THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Events Leading to the Constitutional Convention.--Among the many
difficulties that arose during the period of the confederation were
constant disputes between Virginia and Maryland over the navigation of
the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Finally, in March, 1785,
commissioners from these States met at Alexandria to consider these
difficulties. The outcome of the meeting was that Virginia proposed a
convention and called for delegates from all of the States to meet to
consider how commerce should be controlled. Delegates from five States
only were present at Annapolis on the day appointed, September 11, 1786.
Nothing permanent could be accomplished with so few States represented.
Before adjourning, however, they agreed to a resolution, framed by
Alexander Hamilton, which proposed the calling of a convention at
Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation.
The Federal Convention, 1787; Delegates.--All of the States, Rhode
Island excepted, were finally represented in this, one of the most
notable conventions in the history of the world. Among the fifty-five
delegates assembled were many who had already been conspicuous in public
affairs. They were the choice men of the States from which they came.
Twenty-nine of the number were university men. Washington and Franklin
were present, and Washington was unanimously chosen president of the
convention. Neither of these men took an active part in the debates; but
their presence gave inspiration to the other members, and they had
untold influence at critical times. Among the ablest members were
Alexander Hamilton of New York; James Madison of Virginia; Oliver
Ellsworth and William S. Johnson of Connecticut; James Wilson and
Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania; Rufus King of Massachusetts; and
Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina.
Our Knowledge of the Convention.--The Convention lasted from
May 25 to September 17, 1787. The sessions were secret. Fortunately
we are not dependent on the secretary's report alone for our
knowledge of the meetings.[8] Mr. Madison seemed to understand the
full meaning of the convention from the first, and decided to give
an accurate account of the proceedings. He wrote: "Nor was I
unaware of the value of such a contribution to the fund of
materials for the history of a Constitution on which should be
staked the happiness of a people great even in its infancy, and
possibly the cause of liberty throughout the world." His notes were
purchased by the government from Mrs. Madison, in 1837, for the sum
of thirty thousand dollars. They were published as "Madison's
Journal of the Constitutional Convention."
[Footnote 8: It was published in 1819 as a part of Volume I of "Elliot's
Debates."]
Plans for a Government; Virginia Plan.--The magnitude of the labors
of this convention can be understood only when we read the report of the
discussions as given by Madison. It was at once determined that no time
should be lost in patching up the articles, but that a new Constitution
should be formed. Two sets of resolutions were early submitted, each
setting forth a plan of government. The Virginia plan was largely the
work of Mr. Madison. It provided for the establishment of a national
government with supreme legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The
legislative power was to be vested in a Congress of two separate houses.
The executive was to be chosen by both houses of Congress and the
judiciary by the Senate. Representation in both houses of Congress was
to be based on population or the contributions to the support of the
government. This scheme was fiercely attacked by the delegates from the
small States, for it would clearly give control into the hands of the
more powerful States.
The New Jersey Plan.--The New Jersey plan, presented by Mr.
Patterson of that State, was agreed upon by the members from
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. This
Small-State plan, so called, provided for a continuance of the
government under the Articles of Confederation. They were to be revised
in such a manner as to give Congress the power to regulate commerce, to
raise revenue, and to coerce the States. The Small-State party insisted
that the Virginia plan, if adopted, would destroy the sovereignty of the
States. They would rather, they said, submit to a foreign power than be
deprived of equality of suffrage in both branches of the legislature.
Madison, Wilson, King, and other leaders of the Large-State party
declared that the basis for the new government was to be the people and
not the States; that it would be unfair to give Delaware as many
representatives as Virginia or Pennsylvania. After many days of
fruitless debate, a compromise, sometimes called the "First Great
Compromise," was presented and finally adopted. This provided that the
House of Representatives should be composed of members elected on the
basis of population. In the Senate, large and small States were to be
equally represented.
The Slavery Problem; Second Compromise.--How was the number of the
representatives to be found? Were slaves to be counted a part of the
population? A heated debate arose over these questions. The delegates
from South Carolina maintained that slaves were a part of the population
and as such should be counted. The answer was made that slaves were not
represented in the legislatures of that and other States; that slaves
were regarded in those States merely as so much property, and as such
ought never to be represented. Finally, when it seemed that the work of
the convention must fail, a compromise, known as "the three-fifths
compromise," was accepted. This provided that all free people should be
counted and three-fifths of the slaves.
The Third Compromise.--Slave-trade and commerce were the causes for
a third compromise. South Carolina and Georgia desired to have the
importation of slaves continued. Some of the other Southern States and
the Northern States generally were opposed. The New England members were
anxious that the National government should have complete control of
foreign commerce. This was resisted by some of the Southern delegates,
who feared that the importation of slaves might thereby be prohibited.
Finally, a compromise was agreed upon which gave Congress power over
foreign and interstate commerce, but forbade any act which might
prohibit the importation of slaves before 1808. It was also agreed that
a tax of ten dollars each might be laid on all slaves imported. While
the entire Constitution may be said to be made up of compromises, the
agreement upon these three rendered the further work of the convention
possible.
Signing the Constitution.--Gouverneur Morris was selected to give
the document its final form. The clear, simple English used is due
largely to him. After thirty-nine members, representing twelve different
States, had signed the Constitution, the convention adjourned. While the
last signatures were being written, Franklin said to those standing near
him, as he called attention to a sun blazoned on the back of the
President's chair: "I have, often and often, in the course of the
session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue,
looked at that behind the President, without being able to tell whether
it was rising or setting; but now, at length, I have the happiness to
know that it is a rising and not a setting sun."
Difficulties of Ratification.--The convention submitted the
Constitution to Congress. Here, for eight days, it was attacked by its
opponents. Finally, Congress passed it on to the State legislatures. It
was sent by them to State conventions elected by the people. This
ratification was provided for by Article VII of the Constitution, as
follows: _The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be
sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States
so ratifying the same._
The period included between September 28, 1787, when Congress
transmitted the Constitution to the State legislatures, and June 21,
1788, when New Hampshire, the last of the necessary nine States,
ratified, was one of the most critical in our history. Political
parties, in a truly National sense, were formed for the first time.
Among the leaders who defended ably the views of those who opposed the
ratification of the Constitution were Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee,
Elbridge Gerry, and George Clinton. It was urged that there was no bill
of rights,[9] that the President would become a despot, and that
equality of representation in the Senate was an injustice to the larger
States. "Letters from the Federal Farmer," prepared for the press of the
country by Richard Henry Lee, set forth clearly the views of the
Anti-Constitutional party.
[Footnote 9: A bill of rights, in which the idea of the rights of man
were set forth, was a significant part of nearly all the State
constitutions. Englishmen, generally, had been familiar with the formal
statement of these principles since 1689, when William and Mary accepted
the Declaration of Rights as a condition of their receiving the crown of
England. During the same year Parliament gave the Declaration of Rights
the form of a statute, under the name of the Bill of Rights. Among other
rights it demanded that the king, without the sanction of Parliament,
should not raise an army, secure money, or suspend the laws; also, that
the right of petition, freedom in the exercise of religion, and equality
under the laws were to be granted all subjects.]
"The Federalist."--No influence was more noteworthy in bringing
about ratification than a series of political essays afterward collected
under the name of "The Federalist." It is considered to-day the best
commentary on the Constitution ever written. Alexander Hamilton
originated the plan, and wrote 51 of the 85 numbers. James Madison wrote
29, and John Jay 5.
The Influence of Washington.--Washington was again a giant in
his support of the Constitution. In a letter to Patrick Henry he
early sounded an effective note of warning against anarchy,
expressing the very fear that finally led many in the conventions
to vote for the Constitution. He wrote: "I wish the Constitution
which is offered had been more perfect; but it is the best that
could be obtained at this time, and a door is open for amendments
hereafter. The political concerns of this country are suspended by
a thread. The convention has been looked up to by the reflecting
part of the community with a solicitude which is hardly to be
conceived, and if nothing had been agreed upon by that body,
anarchy would soon have ensued, the seeds being deeply sown in
every soil."
Ratification Secured.--Delaware, the first State, ratified December
6, 1787, without a dissenting vote. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia,
and Connecticut followed quickly. Much depended on the action of the
Massachusetts convention. After prolonged debate, the delegates were
finally influenced by the statement that amendments might be made, and
they ratified the Constitution by a vote of 187 to 168. The ninth State
was secured in the ratification by New Hampshire, June 21, 1788. It was
not until November 21, 1789, however, that North Carolina voted to
accept the Constitution. Rhode Island held out until May 29, 1790.
The New Government Put into Operation.--When the ratification of
the ninth State had been secured, Congress appointed a special committee
to frame an act for putting the Constitution into operation. It was
enacted that the first Wednesday in January should be the day for
appointing electors; that the electors should cast their votes for
President on the first Wednesday in February, and that on the first
Wednesday of March the new government should go into operation. It was
not until April 1 that a quorum was secured in the House of
Representatives, and in the Senate not until April 6. The electoral
votes were counted in the presence of the two houses on April 6.[10] The
inauguration of President Washington did not take place, however, until
April 30.
[Footnote 10: New York did not choose electors. North Carolina and Rhode
Island, as we have seen, had not ratified the Constitution.]
Origin of the Constitution.--Before making a study of this
epoch-making document, let us inquire briefly as to its origin. An
analysis of the Constitution shows that there are some provisions which
are new and that English precedent had an influence. The main features,
however, were derived from the constitutions of the States with whose
practical workings the delegates were familiar. The following well-known
statement is an excellent summary: "Nearly every provision of the
Federal Constitution that has worked well is one borrowed from or
suggested by some State constitution; nearly every provision that has
worked badly is one which the convention, for want of a precedent, was
obliged to devise for itself."
Authority and Objects of the Constitution.--It was evidently the
intention of the framers of the Constitution to found a government
deriving its authority from the people rather than from the States. The
purposes for which this was done are set forth in the following
enacting clause, commonly called the preamble:--
"_We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America_."
This clause was attacked vigorously by the opponents of the
Constitution, and especially in the Virginia and the North Carolina
conventions. Said Patrick Henry: "And here I would make this inquiry of
those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal
Convention.... I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but,
sir, give me leave to demand what right had they to say, 'We, the
people'?... Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the
people, instead of, We, the States? If the States be not the agents of
this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government of
the people of all the States." It was argued, on the other hand, by
Randolph, Madison, and others, that the government, under the Articles
of Confederation, was a failure, and that the only safe course to pursue
was to have a government emanating from the people instead of from the
States, if the union of the States and the preservation of the liberties
of the people were to be preserved.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS AND READINGS.
1. For an account of the members of the convention, see Hart,
Contemporaries, III, 205-211.
2. For the contributions of the individuals and the classes of
delegates, see Walker, The Making of the Nation, 23-27; Fiske, Critical
Period, 224-229.
3. Discuss the peculiar conditions in Massachusetts. Give the arguments
presented. Walker, 56-57; Fiske, Critical Period, 316-331.
4. How was the Constitution regarded in Virginia? Walker, 58, 60; Fiske,
Critical Period, 334-338.
5. What was the attitude of the New York Convention toward the
Constitution? Fiske, Critical Period, 340-345.
6. What objections were made against the Constitution in North Carolina?
Hart, Contemporaries, III, 251-254.
7. What would have been the status of North Carolina and Rhode Island if
they had not ratified? Walker, 73, 74; Hart, Formation of the Union,
132, 133.
8. Show the influence of the State constitutions on the Federal
Constitution. James and Sanford, Government in State and Nation, 117.
9. For other questions on the material in this chapter, see Fiske, Civil
Government, 211, 212; James and Sanford, Government in State and Nation,
135, 136, 137.