When it came Franklin’s turn to sign, the elderly leader had to be helped forward in order to write his name on the parchment.  Tears streamed down his face as he signed.  When the remaining delegates had finished signing, a solemn silence enveloped the hall.  Franklin relieved the tension with a few well-chosen words.  Pointing to the half-sun painted in gold on the back of George Washington’s chair, he observed:

“I have often... looked at that [sun] behind the President [of the Convention] without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting; but now, at length, I have the happiness to know it is a rising, and not a setting, Sun.”

—quoted in An Outline of American History
 

A New Constitution

The weakness of the Confederation Congress worried many American leaders, who believed that the United States would not survive without a strong central government.  People who supported a stronger central government became known as “nationalists.” Prominent nationalists included George Washington,
John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton,
and the financier Robert Morris.

One of the most influential nationalists was James Madison, a member of the Virginia Assembly and head of its commerce committee.  As head of the commerce committee, Madison was well aware of Virginia’s trade problems with the other American states and with Britain.  He firmly believed that a stronger national government was needed.

In 1786 Madison convinced Virginia’s assembly to call a convention of all the states to discuss trade and taxation problems.  Representatives from the states were to meet in Annapolis, Maryland, but when the convention began, delegates from only five states were present, too few to reach a final decision on the problems facing the states.  Many of the delegates did discuss the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and expressed interest in modifying them.

New York delegate Alexander Hamilton recommended that the Congress itself call for another convention to be held in Philadelphia in May 1787.  At first, the Congress was divided over whether or not to call a convention.  News of Shays’ Rebellion, however, and reports of unrest elsewhere convinced the Congress to call for a convention of the states “for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.”

Every state except Rhode Island sent delegates to what became known as the Constitutional Convention.  In May 1787 the delegates took their places in the Pennsylvania statehouse in Philadelphia.  They knew they faced a daunting task: to balance the rights and aspirations of the states with the need for a stronger national government.
 

James Madison
1751–1836

Although many individuals contributed to the framing of the United States Constitution, the master builder was James Madison.  An avid reader, the 36-year-old Virginia planter spent the better part of the year preceding the Philadelphia Convention with his nose in books.  Madison read volume after volume on governments throughout history.  He scoured the records of ancient Greece and Rome and delved into the administrations of Italian city-states such as Florence and Venice.  He even looked at the systems used by federal alliances like Switzerland and the Netherlands.  “From a spirit of industry and application,” said one colleague, Madison was “the best-informed man on any point in debate.”

Bringing together his research and his experience in helping to draft Virginia’s constitution, Madison created the Virginia Plan.  His proposal strongly influenced the final document.  Perhaps Madison’s greatest achievement was in defining the true source of political power.  He argued that all power, at all levels of government, flowed ultimately from the people.

At the Constitutional Convention, Madison served his nation well.  The ordeal, he later said, “almost killed” him.  In the years to come, though, the nation would call on him again.  In 1801 he became President Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state.  In 1808 he was elected the fourth president of the United States.
 
 

Primary Sources

Eyewitness to History

The leaders of the new United States wanted to limit the power of the federal government.  Their plan for government, the Articles of Confederation, had many weaknesses, and the need for a strong central government soon became evident.  In May 1787, a small group of men met in Philadelphia to write the Constitution.  The adoption of the Constitution became a topic of heated debate.

SOURCE 1:
Benjamin Franklin was the oldest delegate at the Constitutional Convention.  He proved one of the most influential delegates because of his ability to end arguments and encourage compromise.  In a speech on the last day of the convention, Franklin urged his colleagues to unanimously support the new plan.   Mr.  President, I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them.  For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise....

... I doubt ... whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution.  For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.  From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?  It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats.  Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.  The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. ...  If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects and great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity.  Much of the strength and efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors.  I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this constitution (if approved by Congress and confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts and endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

SOURCE 2:
George Mason, a planter and a delegate from Virginia, opposed the Constitution.  While he supported a stronger national government, he wanted the states to be more powerful than the national government.  Mason’s speech to the convention summarized the arguments of many opponents.

The Judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several States; ...

The President of the United States has no Constitutional Council, a thing unknown in any safe and regular government.  He will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice; and will generally be directed by  minions and favorites; or he will become a tool to the Senate. ...  From this fatal defect has arisen the improper power of the Senate in the appointment of public officers, and the alarming dependence and connection between that branch of the legislature and the supreme Executive....

By declaring all treaties supreme laws of the land, the Executive and the Senate have in many cases, an exclusive power of legislation; ...

By requiring only a majority to make all commercial and navigation laws, the five Southern States, whose produce and circumstances are totally different from that of the eight Northern and eastern states, may be ruined; ...  Whereas requiring two-thirds of the members present in both Houses would have produced mutual moderation, promoted the general interest, and removed an insuperable objection to the adoption of this Government.

There is no declaration of any kind, for preserving the liberty of the press, or the trial by jury in civil causes; nor against the danger of standing armies in time of peace.

This government will set out a moderate aristocracy; it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarychy, or a corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy....

SOURCE 3:
James Wilson, a lawyer and Pennsylvania delegate, is best known for the legal advice he gave to the Constitutional Convention.  When Pennsylvania began to debate the Constitution, Wilson replied to critics.  After all, my fellow-citizens, it is neither extraordinary or unexpected that the constitution offered to your consideration should meet with opposition.  It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the public good...  I will confess, indeed, that I am not a blind admirer of this plan of government, and that there are some parts of it which, if my wish had prevailed, would certainly have been altered.  But when I reflect how widely men differ in their opinions, and that every man (and the observation applies likewise to every State) has an equal pretension to assert his own, I am satisfied that anything nearer to perfection could not have been accomplished.  If there are errors, it should be remembered that the seeds of reformation are sown in the work itself, and the concurrence of two-thirds of Congress may at any time introduce alterations and amendments.  Regarding it, then, in every point of view, with a candid and disinterested mind, I am bold to assert that it is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world.

Document-Based Questions

Source 1:
Why does Franklin believe that the delegates should approve the Constitution?

Source 2:
What are Mason’s main concerns about the Constitution?

Source 3:
Why does Wilson think that the Constitution will work?

Comparing and Contrasting Sources

How do Franklin, Mason, and Wilson differ in their views about concerns over apparent shortfalls of the Constitution?
 
 

The Founders

The 55 delegates who attended the convention in Philadelphia included some of the shrewdest and most distinguished leaders in the United States.  The majority were lawyers, and most of the others were planters and merchants.  Most had experience in colonial, state, or national government.  Seven had served as state governors.  Thirty-nine had been members of the Confederation Congress.  Eight had signed the Declaration of Independence.  In the words of Thomas Jefferson, who was unable to attend the convention because he was serving as American minister to France, the convention in Philadelphia was no less than “an assembly of demigods.”

The delegates chose stern and proper George Washington of Virginia, hero of the American Revolution, as presiding officer.  Benjamin Franklin was a delegate from Pennsylvania.  Now 81 years old, he tired easily and had other state delegates read his speeches for him.  He provided assistance to many of his younger colleagues, and his experience and good humor helped smooth the debates.

Other notable delegates included New York’s Alexander Hamilton and Connecticut’s Roger Sherman.  Virginia sent a well-prepared delegation, including the scholarly James Madison, who kept a record of the debates.  Madison’s records provide the best source of information about what went on in the sessions.  The meetings were closed to the public to help ensure honest and open discussion free from outside political pressures.

The Virginia and New Jersey Plans

The Virginia delegation arrived at the convention with a detailed plan—mostly the work of James Madison—for a new national government.  A few days after the proceedings began, the governor of Virginia, Edmund Randolph, introduced the plan.  “A national government,” declared Randolph, “ought to be established, consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary.” The Virginia Plan, as it came to be called, proposed scrapping the Articles of Confederation entirely and creating a new national government with the power to make laws binding upon the states and to raise its own money through taxes.

The Virginia Plan proposed that the legislature be divided into two houses.  The voters in each state would elect members of the first house.  Members of the second house would be nominated by the state governments but actually elected by the first house.  In both houses, the number of representatives for each state would reflect that state’s population.  The Virginia Plan, therefore, would benefit large states like Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts, which had more votes than the smaller states.

The Virginia Plan drew sharp reactions.  The delegates accepted the idea of dividing the government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches, but the smaller states strongly opposed any changes that would decrease their influence by basing representation on population.  They feared that the larger states would outvote them.  William Paterson, a delegate from New Jersey, offered a counterproposal that came to be called the New Jersey Plan.

The New Jersey Plan did not abandon the Articles of Confederation.  Instead it modified them to make the central government stronger.  Under the plan, Congress would have a single house in which each state was equally represented, but it would also have the power to raise taxes and regulate trade.

If progress was to be made, the delegates had to choose one plan for further negotiation.  After debating on June 19, the convention voted to proceed with the Virginia Plan.  With this vote, the convention delegates decided to go beyond their original purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.  Instead, they began work on a new constitution for the United States.

Explaining
Why did small states oppose the Virginia Plan?
 
 

Roger Sherman
1721–1793

Roger Sherman was born in Newton, Massachusetts, where he worked as a shoemaker as a young man.  In 1743 he moved to Connecticut, where he studied law.  He served in the Connecticut legislature before being appointed a superior court judge.  Sherman was enormously respected for his knowledge, judgment, and integrity.  He was a delegate to the Continental Congress, and he served on the special Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence.  He also helped write the Articles of Confederation.

A skilled legislator and master of political compromise, Sherman was a logical choice to serve as one of Connecticut’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787.  There, he ably defended the interests of the smaller states, and he developed the famous compromise that saved the convention from breaking up.  Following the ratification of the Constitution, Sherman was elected to the House of Representatives, where he helped prepare the Bill of Rights.  He was the only person to sign the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution—and he played an important role in drafting all three documents.  Thomas Jefferson described Roger Sherman as “a man who never said a foolish thing in his life.” Nathaniel Macon, a member of Congress from North Carolina, declared that Sherman “had more common sense than any man I have ever known.”
 
 

A Union Built on Compromise

As the convention hammered out the details of the new constitution, the delegates found themselves divided geographically.  The small states demanded changes that would protect them against the voting power of the big states.  At the same time, Northern and Southern states were divided over how to treat slavery in the new constitution.  The only way to resolve these differences was through compromise.

TURNING POINT
The Connecticut Compromise

After the convention voted to proceed with the Virginia Plan, tempers flared as delegates from the small states insisted that each state had to have an equal vote in Congress.  The hot Philadelphia summer offered no relief, and angry delegates from the larger states threatened to walk out.  By early July 1787, the convention had reached a turning point.  As a delegate from North Carolina warned, “If we do not concede on both sides, our business must soon end.”

In an attempt to find a solution, the convention appointed a special committee to resolve the differences between the large and small states.  Delegates who were strongly committed to one side or the other were left off the committee, leaving only those who were undecided or willing to change their minds.  Ben Franklin was chosen to chair the proceedings.

Throughout the proceedings, Franklin remained a calm voice of conciliation.  Here, he warns the delegates about what would happen if they failed to agree:

“[You will] become a reproach and by-word down to future ages.  And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.”

—quoted in Benjamin Franklin: A Biography

The compromise that the committee worked out was based on an idea Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed, which is why it is sometimes known as the Connecticut Compromise.  Other historians refer to it as the Great Compromise.

Franklin’s committee proposed that in one house of Congress—the House of Representatives—the states would be represented according to the size of their populations.  In the other house—the Senate—each state would have equal representation.  The eligible voters in each state would elect the House of Representatives, but the state legislatures would choose senators.

Compromise Over Slavery

Franklin’s committee also proposed that each state could elect one member to the House of Representatives for every 40,000 people in the state.  This proposal caused a split between Northern and Southern delegates.  Southern delegates wanted to count enslaved people when determining how many representatives they could elect.  Northern delegates objected, pointing out that enslaved people could not vote.

Northern delegates also suggested that if slaves were going to be counted for representation, they should be counted for purposes of taxation as well.  In the end, a solution, referred to as the Three-Fifths Compromise, was worked out.  Every five enslaved people in a state would count as three free persons for determining both representation and taxes.

The dispute over how to count enslaved people was not the only issue dividing the delegates.  Southerners feared that a strong national government with the power to regulate trade might impose taxes on the export of farm products or ban the import of enslaved Africans.  These Southern delegates insisted that the new constitution forbid interference with the slave trade and limit Congress’s power to regulate trade.  Northern delegates, on the other hand, knew that Northern merchants and artisans needed a government capable of controlling foreign imports into the United States.

Eventually, another compromise was worked out.  The delegates agreed that the new Congress could not tax exports.  They also agreed that it could not ban the slave trade until 1808 or impose high taxes on the import of enslaved persons.

The Great Compromise and the compromises between Northern and Southern delegates ended most of the major disputes between the state delegations.  This enabled the convention to focus on the details of how the new government would operate.

By mid-September, the delegates had completed their task.  Although everyone had had to compromise, the 39 delegates who signed the new Constitution believed it was a vast improvement over the Articles of Confederation.  On September 20, they sent it to the Confederation Congress for approval.  Eight days later, the Congress voted to submit the Constitution to the states for approval.  The struggle for the Constitution now moved into a new phase.  Nine of the thirteen states had to ratify the Constitution for it to take effect.

Describing
How did the South want to count enslaved persons when counting the population of the states?
 

A Framework for Limited Government

The new constitution that the states were considering was based on the principle of popular sovereignty, or rule by the people.  Rather than a direct democracy, it created a representative system of government in which elected officials represented the voice of the people.  The Constitution also created a system of government known as federalism.  It divided government power between the federal, or national, government and the state governments.

The Constitution provided for a separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government.  The two houses of Congress made up the legislative branch of the government.  They would make the laws.  The executive branch, headed by a president, would implement and enforce the laws passed by Congress.  The judicial branch —a system of federal courts—would interpret federal laws and render judgment in cases involving those laws.  No one serving in one branch could serve in either of the other branches at the same time.

Checks and Balances

In addition to separating the powers of the government into three branches, the delegates to the convention created a system of checks and balances to prevent any one of the three branches from becoming too powerful.  Within this system, each branch of government had the ability to limit the power of the other branches.

Under the Constitution, the president—as head of the executive branch—was given far-reaching powers.  The president could propose legislation, appoint judges, put down rebellions, and veto, or reject, acts of Congress.  The president would also be the commander in chief of the armed forces.  According to one delegate in Philadelphia, these powers might not have been so great “had not many of the members cast their eyes towards George Washington as president.”

Although the president could veto acts of Congress, the legislature could override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses.  The Senate also had to approve or reject presidential appointments to the executive branch as well as any treaties the president negotiated.  Furthermore, Congress could, if necessary, impeach, or formally accuse of misconduct, and then remove the president or any other high official in the executive or judicial branch.

Members of the judicial branch of government could hear all cases arising under federal law and the Constitution.  The powers of the judiciary were balanced by the other two branches.  The president could nominate members of the judiciary, but the Senate had to confirm or reject such nominations.  Once appointed, however, federal judges would serve for life, thus ensuring their independence from both the executive and the legislative branches.

Amending the Constitution

The delegates in Philadelphia recognized that the Constitution they wrote in the summer of 1787 might need to be amended, or changed over time.  To ensure this could happen, they created a clear system for making amendments, or changes to the Constitution.  To prevent the government from being changed constantly, they made it difficult for amendments to be adopted.

The delegates established a two-step process for amending the Constitution—proposal and ratification.  An amendment could be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress.  Alternatively, two-thirds of the states could call a constitutional convention to propose new amendments.  To become effective, the proposed amendment then had to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states.

The success of the Philadelphia Convention in creating a government that reflected the country’s many different viewpoints was, in Washington’s words, “little short of a miracle.” The convention, John Adams declared, was “the single greatest effort of national deliberation that the world has ever seen.”

Explaining
How is power divided under the system of federalism?
 

REVIEW & DO NOW Answer the following questions:
?	.