The Constitutional Convention
Problems like Shays’ Rebellion revealed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation
This event convinced many U.S. citizens that our 1st written plan of government needed
to be revised/rewritten
25 May 1787, Philadelphia at Independence Hall
Original purpose was to revise the Articles of Confederation and prevent “mobocracy” 12 of 13 states present (Rhode Island absent because they opposed a
stronger central govt)
55 delegates
8 signed DOI, 7 governors, 44 were members of the Continental Congress, 29 had served in the Revolutionary War, Gen.
Washington, Madison (2 future U.S. presidents,) Ben Franklin
What was the Purpose of the Constitutional Convention and why were some of the radical members of the American Revolution suspicious of this meeting?
Votes on decisions made: equal representation (one vote per state)
Rule: keep discussions from the convention secret – WHY?
To avoid public pressure and allow delegates to speak freely
How would the revised document be ratified?
“Majority rules” – 9 out of 13 would have to sign new document to ratify (pass)
*Technically it should have been unanimously agreed upon when there was a change in the AoC*
Representation Plans Proposed
Virginia Plan proposed by James Madison
-3 branches (Legislative, Executive, Judicial)
-Bicameral Congress (2 houses) with the amount of representatives given based on population of state
Appealed to MA, NY, PA, VA
Large states would have more lawmaking votes than smaller states
New Jersey Plan proposed by William Paterson; similar to the AoC’s current plan
-Unicameral Congress with equal votes per state; not based on pop.
-“Group” executive branch
Appealed to MD, DE, NJ
Promoted states’ rights and kept the
power concentrated at that level
4/27/2016
JAMES MADISON
“FATHER OF CONSTITUTION”
Explain the significance of James Madison’s contribution to the Constitution and the American Government.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH CREATED
4/27/2016
JUDICIAL BRANCH CREATED
4/27/2016
Compromise Reached
“Connecticut Plan”
Roger Sherman proposed the
“Great Compromise”
-Bicameral legislature with one house based on population & the other house given equal representatives
House of Representatives: number of delegates a state received would be based on the number of people in that state; tax/appropriation bills would need to start here
Senate: equal representation; 2 Senators per state, regardless of size
The Three Branches
11
4/27/2016
12
4/27/2016
The Issue of Slavery
At the time: 550,000 slaves in the U.S. What would Southern states want? (What would be the impact of counting slaves or NOT counting them?)
3/5ths Compromise: 3/5ths of a
state’s enslaved population would count towards a state’s population in the HoR
One argument of Northern delegates was that since slaves weren’t allowed to vote or participate in govt why should they count at all?
Slave Trade Compromise: Southern delegates agreed that Congress could regulate trade between the states IF Northern delegates agreed not to interfere with the transatlantic slave trade and revisit the issue in 1808
*Northern delegates wanted imports taxed, but to avoid upsetting the Southerners, it was agreed not to tax exported goods
Issues up for Debate
-Larger states argued they had more people so more representatives from that state (more voice in legislation)
-Smaller states argued that having
a small population shouldn’t mean they don’t get as many representatives
Should a state’s slaves be counted in the population for representation? Should we ban it altogether?
-Congress given the power to tax, maintain and regulate trade, print and coin $, tariffs, etc.
How did the members of the convention utilize compromise to best meet the needs of all representatives?
U.S. Constitution
Ratifying the U.S.C.
Federalists formed in support of the passage of the United States Constitution
-Favored stronger national govt (“NATIONAL”ists); many landowners who wanted property protection that a strong govt could provide
Federalist Papers: essays printed in newspapers to support the U.S.C.’s ratification; Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay authored under the pen name “Publius”
Debating the Constitution | ||
| Federalists | Anti-Federalists |
Leaders | George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton | From VA- George Mason and Patrick Henry From Mass- James Winthrop and John Hancock From NY- George Clinton |
Arguments | Stronger central government was needed to maintain order and preserve the Union | Stronger central government would destroy the work of the Revolution, limit democracy and restrict states’ rights |
Strategy | Emphasized the weakness of the Articles of Confederation; showed their opponents as merely negative opponents with no solutions | Argued that the proposed Constitution contained no protection of individual rights, that it gave the central government more power than the British ever had |
Advantages | Strong leaders; well organized | Appealed to popular distrust of government based on colonial experiences |
Disadvantages | Constitution was new and untried; as originally written, it lacked a bill of rights | Poorly organized; slow to respond to Federalist challenge |
Anti-Federalists opposed the U.S.C. (they were against a strong national govt
that the new constitution had created)
-Thought a strong national govt would take away the rights they fought for in the Revolution
-Feared new govt would favor the wealthy instead of the common people because it did not list out rights guaranteed to citizens
Compromise?
Federalist promised a Bill of Rights in exchange for ratification
Explain the major differences between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. How did the Constitution address those differences?
…17 Weeks Later
17 September, 42 members were left at the Convention, 3 refused to sign the Constitution; special elections were held in the states for members of the ratifying conventions
PA → MA → and the total 9 needed by 21 June 1788
VA and NY finally ratified, NC held a convention but never voted and RI never even held a convention
Why the Federalists Won…
How does the Constitution provide ways to address factional disagreement according to the speaker? Do you agree with his argument?