Philadelphia Convention (1787)
Organizing the Convention
By 1786, it was clear that the Articles of Confederation presented an ineffectual government for
the union. Under the Articles, the Continental Congress had no courts, no power to levy taxes,
no power to regulate commerce, and no power to enforce its resolutions upon individuals or the
13 states. In the areas where Congress did have authority, the members had no way of enforcing
their powers. Further complicating matters, the Congress did not have the respect of the people
it set out to serve. Individual states continued to make their own laws, particularly where
taxation and commerce were concerned. Differing tariffs and trade laws made for a
disorganized union, and some states even continued making their own money. The Articles of
Confederation had purposely left the Congress weak, which resulted in a government that could
not enforce a unified set of laws.
With strong encouragement from six of the states, Congress called a convention to revise the
Articles of Confederation into a more powerful document. Each state appointed delegates to
attend a meeting in Philadelphia to develop a more effective and unified constitution. In total,
55 delegates from 12 states were present when the Philadelphia Convention began in May of
1787. These delegates were professional men, with over half of them lawyers, and as such they
carried an aura of wealth and power.
The men who attended this convention were considered youthful, with an average age of 42.
Benjamin Franklin, at the age of 81, was respected as the convention’s patriarch. Many
delegates had served in the Continental Congress, so they brought with them some experience
regarding governmental issues. Half of the delegates had served as officers in the Continental
Army and had firsthand knowledge of the Continental Congress’s financial tribulations as well
as a mindset to avoid and overcome them in the new constitution.
Each of the delegates came to Philadelphia with personal perspectives that influenced their
actions during the convention. To some delegates, the economic aspect of the constitution was
the utmost priority. For example, wealthy landowners who served as delegates to the
Philadelphia Convention wanted to shape and protect property rights for themselves and other
elite statesmen. Other delegates came with the idealistic notion of creating a perfect Union,
while still others focused on concerns relating to sovereignty and trade relationships among
states and internationally.
Notably absent from the Philadelphia Convention were Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry,
who had led the states to independence just eleven years prior. Some of the heroes of the war
had either left the states or were not chosen as delegates by a public who understood that the
need for revolution had been replaced by the need for unification. Patrick Henry agreed with the
need for unity, and was in fact elected as a delegate, but he boycotted the convention believing
that the outcome would not be positive.
Most of the Philadelphia Convention participants were veterans of the Revolutionary War.
George Washington, highly respected for his success in the war, was unanimously elected
president of the convention by his peers. And James Madison, with an acute knowledge of
government systems, came to be known as the “Father of the Constitution” due to his promotion
of two key concepts: officials elected by the people and a preference for a large republican
government. Madison’s copious notes have served historians as the most accurate and complete
record of this gathering.
The Philadelphia Convention got underway with a radical decision to throw out the Articles of
Confederation and start fresh developing a framework for strengthening the power of the United
States’ federal government. This decision was in direct opposition to the Continental
Congress’s orders to revise the Articles. However, it allowed the delegates to shift the powers
away from the existing government and begin drafting the United States Constitution.
States’ Plans
Since the delegates at the Philadelphia Convention decided to throw out the Articles of
Confederation, the floor was opened to suggestions for the basic structure of the new
government. Edmund Randolph, representing Virginia, proposed a plan largely devised by
James Madison. Madison, who felt that Randolph was a more powerful speaker and would be
better able to gain support for the plan, suggested a bicameral, or two-house, legislature. This
legislature would be charged with selecting a president of the United States as well as court
officials for a federal judicial system.
Under Virginia’s plan, population would drive representation, which would give larger states,
such as Virginia, a distinct advantage over smaller states. Not surprisingly, delegates from
smaller states resisted this plan. They feared that larger states, with their increased
representation, would render the smaller states voiceless and ultimately meaningless.
Representatives from the smaller states feared a loss of identity along with a loss of power if the
Virginia Plan, or Large States Plan, was adopted.
William Paterson, a delegate from New Jersey, developed an alternate plan, which would
prevent the inequities of populous representation. The New Jersey Plan offered a unicameral
Congress with each state having one vote. Under this plan, Congress would sit atop the
governmental hierarchy with the most power, including the powers to tax and regulate trade.
The executive and judicial branches would be separate from Congress and would not be as
powerful. This plan closely resembled the unicameral government described in the Articles of
Confederation.
Just as representatives from smaller states fought against Virginia’s proposal, the delegates
from larger states resented the restriction of power created by New Jersey’s suggestion.
Delegates from the larger states felt that they should receive some acknowledgement of power
based on their size. With the battle lines dividing the delegates based on state size, the
Philadelphia Convention came to a standstill.
The summer of 1787, Philadelphia was experiencing both a literal and a figurative heat wave,
and the rising temperatures outside caused tempers to flare inside the Convention. Unproductive
anger and debate created conflict that ironically only eased as the heat broke. As the weather
became more comfortable, the delegates began to set aside their differences and consider
compromises.
Compromise Reigns
The discord among the states’ delegates regarding the plans submitted by Virginia and New
Jersey eventually subsided, and a negotiation—called the Great Compromise—for the new
governmental structure was reached.
This compromise was heavily promoted by Connecticut’s Roger Sherman, and the terms “Great
Compromise” and “Connecticut Compromise” are used interchangeably. Under Sherman’s
compromise, a bicameral legislature would combine elements of both Virginia’s and New
Jersey’s plans to appease both the small and large states. With this plan, there would be two
houses, initially called the “lower house” and the “upper house” due to their location in the twostory building that would house them.
The lower house, which would become the House of Representatives, would be made up of a
number of delegates based on each state’s population. These representatives were to be elected
directly by the people. The upper house, which would become known as the Senate, would be
limited to two delegates from each state. The election of senators would be carried out by the
legislatures of each state. As a further compromise, it was agreed that all bills concerned with
taxation and revenue would begin in the lower house.
The Great Compromise also led to other important decisions about the government’s
framework. In contrast to the long-standing fear of granting power to one sovereign authority
figure, the Constitution gave the President a substantial amount of power. The President was
granted the power to appoint officials, including judges, the power to veto legislation, and the
role of Commander-In-Chief of the military.
Defining the structure of the United States government was certainly a “Great Compromise,”
but it was not the only compromise that made its way into the Constitution. Commerce
regulations were also hotly debated. Northern industrial states wanted federal tariffs to keep out
cheaper European products. By forcing the purchase of domestic goods, the Northern delegates
hoped to raise revenues for the federal government through taxation.
Those opposed to this idea included delegates from cotton and tobacco producing states, who
relied heavily on trade with Europe and who resisted the idea of tariffs for exports. Furthermore,
fearing unreasonable changes to trade regulations, these mostly Southern delegates asked for a
two-thirds majority rule on all commerce bills in Congress. After much debate, a Commerce
Compromise was reached that required no tax on exports, and only a simple majority needed to
pass commerce bills through Congress.
A third long-standing debate and eventual area of compromise at the Philadelphia Convention,
questioned whether slaves should be counted as people or property. Although there was no
intention of allowing slaves the same rights as free men, some argued that they should be
counted as people to increase their states’ population count and thus the number of delegates in
the lower house. Supporters of this school of thought were primarily Southerners who were
eager for the power that their states would gain if the large number of slaves in the south were
counted as people.
Conversely, Northerners feared an increase in power by the south that might result from
counting slaves as people. These delegates argued that slaves should be counted as property,
and therefore taxed as such, since doing so could bring much-needed revenue to the federal
government.
Eventually, the delegates compromised on the slavery issue as well. Slaves were declared to
count as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of population counts. However, neither the
word slavery nor slave was used in the Constitution. Rather, it refers to the Three-Fifths
Compromise as applying to “all other persons.”
Still, it was apparent whom the Three-Fifths Compromise targeted, since it went a step further
and addressed the issue of the African slave trade. Northerners expected the African slave trade
to dwindle and eventually become unnecessary, and they wanted the Constitution to reflect that
expectation. Southerners only knew that they had an immediate and ongoing need for slave
labor in their fields and paddies, so they resisted slave trade restrictions.
In addition to addressing the issues of population counts, the Three-Fifths Compromise stated
that Congress would not restrict overseas slave trade for a period of twenty years, but following
1807 Congress was free to readdress the issue. In 1808, Congress did revisit the issue and
decided to disallow overseas slave trade. By that point it was nearly moot since every state
except Georgia had included an embargo on overseas slaves in their state constitutions.
With the Great Compromise, Commerce Compromise, and the Three-Fifths Compromise in
place, the proposed Constitution was ready to go to the states for ratification.
http://www.apstudynotes.org