E Pluribus Unum
The Formation of the American Republic
1776 – 1790
The Philadelphia Convention
Framing 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 Convention
Many 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 Branch
o 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 branch
As 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
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland (Carroll)
North Carolina
(1A; 2N; 3Y)
Virginia
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 Carolina
Committee Chairman
Oliver Ellsworth
Connecticut
Nathaniel Gorham
Massachusetts
Edmund Randolph
Virginia
James Wilson
Pennsylvania
Committee of Detail
Objective:
● 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
(Connecticut)
John Rutledge
(SC)
The Corrupt Bargain
South 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 Convention
Pinckney (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 Bargain
To 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 Bargain
Final Compromise
Abolish the 2/3 clause for navigation acts
Allow Congress to regulate or abolish the slave trade after
twenty years
Alienated Forever:
Martin, Mason, Randolph, Mercer and Cerry
Won 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
Alexander
Hamilton
Gouverneur
Morris
James Madison
Connecticut
Rufus King
Massachusetts
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
The Philadelphia Convention
The Committee of Style
Charged 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, 1787
Thirty-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