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 eleventh anniversary of independence saw the Convention at an impasse. The delegates could not agree on the question of how to structure a legislative body for the union – because all knew this decision raised the question of whether they should merely strengthen the confederation, or create a new national government in its place.

The July 3-4 adjournment for Independence Day gave many delegates a respite from wearying debate. For eleven members of the committee chaired by Massachusetts’s Elbridge Gerry, however, debate continued, as they met on July 3 to discuss a practical solution to the issues that the Convention was struggling to solve. On July 4, delegates congregated at Philadelphia’s Race Street Church to hear a speech commemorating independence. On July 5, the fireworks resumed.

The Gerry Committee Report

When the Convention resumed its business on Thursday morning, July 5, the Gerry Committee was prepared with a report. The Committee, which consisted of one delegate from each of the eleven states represented at the Convention, was asked to handle the sensitive issue of representation in a union that some still view as federal but others are trying to make national. Elbridge Gerry (who had signed the Declaration of Independence in this same city eleven years ago) 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:

1. 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.
2. All bills that raise and appropriate money will originate in the First House and shall not be amended by the Second House
3. In the second branch of the legislature each state will be represented equally.

Debate in the Assembly and in Committee

Gerry admitted to the Convention, after presenting the report, that it was a very thin compromise, and that Committee delegates “agreed to the Report merely in order that some ground of accommodation might be proposed”. None of the Committee members, he continued, was “under any obligation to support the Report”.

Nor were some of the Convention’s leading delegates inclined to support the Gerry Committee’s suggested compromise. Mr. Madison seems to have viewed the compromise as a crippling blow to the Virginia Plan, which had been designed to combat what Madison saw as the vices of the political system under the Articles of Confederation. He rose and in a long speech proclaimed his fear that “the Convention was reduced to the alternative of either departing from justice in order to conciliate the smaller States, and the minority of the people of the U. S.” on the one hand, or of “displeasing these by justly gratifying the larger States and the majority of the people” on the other.

He then made the issue personal, recalling a statement made by Mr. Bedford (of Delaware) prior to the adjournment for Independence Day. Bedford, chafing against the nationalists’ plan, had challenged, “We have been told with a dictatorial air that this is the last moment for a fair trial in favor of a good Government. It will be the last indeed if the propositions reported from the Committee go forth to the people.” Bedford seemingly taunted the large states, saying that they “dare not dissolve the Confederation. If they do the small ones will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice.” Though Bedford qualified that “He did not mean by this to intimidate or alarm,” Madison responded to that comment as if it were a threat, stopping just short of calling Bedford a turncoat, and hinting that the large states might just challenge stubborn states like Delaware to choose between joining the union and courting some foreign ally. Madison lectured, “if the principal States comprehending a majority of the people of the U. S. should concur in a just & judicious plan, he had the firmest hopes, that all the other States would by degrees accede to it.”

Other nationalists joined Madison’s offensive against the compromise. James Wilson charged that the Committee exceeded its powers (a charge that seems ironic, given Wilson’s support of the Virginia Plan, which many thought exceeded the Convention’s mandate of simply revising the Articles of Confederation). Gouverneur Morris thundered against those who acted as if “we were assembled to truck and bargain for our particular States” and warned “This Country must be united. If persuasion does not unite it, the sword will.”

Perhaps sensing a concerted effort on the part of the nationalists to paint him as disloyal to the Confederation, Mr. Bedford, rose to state he had been misunderstood, and had no intention that Delaware or other small states should seek protection outside of the union. But others were not cowed by the bluster of the nationalists. Several delegates rose to offer support of the Gerry Committee’s report, or at least to a hearing of the report. None was more forceful in defense of giving the Gerry Committee report a hearing than George Mason. The surly Virginian was growing impatient, and cautioned quarrelsome colleagues that “the Report was meant not as specific propositions to be adopted; but merely as a general ground of accommodation.”  But Mason was not about to finish there, proclaiming that “he would bury his bones in this City rather than expose his Country to the Consequences of a dissolution of the Convention without any thing being done.”

Mason’s stern words led directly to consideration of the provisions of the Gerry Committee’s report.

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

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.

Philadelphia -

Reality television and the Constitutional Convention have more in common than you might think. We know from scanning primetime that every good reality show has at least one unruly character. But could this also be true during one of our Nation’s most formative narratives?

Meet Luther Martin, one of Maryland’s delegates who unabashedly fills the role of your favorite reality TV show’s loud antagonist during the Constitutional Convention.

He was mad. He was mean. He was ornery.

In fact, word around town was that he was even a drunk.

Unlike “Snooki” or the Kardashians, surprisingly, when Martin talks, everyone listened.

After graduating at the top of his class from the College of New Jersey (later Princeton), he moved to Maryland and began studying the law until he was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1771. Martin arrived at the Convention on June 9^th as a staunch supporter of American independence from Great Britain.

From the beginning of the convention, however, Martin made clear his opposition to the creation of a government where the large states would dominate the small states. This, he argued, would lead to unequal representation in Congress. He unswervingly sided with the small states, lending his support to the New Jersey plan and voting against the Virginia Plan.

On June 27^th, he delivered a crotchety criticism of the Virginia Plan’s proposal for proportionate representation in both houses of the legislature. Martin supported the case for equal numbers of delegates in at least one house of government. This would ensure that small states could maintain their integrity regardless of how many more citizens’ one state had over another. He made this known during his tenure on the committee formed to seek a compromise on representation.

Many of his fellow delegates viewed Martin as trying to obstruct the proceedings of the Convention. In many ways, they were right. He often spouted-off uncomfortable sentiments that made everyone uneasy and concerned the Convention would be completely derailed. Jealous of federal power, Martin clung to tradition and fought his hardest to maintain the Articles of Confederation.

Convinced that the new government would have too much power over state governments, Martin and another Maryland delegate, John Francis Mercer, walked out of the convention decrying the demise of individual rights. Later that year, Martin gave a speech to the Maryland House of Delegates where he beset the Convention for straying from their clear instruction to meet “for the sole and express purpose of revising” the Articles of Confederation.

Martin personally believed this was essentially launching a coup d’état and, though George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were supporters of the new system of government, said we should not, “suffer our eyes to be so far dazzled by the splendor of names, as to run blindfolded into what may be our destruction.”

There may not have been any punches thrown or shouting matches caught on camera, but there was definitely drama during the Convention. Battles of will, strong-headedness, and major disagreements – one which even led to people walking out – epitomized Martin’s role during the Convention.

As we look back on these historical events from modernity, we must remember that Martin was indeed a delegate fighting relentlessly for the welfare of the country (not just particular states) and not a reality television star bickering about their plans for Friday night.

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 -

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—The bold Virginia Plan remains the center of debate this week at the federal convention. After addressing questions of the power of the national government, the delegates find themselves circling back to various questions of the form and structure the new government will take.

Small or Extended Republic?

Within the context of determining the place of states in the new system of government, June 7 saw debate on the nature of republics and which form—small or extended—led to greater happiness. Having studied the dismal histories of ancient republics, James Madison was convinced that an extended republic would best balance order and liberty. While Roger Sherman of Connecticut asserted that small republics, where government was closer to the people, led to greater happiness, Madison countered that extended republics prevented factions from combining to oppress minorities. Madison would later address these points in Federalist 10.

A veto over state laws?

James Madison and Charles Pinckney, perhaps giving more ammunition to those who would accuse some delegates of a covert plan to create a consolidated national government, proposed giving Congress a “negative” or veto power over state laws. This proposal was voted down, handing Madison – who had seen this power as a republican remedy for the republican danger of majority tyranny – a frustrating defeat.

Representation

Madison was also about to see another key feature of the Virginia Plan challenged – its proposal that representation in both houses of the national legislature be apportioned by size. Roger Sherman, representing the small state of Connecticut, proposed 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.” The delegates were touching on sensitive issues. Apparently to avoid an impasse between large and small states, James Wilson and Rufus King made the simple motion that we not apportion representatives like we did under the Articles – with states represented equally – but according to “some equitable ratio”.

Benjamin Franklin

In addition, the great Dr. Franklin chose this as one of the few times during which he would lend the weight of his reputation to keepingthe Convention moving forward. Having prepared remarks that were read by Mr. Wilson, Franklin praised the delegates, noting that prior to this conversation on representation, “our debates were carried on with great coolness & temper.” Yet he warned those who had not engaged in such a collegial way that he hoped such outbursts would “not be repeated; for we are sent here to consult, not to contend, with each other….”

The delegates agreed to the proposal offered by Mr. Wilson and Mr. King, but this did not settle the issue and debate over the form of the legislature continued. Despite Franklin’s attempt to diffuse the situation, the delegates could not settle on equitable ratio of representation.

The 3/5^ths Clause

The issue of representation continued to plague the delegates, complicated as it was by the practice of chattel slavery. Greater populations would mean more power in Congress, and slave states wanted to be able to count their slave populations for purposes of representation. Slaves, of course, were considered property. Elbridge Gerry, taking issue with the Southern state’s desire to count slaves towards their populations, asked provocatively, “Why then should the blacks, who [are] property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the Cattle & horses of the North?” Still the delegations agreed (9-2) to the 3/5ths compromise. Roger Sherman then threw down the gauntlet, saying the small states would “never agree to the plan on any other principle than an equality of suffrage.” He was outvoted, 6-5.

It was eventually agreed, for the sake of preserving a chance at union among the states, that slave holding states would be permitted to count three-fifths of their slave populations towards representation in Congress. The three-fifths clause today is often referred to as counting enslaved persons as “3/5ths of a person.” No such characterization was made at the convention.

Most of the questions addressed this week—and throughout the summer—naturally had to do with the source of government power. Should consent of the governed come from the people, as James Wilson seemed to advocate? Or from the states (and thereby only indirectly from the people of those states) as advocated by the friends of the former Confederacy such as George Mason or Roger Sherman?

The delegates concluded by agreeing to vote on Amended Virginia Plan with 19 Resolutions. But the delegates from New Jersey had a plan up their sleeve.

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