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 -

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.