E Pluribus Unum

The Formation of the American Republic1776 – 1790

The Philadelphia ConventionFraming the Constitution

1787 – The Crucial Year

By 1787 the very life of the Republic was on trial.No threats: no external or internal enemy threatened

the states.The people had ceased to care whether the Republic

lived or died.Three significant places in the Republic:●Congress – had to beg for participation●Massachusetts – rage for British had turned internal●Virginia – highly qualified statesmen had turned to

money-changing

The Philadelphia ConventionMany distinguished politicians would not be present:

● John Jay● Henry Laurens● Thomas Jefferson● John Adams● Thomas Paine● Sam Adams● John Hancock● Richard Henry Lee● Patrick Henry (“I smell a rat!”)

Rhode Island refused to attend.New Hampshire designated its congressional delegates as its

representatives.Maryland delegates declined to attend.Both New Hampshire and Maryland was debating whether

to try again or not.

The Philadelphia Convention

By March when the convention was finally able to begin work, Massachusetts was still shaking with the realities of the winter rebellion and even more concerned with the under lying causes still present. That delegation was ready to concede almost anything for stronger national authority.

Pennsylvania, Virginia and South Carolina – everyone knew – were ready to scrap the Confederation in favor of a different national system – and they had consulted with each other before the convention to work out a plan.

The Philadelphia Convention

Most expected a division – seven to five – between large and small states.

The actual lineup was more sectional – south vs. north – and frequently, depending on the issue at hand, landed versus landless.

The strongest alignment reflected weak strife-torn states against strong prospering states.

Even with these three “alignments” nothing was ever as pure as one might expect – many state delegations were split among themselves and each state had to vote as one.

The Philadelphia Convention

Phase One – May 29 to July 27

During this phase the various delegates spoke as if the main issue was what kind of national government would be created.

The debates covered the true issue which was would there be a national government – and consequently a nation – at all.

The Philadelphia Convention

Virginia Plan

Would change the form but not the substance.

• Three branches of government instead of one

• Bicameral legislature with votes distributed by population

• Carried the powers of Congress to the new form

• Added only the power to legislate in cases where the states were incompetent

Debate on these issues continued for two weeks.

The Philadelphia Convention

New Jersey Plan

Sponsored mainly by “small” states.

AKA the Paterson Plan or the Small States Plan.• Three branches of government with executive and judicial

branches chosen as described in the Virginia Plan• Legislature would be unicameral and retain the system of

equal representation for all states.• The plan added a long list of powers which, in the end,

would have made the national government the sovereign.

The New Jersey Plan would have, therefore, drastically altered the substance of the government.

The Philadelphia Convention

New Jersey Plan rejected.

Modified Virginia Plan adopted six states to four.

Two disputed portion of the Virginia Plan:● Executive Branch

o plurality or single

o Manner of election (direct & popular; state legislatures; governors; national congress

● Legislative Brancho Bi or unicameral

o Equal or proportional representation

o Most of the equal representation bloc were ready to scrape the state structures and put all power in the hands of a national government

o IF the states were to be retained, the states should retain the right to vote only as a states on matters relating to their existence as states.

The Philadelphia Convention

Debate continued throughout June and into July as temperatures rose until two states – Massachusetts and Georgia – in the proportional camp began to waver as their delegations began to split on the issue.

July 2nd vote on the issue was five to five with Georgia not voting because of an equal split in its delegation – “We are now at a full stop.”

A committee of one delegate from each state formed to come up with something.

The Philadelphia Convention

July 5: the compromise committee offers a solution.• Large states concede equality in second branch• Small states concede the raising and spending of money

will remain with the popular branchAs with most compromises no one was truly happy.The convention comes to a grinding halt as grumbling

occurred from both sides; Lansing and Yates of New York walk out on July 10 in an effort to completely halt the proceedings.

By Friday, July 13th nothing was settled and most hope of a settlement was gone.

The Philadelphia Convention

On Monday the 16th the convention voted on the compromise: (Rhode Island – A; New York – walked out; New Hampshire – A)

Yes Split No

MassachusettsConnecticut

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

Delaware

Maryland (Carroll)

Virginia

North Carolina(1A; 2N; 3Y)

South Carolina

Georgia

The Philadelphia Convention

During the next ten days (16th to the 26) the convention debated the executive finally reaching an unhappy compromise once again: the president was to be elected by Congress for a seven-year term and ineligible for reelection.

More importantly during those ten day, the small states bloc joined with arch-nationalists from larger states pushing through proposals that would greatly enhance the powers of the new government.

The convention had gone as far as it could and handing over the proceedings to a five man committee adjourned for ten days.

Committee of Detail

John Rutledge South CarolinaCommittee Chairman

Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut

Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts

Edmund Randolph Virginia

James Wilson Pennsylvania

Committee of DetailObjective:● Pull all the various resolutions together● From the resolutions create a concrete, defined system● In addition to the various resolutions (compromises) the

committee was also given the discarded Pinckey and Paterson plans and several other incidental proposals made as the general convention was preparing to adjourn.

Rutledge, Ellsworth and Wilson operated not on what had occurred on the convention floor but on what had been settled upon in private.

The final document would differ greatly from the original as presented in Randolph’s plan.

Committee of Detail

The committee attempted to codify the sense of the convention.The plan as drawn up and presented to the convention consisted of a

preamble and twenty-three articles.● Greatly resembled the Pinckney proposal that had been rejected● With the exception of a second, popularly elected house of Congress, it

actually reminded many of a refined and expanded version of the discarded Paterson Plan.

The goal of the document was to:● Reflect the expressed view of the delegates● Avoid unpalatable flaws of form● Establish a strong national government

The document was subtle and skillfully drawn so that during the third phase:● There was little objection to creating a national government on the surface● There was little or no objection – on the surface – to the form the national

government should take

The Philadelphia Convention

Special interests contending for special favors endangered passage:• Landless States – Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland and New

Hampshire (July 18) – land dispute would be settled in the Senate with equal representation instead of House with popular representation

• Carrying Trade – Massachusetts, Pennsylvania – government would have the power to enact navigation acts to protect their interests

• Southern Planters – prevent taxes on exports and those south of North Carolina to protect slave trade; wanted a 2/3 majority on all navigation acts

• Moneyed Interests – public creditors and stockholders in the Bank of North America

The Philadelphia Convention

Roger Sherman John Rutledge (Connecticut) (SC)

The Corrupt BargainSouth Carolina (and Georgia if Rutledge could deliver) would support Connecticut on the land question.Connecticut (and any other northern states Sherman could deliver) would support South Carolina on the slave trade and export issue.Thus with Rutledge and his bosom friend James Wilson and with Sherman’s alter ego Oliver Ellsworth on the Committee of Detail, the final document reflected previous deals worked out between the two.

The Philadelphia Convention

Throughout the remainder of August and September various external (Ohio Company) and internal (Luther Martin) developments disrupted the smooth transition and adaptation of the proposed document.

The Philadelphia Convention

The Ohio Company• Sherman learns of the sale of a million acres of land north

of the Ohio River to largely Connecticut investors which make land disputes settled in the Senate less advantageous to Connecticut.

• From this point on, Connecticut (Sherman) pushes to have land disputes settled in the Supreme Court.

• During debates coming out of the Committee of Detail’s report the procedure for settling the land questions was quietly dropped and jurisdiction was inconspicuously shifted to the court.

The Philadelphia Convention

Luther Martin• Unhappy with most developments prior to adjournment and

returned to Baltimore to confer with Samuel Chase.• A group met with him to discuss the proceedings of the

convention.• Devoutly and genuinely opposed the institution of human slavery

which was quickly being adapted by the convention (Sherman/Rutledge)

• Was unsatisfied with the idea of land squabble being decided in the Senate

• Did not like the idea of 2/3 majority for the approval of navigation acts – did not go far enough

• Other representatives of landless states caught on and supported Martin to move the land fights out of the senate.

The Philadelphia ConventionPinckney (SC) discovered or was made aware of the corrupt

bargain.Pinckney who wanted to bask in the limelight but because of

his age was largely discounted at the convention bragged to Martin that he was privy to secret information that could blow the convention apart.

Martin – who was renowned as a drinker – plied the younger man with spirits at his group meeting in Baltimore and eventually Pinckney revealed the details of the corrupt bargain to Martin.

Once Martin knew Gerry, Mason and Randolph and eventually everyone else at the convention knew.

Gerry was outraged – every puritanical and republican instinct revolted at the ideas contained in the corrupt bargain and although he had arrived ready to accommodate others in the interests of nation unity reversed himself and began to work against the nationalists he had supported previously.

Gerry’s reversal led several others to do the same thing.By August 22 the convention was so divided against itself that

there was a very real possibility of adjourning without accomplishing anything.

Charles Pinckney

Elbridge Gerry

The Philadelphia Convention

Rutledge, Ellsworth & the Corrupt BargainTo those who objected to the bargain but not to the contents

both implied that they had retreated from the bargain.To those who did not object to the bargain but opposed the

outcome they implied that they had sacrificed those fruits.To everyone they gave the idea that the bargain had been

something it had never truly been.They took the risk of alienating those who they considered

irreconcilable while attempting to win all who believed that immense gain would accrue from a strong national government.

The Philadelphia Convention

Rutledge and Ellsworth & the Corrupt BargainFinal Compromise

Abolish the 2/3 clause for navigation actsAllow Congress to regulate or abolish the slave trade after

twenty yearsAlienated Forever:

Martin, Mason, Randolph, Mercer and CerryWon Forever:

All disgruntled delegates north of the Mason-Dixon Line while preserving the essential feature of the private agreement of the Corrupt Bargain

The nationalists were now in complete control.

The Philadelphia Convention

Final Considerations

The Executive:●Much debated but as of early September remained

nothing more than an arm of the Congress

● September 4 – committee proposed the Electoral College – the only real governmental innovation of the Convention

● September 6 – approved by the convention

The Philadelphia Convention

Until September 6, 1787 the constitution agreed upon was one that would have established a congressional government. On that day, however, the government became a mixed one because in rendering the president independent of Congress the delegates also rendered the judiciary relatively independent. With one stroke, by clearly defining the entire structure, the convention adapted a form of government more peculiarly adapted to the nature of humans than anything devised before or since. (McDonald, p. 304).

The Philadelphia Convention

The Committee of Style

William Samuel Johnson

Connecticut

Alexander Hamilton

New York

Gouverneur Morris

Pennsylvania

James Madison Virginia

Rufus King Massachusetts

The Philadelphia Convention

The Committee of StyleCharged with “editing” the approved constitution – make the grammar

clear, and finished and make the topics orderly.The Committee in turn entrusted Morris – who was known for his

literary craftsmanship – with the actual function of writing the Constitution.

Morris took many liberties with the actual text.He made the language graceful but, in many places, ambiguous and

therefore elastic and viable.He choose to use words which provided slanted meaning to many

clauses and in at least one place actually inserted a clause that had been explicitly rejected by the convention.

Morris attempted a change in punctuation that would have given Congress virtually unlimited power but Roger Sherman caught it and the original punctuation was restored.

The Philadelphia Convention

September 17, 1787Thirty-nine of forty-two delegate present sign the

Constitution.It was a document of compromise, adjustments and – at

times – outright disagreement by delegates from both sides.

Randolph, Mason and Gerry refused to sign and Lansing, Yates, Martin and Mercer were gone.

Hamilton: “no man’s ideas were more remote from the plan than [mine].”

Blount, McHenry and Franklin all had serious reservations.

The Philadelphia Convention

“With all its faults the moment this plan goes forth all other

considerations will be laid aside, and the great question will be, shall there

be a national government or not.” Gouverneur Morris