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.

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.

Philadelphia -

As the convention entered its fifth week, many of its delegates must have had a growing frustration that little progress had been made. The Virginia Plan had been presented, debated, and amended… and in response, William Patterson and Alexander Hamilton each presented competing plans, drawn on entirely different principles. With those competing plans rejected, the debate on June 20 brought delegates back to the very issue that had been deferred at the start of the convention – the issue of representation in the new government.

The issue of whether the delegates were to alter the Articles of Confederation, or to establish a new national government, had been deferred – but it could not be deferred forever. Delegates Oliver Ellsworth and Nathanial Gorham (from Connecticut and Massachusetts, respectively) did their part to defer the issue, moving to alter the first resolution of the amended Virginia Plan, which called for a “national government,” to call instead for a more general “Government of the United States”. The second resolution of the amended Virginia Plan – which called for a national legislature consisting of two branches – was more contentious. John Lansing (NY) argued that a single legislature was all that was needed in a confederation. He concluded, bluntly, “the true question here was, whether the Convention would adhere to or depart from the foundation of the present Confederacy.”

Lansing then launched into a full-scale attack of the Virginia Plan. He charged that the Convention was exceeding its authority and overlooking the public will in trying to establish a national government in place of the Confederation. He believed that the large states were out to take advantage of smaller states. He thought the national veto against state laws was impractical. He doubted it was possible to establish any general government that would be fair to all. He thought the system was too new and complicated. He believed a government on this plan would not last, and feared the states would be absorbed by the national government.

Lansing’s complaint raised a whole range of responses, with some – notably the fiery Luther Martin, from Maryland – joining Lansing in a vigorous defense of the sovereignty of states. On the other side were Madison and James Wilson, who insisted that the state governments were far more likely to intrude on the national government’s powers than the other way around, and that the only way to defend the national government’s powers against the states was to create a government that represented the people directly, rather than representing the states alone. Roger Sherman and William Johnson (CT) were open to a compromise, willing to accept a bicameral legislature, with one branch representing the people, the other representing the states.

Benjamin Franklin

This compromise position won the day, but there would be other occasions for conflict over the details of this national legislature during the last week of June. Before the week was over, on Thursday, June 28, the weary Dr. Franklin requested that remarks he had written be read to the delegates. He complained about the “small progress we have made after four or five weeks,” and lamented that the delegates “seem to feel our own want of political wisdom.” Drawing from his experience with the Second Continental Congress on the brink of war with Great Britain, Franklin recalled that each day of that assembly’s meetings began with a prayer for divine protection. He wondered “how has it happened…, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?” Even on this simple request from the revered Dr. Franklin, however, there was dispute. Hamilton did not want to signal to the public that there was disagreement amongst the delegates. Hugh Williamson from North Carolina observed that the Convention simply did not have the funds to bring in a clergyman. Debate continued until, Madison reports, “After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourning, the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.” Delegates agreed to disagree on this, and other matters, and retreated to their lodgings for the evening.

Get Ready for the 4th of July! Order pocket Constitutions for your family, friends, co-workers and neighbors today and save 20%! Coupon code BP4TH ends on the 29th – so order today!

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

Philadelphia – Debates over the Virginia Plan have inundated the Convention for weeks, but several delegates from the smaller states are concerned about the scope of the plan.  It would completely eliminate the Articles of Confederation and put in its place a stronger national government.  Wasn’t the Revolution fought to rid Americans of a tyrannical and over-powerful national government?  If the Virginia Plan passes, would the smaller states lose their voice in the national theater to those larger states with greater population and therefore greater representation?  On Thursday, June 14, 1787, William Paterson of New Jersey begs his fellow delegates to allow for further contemplation and the opportunity to develop an alternate option.

The New Jersey Plan

On June 15, the New Jersey Plan is collectively proposed by the delegations of New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, and Delaware.  It is decided that the alternate plan will not go before the Committee of the Whole until the following day to allow the delegates to “be better prepared to explain & support it.”

The New Jersey Plan lays out 11 resolutions.  The first resolution resolves that the Articles of Confederation should be revised in order to allow the federal government greater authority.  Another resolution includes rejecting the idea of a bicameral legislature as described in the Virginia Plan and restores the single chamber structure used under the Articles.

Strengthening the Articles, the New Jersey Plan expands the powers of the Congress to include taxation and regulation of interstate commerce.  The plan allows the Congress to elect a federal executive to oversee appointments to federal offices and direct military operations.  It also provides for a Tribunal of Judges to hear the impeachments of federal officers, appeals, cases regarding piracy and felonies on the high seas, trade, and treaty issues.

The Argument Begins

The two sides have presented their proposals and now begin to debate the repercussions of each plan on June 16.  Delegate William Paterson asserts that the national government described by the New Jersey Plan “sustains the sovereignty of the respective states” whereas the Virginia Plan’s national government absorbs all major powers. Paterson speaks for his delegation when he asks if it is “probable that the States would adopt & ratify a scheme, which they had never authorized us to propose?” He believes that the Virginia Plan is simply a way to increase the power of Congress by removing power from the states.

Virginian Edmund Randolph remains adamant regarding the “imbecility of the existing Confederacy, & the danger of delaying a substantial reform…The true question is whether we shall adhere to the federal plan, or introduce the national plan.”

The line is drawn between the two plans – should the Articles of Confederation be retained and modified to give the federal government a few more powers or should a national government be formed by writing an entirely new constitution?

Hamilton’s Plan

After the proponents of the Virginia and New Jersey Plans have debated their proposed resolutions, Alexander Hamilton shakes the Convention up even more.  Although Hamilton has remained silent throughout the proceedings thus far, he responds to the New Jersey Plan with the belief that the Virginia Plan doesn’t go far enough to place the power with the national government.  Hamilton instead presents the Convention a radical plan of his own.

Hamilton claims that his silence to this point was “partly from respect to others whose superior abilities age & experience rendered him unwilling to bring forward ideas dissimilar to theirs, and partly from his delicate situation with respect to his own State, to whose sentiments as expressed by his Colleagues, he could by no means accede.” Nevertheless, he dominated the proceedings of June 18, challenging the two previously proposed options with his own bold plan.  Hamilton called for a bicameral legislature with the lower house serving three-year terms and the upper house serving life-time terms.  The Legislature would institute courts in each state, but a supreme judiciary would have appellate jurisdiction. The officials in the executive and judicial branches would also serve life-long terms.  The central government in Hamilton’s plan is much stronger than that of the Virginia or New Jersey Plans, creating, in effect, an elected monarchy, and an aristocracy that would gain its power and status from the government.

The Vote

Hamilton’s proposal to establish a constitution modeled after the British Constitution must have shocked the Convention, though James Madison says nothing directly about how it was received. When the Convention reconvened on June 19, it turned its attention to the New Jersey Plan, without consideration of Hamilton’s plan. Madison took the lead in attacking the New Jersey Plan, offering a series of arguments designed to demonstrate that the central government under the New Jersey Plan would not be strong enough to preserve the union of the states, or to guard against the ills the states had been laboring under.

The delegates sided with Madison, and the New Jersey Plan was brought to a vote in front of the Committee of the Whole and was defeated in favor of the altered Virginia Plan. But Hamilton’s nationalist attack against the states put advocates of the state governments even more so on the defensive.

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

Philadelphia -  Though 11 days late and still many members short, the Federal Convention finally secured the arrival of enough participants to begin discussing revisions to our Articles of Confederation. The Convention’s original slated start of May 14^th saw only 2 delegations arrive in Philadelphia. Since then, 7 more delegations have completed their sojourns to the nation’s most populous city. By week’s end, 11 of the 12 participating state delegations will be in the city.

Electing a Convention Leadership

The first order of business addressed by the delegates was electing the Convention’s president. General George Washington of Virginia received unanimous support to fill the position. Mr. Robert Morris of Pennsylvania and Mr. John Rutledge of South Carolina initiated the push for Washington to be named president, though the blessing of Dr. Benjamin Franklin, the only delegate whose stature can equal Washington’s, surely helped secure the unanimous election.

After Washington’s election the delegates took up more menial tasks, such as the selection of Major William Jackson as Secretary and the creation of the Committee on Rules. Alexander Hamilton, Charles Pinckney, and George Wythe were the three delegates chosen to serve on the Committee on Rules. These members will propose baseline rules governing what delegates can and cannot do during the Convention.

The Rules Governing the Convention

The Committee on Rules will offer its proposal on the second day, May 28^th. It will turn out that many of these rules will be procedural, though not all of them. At the suggestion of Pierce Butler, the Committee will consider additional rules—including one about publication of Convention proceedings. The issue of rules will finally be settled on the Conventions’ third day, with the members agreeing to keep secret the events of the Convention. With the rules agreed to, the delegates will pursue settling main business.

Randolph’s 15 Resolutions – The Virginia Plan

Having arrived in Philadelphia 2 weeks prior, the Virginia delegation was prepared to drive the Convention’s agenda. Virginia’s Governor, Edmund Randolph, staked out a position that some delegates saw as radical, arguing that the Convention should begin not by reviewing the Articles of Confederation, but by inquiring first “into the properties, which [a federal] government ought to possess.” He then presented a list of 15 resolutions, the major effect of which was to propose a national government superior in power to the state governments – including giving the national legislature power to veto state laws, and to use force to coerce the states to fulfill their duties to the national government.

When the Convention re-convened on May 30, chaos erupted. Not only would the Committee of the Whole not vote on Randolph’s resolutions, they would not vote on a series of 3 propositions stating, 1) that a confederation would not accomplish the objects of promoting the common defense, protection of liberty, and the general welfare; 2) that treaties among the states would not promote those objects; and 3) that a national government consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branch should be established. Some feared that Randolph’s proposal would abolish the state governments altogether. Others thought such a proposal exceeded the powers of the Convention. Six state delegations accepted the third proposition, and the Convention proceeded to another thorny debate – about how representatives to the national Legislature should be apportioned.