This is part of a continuing series of blog posts leading up to Constitution Day on September 17. Last time we examined the dispute between northern and southern states. Today, we will review the debate over how to structure the executive branch.

One of the most persistent topics discussed in the Philadelphia Convention was the structure of the presidency. The Framers had grappled with this topic throughout June and July. The main issues were questions of the President’s re-eligibility, term of office, method of election, and powers of office. Not only did the delegates debate various alternatives to resolve each of these issues, they also debated which of these issues should be resolved first. They ended up repeatedly returning to each.

In early June, delegates decided that the executive would be one individual (rather than a committee) who would serve a seven-year term, but would be ineligible for re-election. They reached no decision concerning the method of election. After discussing several other alternatives, in late July the Framers were still undecided as to the method of selecting the president. James Madison summarized the alternatives and objections to each. If the President were selected by the national legislature, by the legislatures of the states, or by the governors of the states, then he would be subservient to the selecting group because they would only elect someone whom they expected to be able to control. The result would be a likelihood of corruption and misconduct in office. The separation of powers that allowed each branch to function as a watchdog over the others would be null and void. George Mason also bristled at the proposal of an executive that would serve during good behavior, denouncing that such a policy would lead to the re-establishment of a hereditary monarchy in the new Republic within the lifetime of his children or grandchildren if not his own. Surely no state, he lectured, “had so far revolted from Republican principles as to have the least bias” toward that proposal.

Madison argued that this left two options: direct election by the people, or appointment by a group of electors chosen by the people. The convention’s delegates distrusted direct democracy. They were determined that the new government would embody republican principles, but believed that most people were unlikely to make wise choices in direct election of the President. Another argument against direct election by the people was that it would result in a disadvantage for smaller states

After repeatedly wrestling with the question of how to elect the President, the Convention on July 26 referred the question to the Committee of Detail. The Convention adjourned from July 26 until August 6, instructing the Committee of Detail to “prepare and report the Constitution.” This committee, having been formed on July 24, was assigned to draft a written constitution based on the 23 resolutions that had been approved through four weeks of vigorous debate. John Rutledge of South Carolina, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania labored over this task.

How did this committee resolve the question of how to elect the President? In Article X of the Committee Report presented on August 6, they wrote, “…He shall be elected by ballot by the Legislature. He shall hold his office during the term of seven years; but shall not be elected a second time.” This early draft of the Constitution would be the subject of continuing debate and revision. Elbridge Gerry, who continued to display a knack for compromise, stated that election by either the national legislature or the people had disadvantages. He proposed a third way – a committee of electors chosen by state executives. Oliver Ellsworth accepted the idea of electors, but suggested that state Legislatures select them. This compromise was easily approved, as was eligibility for re-election.

Having resolved the most controversial aspects of the new Constitution, the Convention continued to work out other details. The Framers set up a Committee of Style to write and arrange the actual text of the Constitution, and on Wednesday, September 12, the Committee presented the plan, reading it aloud by paragraph, and ordered that printed copies of this almost-final draft be provided to the delegates. Upon completion, the Constitution was sent to each state to be ratified by a convention in each state. Nine states were needed for its ratification, and eventually each state ratified it, the last being Rhode Island.

_________________________________________________
All Comics come from The United States Constitution: A Round Table Comic, copies can be purchased in our store.

This is part of a continuing series of blog posts leading up to Constitution Day on September 17. Last time we looked at the conflict between large and small states; today, we will examine the dispute between the North and South over slavery and how that affects representation and taxation. Be sure to check back for more!

After determining the representational framework of the legislature under the Constitution, the Convention still had a major issue to confront: how to deal with the slaves. The delegates knew that the complex issue of slavery would be a “make-or-break” matter for the new republic.  Indeed, it was a full three months into the Convention before the volatile issue was tackled with any level of depth, culminating in a series of compromises over the course of a week in late August 1787. Were enslaved people citizens? If so, then why not count them towards state population counts? Or were they property? If so, then why were other forms of property not figured into the equation for determining taxation?

As there was little presumption amongst the delegates that slavery could, or would, be prohibited outright, the first and easiest element of “the slavery question” was how slaves might be counted within a state’s population for purposes of representation and direct taxation.  On Monday, August 21^st, the Convention took up a piece of the Virginia Plan (introduced in late May) that would set proportional representation of slaves at three-fifths.  The three-fifths proposal, known as the “federal ratio,” was not novel to most in attendance as it had been proposed as an amendment to the Articles of Confederation as early as 1783.  Due to the near-impossible requirement of unanimous consent in the Articles, the three-fifths principle failed to be ratified.  It did garner enough acceptance during the 1780s to be proposed as a solution during the Convention.

The delegates approved (6-2-2) the three-fifths ratio though pointed exchanges about slavery would continue. The arguments may have been nuanced, emotional, and even explosive, but reason for them was simple: Representation in Congress meant power. And part of that power might have been brought to bear against slavery itself. Had the three-fifths clause, as it has become known, not been ratified, what might have been the alternative? If the less populous slave states had been able to count their entire slave populations towards representation that would have meant much greater power in Congress for the South. If they had been able to count none of their slave populations, perhaps there would have been no Constitution.

_______________________________________________________
All Comics come from The United States Constitution: A Round Table Comic, copies can be purchased in our store.

We will be blogging about the Constitutional Convention in the days leading up to Constitution Day, September 17. In this first post, we will describe the conflict between large and small states; later, we will talk about the disputes between other factions over how the Constitution would be written. Be sure to check back for more!

Virginia Plan

By the end of May 1787, the Constitutional Convention was consumed with debate over the Virginia delegation’s bold plan which proposed replacing the Articles of Confederation – a task far beyond what many Convention delegates thought they were authorized to do – with a powerful national government. Though some features of the Virginia Plan earned agreement, there were setbacks. In particular, the Virginia Plan had called for apportionment by population, and its advocates eagerly pushed this proposal. Roger Sherman, representing Connecticut, proposed in response that one house should be made up of representatives based on a state’s population of “free inhabitants” with all states having equal representation in the second house, “otherwise a few large States will rule the rest.”

William Paterson of New Jersey begged his fellow delegates to allow for further contemplation and the opportunity to develop an alternate option. He proposed the New Jersey Plan, laying out several resolutions, including revising that the Articles of Confederation in order to allow the federal government greater authority. The delegates fiercely debated the dueling proposals. Paterson asserted that the national government described by the New Jersey Plan “sustains the sovereignty of the respective states” whereas the Virginia Plan’s national government would absorb all major powers. Virginian Edmund Randolph remained adamant regarding the “imbecility of the existing Confederacy, & the danger of delaying a substantial reform.”

Sherman's Proposal

Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, 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.” James Madison and James Wilson argued against this compromise, challenging that it would allow a minority to overrule a majority. 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. Wilson warmed to the idea, then Benjamin Franklin offered warm words in support of compromise, and Madison indicated he might be open. There were dissenters on both sides, but at the end of the week, 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, 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 by Elbridge Gerry, the Committee would spend the next several days debating the fate of state representation in the new government.

When the Convention resumed its business, the Gerry Committee was prepared with a report. Gerry rose to explain the report to the Convention. The report had three parts, which gave form to the view that had been developing of a union partly national and partly federal:

The first branch of legislature will be elected by population (as the large states had called for) with states being apportioned one member for every 40,000 inhabitants.

All bills that raise and appropriate money will originate in the First House and shall not be amended by the Second House.

In the second branch of the legislature each state will be represented equally.

Hamilton's Plan

Mr. Madison seems to have viewed the compromise as a crippling blow to the Virginia Plan. Nonetheless, several delegates rose to offer support of the Gerry Committee’s report or at least to a hearing. None was more forceful in defense of giving the Gerry Committee report a hearing than George Mason. The surly Virginian cautioned quarrelsome colleagues that “the Report was meant not as specific propositions to be adopted; but merely as a general ground of accommodation.”

After a weekend break, the delegates returned to approve (5 – 4 – 1) the Gerry Committee Report. Representation in the House of Representatives would be proportional and based on population; Senate representation would be equal for each State, and money bills would originate in the House and be un-amendable in the Senate. This is also known as the Connecticut Compromise, and is seen by many as a significant turning point in the Convention.
___________________________________________
All Comics come from The United States Constitution: A Round Table Comic, copies can be purchased in our store.