---

Historical Background

The Formative Years—Visions and Prospects of Nationhood (continued)

THE CONSTITUTION: A PERMANENT FRAMEWORK

For generations the people of the United States have revered the Constitution, and rightly so. It has provided an enduring and evolving framework for more than 175 years of national development. In some respects, it reflects the time of its creation, for it incorporates basic American tenets of the 18th century. These include the theory of the state as a compact between the people and the government and the idea that fundamental laws should be written. The Constitution reaffirms the commitment to traditional rights of Englishmen to the protection of life, liberty, and property that Americans defended in their rebellion against the British Crown.

Above all, the Constitution expresses, both in its provisions and in the process by which they were formulated, the Founding Fathers' abiding faith in man's willingness to reason—his ability to surmount political differences by means of rational discussion and compromise. Men sometimes disagree over the meaning of specific provisions of the Constitution, but within its broad framework and mechanism for compromise lie means to reconcile disagreement. The Constitution expresses the concerns of a past age, yet it is the embodiment of a spirit and a wisdom as modern as tomorrow.

The delegates from the various States brought a variety of political ideas and special interests to the Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. Only after about 4 months of secret debates, marked by compromise after compromise, did the ideas and interests merge into an improved framework for the National Government. Of the 39 delegates who signed the Constitution, few expressed complete satisfaction with it. The public was even less sanguine. The advocates of the Constitution labored for 1 year before enough States ratified it and made it the law of the land. Once in effect, it soon became the pride and bulwark of the Republic. It succeeded because the Convention had recognized and dealt realistically with the need to create a truly National Government.

A well-qualified body of 55 delegates from 12 States—only Rhode Island abstaining—drafted the Constitution. They represented a variety of professions and vocations, educational backgrounds, age groups, geographical areas, economic interests, and political factions. Some 34 were lawyers; 29 had graduated from colleges in England or the United States; and 8 had signed the Declaration of Independence. Of the total of 55 delegates, 18 derived their major income from farms or plantations, 15 from commerce, and the remainder from various professional or political pursuits. New Jersey's Jonathan Dayton, 27 years old, was the youngest delegate. World-famous Benjamin Franklin, 81 years old, was senior. Two delegates were reputedly the richest men in the country: George Washington and Robert Morris, "Financier of the Revolution." Others were poor. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, for example, was in dire financial straits. Some were well-to-do on paper but poor in fact. Madison, "Father of the Constitution," owned a respectably sized Virginia plantation, but could barely earn a living as a planter and also had to rely in part upon his small salary as a public official and upon gifts and loans from friends and relatives.

Territorial Acquisition (1783-1830) (click on image for an enlargement in a new window)

The delegates included many able and distinguished men: George Washington, James Madison, George Mason, George Wythe, and Edmund Randolph of Virginia; John Dickinson of Delaware; Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania; Alexander Hamilton of New York; Charles Coatsworth (C.C.) Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, and John Rutledge of South Carolina; William S. Johnson of Connecticut; Luther Martin, from Maryland; and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. Four outstanding national leaders were absent: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were on diplomatic duty in Europe, and Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams refused to attend because they opposed the movement for a stronger National Government.

Despite the varied background and interests of the delegates, most of them shared a commitment to nationalism, economic conservatism, and practical politics. Perhaps only three or four would have acknowledged that they were "democrats," or believers in the ultimate wisdom of the general populace. On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton's purported dictum "the people are a great beast" would not have served as a representative opinion. To most of the group, the issue was not simply democracy versus aristocracy, but national union versus disintegration. They did not seek to impose a fixed political philosophy but to find a way to reconcile conflicting theories within a framework of stability and orderly growth. Some of the delegates stood to gain financially from the fiscal stability that was expected to follow the creation of a strong central government, but many stood to lose. On key issues, delegates often voted against their personal interests for what they believed to be the common good. If the Constitution was a conservative document, its underlying philosophy was potentially democratic.

The Constitutional Convention convened at Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, and lasted nearly 4 months. Because it was not open to the public, few Philadelphians were aware of exactly what was taking place inside the statehouse. Still, even some disinterested observers must have guessed that an important meeting was in session. Once a quorum had assembled, the delegates quickly went to work. They elected George Washington as President of the Convention and William Jackson as secretary. Jackson kept only sketchy minutes, but fortunately James Madison, who figured prominently in the Convention, maintained a comprehensive journal of the proceedings.

On the third day Gov. Edmund Randolph of Virginia introduced 15 resolutions that went far beyond mere amendment of the Articles of Confederation and proposed the creation of a sovereign National Government. The Virginia Plan, as the resolutions were called, proposed a separate executive, a system of Federal courts, and a two-house national legislature based on proportional representation. This alarmed advocates of State sovereignty. Virginia was the largest and most populous State. In subsequent debates, delegates from the smaller States—New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, and Georgia—voiced fears that adoption of the Virginia Plan, including the provision for proportional representation in the national legislature, would mean domination of the Government by the three most populous States: Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.

Two weeks after the introduction of the Virginia Plan, the smaller States countered with their own proposal. William Paterson offered the New Jersey Plan, which proposed to revise and strengthen the Articles. It would give the National Government power to collect taxes and regulate commerce, but would maintain the equality of individual States by creating a plural executive under their control. As under the Articles, equal representation would be preserved for each State in the national legislature.

The debates grew heated. In a speech lasting the greater part of 2 days, Luther Martin of Maryland argued that equality among the States was fundamental to the federal idea of government. In rebuttal Madison suggested that this issue was largely irrelevant. The danger that the three large States would pool their votes to dominate the Government was illusory. Their economic interests were too diverse. Virginia was a tobacco State, Pennsylvania depended heavily on flour, and Massachusetts relied on fishing. Both sides remained adamant. The Convention was deadlocked; unless the delegates resolved the issue of representation, it would dissolve.

Departure of the Marquis de Lafayette from Mount Vernon in 1784. A French hero of the War for Independence, General Lafayette was well liked by Americans. From a lithograph by E. Farrell. Courtesy, Library of Congress.

In mid-July the "Great Compromise" broke the deadlock. Almost 1 month before, the Convention had rejected Roger Sherman's suggestion that representation in the national legislature should be proportional to population in the lower house and by State in the upper house. On July 5 a committee appointed 3 days earlier to seek a compromise recommended the adoption of Sherman's proposal. This proposal, plus provisions that money bills should originate in the lower house and that Senators could vote as individuals instead of by States in the upper house, formed the basis of the Great Compromise. The Convention accepted the compromise proposal after further refining it by the stipulation that representation in the lower house should be based on the total free population plus three-fifths of the slaves. For each 30,000 people, determined by this formula, one Representative might be elected. Madison was right about the large-small State issue. Later conflicts were most often along sectional lines. But acceptance of the Great Compromise had cleared the way for the Convention to proceed.

The Convention then drafted 23 articles that represented a preliminary version of the Constitution. During August and early September the delegates ironed out the details. They set the terms of office for Senators, Representatives, and the President. They gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign trade; and, in an early clash between opponents and defenders of slavery, they compromised by agreeing to take no action to halt the slave trade before 1808. By September 10 the debates were over. The Convention selected a committee to draft the final document. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was the chairman and William S. Johnson of Connecticut, Rufus King of Massachusetts, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton rounded out the committee. They produced a final draft in 2 days. After 5 more days of deliberation, delegations from each of the 12 States represented signified their approval. Only 42 of the 55 delegates were present on September 17, the final day of the Convention. Of these, 39 signed the Constitution and then adjourned to the City Tavern for a farewell dinner.

A bundle of compromises that left many questions unanswered and many areas of sovereignty undefined, the Constitution was not a revolutionary document. It contained no radical political ideas. The concept of a government of checks and balances went back at least as far as the mid-18th century, to the French political theorist Montesquieu. Most of the specific provisions could be traced to English law as modified by the American colonial experience, and to a lesser extent classical Greek and Roman political ideas. Perhaps the only major innovation was the election of the President by an electoral college instead of the State legislatures. Yet the Constitution was a solid, practical document, and most of the Convention delegates, though not fully satisfied with it, still regarded it as a good summer's work. Now it was up to the people of the States to accept it. Would they?

The Convention set up a procedure for making the Constitution the law of the land. Each State could call a convention, whose delegates would be elected by the voters. After nine State conventions adopted, or ratified, the Constitution, the new Government could begin operation. During the yearlong political struggle that ensued in the States, two distinct political factions emerged: the Federalists, Supporters of the Constitution; and their opponents, called the Antifederalists. The composition of the two factions differed in every State. A host of geographical, economic, social, and political factors entered into determining who was for or against the Constitution. All rich merchants and planters did not necessarily favor the Constitution nor the poor farmers and mechanics oppose it. Nor was the eastern seaboard totally Federalist or the West completely Antifederalist.

The Antifederalists had many objections to the Constitution. Patrick Henry, who had declined to serve in the Convention because he "smelt a rat," began his objections with the first three words of the Constitution. Who, he wondered, were the Convention delegates to say "We, the people." They should have said "We, the states." Otherwise the Government would no longer be a compact among equal States but a "consolidated, national government of the people of all the states." George Mason feared that a remote National Government based on the Constitution would destroy the rights of the people. Possessed of such sweeping powers unbridled by a bill of rights, the National Government would soon revert to monarchy or corrupt aristocracy. Richard Henry Lee, in his "Letters by a Federal Farmer" of 1787, presented a powerful statement of the Antifederalist case. He argued that the Federalists were attempting to rush the Constitution through, and, as he saw it, they were removing power from the many to the few to prevent future political change and reform. Other Antifederalists expressed fears that the new Government would be more powerful and tyrannical than the British Government had been in 1776.

Federalist arguments stressed the need to amend the Articles. The Federalists accepted the charge that the Constitution was not perfect, but replied that it was superior to the Articles and that its imperfections could easily be purged by amendment. The most effective statement of the Federalist position was a series of 85 newspaper essays, The Federalist Papers, addressed to the people of the State of New York. The work of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, these essays brilliantly and convincingly expounded virtually every reason why the Constitution should be adopted. More simple and direct in pleading the Federalist cause was the letter George Washington sent along with the Constitution when, as President of the Convention, he submitted it to the Continental Congress. Its purpose, he wrote, was "the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence." Arguments were important, but the actual process of ratification in the States involved practical politics.

The contest for ratification revealed that some States, apparently less secure in their independence than others, were eager for a National Government. One of these, Delaware, leading the way on December 7, 1787, voted unanimously for ratification. Surprisingly, Pennsylvania, one of the most self-sufficient States, followed only 1 week later. Before the Antifederalists could organize the opposition, Pennsylvania Federalists had applied rough-and-tumble tactics to obtain ratification. Less than 1 month after Pennsylvania ratified, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut joined the list of States that accepted the Constitution. In short order five States ratified. But people knew that the real test would come in three large States: New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts. Without their approval, the new Government would have little chance of success.

In the Massachusetts ratifying convention, Elbridge Gerry led a strong opposition to the Constitution. Only when John Hancock shifted his support to the Federalists in return for their promise to recommend a bill of rights did the Constitution win approval, by a vote of 187-168. By mid-June 1788 the requisite number of States had ratified. Maryland and South Carolina had acted in the spring and New Hampshire, the ninth, did so in June. Still, New York and Virginia remained undecided. In the Virginia convention Patrick Henry championed the Confederation faction against Madison's Federalists. On June 25, after a stiff fight, the Madisonians won. The Constitution, accompanied as in some of the other States by a recommendation for a bill of rights and additional amendments, passed the Virginia convention by a vote of 89-79.

Despite the influence of The Federalist Papers, the New York Antifederalists were clearly in the majority at the State convention. Alexander Hamilton, chief strategist of the New York Federalists, managed to postpone a final vote until the anticipated news arrived that Virginia and New Hampshire had ratified. When the news came from those two States, the balance of power swung to the Federalists. On July 26 New York became the 11th State to ratify. North Carolina would not join the Union until 1789 and Rhode Island until 1790, but the victory in New York gave advocates of the Constitution the opportunity to test it in action.

For all the passions generated by the State ratification battles, the Antifederalists accepted defeat gracefully. They would give the Constitution an opportunity to stand or fall on its own merits.