A Divided Convention
As May 1787 drew near, Philadelphia was abuzz with excitement. The great convention to revise the Articles of Confederation was scheduled to meet in this city, bringing with it some of the greatest names in the 13 "united" states. Philadelphians were bursting with pride, at least part of which was a general satisfaction that its neighbor and trade rival, New York, was not the scene of the convention.
Indeed, the meeting gave Philadelphia the chance to host another gathering of leaders similar to the one which, 11 years earlier, had drafted the Declaration of Independence. To solidify that connection, the Pennsylvania State House -- better known as Independence Hall -- was chosen as the site for the meeting.
If Philadelphians were ready to roll out the red carpet for the arriving delegates, Mother Nature was not. Stifling heat and oppressive humidity hung over the city throughout the summer. The debates which marked the convention were often heated, both figuratively and literally.
By the time the convention's opening day rolled around on May 14, the Virginia and Pennsylvania delegations were the only ones represented. Foul weather throughout the rest of the states had prevented many delegates from arriving in Philadelphia on time.
As delegates trickled in over the next 11 days, the Pennsylvania and Virginia delegations had ample opportunity to exchange thoughts on the task ahead of them. James Madison, who had been the earliest arrival in Philadelphia, had been particularly active during the delay. His thoughts, combined with those of the other members of the Virginia delegation, were to result in a set of proposals which would dominate the convention throughout the summer.
Finally, on May 25, a quorum of seven states was declared. On that day, the revered George Washington was unanimously chosen as president of the convention. His firm, even leadership was to prove invaluable during the long months of struggle ahead of the gathering.
A lesser-known, but just as significant, act of the convention also occurred during the opening days. In establishing the rules which were to guide the meeting, the delegates approved a measure allowing them to reconsider any matter at a later time -- even those which had already been voted upon. This rule was to come into play repeatedly throughout the course of the convention.
On May 29, Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph introduced to the assembly 15 resolves, which quickly became known as "the Virginia Plan." The plan had been formalized by the Virginia delegation during the 11 days prior to the realization of a quorum. Madison is generally credited with the development of this plan, but there is growing evidence that other members of Virginia's group, including Washington, had a hand in the finished product.
The proposal called for the creation of an entirely new national government, with an executive, a judiciary and a two-chambered legislature. Members of the first branch were to be elected by the people, with these, in turn, choosing the members of the second branch.
The next day, May 30, the convention adjourned into a Committee of the Whole for consideration of the Virginia Plan. Almost immediately, concern was expressed by many delegations, particularly those from small states, over the extent of authority to be concentrated in the national government.
Thus, just five days into the convention, the die had already been cast: the large states versus the small states. The Virginia Plan, and the resulting battles between these two interests, were to dominate the rest of the convention.
The more populous states -- Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and even Georgia, which anticipated rapid growth -- generally favored the creation of a viable national government, while opposing the equal representation of each state in the federal legislature. With larger populations to support, they felt they deserved a greater voice in any national legislature.
On the other hand, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware and New York -- the smaller states -- generally favored a continuation of the state sovereignty authorized under the Articles of Confederation. Fearful of dominance by large states, they adamantly favored equal representation in the federal legislature.
On May 31, the Committee of the Whole approved the creation of a national legislature with two chambers. Only Pennsylvania dissented out of respect to Franklin, who strongly endorsed a one-chamber body. As permitted by the rules, the convention would return to this issue at a later time.
Delegates also approved the popular election of members of the first legislative branch, the House of Representatives. As part of this measure, the assembly approved proportional representation in that body, a stipulation made possible by the fact that the small states were not yet fully organized for resistance.
On June 1, delegates tackled another sticky portion of the Virginia Plan: that section establishing a national executive. Many of the delegates, mindful of the colonial experience, feared that a single executive would quickly assume the powers of a monarch; indeed, there had been a great deal of popular sentiment for establishing a throne in America. Virginia's Randolph, who had introduced the Virginia Plan to the convention, even felt compelled to argue against that portion of the proposal. In the end, however, a single national executive was approved on a 7-3 vote.
With this vote, the convention had almost certainly exceeded its instructions from Congress, which had authorized the gathering "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." One can only speculate as to what reaction Congress, then meeting in New York, would have had if the convention proceedings had been open to the general public.
With the establishment of a national executive out of the way, the convention dealt with a related issue -- the executive's veto power. As proposed in the Virginia Plan, the executive and a member of the national judiciary were to review acts of Congress before they became operative and, if so desired, to veto them.
There was a great deal of divided thought on this subject. Many delegates felt it improper for a member of the national judiciary to review newly-passed laws prior to a formal court test. Franklin, on the other hand, thought it foolish to give only one person the power to negate laws.
It was the clear-thinking, expressive Madison who first suggested that some portion of Congress be allowed to override an executive veto, providing an important safeguard in many members' minds. But it would be June 18 before the Committee of the Whole finally granted veto power to the executive, subject to override by two-thirds of Congress.
By June 5, the convention was ready to deal with the Ninth Resolve submitted under the Virginia Plan, that dealing with the establishment of inferior federal tribunals. Questions were many: Were these courts even needed, or were existing state courts adequate? And if these courts were to be created, who would name these new federal judges?
After another strongly-worded debate, the delegates voted 9-2 to create such courts, but left blank a passage regarding by whose authority the judges were to serve.
The rest of that day was devoted to ongoing debate over the remaining Virginia Resolves. Two were approved, but three others were postponed.
Finally, the convention came to the 15th and final resolve, that dealing with ratification proceedings. The proposal called for the submission of the finished document "to an assembly or assemblies of representatives, recommended by the several legislatures to be expressly chosen by the people. . ."
Madison, in particular, favored popular ratification of any final product, recognizing the importance of acceptance by the citizens of the states. Some, however, questioned whether ratification was needed at all. Others had grave doubts about the outcome of the convention. Among these was South Carolina's Charles Pinckney, who expressed hope that unanimity would not be a requirement for final ratification "that in the case the experiment should not unanimously take place, nine states might be authorized to unite under the same government."
Ultimately, the debate came to naught, and the vote on ratification procedures was postponed.
On June 6, exercising its right to reconsider measures already reviewed, the Committee of the Whole returned to its most controversial subject: the method of selection for members of the House of Representatives. Pinckney expressed his belief that the people were "less fit judges" than the state legislatures; Madison, on the other hand, reiterated his stance that the election of at least one chamber by the people was a necessity for a free government. Just a week after approving popular election, the convention voted 8-2 in favor of selection by the state legislatures. Not surprisingly, this decision would later be reversed once more.
By June 7, when the convention prepared to take up the method of selection for the Senate, four different selection methods had been mentioned at one time or another: by the people, by the House of Representatives, by the individual state legislatures and by the executive. Eventually, the debate turned in favor of those advocating selection by the state legislatures, and this method was approved despite an impassioned plea by Pennsylvania's James Wilson for popular election.
Cracks began to appear in the heretofore controlled convention on June 9, when the smaller states, by now organized in opposition to the Virginia Plan, rallied. New Jersey's William Patterson, for example, told the gathering that the system of proportional representation advocated by the Virginia Plan would threaten the very existence of the smaller states. In response to Patterson's suggestions that Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia would dominate the new government, Wilson repeated his belief that larger states should have more influence than smaller ones.
The debate between the two factions raged for three days until, on June 11, the large states prevailed on a narrow 6-5 vote. When the smoke had cleared, the convention had approved a legislature with proportional representation in both chambers. Members of the first branch were to be chosen by the people, members of the second by the state legislatures.
Hoping to offer an olive branch to the furious small state delegations, the large states stepped forward with a plan to allow the counting of two-thirds of each state's slave population toward the population upon which representation was to be based. This was an obvious concession to the smaller states.
The fray took a turn for the worse on June 15, when Patterson again took the floor and introduced a plan in direct opposition to the Virginia Plan. Quickly known as "the New Jersey Plan," it plainly outlined the concerns of the small states. The most significant aspect of the New Jersey Plan was its call for the creation of a single legislative chamber in which the states voted equally, without regard to population.
By this time, it was plain to all that the convention could no longer avoid deciding whether to construct a new framework of government or follow its original instructions and merely alter the Articles of Confederation. With that in mind, the convention voted to place both the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan on the floor for debate.
Madison rose on June 19 and systematically, point by point, destroyed the New Jersey Plan. Citing its failure to address the very questions raised by the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, Madison meticulously picked apart the proposal. Following his impressive presentation, the delegates voted 7-3, with Maryland divided, to approve the Virginia Plan.
This action, while sounding the death knell for the full New Jersey Plan, nevertheless galvanized the small state delegations. While they were not able to see the New Jersey Plan prevail, they were able to eventually convince others in attendance that some revisions of the Virginia Plan were necessary in order to fully guarantee equal treatment of all the states and, ultimately, of all citizens.
On June 25, in an increasingly rare moment of relative calm, the delegates approved terms of two years for members of the first branch and six years for those serving in the second branch. This vote reversed previous action by the Committee of the Whole, which had endorsed three- and seven-year terms, respectively.
The strong passions of these men, combined with the tension and oppressive heat of that summer, brought the convention to the brink of adjournment. Tired, frustrated and worn down, delegates nearly gave up when, on June 29, two small-state delegates made a motion to reverse the proportional representation provisions previously approved by the Committee of the Whole. The first proposal, related to the House of Representatives, was voted down quickly. The second, pertaining to the Senate, ended in a tie vote.
What pressure must have been exerted upon the assemblage during that long summer of debate and thought. Aware on one hand of the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation, yet conscious on the other hand of the potential dangers of a strong national government dominated by a small group of populous states, the delegates struggled. A solution which satisfied everyone must have seemed nearly impossible.
Franklin, who often played the role of a calming force during the most emphatic debates, saw that compromise was urgently needed. In fact, as July approached, it appeared that only an unlikely compromise could avoid a disastrous conclusion to the Great Convention.