reach college.

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute recently released its annual Civic Literacy Report, which tracks the civic knowledge and engagement of college students – to see if they grow more engaged as they progress from freshmen to seniors.

Unfortunately, in college, students grow less inclined to become engaged.

The Report discovers that:

•  ”A college degree fails to promote active civic engagement beyond voting.”

•  ”Greater civic knowledge trumps a college degree as the leading factor in encouraging active civic engagement.”

•  Having a solid civics education taught by a well-trained K-12 teacher positively influences active civic engagement.

The last finding is especially important to our work at the Bill of Rights Institute.  A principles-based civics curriculum taught by a skilled and knowledgeable teacher exerts a huge influence over students at a critical period in their lives – middle and high school.

That is why the Institute helps teachers around the country provide students the tools they need to deepen their civic knowledge – because it is in these formative years that a young person develops the habits that lead to a lifetime of civic engagement.

As ISI’s research shows, it is imperative that we reach students before they enter college, with outstanding, historically accurate materials that educate and inspire them about our nation’s Founding principles. That is the best way to prepare them to take an active role in the civic life of our nation.

The time to introduce young people to the Constitution is now!

[polldaddy poll=4851223]

In the Bill of Rights Institute’s Founders Forum.

Every month, the Institute’s top donors participate in a conference call led by key figures in constitutional scholarship and current events. October’s Founders Forum was hosted by Dr. Daniel Dreisbach of American University, and he discussed the role of religious liberty in America’s history and its relation to recent events in the news. He also talked about the impact the Institute’s new curriculum,Religious Liberty: the American Experiment, would have on students.

Among Dr. Dreisbach’s main points:

- The Founders’ support of disestablishment introduced a new approach to nurturing religious culture; each religion was now free to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

- The First Amendment was the culmination of this disestablishment approach.

Dr. Daniel Dreisbach

- The First Amendment was designed to prohibit a national church, but the Founders did not intend to silence the voice of religion in public life.

-While the First Amendment prohibited the federal government from interfering with religion, America’s federalist system left states the right to determine the line between church and state.  In fact, when the Constitution was ratified, several states had established churches.

Dr. Dreisbach then posed a challenging question to participants, one we’ll leave for you to weigh in on as well: How do we provide the social discipline necessary for self-government?

This is just one of the many difficult issues wrestled with during our Forums. Check in next month when we report on the Founders Forum taking place on Bill of Rights Day!