United States Constitutional Convention (May-September 1787)


Figure 1.--Here a student studying the Constitution looks up at a school library display for George Washington. Two individuals dominated the Constitutional Convention. Diminutive James Madison was a quiet, reserved scholar who spent his time studying governnents throughout history. He played only a minor role in the Revolution. He was deeply embued as a scholr with the Enlightenment. The Virginia Plan he brought to the Convention would serve as blueprint for the Constitution. George Washington was everything that Madison was not. He was an imposing, toweing figure who was largely responsible for winning the Revolutionary War. He was a military man, not a deep thinker. He could have used the Continental Army to seize control of the new Republic, but declined to do so. As a result, Americans trusted him implicitly and his presence at the Convention lent an authority and legitimacy to the new Constitution that Madison's scholarly eassys alone could never have achieved.

The Constitutinal Convention Covened in State House (now called Indepoendence Hall) in Philadelphia. It was the same place that the Declaration of Independence had been issued 11 years erarlier. The delegates were slow to arrive. A quorum was finaled reached (May 25, 1787). The Articles of Confederation had proved to be an inadequate charter for the new republic. The Convention would be a closed undertaking. Guards stood at the entrances to keep out all but the selegates. Two individuals would dominte the procceedings--George Washington and James Madison. Robert Morris of Pennsylvania who the "financier" of the Revolution, opened the proceedings by nominating Gen. George Washington to precide over the Convention. Many were suspicious about the proceedings, believing it was an attempt to create a powerful government that would endanger individual liberties. Washington was not a scholar or great thinker. He was, however, widely trusted. The participation of Washington was reasuring. The vote on Washington was unanimous. It was clear from the onset that Washington would be the first president and thus many delegates were willing to accept a stronger executice than they would have in other hands. The other key individual at the Convention was James Madison, a political ally of Thomas Jefferson who was absent. Madison, a fellow Virginian, was pleased with the choice of Washingtion. Madison was one of those who was concerned about the dangers of a new Constitution and powerful cedntreal government. Unlike Washington, he was not an imposing figure. The slight of build Madison was, however, an intelectual giant of the higest order. Both Madison and Wasington almost did not attend, but for different reasons. Wasington whose Army had been poorly supported by the Continental Congress, was not optimistic that polititians would accomplish much. Madison arrived in Philadelphia with a carefully crafted plan which came to be called the Virginia Plan. Madison's critical role at the Convention has resulted in him being seen as the "father" of the Constitution. Early on in the deliberations, it became clear (by mid-June) that the problems the country faced could not be resolved by modifying the Articles. The delegates decided to draft an entirely new charter. All through the hot summer, in closed sessions, the delegates debated, and redrafted the new articles proposed. The central issue was how much power to grant the central government. Other important matters were how many representatives in Congress to allow each state. Here there were differences between the large and small states. Also at issue was how these representatives should be elected. Some wanted direct electionand others preferred giving the state legislators the authority to select Congressional representatrives. The resulting Constitution became the product of many monds well-schooled by the Enlightenment. The Constitution thus stands as a model of statesmanship and the art of compromise.

Articles of Confederation (1781-89)

The Articles of Confederation had proved to be an inadequate charter for the new republic. The Articles were essentially the first constitution of the United States. The Continental Congress declared independence (1776). The following years the Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation (1777). It was described as a "firm league of friendship" between the 13 British colonies. The Colonies were essentially fighting strong central control in the form of the British Empire. The Articles reflected the concern of the various colonies with central control. Under he Articles the future states were not just autonomous, but sovereign. The states were maintained their "sovereignty, freedom and independence." There was no executive and judicial branches of government. Under the articles, the national government rested with Congress, essentially a legislative body in the for of a committee of delegates representing each state. The Congress had considerable responsibilities such as conducting foreign affairs, declaring war or peace, maintaining an army and navy and a variety of other less important functions. What Congress did not have was the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce and enforce laws. Congress could only ask the states to provide funds. The Articles were adopted by Congress (November 15, 1777) and came into force when the last of the 13 states approved the document (March 1, 1781).

Pennsylvania State House

The Constitutinal Convention Covened in State House (now called Indepoendence Hall) in Philadelphia. It was the same place that the Declaration of Independence had been issued 11 years erarlier.

The Delegates

The delegates were slow to arrive. A quorum was finaled reached (May 25, 1787).

Proceedings

The Delegates decided that the Convention would be a closed undertaking. Guards stood at the entrances to keep out all but the delegates themselves. A reader writes, "They not only barred visitors from the convention, but swore each other to secrecy. Some have read into these decisions some unsavory motives, but I think they did so to avoid the spread of rumors and gossip that might well have caused an abrupt ending to the convention. This is solely my conjecture, but I think this privacy was conducive to a free and open exchange of ideas, as well as a change of minds." [Bridges]

Dominant Figures

Two individuals would dominte the procceedings--George Washington and James Madison. Both Madison and Wasington almost did not attend, but for different reasons.

George Washington

George Wasington whose Army had been poorly supported by the Continental Congress, was not optimistic that polititians would accomplish much. Robert Morris of Pennsylvania who the 'financier' of the Revolution, opened the proceedings by nominating Gen. George Washington to precide over the Convention. Many were suspicious about the proceedings, believing it was an attempt to create a powerful government that would endanger individual liberties. Washington was not a scholar or great thinker. He was, however, an individual of impecable integrityb and trusted like no other Revolutiary War figure. The participation of Washington was thus reasuring. The vote on Washington was unanimous. It was clear from the onset that Washington would be the first president and thus many delegates were willing to accept a stronger executice than they would have in other hands. The General with characteristic modesty, expressed embarrassment with his lack of qualifications to preside over such an august body. He apologized in advance for any errors he may commit in the course of its deliberations. A reader writes, "George Washington was the indispensable figure at the convention. His presence conferred legitimacy to the proceedings. When the convention adjourned, he was certain to become the first (true) president of the United States upon ratification of the Constitution. During the era of the Articles the Congress elected a delegate from Maryland, John Hanson, as "president of the United States." He was little more than presiding officer of the Congress, but no less a figure than General George Washington sent Hanson a letter to congratulate him for his election to the presidency." [Bridges]

James Madision

The other key individual at the Convention was James Madison. James Madison could make most people of any time feel like underachievers. At the age of 36 he was one of the youngest delegates at the Constitutional Convention. He was the oldest of 12 children of a wealthy Virginia landowner and planter. The young Madison, a diligent student, was tutored privately until the age of 16 years. He graduated from Princeton with a degree in law that helped to shape his keen political instincts. Madison was a political ally of Thomas Jefferson who was absent, serving as the Americann Minister (ambassador) to France. Jefferson was very suspicious about the process. Madison, a fellow Virginian, was pleased with the choice of Washingtion. Madison was one of those who was concerned about the dangers of a new Constitution and powerful central government. Unlike Washington, he was not an imposing figure. Madison was our smallest preident, only 5' 4" in height and roughly 100 pounds in weight. He favored black clothes, and one contemporary described him as resembling a "school teacher dressed for a funeral. The slight of build Madison was, however, an intelectual giant of the higest order. Madison arrived in Philadelphia with a carefully crafted plan which came to be called the Virginia Plan. Madison's critical role at the Convention has resulted in him being seen as the 'father" of the Constitution'. Madison studied public speaking, and many considered him a fine orator. At the constitutional Convention, however, Madison asked his friend, Governor Edmund Randolph, to present the Virginia Plan, Madison's own handiwork. Madison believed that many delegates thought he had an agenda, as we might say today. He feared that these suspicions of his motives might cost his plan their support. Madison is called the "Father of the Constitution" with good cause by history. A reader writes, "More than any other delegate at the convention, Madison influenced the final draft of the constitution. In truth Madison got about 40 percent of what he wanted from the Convention. One notable plank (in my view) of the Virginia Plan that the delegates rejected was the proposal that the national government have power to veto acts of state governments. Imagine the political firestorms that could ignite today." [Bridges]

Decision to Create an Entirely New Constitutiion

Early on in the deliberations, it became clear (by mid-June) that the problems the country faced could not be resolved by modifying the Articles. The delegates decided to draft an entirely new charter. All through the hot summer, in closed sessions, the delegates debated, and redrafted the new articles proposed.

Central Issue

The central issue was how much power to grant the central government. Other important matters were how many representatives in Congress to allow each state. Here there were differences between the large and small states. This was finally resolved by the Great Compromise.

Representation

Also at issue was how these representatives should be elected. Some wanted direct electionand others preferred giving the state legislators the authority to select Congressional representatrives.

Compromise

The resulting Constitution became the product of many minds well-schooled by the Enlightenment. The Constitution thus stands as a model of statesmanship and the art of compromise. The document produced in Philadelphia is a bundle of compromises. The Great Compromise saved the Convention from an early and premature adjournment. Arguably, the small states got the better of the bargain. The Senate, in which all states are represented equally, must approve meassures approved by the House, which favors the more populous states. The Senate also holds certain prestigious powers, also, such as the perogative of 'advice and consent' over judicial and important executive nominees. The Great Compromise raised questions over how the people would be counted. The free states feared that the slave owning Southern states would dominate the House if slaves were counted as citizens by census takers. The resulting 3/5 Compromise (for every five slaves, a state would be credited for three citizens) gave tacit approval to slavery. Ther wasn't much the free state delegates could do about this. Had they insisted on abolition slavery, the southern delegates would have walked out of the convention. [Bridges]

Slavery

The word 'slave' does not appear in the document crafted by the delegates in Philadelphia. The delegates amers consciously avoided the word. They understood that it would sully a document ensrining human dignity and the rights of man. Norhern delegates from states whuch were in the process of abolioshing slavert realized that effirts at abolitiin would make agreement on a fuinal document impossible. And there were compromises made. The three-fifths clause is often called infamous. In fact it limited the power of the southern slave aristiocracy. This affected the results of votes in Congress and some presidebntial elections, includung the Jefferson;s election in 1800. The framers did secure the commitment to end the slave trade in 20 years, a major concession from the slave states. We note author after author cricizing the founders for not abolishing slavery. After the convention approved the great compromise, Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination." One author writes, "... by sidestepping the slavery issue, the framers left the seeds for future conflict." Supreme Court Justuce Thurgood Marshall insisted that the Constitution was 'defective from the start'. He objected that the term 'We the People' left out a najority of the poopulation. He complained that while some Delegates voiced 'eloquent objections' to slavery, they 'consented to a document which laid a foundation for the tragic events which were to follow.' What these crituics fail to address is what would have happened if the the deklegates had not compromised. It is certain that there woukd have been no Constitution and mo United States. Mosr likely there woukd have been two Ameruican republics, ome slave and one free. That would have meant that there would have been no Civil War, sparuing the nation that terrible ordeal, but it also woukld have meant that there woukld have been no Emancioation Proclamation and Grand Army of the Republic to free the slaves in the separate southern republic. And what would have happened in World War II if not only America had not been unuited, but Hitler would have had a southern racist American republic to ally with.

Process

The delegates came and went throughout the convention. Most took advantage of any opportunity to tend to family, home, and business matters. By the end of the hot, humid Summer in Philadelphia, the delegates were more than ready for the Convention to end. Some historians think this is why the Convention failed to include a Bill of Rights in the constitution. The delegates didn't have the heart for any more debate. This failure haunted the subsequent ratification process. The Congress dominated by the Federalists, proponents of the constitution, decided that states, meeting in conventions, would debate and vote to ratify the proposed constitution. Conventions would give the citizens, the people, opportunities to speak their minds and to cast their votes. Had the decison rested with state legislatures, instead, the people may well have felt cheated. The constitution's very first words are, after all, 'We the People', not 'We the States'. Furthermore, when nine state conventions had given their approval, the constitution would go into effect. The other states would remain outside the new union until they voted for ratification. I think the framers of the Constitution were confident in their document. They believed not only that it would win swift approval, but that it would be such an improvement over the Articles that the new constitution would win support eventually from all the states. [Bridges]

Bill of Rights

The lack of a bill of rights, restraints on government's powers to protect the people's natural rights, was the best argument the Anti-Federalists, the opponents of the Constitution, made during the ratification process. All the states had bills of rights, so obviously so should the proposed constitution. Some Federalists argued that the proposed national government lacked powers to threaten civil liberties. Others posited that a bill of rights, by defining the restrictions on government's powers, may ironically limit civil liberties. In the end the Fedralists bowed to the clear weight of punlic opiniom. They promised the new Congress when it first met would submit a bill of rights to the states for their approval in an expeditious manner.

The Federalist Papers

The propents of the new Cobstitutiin set out to support the ratification process. One way to do this was to writes essays addrwessing the issues involved in great detail. Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and (about a dozen) John Jay published a series of essays in New York newspapers to explain the provisions of the constitution and the thinking of the delegates to readers. These essays were desimnated throught ie colonies. We know these essays tioday as The Federakist Ppers The best known and most widely quoted of these essays is perhaps Madsion's Federalist #10. In this discussion Madison writes that a 'well constructed union' is a state's best defense against the 'mischief' of factions. Factions are groups of people motivated and united by interests of other citizens and the interests of the community. Madison wrote that governments could either remove the causes of factions or control their effects. To remove the cause of factions governments would have to curtail liberties or give everyone the same interests. Madison dismissed both alternatives out of hand. Notably, Madison wrote that the "most durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property", and the regulation of these factions has preoccupied lawmakers from time immemorial. James Madison's model of government to control the effects of factions rest on three foundations. First is the separation of powers into three different branches of government. When all powers of government are held by one person or group, tyranny results. This first principle by itself is insufficient, however, to control factional mischief. The 18th century has been called variously the Age of Enlightenment. or the Age of Reason. Madison and contemporaries believed that human nature, though clearly flawed, is basically good, as well as self-interested or rational. In time one branch of government or another would try to usurp powers from the other two. To remedy this Madison proposed a system of checks and balances to keep each branch in line, as well as other limitations on government's powers. Most textbooks conclude their discussion of the "Madisonian Model of Government" with these principles, along with an amendment process. They omit one key element of the model. Governments must control factional strife, or suffer the instability and injustice it causes. Madison proposed allowing factions to check each other's powers through the political process. The third principle of Madison's model is to place as much of government as possible beyond popular control and to have the offices of government filled at different times, or intervals, by different constituencies. Madison believed any majority faction to be the more dangerous faction; they have superior numbers on their side and are more difficult to control and rein in. Popular majorities must have limited input in government for that reason. Madison advocated for a large republic in Federalist #10, one composed of enough representatives to balance the various public interests and to refine their passions and guard against their intrigues. Each branch of government would be chosen at different times and by different constituents to make it difficult for any faction to gain complete contro lof government. To illustrate, the House of Representatives is elected directly by the voters for 2 year terms. Senators originally were elected by their state legislatures for 6 years terms. Since 1913 Senators have been popularly elected, however. The President is elected officially by the Electoral College every 4 years, and federal judges serve life terms during good behavior. They are nominated by the President and confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate when vacancies arise. This model has not always prevented the dominance of one faction, but I think Mr. Madison would say that no system is perfect and that the voters must rely on the benefit of their unfortunate experience at times to restore balance to the national political system.

Sources

Bridges, John. E-mail message, January 21, 2014.








CIH







Navigate the Children in History Web Site:
[Return to Main U.S. Constitution page]
[Return to Main Revolutionary War page]
[Return to Main U.S. history page]
[About Us]
[Introduction] [Biographies] [Chronology] [Climatology] [Clothing] [Disease and Health] [Economics] [Freedom] [Geography] [History] [Human Nature] [Ideology] [Law]
[Nationalism] [Presidents] [Religion] [Royalty] [Science] [Social Class]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Glossaries] [Images] [Links] [Registration] [Tools]
[Children in History Home]






Created: 2:07 AM 6/11/2010
Last updated: 11:25 PM 1/24/2014