PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION:A CAMPAIGN FOR REFORM

WEAKNESSES IN THE ARTICLESOF CONFEDERATION

• Couldn’t make states do anything• 2/3 Rule to pass anything in Congress (9/13 states)• Unable to regulate commerce• No power to raise taxes directly (lacked independent source

of revenue, totally dependent on states)• Lacked power to resolve boundary disputes, prevent states

from imposing tariffs and restrictions on interstatecommerce, or to compel states to meet requisitions tofinance government

• Unanimous consent of states necessary for amendments

WEAKNESSES IN THE ARTICLESOF CONFEDERATION

• Foreign affairs– Britain restricted trade with the U.S. and hampered the

development of western territories– Loyalist claims unenforceable– British delay withdrawal from forts in Northwest Territories– Spain controlled the vital Mississippi River– Indian action on frontier

• Rhode Island example– Wildly inflated currency made legal tender. Debtors paying

creditors with worthless paper. Creditors bankrupt

• Shays’s Rebellion viewed as dreadful portent of future• Congress was virtually powerless, fears of “mobocracy”• “The evils we experience are from the excess of

democracy.”

REFORM• George Washington (1780): “I see one head gradually

changing into thirteen…. I see the powers of Congressdeclining too fast for the consequence and respect which isdue to them as the grand representative body of America.”

• Strong central government necessary to protect privateproperty and guard against anarchy

• Mount Vernon Conference (1785): precedent for interstateconferences on reform

• Annapolis Convention (1786): urged Federal Convention• Inconsistent mandate from Confederate Congress: passed

resolution authorizing Philadelphia Convention to take anymeasures “to render the constitution of government to theexigencies of the Union.”

THE PHILADELPHIACONVENTION

• Gathering of 55 notables to overhaul Articles ofConfederation. Without authority, they decided to draft anentirely new constitution that saved the nation andrepublican experiment.– Rewrite, need for unanimous consent?– Secrecy to work out differences more easily? “If the debates had

been public, no constitution would have been adopted.” Madison

• Intent of Constitutional Convention– Economic? Charles Beard—protect property and public securities

as well as strengthen the public credit. Make America safe from“democracy” and “mobocracy.”

– Idealistic? Make a “more perfect Union”– Pragmatic? Pursuing common interests over regional or personal

concerns– The framers “had a self-interest in bringing about the public good.”

Independence Hall

DELEGATES

• 55 delegates from 12 states (74 chosen)• Young (average age 42), professional (over half

lawyers), men of economic substance• States’ governors, chief justices, attorneys general,

delegates to Confederation Congress,distinguished men who came out of retirement toserve country, lawyers, doctors, soldiers,clergymen, and merchants

• Well-to-do, elite of their state, “well-bred, well-fed, well-wed, and well-read”

GROUPS• National figures—Franklin and Washington• Senior statesmen—Dickinson (DE), Mason (VA),

Sherman (CT), Rutledge (SC), etc.• Advocates of state and local interests—Lansing and

Yates (NY), Martin (MD), Paterson (NJ), Charles C.Pinckney (SC), etc.

• Architects of national government—Hamilton (NY),Madison (VA), Charles C. Pinckney (SC), James Wilson(PA), etc.

• Quiet men—Blair (VA), Ingersoll (PA), McHenry (MD),etc.

• Notable absentees—Jefferson, John Adams, Sam Adams,Patrick Henry (“smell a rat”), etc.

KEY PARTICIPANTS

• Washington—president of convention

• Madison (“father oftheConstitution”)—research and preparation

• Franklin—81 yearsold, sedan chair,steadying influence

• GouverneurMorris—drafted theConstitution

• James Wilson

• Roger Shermanproposed the“ConnecticutCompromise”

City Tavern

DIVISION AND DANGER• George Washington: “What a triumph for our enemies. …

to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and thatsystems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merelyideal and fallacious.”

• No delegate doubted that stronger government of some sortwas needed to replace the toothless Articles ofConfederation. They valued order and national strength.Some central control crucial, but how much?

• James Madison observed that “all men having power oughtto be distrusted to a certain degree.”

• Feared tyranny of the majority• Knew that earlier attempts at creating a republic in a large,

diverse nation had failed• Goal to shape a stable government that could maintain

democratic order as freedom evolved

DEBATES• How should members of the lower house of Congress be

elected?• Western territories?• Slave trade? Slavery? Fugitive Slave Law?• Paper money?• Power to declare war?• Executive power?• Ratification process?• Division of power between national and state governments?• Representation in national legislature?• Slaves and representation?

FUTURE AT STAKE

• “Something must be done, or we shalldisappoint not only America, but the wholeworld.” Elbridge Gerry

• “We had better take a supreme governmentnow, than a despot twenty years hence—forcome he must.” Governeur Morris

VIRGINIA PLAN• Drafted by Madison and proposed by Edmund Randolph, it

called for a national executive with veto power, a nationaljudiciary, and a two-house legislature, with the lower house“elected by the people and the upper chosen by the lower.”

• Representation based on population for both houses• President and courts to be chosen by the legislature• Favored by large states• Smaller states favored the New Jersey Plan, proposed by

William Paterson, called for a one-house legislaturecomprised of members chosen by the state legislatures– One state, one vote; separate executive and judicial branches;

increased powers of Congress

• Became a blueprint

James Madison “Father of the Constitution”

COMPROMISES• Great Compromise (July 16, 1787): plan proposed

by the Connecticut delegates establishing a two-house legislature. The Senate became the bodybased on equal representation (2 senators per state),and the House of Representatives the body based onpopulation (although every state must have at leastone member).– All revenue bills must begin in the lower house

COMPROMISES• Three-Fifths Compromise: provision establishing that

each slave would count as three-fifths of a person when itcame to apportioning representation in the lower house onthe basis of population; the Three-Fifths Clause gave thewhite South disproportionate power in the House ofRepresentatives (the slaves, while counted thus, had nopolitical rights whatsoever).– 60% of slaves counted for representation and taxation– Non-slave states wanted slaves counted for taxation, but not

representation, and wanted an end to the importation of slaves.– Slaves states wanted slaves counted for representation, but not

taxation

COMPROMISES• Commerce/slave trade compromise

– No tax on exports

– Simple majority needed to pass commerce bills

– No Congressional interference with slave trade for 20 years (1808)

– Cotton and tobacco-producing states wanted restriction of taxes onexports and all commerce bills to be passed by a two-thirds vote ofCongress.

– Northern industrial states wanted federal tariffs to better competewith cheaper European products and to raise revenue for thenational government.

– Most of the country wanted the slave trade abolished. Slave tradekept for 20 years but subject to taxation

COMPROMISES• Executive (single, with 4 year term, eligible for re-election)

– Decided to create electoral college system to keep the presidency outof the hands of a demagogue

• Judicial branch (set bare bones only)

• Slavery (morality never really an issue)– States’ rights issue

– Was dying out gradually in the North

– Fugitive slave clause

– Was thought to be economically marginal in South• Cotton Gin (1793) changed that—South enslaved to slavery

FINAL PRODUCT• Constitution supreme law of land; placed sovereignty with

the people, not the states• Terse outline of government• Patchwork, bundle of compromises• Flawed document• 39 of 55 delegates signed: Gerry, Randolph and Mason

refused to sign• Framers able to rise above petty squabbles and self-interest

to create the oldest written national constitutions andperhaps the most successful federal and republican systemof government in history

• “… I have the happiness of knowing that it is a rising andnot a setting Sun.” Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin

RATIFICATION DEBATE• Constitution flawed document. Franklin remarked,

“Thus I consent … to this Constitution because Iexpect no better, and because I am not sure, that it isnot the best.”

• Ratification procedure:– Because of fear of opposition from states, only 9 of the

13 were needed for the Constitution to take effect– Because of opposition from state legislatures,

conventions elected by the people were given authority toapprove or reject Constitution

– Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists– Key states for ratification—PA, MA, VA, and NY

ISSUES• Articles scrapped, new constitution drafted under

veil of secrecy

• Who should ratify—the people or the states?

• Constitution provided for a strong nationalgovernment with extraordinary and unprecedentedpower given to the president and Senate

• Potential threats to individual liberty and states’rights

• Fears that a single republican state could not governsuch a large and diverse nation

FEDERALISTS• Rescue country from anarchy and bring stability• Win support of most prominent citizens• Secure liberty and property; bill of rights unnecessary• Changes can be made through the amendment process• Checks and balances system ensures that no person or small

group will gain control of the government• “Nationalists” who favored a strong central government• George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John

Adams, James Madison, John Marshall, etc.• “My decided opinion on the matter is, that there is no

alternative between the adoption of it and anarchy….”George Washington

• “The federal Convention devised the … remedy to removeour political diseases.” Edmund Pendleton

THE FEDERALIST• The Federalists won the debate over ratification because

they were highly organized and more powerful than theAntifederalists.

• The Federalist Papers, penned by Hamilton, Jay, andMadison, provide an excellent explanation and justificationfor republicanism, separation of powers, and federalism

• Federal government supreme over states in its delegatedareas of foreign affairs, trade, and war

• Republicanism works in a large, diverse nation• Elected representatives should protect the nation from the

sometimes irrational demands of the people• A strong federal government keeps factions from

controlling the nation; protects minority rights and interests• A separation of powers is an effective way of controlling

majority factions

The Signing

ANTI-FEDERALISTS

• Opponents of the Constitution who criticized theConstitution severely, arguing that it gave thefederal government too much power, jeopardized thepeople’s hard-won freedoms, and favored the elite atthe expense of the common people

• Agreed Articles of Confederation needed fixing andthat Congress should possess the power to regulatetrade among the states and with foreign nations

• Constitution would give federal government enoughpower to destroy the states, the bulwarks of liberty

ANTI-FEDERALISTS

• Government too far away from the people– House too small; Senate tool of rich; Supreme Court

support government and rich at expense of states

– State autonomy, advantages of small republics,disadvantages of large republics, dangers of a standingarmy, etc.

• Demanded a bill of rights

• Supporters of confederation and loose form offederalism

ANTI-FEDERALISTS• Amos Singletary, an old Massachusetts farmer, argued:

“These lawyers, and men of learning, and moneyed men,that talk so finely, and gloss over matters smoothly, to makeus poor illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to bethe managers of the Constitution, and get all the power andall the money into their own hands, and then they willswallow up all of us little folks, like the great whale.”

• Patrick Henry argued at the Virginia convention: “Thequestion turns, Sir, on that poor little thing—the expression,We, the People, instead of the United States of America.”

• Richard Henry Lee contended: “It cannot be denied, withtruth, that this new Constitution is, in its first principles,highly and dangerously oligarchic; and it is a point agreed,that a government of the few is of all governments, theworst.”

ANTI-FEDERALISTS• George Mason contended: “It is ascertained, by history,

that there never was a government over a very extensivecountry without destroying the liberties of the people:history also, supported by opinions of the best writers,shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, anddespotic governments ever so extensive a country, but thatpopular governments can only exist in small territories.”

• Although the Anti-Federalists did not form a singleorganized group and did not speak with one voice, theiropposition to the Constitution introduced ideas the nationwas compelled to confront. The Anti-Federalist defense ofstate autonomy is an idea that has never left the public arena.Their call for constitutional amendments to protectindividual rights led to their most important legacy—theBill of Rights

George Mason

RATIFICATION

• Ratification, on condition that a bill ofrights be added

• Madison steadfastly lobbied insideCongress for a Bill of Rights to satisfy theAnti-Federalists

• Popular sovereignty

• Willingness to compromise saved the Union

COMMENTARY

The framers sought to set the young nation on morestable political, economic, and social foundations.Although it may be an oxymoron, it can be saidthat the framers were conservative revolutionaries,for they wanted to preserve republicanism. Nodoubt, the Constitution, as originally drafted wasflawed and limited. Nevertheless the Constitutionhas served us well for over 200 years becauseAmericans have been willing to trust each other’sdevotion to liberty, to compromise when necessary,and to abide by the rule of law.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailyn, Bernard. The Genius and Ambiguities of the FoundingFathers. New York: Vintage Books, 2003.

Berstein, Richard B. “The Philadelphia Convention.” TheReader’s Companion to American History. Edited by EricFoner and John A. Garraty. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,1991.

Bowen, Catherine Drinker. Miracle at Philadelphia: TheStory of the Constitutional Convention, May to September1787. Foreword by Warren E. Burger. New York: AnchorBooks, 1986 (1966).

Kammen, Michael. The Origins of the American Constitution:A Documentary History. New York: Penguin Books, 1986.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kaminski, John P. and Richard Leffler. Creating theConstitution: A History in Documents. Madison, WI: TheCenter for the Study of the American Constitution, 1991.

Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic, 1763-1789.Third edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Rakove, Jack N. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas inthe Making of the Constitution. New York: Alfred A.Knopf, 1996.

Wood, Gordon S. The American Revolution: A History. NewYork: The Modern Library, 2002.