Hey civics and government teachers – we found a great online resource for you to use with your students.  The Youth Leadership Initiative’s website has interactive materials ready for you to use in your classroom!  Some of the resources available include the E-Congress program, an interactive online legislative simulation, lesson plans developed by teachers, and Mock Election resources.  Other supplemental materials include games and links to other civic education organizations like the Bill of Rights Institute!  If you want to learn more about the Youth Leadership Initiative and sign up for their resources head to www.YouthLeadership.net.

What other resources have you used that your students have really liked?

This September, Colonial Williamsburg will allow complimentary access to their Gift to a Nation electronic field trip series “The Will of the People.” Gearing up for the presidential election this November, “The Will of the People” examines the election of 1800.  The election of 1800 was a bitter campaign between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson for the role of president.  Students can learn more about the election from Jefferson and how negative campaigning and partisan politics played a role in the contest.  The electronic field trip series will help students learn more about Founding Principles and citizenship through videos, interactive games, lesson plans, and downloadable resources.

We would love to hear how the Colonial Williamsburg electronic field trip series goes in your classroom.  Let us know by leaving your comments below. 

If you are looking for additional resources on electing a president see the Bill of Rights Institute’s video called Election: Presidents and the Constitution.  You can also find lesson plans, activities, and other resources on the election of 1800 and other contested elections in our books Presidents and the Constitution, Volume I and II.

Philadelphia – The end of May saw the Convention responding to the Virginia delegation’s bold plan. The Virginians had 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. When proponents of this plan failed to win agreement that such a radical plan was necessary, they moved to the more basic task of achieving consensus on the establishment of a national government consisting of legislative, executive and judicial branches. The devil would be in the details, and through the first week of June, delegates worked through the details of the Virginia Plan. Hiding under those details, however, was the question of whether the delegates were debating a revision of a confederation of sovereign states, or the creation of an entirely new national government that would act directly on citizens.

The Legislative Branch

This question lay under the debate about how to apportion representatives to the national legislature. The Virginia Plan had called for apportionment by population. Its advocates eagerly pushed this proposal until George Read, from tiny Delaware, drew a line in the sand. The delegates from Delaware, he pointed out, were not authorized to give up Delaware’s equal representation, and any attempt to push that issue might force the Delaware delegation to leave the Convention. If the states retained equality of representation, Madison feared, this would endanger the idea of a strong national government and permit the idea of a confederation to continue. He proposed a parliamentary “expedient”  to send this issue to a committee, thus “saving the Delaware deputies from embarrassment”; Mr. Read would not relent, and the motion was tabled.

Though some features of the Virginia Plan earned agreement – a bicameral legislature, the election of the lower house directly by the people, and certain powers of the legislative branch, – there were more setbacks. In particular, the mode of election of the upper house emerged as a point of controversy, and one that was not immediately solved. Further, Madison himself relented on a feature of the Virginia Plan which gave the national legislature the power to call forth force “against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty”. Madison (in a statement that Southerners would remember decades later) observed, “A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

The Executive Branch

June 1^st, 2^nd, and 4^th saw extensive discussion of the establishment of the Executive branch. Fear of monarchy made this a complicated debate. The elder statesman, Mr. Benjamin Franklin, followed a long pause in the discussion by encouraging the delegates to make their voices heard. The Convention delegates finally agreed that the Executive branch should be comprised of one person, the President, who would hold the power to affect national laws, appoint officers not otherwise specified, and veto legislation. With great concern surrounding the corruption possible if these powers lie with one person, the delegates determined that any presidential veto will be subject to overrule by a 2/3^rds majority of either house. This was not the last that would be said about the Executive branch, however.

The Judicial Branch

With consensus surrounding the need for a final tribunal in the nation, early June saw the creation of the Supreme Court. The delegates agreed upon the need for a supreme tribunal, yet had many questions surrounding the selection of judges and the establishment of “inferior tribunals” throughout the United States.

On June 5^th the assembly determined that the legislative branch will have the authority to name judges in the Supreme Court and allowed for life-time tenure in office pending “good behavior.”  No consensus could be reached regarding the establishment of “inferior tribunals” and was postponed until a later date.

New State Representation in the Union

Resolution 10 in Edmond Randolph’s Virginia Plan was approved to allow the admission of new states into the country if their bounds feel within the United States.

Inscription at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Arlington National Cemetery

World War I ended with an armistice, or cease of hostilities, on November 11, 1918.  This day became known as Armistice Day to honor those who fought in the World War I, and was declared a national holiday by Congress in 1938.  In 1954, Congress changed the name to Veterans Day to honor Veterans of all wars.

Veterans Day is an especially solemn time at Arlington National Cemetery for the guards, family members, and visitors.  The guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier continue marching their 21-step vigil through the tumult, day and night, guard after guard, shift after shift, through all types of weather. Honoring the men and women who have paid the ultimate price by giving their lives to defend the Constitution has been a long tradition in our nation.  The cemetery is a place for reflection and remembrance for all of those who died protecting our freedoms.  The soldiers of the United States Army Third Infantry Regiment guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier are a wonderful example of respect. Their unbroken chain of dedication guarding the tomb around the clock stretches back 74 years. They actually live beneath the tomb, their barracks in close proximity to those they guard. When on duty, they “walk the mat” with full exposure to the elements in all weather conditions.

The tomb holds the bodies of a three unknown American soldiers; one from World War I, one form World War II and one form the Korean War. To the guards watching over them, they represent all American unknown military personnel who have been lost at war. To honor them all, the tomb guards adhere to some of the military’s highest codes of conduct, toughest etiquette and uniform requirements, and most rigorous sentinel training. The precise 21-step pattern they march comports with the traditional honor guard 21-gun salute. Everything is done with excellence in respect for their comrades and what they, and their sacrifice, represent to the American republic.

On October 24 of this year, Jewish chaplains were honored at a ceremony dedicating the Jewish Chaplains Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery.  The ceremony was a cross-faith celebration of the sacrifices made by the chaplains.  The Air Force Chief of Chaplains Major General Cecil Richardson said, “The 14 men we honor here today were rabbis in uniform.  These men did much more than preach sermons … They walked where warriors walked, and that is what made them military chaplains.”  Arlington is home to memorials for those who died in battles, presidents, nurses, the Space Shuttle disasters, and others who served their country with valor.  The Jewish chaplains are now included in that group.

Taking a few moments to ponder the sacrifices these heroes have made to secure our freedom is a worthy endeavor. Informing young people, and all citizens, about the importance of honoring those who have died for America is a tradition that must be taught. A few Veterans Day activities you, students, or families can participate in include:

• Honor a veteran on Your Facebook page
• Organize a school or family or community observance
• Place a flag on a Veteran’s grave
• Conduct an oral history interview with a veteran you know
• Write a letter to the newspaper (or a blog) to commemorate this special occasion

On the top of the hill overlooking Washington, D.C. the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier will be honoring America’s heroes on Veterans Day, marching their 21-step vigil, watching over the tomb around the clock. And when all the other commemorative celebrations have ended, they will still be there to us remind us that those who have given their lives for this nation deserve a Veterans Day every day.

The Veterans Day National Ceremony is held each year on November 11th at Arlington National Cemetery. See the United States Department of Veteran’s Affairs website to learn more about Veterans Day history, teaching guides, and celebrations held throughout the country.

What are you doing to remember our Veterans?

Philadelphia, September 10 – 15, 1787

As the weather finally cools a bit and the Convention enters what will be the final week of deliberations, the main topics of discussion are the amendment process and the ratification process.  On Monday, September 10, Elbridge Gerry raises a concern about the amendment process—he fears that the new constitution could be amended to “subvert the State Constitutions altogether.” James Madison’s response increases the voice of the states by requiring ratification of a constitutional amendment by three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states.  John Rutledge of South Carolina is concerned that states opposing slavery could use the amendment process to reduce the institution’s protections.  Therefore, the delegates add this clause to the amendment process: “Provided that no amendments which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect” the passages related to slavery.

The conversation turns to the ratification process for the new constitution.  In order to establish the new national government, do they need the approval of Congress?  Do they need all thirteen states to sign on?  Will nine states be enough?  Gerry is concerned that it is improper to change the government without the approval of the Confederation Congress.  After all, the Convention holds its authority from Congress.  Edmund Randolph of Virginia believes that an even more involved process is necessary for the new constitution to take effect.  While he knows the delegates will probably vote down his proposal, he thinks the new government should only take effect after a three-step process: 1. Submit the draft constitution to Congress for its approval. 2. State conventions should be able to submit amendments to the draft constitution.   3. The 1787 draft constitution, along with the state-suggested amendments, should be submitted to a second general convention, which would then develop the final Constitution.  Gerry agrees with Randolph’s plan.  Madison’s notes record: “Mr. Gerry urged the indecency and pernicious tendency of dissolving in so slight a manner, the solemn obligations of the Articles of Confederation.  If nine out of thirteen can dissolve the compact, six out of nine will be just as able to dissolve the new one hereafter.”  Randolph is correct—his call for a second constitutional convention, although it wins the support of both Mason and Gerry, is rejected.  James Wilson of Pennsylvania believes that making the assent of Congress, or requiring all 13 states to ratify, would be “insuperable obstacles.”  The convention votes not to require Congress’s approval, but that upon ratification of any 9 states, the Constitution will take effect.

On Wednesday, September 12, the Committee of Style presents the plan, reading it aloud by paragraphs, and orders that printed copies of this almost-final draft be provided to the delegates.  Accompanying the draft will be a letter from the President of the Convention, George Washington, to the President of the Congress, Arthur St. Clair of Pennsylvania.  Excerpts of this letter are shown below:

Sir,

We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable.

The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union…

It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.  The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.  It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence…

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

Representative Government

You’ve told us that students often confuse republics and democracies. Do your students understand the key differences? We created a short, engaging video for Constitution Day on the constitutional principle of representative government. Exciting visuals from current events, an engaging historical narrative, brief scholar interviews, familiar music, and memorable quotes will make this 7-minute video perfect for use on Constitution Day, and every day! You can watch on TeacherTube as well.

Use this viewing guide to guide your students through the video.

Philadelphia – When the Convention began their work in earnest in the spring of 1787, its delegates must have known that the complex issue of slavery would be a “make-or-break” matter for the new republic.  Indeed, the volatile issue would wait a full three months into the Convention before being tackled with any level of depth, culminating in a series of compromises over the course of a week in late August 1787.

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.  Even though it failed to be ratified due to the near-impossible requirement of that document that any changes acquire unanimous consent, the three-fifths principle nevertheless garnered enough acceptance during the 1780s so as to provide a ready solution to the question at the Convention.  On August 21^st, 1787 the Convention adopted the “Three-Fifths Compromise” with relatively little debate, save an objection by Luther Martin of Maryland who suggested it would serve as federal encouragement of the continued importation of slaves.

In Martin’s objection lay the real heart of the matter, and provided the most explosive debate.  Would Congress have the power to mediate the slavery question at all?  Would the institution be allowed to expand or merely tolerated until it died out?  Could its existence and continuation even be discouraged by the federal government?

On August 21^st the Convention took up debate on language put forth by the Committee of Detail’s August 6^th report.  Driven largely by the demands of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, the language read:  “No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature…on the migration or importation of such persons as the several States shall think proper to admit; nor shall such migration or importation be prohibited.”  This proposal was a both a blanket prohibition on the power of Congress to ever determine the ultimate fate of the institution, and a denial of power to simply frustrate it through taxation of the slave trade enterprise.

The recorded comments of August 22^nd are enlightening, and even a bit surprising.  Roger Sherman of Connecticut – an opponent of slavery from a “free” state – proposed the language be adopted as-is, suggesting that slavery was on the decline in some southern states and would continue towards its natural death if left alone to do so.  George Mason – himself a slave owner from the southern state of Virginia – conversely argued that it was essential for the national government to have the power to prevent the increase and spread of slavery, observing that “[e]very master of slaves is a petty tyrant…[bringing] the judgment of heaven on a Country.”  Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut stated that if the immorality of slavery were considered the Convention should go further and free all slaves, but then ultimately suggested that compromise would be best.  Charles Coatsworth Pinckney of South Carolina gave a passionate defense of the economic necessity of slavery to the union, to which John Dickinson of Delaware stated it was “inadmissible on every principle of honor and safety that the importation of slaves should be authorized to the States by the Constitution.”  John Rutledge of South Carolina observed that his state, along with North Carolina and Georgia, might never agree to the Constitution if the language were changed, but Edmund Randolph of Virginia stated that he “could never agree to the clause as it stands.”  Randolph suggested the matter be referred back to the Committee of Detail for compromise language to be drafted, as an impasse on the current language loomed large.  The Convention agreed to Randolph’s suggestion by a vote of 7-3.

The Committee reported back on August 24^th with language that would permit Congress to tax the slave trade, but prohibited outright interference in it until 1800.  The next day Pinckney suggested changing the 1800 proposal to 1808, to which James Madison derisively commented “[t]wenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves…[s]o long a term will be more dishonorable to the National character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.”  Madison also “thought it wrong to admit into the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” The 1808 language nevertheless passed by a vote of 7-4.  Interestingly, all four noes – New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia – voted as such because they thought the language too forgiving of slavery.  No slave-holding state, save Virginia who seemingly expressed an anti-slavery position, voted against giving the new federal government a future power to interfere with the institution.

Far from our current popular interpretation of the Founders as moral and political failures on this most important question, the details of the Convention bear out a very different story: that of fallible men grappling with the moral, social, political and economic intricacies of that horrible institution within its – and their – context.  In reality, they had to choose between a union that allowed for slavery in some form, and no union at all.  While they very clearly chose union AND slavery, they did so in a way that, it was hoped, would loosen the institution’s stranglehold on the union and provided powerful avenues to encourage its eventual demise.

- Written by Jay Shackett, guest author.

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

Two months into the Convention, the delegates could finally see a light at the end of the tunnel. Delegates had debated the resolutions presented by the delegation of Virginia, amended them, and debated them again. Before sending the revised amendments to a Committee of Detail that would create a rough draft of the Constitution, however, James Wilson and James Madison fought unsuccessfully to restore a constitutional provision they thought critical – a Council of Revision.

Council of Revision

Although the plan had been rejected twice, Wilson and Madison once again proposed that a Council of Revision be added to the Constitution. Consisting of the executive and judicial branch, the Council would be called upon to assess the constitutionality of legislation before becoming law. Madison explained that “experience in all the states had evinced a powerful tendency in the legislature to absorb all power into its vortex.” He believed that this tendency “was the real source of danger to the American Constitution.” Madison urged his colleagues to protect against this grave threat by allowing the judiciary to fortify the president in defending against the overreach of the legislature.

Despite Wilson and Madison’s passionate (and repeated) argument for the Council of Revision, a number of other delegates raised serious concerns. Elbridge Gerry argued that the Council would establish an “improper coalition” between the president and the judiciary. It would be a violation of the separation of powers. Luther Martin pointed out that not only would it be dangerous to mix the powers of the two branches, but that it would be inappropriate for judges to be involved in making laws. The judiciary’s role was to exposit the laws, not make them. On July 21^st, Wilson and Madison’s motion was narrowly defeated by a 4-3-2 vote.

Ratification

Finally, on July 23, the delegates began to discuss ratification of the new Constitution. Oliver Ellsworth and William Paterson motioned to refer the Constitution to the state legislatures for ratification.

The debate heated as several delegates voiced their disagreement. George Mason explained his belief that the Constitution should not be sent to the legislatures, but “to the people with whom all power remains that has not been given up in the Constitutions derived from them.” He feared that if the Constitution was only ratified by the state legislatures – and not the people – it would be subject to criticism and easily reversed. Madison echoed Mason’s concern, explaining “the difference between a system founded on the legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution.” For the Constitution to become the supreme law of the land – transcending all other laws and pacts – it must be ratified by the people.

Mason, Madison, and others in disagreement won out, and Ellsworth and Paterson’s motion was defeated 7-3. The delegates then voted 9-1 that, once approved by the Continental Congress, the Constitution would be sent to assemblies chosen by the people for ratification.

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

Philadelphia –

As the convention pressed into the late days of July, debate turned to the revised Virginia Plan’s resolutions on the Executive Branch.

The ninth resolution proposed that “a National Executive be instituted to consist of a single person, to be chosen by the National Legislature for the term of seven years…”. All delegations present agreed that the Executive ought to be composed of a single individual, but other issues raised deep differences between delegates. These differences were chiefly on key principles of republicanism and separation of powers.

Regarding the means of election, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania vigorously opposed election by the national Legislature. Though one of the most aristocratic delegates by background and temperament, Morris feared that election by the Legislature would violate the principle of separation of powers, making the Executive a mere “creature” of that branch. He thought the judgment of the people as a whole would be far more likely to result in the election of a “man of distinguished character,” or of “continental reputation”.

But outside of his fellow Pennsylvanian James Wilson, Morris found little support for direct popular election for the Executive. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina voiced his opinion that it is better to have a few “active and designing men” make this choice. George Mason of Virginia likened Morris’ proposal to asking a blind man to name the colors before him.  The convention shot down Morris’ proposal and affirmed the original—though this solution would only be temporary.

Debate on issues of the term of and eligibility for office was also inconclusive. Momentarily postponing discussion of term length, delegates rejected a proposal to make the Executive ineligible for re-election. On the whole, delegates viewed re-election as an incentive that would drive the Executive to perform his proper duties. But the idea of imposing term limits on the Executive was dropped in favor of a proposal by Virginia’s James McClurg to strike the 7 years term and insert “during good behavior.”

Because the Executive was to be elected by the national Legislature, and because the proposal for making the Executive ineligible for re-election had been rejected, McClurg  – joined by Morris – thought that the only way to ensure a proper separation of powers was to allow the Executive to remain in office, effectively, for life. Madison concurred, drawing an analogy between the Judicial and Executive branches, both of which he believed required complete separation from the power of the Legislature to avoid being absorbed by it.

Others did not accept this logic. Roger Sherman thought the measure redundant. Re-election logically entails that the Executive is behaving properly—especially since the national legislative, the few “active and designing men,” are overseeing the selection process. 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.

With the specter of monarchy having been raised, and with Mason having clearly challenged the commitment to republican principles of some of the convention’s leading members – including Madison and Morris – the delegations agreed unanimously to re-open discussion about the Executive. Luther Martin had moved to reconsider the eligibility requirement, in hopes of limiting the Executive to just one term of office. Gouverneur Morris took this opportunity, however, to rebut to Mason and make a case for extensive Executive power. “It has been a maxim in Political Science,” he explained, challenging Mason’s republican ideal, “that Republican Government is not adapted to a large extent of Country”. He reasoned that in a republican government – where the people are represented by the Legislative Branch – the Executive Branch is necessarily weak, and made a case that the Executive Branch “should be the guardian of the people, even of the lower classes, against Legislative tyranny.”

Morris continued to advocate that the Executive keep office during good behavior, but barring that proposed that the Executive be elected directly by the people. Madison (perhaps slightly chastened by Mason) concurred in recommending the Executive be selected by “the people at large,” downplaying his earlier suggestion that the Executive hold office during good behavior. Elbridge Gerry, who continued to display a knack for compromise, stated that both election by the national Legislature and by 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 and – for a short time, at least – a six-year term.

Philadelphia –

The Gerry Commission report gave form to the idea, which had been bubbling up in debate, of a union “partly national, partly federal”. Because this idea was gaining momentum, the Gerry Commission report might be seen as the “Nationalists’ Last Gasp.” The bloc of delegates – including James Madison, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris – who had hoped to create a new national government that would act on people as individuals (and virtually eliminate any vestiges of state sovereignty), saw the writing on the wall.

July 5 closed with Elbridge Gerry defending the compromise suggested by his committee from attacks by nationalists. “We were neither the same Nation nor different Nations,” he explained, but if the nationalists and the defenders of state sovereignty did not “come to some agreement among ourselves some foreign sword will probably do the work for us.” With this, and with George Mason telling the delegates, in effect, that they would leave over his dead body, debate about the Gerry Committee report began in earnest.

One provision of the report, which said money bills should originate in the lower house, was dealt with rather quickly. Gouverneur Morris – who was (next to Alexander Hamilton) the most vocal defender of aristocracy, and a powerful Senate, in the Convention  – objected forcefully. Benjamin Franklin seems to have been more persuasive in stating that power over the purse strings should be lodged in the house that was most closely tied to the people.

The question of representation – of who should be heard, and how loudly – continued to be difficult. Smaller states were fearful of the proposed ratio of one representative for 40,000 inhabitants; tiny Delaware, it was noted, had just 35,000 inhabitants. In the first enumeration based on this ratio, there would only be 56 representatives in the lower house of Congress. All had to consider how the addition of new states would affect the balance of power. A later compromise fixed this number at 65. For some, even this was too small. George Mason observed that 38 members would make a quorum, and thus 20 votes could make a majority; Madison proposed (unsuccessfully) that the size of the lower house be doubled from 65. Roger Sherman (CT) and John Rutledge (SC) thought 65 too large, as it would be difficult to find enough individuals of a characters fit for public office.

Did the Delegates Count Slaves as Three-Fifths of a Person?

Nationalist James Wilson articulated the paradox facing the delegates over the issue of slavery and how it affected the current debate over the nature of the government. 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?

The delegates began to see their way clear once they tethered representation to taxation: direct taxes would be in proportion to representation.

But William Davie of North Carolina saw a conspiracy to ensure slave holding states would not be able to count any of their slave populations towards representation at the convention. It was “high time to speak out now,” he said. North Carolina would never agree to any terms of confederation unless black populations were counted at least by a ratio of at least 3/5ths. If black populations were going to be excluded altogether, “the business was at an end.” Many delegates balked at the the 3/5ths ratio. Morris answered Davie’s challenge by pointing out the voluntary nature of the compact the states would be entering. Morris summed up his position like this — he would have to offend either the Southern states or human nature himself, and given that choice, he would offend the Southern states.

The delegates approved (6-2-2) the 3/5ths ratio, settling that question, 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 3/5ths 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.

Connecticut Compromise

Similar types of arguments surfaced in debates over representation in the national legislature: would states be represented (in other words, would the confederation still be a confederacy?) or would the people (establishing a national government that drew its power from and acted on individuals)?

Madison, architect of the Virginia Plan and still a promoter of a national system, argued against the idea that the government could be partly national and partly federal. When, he asked, would the central government be called upon to act in a way that did not impact individuals? “In all cases where the general government is to act on the people, let the people be represented and the votes be proportional. In all cases where the government is to act on the States as such, in like manner as Congress now act on them, let the States be represented and the votes be equal.”

After the 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.