The adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, followed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (Articles of Confederation), which was the first attempt by the colonies to create a unified government. The Articles of Confederation essentially established a union of independent states. The problem with this federation was that it lacked key elements of a strong government: it had only a limited executive and judicial branch, meaning there was no effective way to carry out policies or enforce the states’ failure to meet financial and other obligations, leading to an ineffective government. There was no method of taxation, which kept the states near bankruptcy. Additionally, there was no practical way to prevent states from interfering with interstate commerce, resulting in trade disputes. The provisions for the United States to conduct foreign relations were also inadequate, creating a risk of war. Lastly, there was no effective way to establish a consistent and strong defense, leaving the new nation vulnerable to military intervention. As a result, in 1786, the first Constitutional Convention was convened.
The convention opened on May 25, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The story of the convention is beyond the scope of this blog, but it merits study by every American. There are many fine studies of the event, the most popular of which is “Miracle in Philadelphia” by Catherine Drinker Bowen. [1] The convention is unique in history for the quality of its leadership and the experience and judgement of its members.
As its initial act, George Washington was elected its presiding officer. Washington did not talk a great deal during the convention, but his presence was important. Nearly everyone present knew that whatever form of government was chosen, Washington was its likely first leader. His prestige was such that, even without talking, he influenced events.
One of the delegates, future President James Madison, is of special note. During the course of the convention, three basic structures were suggested. Many delegates initially felt that the convention had been called to make amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and that the convention was neither authorized nor entitled to suggest the kind of sweeping change the Constitution ultimately embodied.
What is known as the “Virginia Plan” was the first presented and formed the course of the debate. Authored by James Madison of Virginia, this plan provided for three distinct branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) with the legislative branch divided into both an upper and lower house. Madison arrived well-prepared and with the basic books and materials he felt necessary for the intellectual guidance of the convention. He was the most crucial drafting force behind the final document. Madison’s notes taken as a journal during the convention are, next to the Federalist Papers, the most important primary source for interpreting the Constitution in light of the intent of its framers. [2]
Many smaller and southern states and delegates were unsure of the wisdom of the Virginia Plan. They initially opposed Madison’s ideas. In response to Madison’s ideas, William Patterson of New Jersey submitted the “New Jersey Plan.” This plan was similar to the Articles of Confederation, with a unicameral legislature in which each state had a single vote. In fairness to this plan, it was probably much closer to what those who called the convention intended. Patterson is largely forgotten today, but he was one of the foremost intellectual figures at the convention.
Finally, the “moderate” Virginia plan and the more traditional New Jersey plan functioned to guide the debate towards a compromise. Still, it was not certain that the compromise would be practical. Alexander Hamilton then proposed “the Hamilton Plan,” which envisioned a much stronger central government along the lines of Great Britain. Under Hamilton’s plan, the national government would be supreme and would appoint state governors. There would be a strong national government with broad executive powers. It was unclear then, and remains unclear today, whether Hamilton was serious about the plan or whether its presentation was tactical to push the inevitable compromise towards a stronger central government.
In the end, two delegates from Connecticut, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, proposed a way of breaking the deadlock between the larger and smaller states on the issue of legislative representation, which became known as ” the Connecticut Compromise ” or the ” Great Compromise. This compromise proposed a system of dual representation. There would be a House of Representatives in which each state’s number of seats would be proportional to its population. There would also be a Senate in which all states would have the same number of seats. [3] In July 1787, the Great Compromise was adopted by a one-vote margin, clearing the way for the adoption of a final constitution. The Constitutional Convention approved it on September 17, 1787.
Conclusion
The adoption of the Constitution is one of the great stories of human history. We were blessed that a competent group of leaders was chosen to address the problems of the Articles of Confederation. Naturally, they were human, and mistakes were made—as they are and always will be made within the boundaries of human history. Nevertheless, they did the best they could and structured a republican democracy that has endured for centuries.
The fact that they were willing to compromise is something needed in our current situation. The “all or nothing” politics of power that have characterized our political system for decades now are not functional and prevent the kind of practical compromise that is needed in many areas, taxation and the deficit being two significant examples. We need wise statesmanship.
The Constitution was not perfect when adopted, which is why a Bill of Rights was added soon after. The cost of any union was the continuation of slavery, a moral evil that required a Civil War to end, and its consequences still affect us today. The founders did not anticipate that the nation would incur the enormous debts it has now. Even a person so farsighted as Alexander Hamilton could not conceive that the federal government would require the vast sums it spends today. I am confident they would have demanded a balanced budget if they had known. They could not foresee that the national government would be given the powers it now holds. The project the founders started is not finished, and it never will be as long as freedom remains. Still, we are fortunate that they made such a strong start.
As Lincoln put it so well, “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.”[4]
Copyright G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved
[1] Catherine Drinker Bowen: Miracle in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention May to September 1787 (New York, NY: Little Brown and Company, 1966). This is a very well-done popular history. For those with a more scholarly bent, there are various others with a more academic tone. I believe her work to be unmatched, however.
[2] These notes are available both online and in printed form. See, “Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787” https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp (Downloaded June 2, 2021). Printed versions are available on amazon.com.
[3] In the end, the Connecticut compromise was amended to base representation in the House on total white population of each state and three-fifths of the black population. This provision of the Constitution is the most debated today and the most criticized. As any close student of the debate knows, it was reluctantly agreed to because without it there could be no agreement and the convention would have failed. Nevertheless, it had predicable unfortunate consequences that took the American Civil War to resolve.
[4] Lincoln, Abraham. “The Gettysburg Address.” 1863.