US CONSTITUTION

Compromises of the Const. Convention

"REPRESENTATION" remained the core issue for the Philadelphia Convention. What was the best way for authority to be delegated from the people and the states to a strengthened central government? After still more deeply divided argument, a proposal put forward by delegates from Connecticut (a small population state ), struck a compromise that narrowly got approved. They suggested that representatives in each house of the proposed bicameral legislature be selected through different means. The UPPER HOUSE (or SENATE) would reflect the importance of state sovereignty by including two people from each state regardless of size. Meanwhile, the LOWER HOUSE (the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) would have different numbers of representatives from each state determined by population. Representation would be adjusted every ten years through a federal census that counted every person in the country. By coming up with a mixed solution that balanced state sovereignty and popular sovereignty tied to actual population, the Constitution was forged through what is known as the CONNECTICUT COMPROMISE. In many respects this compromise reflected a victory for small states, but compared with their dominance in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation it is clear that negotiation produced something that both small and large states wanted. Other major issues still needed to be resolved, however, and, once again, compromise was required on all sides. One of the major issues concerned elections themselves. Who would be allowed to vote? The different state constitutions had created different rules about how much property was required for white men to vote. The delegates needed to figure out a solution that could satisfy people with many different ideas about who could have the franchise (that is, who could be a voter). Signing the Constitution George Washington presided over the signing of the U.S. Constitution. Take note of the famous "Rising Sun" chair and Syng ink stand. For the popular lower house, any white man who paid taxes could vote. Thus, even those without property, could vote for who would represent them in the House of Representatives. This expanded the franchise in some states. To balance this opening, the two Senators in the upper house of the national government would be elected by the STATE LEGISLATURES. Finally, the PRESIDENT (that is, the executive branch) would be elected at the state level through an ELECTORAL COLLEGE whose numbers reflected representation in the legislature. To modern eyes, the most stunning and disturbing constitutional compromise by the delegates was over the issue of slavery. Some delegates considered slavery an evil institution and GEORGE MASON of Virginia even suggested that the trans-Atlantic slave trade be made illegal by the new national rules. Delegates from South Carolina and Georgia where slavery was expanding rapidly in the late-18th century angrily opposed this limitation. If any limitations to slavery were proposed in the national framework, then they would leave the convention and oppose its proposed new plan for a stronger central government. Their fierce opposition allowed no room for compromise and as a result the issue of slavery was treated as a narrowly political, rather than a moral, question. The delegates agreed that a strengthened union of the states was more important than the Revolutionary ideal of equality. This was a pragmatic, as well as a tragic, constitutional compromise, since it may have been possible (as suggested by George Mason's comments) for the slave state of Virginia to accept some limitations on slavery at this point. Slave trade The slave trade was always a controversial issue in the history of the United States. The proposed constitution actually strengthened the power of slave states in several important respects. Through the "FUGITIVE CLAUSE," for example, governments of free states were required to help recapture runaway slaves who had escaped their masters' states. Equally disturbing was the "THREE-FIFTHS FORMULA" established for determining representation in the lower house of the legislature. Slave states wanted to have additional political power based on the number of human beings that they held as slaves. Delegates from free states wouldn't allow such a blatant manipulation of political principles, but the inhumane compromise that resulted meant counting enslaved persons as three-fifths of a free person for the sake of calculating the number of people a state could elect to the House of Representatives. After hot summer months of difficult debate in Philadelphia from May to September 1787, the delegates had fashioned new rules for a stronger central government that extended national power well beyond the scope of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution created a national legislature that could pass the supreme law of the land, could raise taxes, and with greater control over commerce. The proposed rules also would restrict state actions, especially in regard to passing PRO-DEBTOR LAWS. At the end of the long process of creating the new plan, thirty-eight of the remaining forty-one delegates showed their support by signing the proposed Constitution. This small group of national superstars had created a major new framework through hard work and compromise. Now another challenge lay ahead. Could they convince the people in the states that this new plan was worth accepting?

Why were state constitutions so important?

State Constitutions - Individual and Natural Rights The State Constitutions protected the individual and natural rights of Americans defined as: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" The State Constitution of Pennsylvania declared: "All men are born equally free and independent." State Constitutions and the Bill of Rights The theme of protecting the individual and natural rights of Americans continued with a bill of rights. 'A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' is an example. A summary of the requirements to protect the individual and natural rights of Americans were as follows: Freedom of religion Freedom of speech & Freedom of the Press The Right to Trial by Jury A search warrant for property searches The State Constitutions - British Influence These fundamental and democratic rights are still guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The 1689 English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta established a democratic basis for the English people by restricting the power of the governing body (the Monarchy). These famous documents: Limited the powers of the king Laid the basis for due process of law which led to Trial by Jury Prohibited the king from taking property or taxes without consent of the Great Council or Parliament Many principles of these documents influenced and continued in the the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, the Articles of Confederation, the 1791 US Bill of Rights and in the U.S. Constitution. State Constitutions - Summary The State Constitutions took heed from history, the flaws in British laws and the aspirations of the Declaration of Independence. These led to a number of new ideas that Americans, across the newly established states, included in their State Constitutions. A summary of the most important inclusions are as follows: Each of the State Constitutions should be written down The Basic rights of the people should be constitutionally protected All men are created equal Power comes from the people A Separation of powers Many of the 'framers of State Constitutions were to play important roles in the 'Birth of the Nation' and were later honored in history with the titles of Founding Fathers. State Constitutions - Each of the State Constitutions should be written down Americans believed that each of the State Constitutions should be written down. It might seem incredible that this concept was such a leap when developing the State Constitutions but the British Constitution was not contained in a written document. The British have an "unwritten" constitution. It is based on the set of laws and principles under which the country is governed but there is no single constitutional document. Most of the British constitution is embodied in written documents such as parliamentary procedures, laws, court judgments, treaties and royal prerogatives. The framers of the State Constitutions believed that publishing these written documents would make it harder for state governments to violate basic principles. State Constitutions - Basic rights should be constitutionally protected Americans believed that basic rights of the people should be constitutionally protected. The written documentation of the State Constitutions would help to achieve this important goal. Some of the newly formed states, notably Massachusetts, committed part of their constitutions to "A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants" of their states. This was later reflected in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. State Constitutions - All men are created equal... Americans included the belief that 'All men are created equal', an idea expressed in the Declaration of Independence. However, this was a 'Utopian' ideal, a vision of what life should be, not what it was in reality. The framers of the State Constitution understood this, but in reality they did not favor absolute equality. The poor inhabitants of the newly formed states were not able to vote - State Constitutions established property requirements for voting. Women were not allowed to vote. And the economic success of the plantations in the Southern states were dependent on slaves. State Constitutions - Power comes from the people Americans believed that power should come from the people. They had endured the rule of powerful governors and the British monarchs and had no intention of being dominated by another form of executive power. The people were to hold the power over their own lives and destinies so the power of any future governors would be significantly curbed. State Constitutions - Separation of powers Americans believed that there should be a separation of powers in order to ensure fairness and and impartiality. State Constitutions therefore separated executive, legislative, and judicial powers. Under this model, the governance of a state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that no branch has more power than the other branches. State Constitutions - The Legislature The legislature is an assembly with the power to pass, amend and repeal laws State Constitutions - The Executive The executive is the part of government that has sole authority and responsibility for the daily administration of the state and executes the law State Constitutions - The Judiciary: The judiciary, which is also known as the judicial system, is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state and provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. The separation of powers system, included in State Constitutions, was not a new idea. It dated back to the Romans. It was favored as it was designed to distribute authority away from the executive branch to preserve individual liberty and prevent and forms of tyranny. The governor, or any other executive officer, was forbidden from serving in the legislature and the courts were protected from executive control. Pennsylvania so detested the potential power of an executive that they chose not to have a governor. The State Constitutions and the US Constitution Many elements of the State Constitutions were used to frame the Constitution of the United States of America. Among the features of the Constitution taken from state constitutions are such names as President, Senate, House of Representatives. Other features taken from the State Constitutions were provisions for a census, for the veto, for the retirement of one third of the Senate every two years, for impeachment and that money bills shall originate in the House. The concept of the annual message or address should be presented to the people. It is now called the State of the Union annual address that is now presented by the President of the United States to the United States Congress

Constitutional Convention

By 1786, Americans recognized that the Articles of Confederation, the foundation document for the new United States adopted in 1777, had to be substantially modified. The Articles gave Congress virtually no power to regulate domestic affairs--no power to tax, no power to regulate commerce. Without coercive power, Congress had to depend on financial contributions from the states, and they often time turned down requests. Congress had neither the money to pay soldiers for their service in the Revolutionary War or to repay foreign loans granted to support the war effort. In 1786, the United States was bankrupt. Moreover, the young nation faced many other challenges and threats. States engaged in an endless war of economic discrimination against commerce from other states. Southern states battled northern states for economic advantage. The country was ill-equipped to fight a war--and other nations wondered whether treaties with the United States were worth the paper they were written on. On top of all else, Americans suffered from injured pride, as European nations dismissed the United States as "a third-rate republic." America's creditor class had other worries. In Rhode Island (called by elites "Rogue Island"), a state legislature dominated by the debtor class passed legislation essentially forgiving all debts as it considered a measure that would redistribute property every thirteen years. The final straw for many came in western Massachusetts where angry farmers, led by Daniel Shays, took up arms and engaged in active rebellion in an effort to gain debt relief. Troubles with the existing Confederation of States finally convinced the Continental Congress, in February 1787, to call for a convention of delegates to meet in May in Philadelphia "to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union." Across the country, the cry "Liberty!" filled the air. But what liberty? Few people claim to be anti-liberty, but the word "liberty" has many meanings. Should the delegates be most concerned with protected liberty of conscience, liberty of contract (meaning, for many at the time, the right of creditors to collect debts owed under their contracts), or the liberty to hold property (debtors complained that this liberty was being taken by banks and other creditors)? Moreover, the cry for liberty could mean two very different things with respect to the slave issue--for some, the liberty to own slaves needed protection, while for others (those more able to see through black eyes), liberty meant ending the slavery. Convention in Philadelphia The room in Independence Hall (formerly the State House) in Philadelphia where debates over the proposed Constitution took place (photo by Doug Linder) On May 25, 1787, a week later than scheduled, delegates from the various states met in the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia. Among the first orders of business was electing George Washington president of the Convention and establishing the rules--including complete secrecy concerning its deliberations--that would guide the proceedings. (Several delegates, most notably James Madison, took extensive notes, but these were not published until decades later.) The main business of the Convention began four days later when Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia presented and defended a plan for new structure of government (called the "Virginia Plan") that had been chiefly drafted by fellow Virginia delegate, James Madison. The Virginia Plan called for a strong national government with both branches of the legislative branch apportioned by population. The plan gave the national government the power to legislate "in all cases in which the separate States are incompetent" and even gave a proposed national Council of Revision a veto power over state legislatures. Delegates from smaller states, and states less sympathetic to broad federal powers, opposed many of the provisions in the Virginia Plan. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina asked whether proponents of the plan "meant to abolish the State Governments altogether." On June 14, a competing plan, called the "New Jersey Plan," was presented by delegate William Paterson of New Jersey. The New Jersey Plan kept federal powers rather limited and created no new Congress. Instead, the plan enlarged some of the powers then held by the Continental Congress. Paterson made plain the adamant opposition of delegates from many of the smaller states to any new plan that would deprive them of equal voting power ("equal suffrage") in the legislative branch. Over the course of the next three months, delegates worked out a series of compromises between the competing plans. New powers were granted to Congress to regulate the economy, currency, and the national defense, but provisions which would give the national government a veto power over new state laws was rejected. At the insistence of delegates from southern states, Congress was denied the power to limit the slave trade for a minimum of twenty years and slaves--although denied the vote and not recognized as citizens by those states--were allowed to be counted as 3/5 persons for the purpose of apportioning representatives and determining electoral votes. Most importantly, perhaps, delegates compromised on the thorny issue of apportioning members of Congress, an issue that had bitterly divided the larger and smaller states. Under a plan put forward by delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut ("the Connecticut Compromise"), representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population while each state would be guaranteed an equal two senators in the new Senate. By September, the final compromises were made, the final clauses polished, and it came time to vote. In the Convention, each state--regardless of its number of delegates-- had one vote, so a state evenly split could not register a vote for adoption. In the end, thirty-nine of the fifty-five delegates supported adoption of the new Constitution, barely enough to win support from each of the twelve attending state delegations. (Rhode Island, which had opposed the Convention, sent no delegation.) Following a signing ceremony on September 17, most of the delegates repaired to the City Tavern on Second Street near Walnut where, according to George Washington, they "dined together and took cordial leave of each other."

The Committee of Detail

On July 23, the Convention decided unanimously to appoint a Committee of Detail consisting of five members to draft a revised version of the current resolutions. The following day, the delegates were chosen. The Committee of Detail was made up of Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Gorham, Mr. Ellsworth, and Mr. Wilson. Each member of the committee was a lawyer and was familiar with drafting legal documents, and utilized this experience in preparing a draft of the Constitution.[i] The delegates believed a smaller committee of only five members would be more appropriate to do more detail oriented editorial work.[ii] Mr. Randolph expressed two principles that guided the work of the committee. First, that they would only include the essential principles of the Constitution, so the Convention would not become too bogged down in the minute details.[iii] Second, that they would use specific and precise language, according to the example set by many of the state constitutions.[iv] The Committee of Detail penned nine documents, with the final draft having a preamble and twenty-three articles.[v] This draft, penned by James Wilson, was the first draft that resembled our Constitution. Instead of simply elaborating on the existing resolutions of the Convention, the Committee arguably redefined the constitutional balance of federalism by increasing the rights of states.[vi] Despite never being agreed to in the whole Convention, the Committee report listed an enumerated set of powers for the national legislature, including the powers to collect taxes, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and coin money, among others. This limited the powers of the legislature, because the delegates likely wrote this under the assumption that the powers not enumerated would be granted to the states.[vii] The Committee report similarly granted the judicial branch enumerated jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law, those affecting ambassadors, trials of impeachment of Unites States' officers, all cases of maritime jurisdiction, controversies of two or more States, between a State and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, and between a State or citizens of that state and a foreign State or citizens. This was opposed to the more general grant of jurisdiction over questions that "involve the national peace and harmony," that was previously discussed.[viii] The Committee report also called for more specific states' rights, including giving states the responsibility for paying members of Congress, permitting states to choose the time and place of congressional elections, and allowing states to set uniform property qualifications for their representatives in Congress.[ix] To understand why the Committee of Detail called for the enhancement of states' rights, it is necessary to look at the political ideology of each member of the Committee. Mr. Ellsworth and Mr. Rutledge actively supported states' rights during the Convention.[x] Mr. Randolph and Mr. Wilson favored a strong national government, but one with an enumerated scheme of powers rather than general grants of power.[xi] Mr. Gorham, on the other hand, consistently argued for greater national powers, but he was outnumbered on the Committee and was willing to compromise.[xii] On August 6, the Convention returned from its ten-day adjournment. Mr. Rutledge delivered the report of the Committee, and a printed copy was delivered to each member of the Convention. The Convention then adjourned to read the report and prepare to discuss it the following day. On August 7, the report of the Committee of Detail was taken up by the Convention. The delegations agreed to the preamble and on Articles I and II, which gave the government the title of "The United States of America" and said it would consist of a legislative, executive, and judicial branch. The delegates agreed to some minor changes in wording, and to delete some phrases they found to be redundant, but the report was not scrutinized in a substantial way. Over the next few weeks the delegates embraced most of the report with little debate, likely due to the fact that the Convention was entering its fourth month and the delegates felt pressure to compromise.[xiii] In order to expedite the process of working out the details of the Constitution, the Convention employed committees ten times in August and September to negotiate compromises.[xiv] The importance of the work of the Committee of Detail cannot be overstated, and it was clearly approved of by the Convention because, on August 18 and August 20, the Convention sent a number of additional proposals for congressional power to the Committee of Detail, making it somewhat of a standing committee.[xv] The Committee reported back on August 22, including some, but not all of the provisions recommended.[xvi]

The Gerry Committee

The Virginia Plan, introduced on May 29, was "wholly national." Of particular importance is the absence of any structural representation for the states. According to Resolutions 3, 4, and 5, the general government shall have a bicameral legislative structure with neither branch elected by the states and with neither representing the states. On June 11, the delegates overwhelmingly agreed that the lower house should be based on population and elected by the people. By a 6-5 vote, the delegates rejected a proposal by Roger Sherman that supported popular representation in the lower house and equal representation for the states in the upper branch. Thus on June 15, William Paterson submitted the New Jersey Plan, one that scrapped all the popular representation provisions of the Virginia Plan. On 19 June, the New Jersey Plan was defeated 7-3-1. For the remainder of June, however, the delegates returned repeatedly to the compromise proposal of June 11. And on June 29, Ellsworth reintroduced the motion of June 11: equal representation for the states in the upper house with proportional representation in the lower house. For the first time, the case for the representation of the states was elevated from one of convenience to one of principle. Ellsworth declared, "We were partly national; partly federal. He trusted that on this middle ground a compromise would take place." On June 30, the youngest delegate, Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey—until then a pretty staunch nationalist—spoke for the first time: "We were partly federal, partly national in our Union," he declared. "And he did not see why the Govt. might (not) in some respects operate on the States, in others on the people." On July 2, the Ellsworth proposal was defeated on a tie vote: 5-5-1. Nevertheless, a Committee of 11—one delegate from each state—was created to seek a compromise on the representation question. The composition of the committee reveals that Madison's attempt to exclude the states from the structure of the general government had been halted in its tracks. Gerry was chosen over King from Massachusetts, Yates over Hamilton from New York, Franklin over Wilson from Pennsylvania, Davie over Williamson from North Carolina, Rutledge over Pinckney from South Carolina, and Mason over Madison from Virginia. From July 5 to July 7, the Gerry Committee defended equal representation for the states in the Senate and popular representation in the House. We need to put theoretical niceties to one side, Gerry said, and think about "accommodation." "We were... in a peculiar situation. We were neither the same Nation nor different Nations. If no compromise should take place what will be the consequence."? Mason concurred: "There must be some accommodation." Paterson, also on the committee, urged adoption of the report for "there was no other ground of accommodation." The key to the Compromise was winning over such former wholly national supporters like Gerry and Mason. An often-overlooked component of the Compromise was the agreement that money bills would originate in the House and could not be amended in the Senate. This feature was vital in winning over Mason and Gerry, as well as Randolph who introduced the wholly national Virginia Plan. These three delegates were willing to buy into the partly national (popular representation in the House), partly federal (equal representation for the states in the Senate) arrangement if the principle of no taxation without popular representation was adhered to. On July 16, the delegates agreed (5-4-1) to the Gerry Committee Report, also known as the Connecticut Compromise. The losing delegates, Madison, Wilson, G. Morris, Pinckney, and King, decided not to challenge the outcome.

Committee of Style

By Saturday, September 8, 1787, the work of the Convention was almost at an end. The delegates appointed a committee consisting of William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut as chairman; Alexander Hamilton of New York; Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania; James Madison of Virginia; and Rufus King of Massachusetts "to revise the style of, and arrange, the articles which have been agreed to by the House." Johnson presented a digest of the finished Constitution on September 12, and the Convention ordered copies printed and distributed to the delegates. The delegates made few changes in the Committee of Style report. Motions were made to preface the Constitution with a Bill of Rights and to protect the freedom of the press, but both were defeated when put to a vote. According to Roger Sherman of Connecticut, both proposals were unnecessary because the individual state declarations of rights were still in effect. The Federal Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by thirty-nine delegates attending the Convention. It was then sent to the states for ratification. This copy belonged to James Madison.

Gouverneur Morris

Convention Contributions: Arrived May 25, and except for a three week period in late June, he was present through the signing of the Constitution. He spoke more frequently than any other delegate and supported the effort to build a strong central government. He is best remembered for writing the Preamble to the Constitution and for the "obligation of contracts clause" in Article I, Section 10 in the Constitution. William Pierce stated that "Mr. Gouverneur Morris is one of the Genius's in whom every species of talents combine to render him conspicuous and flourishing in public debate. ... No Man has more wit, nor can anyone engage the attention more than Mr. Morris." Committee Assignments: Chairman of Second Committee of Representation, Third Committee of Representation, Committee of Leftovers, Committee of Style He was also categorized as the theistic rationalist since he felt strongly in a guiding god and that morality had to be taught through religion. Regardless, he did not have patience for any established religion. Gouverneur Morris often strongly defended a person's right to practice his chosen religion without any interference, and he felt that it had to be included in in the Constitution. Gouverneur Morris was one of the very few delegates at the Philadelphia Convention who openly spoke against domestic slavery in America. According to James Madison notes, Gouverneur Morris openly spoke against slavery in August.

Articles of Confederation

On June 12, 1776, a day after appointing a committee to prepare a draft of the Declaration of Independence, the Second Continental Congress resolved to appoint a committee of 13 to prepare a draft of a constitution for a union of the states. The committee met repeatedly, and chairman John Dickinson presented their results to the Congress on July 12, 1776. There were long debates on such issues as sovereignty, the exact powers to be given the confederate government, whether to have a judiciary, and voting procedures.[7] The final draft of the Articles was prepared in the summer of 1777 and the Second Continental Congress approved them for ratification by the individual states on November 15, 1777, after a year of debate.[8] In practice, the Articles were in use beginning in 1777; the final draft of the Articles served as the de facto system of government used by the Congress ("the United States in Congress assembled") until it became de jure by final ratification on March 1, 1781; at which point Congress became the Congress of the Confederation. Under the Articles, the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the national government. The individual articles set the rules for current and future operations of the United States government. It was made capable of making war and peace, negotiating diplomatic and commercial agreements with foreign countries, and deciding disputes between the states, including their additional and contested western territories. Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual".

Newbergh Conspiracy

On the morning of March 10 an unsigned letter began circulating in the army camp. Later acknowledged to be written by Major John Armstrong, Jr., aide to General Gates, the letter decried the army's condition and the lack of Congressional support, and called upon the army to send Congress an ultimatum. Published at the same time was an anonymous call for a meeting of all field officers for 11 a.m. the next day.[21] The Newburgh Address. Washington reacted with dispatch. On the morning of the 11th in his general orders he objected to the "disorderly" and "irregular" nature of the anonymously called meeting, and announced that there would be a meeting of officers on the 15th instead. This meeting, he said, would be presided over by the senior officer present, and Washington requested a report of the meeting, implying that he would not attend. On the morning of the 12th a second unsigned letter appeared, claiming Washington's agreement to a meeting as an endorsement of the conspirators' position.[24] Washington, who had initially thought the first letter to be the work of individuals outside the camp (specifically citing Gouverneur Morris as a likely candidate), was compelled to admit this unlikely given the speed at which the second letter appeared.[25] The March 15 meeting was held in the "New Building" or "Temple", a 40 by 70 foot (12 by 21 m) building at the camp. After Gates opened the meeting, Washington entered the building to everyone's surprise. He asked to speak to the officers, and the stunned Gates relinquished the floor. Washington could tell by the faces of his officers, who had not been paid for quite some time, that they were quite angry and did not show the respect or deference as they had toward Washington in the past.[26] Washington then gave a short but impassioned speech, now known as the Newburgh Address, counseling patience. His message was that they should oppose anyone "who wickedly attempts to open the floodgates of civil discord and deluge our rising empire in blood."[27] He then produced a letter from a member of Congress to read to the officers. He gazed upon it and fumbled with it without speaking. He then took a pair of reading glasses from his pocket, which were new; few of the men had seen him wear them. He then said: "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."[28] This caused the men to realize that Washington had sacrificed a great deal for the Revolution, just as much as any of them. These, of course, were his fellow officers, most having worked closely with him for several years. Many of those present were moved to tears,[29] and with this act, the conspiracy collapsed as he read the letter. He then left the room, and General Knox and others offered resolutions reaffirming their loyalty. Knox and Colonel Brooks were then appointed to a committee to draft a suitable resolution. Approved by virtually the entire assembly, the resolution expressed "unshaken confidence" in Congress, and "disdain" and "abhorrence" for the irregular proposals published earlier in the week

Shay's Rebellion

Shays' Rebellion was an armed uprising in Massachusetts (mostly in and around Springfield) during 1786 and 1787. Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays led four thousand rebels (called Shaysites) in rising up against perceived economic injustices and suspension of civil rights by Massachusetts, and in a later attempt to capture the United States' national weapons arsenal at the U.S. Armory at Springfield. Although Shays' Rebellion met with defeat militarily against a privately raised militia, it prompted numerous national leaders (including George Washington, who came out of retirement to deal with issues raised by Shays' Rebellion) to call for a stronger national government to suppress future rebellions, resulting in the U.S. Constitutional Convention and according to historian Leonard L. Richards, "fundamentally altering the course of U.S. history."[1] The rebellion took place in a political climate where reform of the country's governing document, the Articles of Confederation, was widely seen as necessary. The events of the rebellion, some of which occurred after the Philadelphia Convention had been called but before it began in May 1787, are widely seen to have affected the debates on the shape of the new government. The shock of Shays' Rebellion drew retired General George Washington back into public life, leading to his terms as the United States' first President

JAMES MADISON

The Articles of Confederation established the United States as an association of sovereign states with a weak central government. This arrangement was met with disapproval, and was most unsuccessful after the war. Congress had no power to tax, and was unable to pay debts from the Revolution, which concerned Madison and other nationalists, such as Washington and Alexander Hamilton, who feared national bankruptcy and disunion. The historian Gordon S. Wood has noted that many leaders, including Madison and Washington, feared more that the revolution had not fixed the social problems that had triggered it and that the excesses ascribed to the King were being seen in the state legislatures. Shays' Rebellion is often cited as the event that forced the issue; Wood argues that many at the time saw it as only the most extreme example of democratic excess. As Madison wrote, "a crisis had arrived which was to decide whether the American experiment was to be a blessing to the world, or to blast for ever the hopes which the republican cause had inspired." Partly at Madison's initiative, a national convention was called in 1787. Madison was pivotal in persuading Washington to attend the convention—he knew how instrumental the general would be to the adoption of a constitution. Years earlier Madison had pored over crates of books that Jefferson sent him from France on various forms of government. The historian Douglas Adair called Madison's work "probably the most fruitful piece of scholarly research ever carried out by an American." Many have argued that this study helped prepare him for the convention.[citation needed] As a quorum was being reached for the convention to begin, the 36 year old-Madison wrote what became known as the Virginia Plan, and the work of the convention quickly became to amend the Virginia Plan and to fill in the gaps. Though the Virginia Plan was an outline rather than a draft of a possible constitution, and though it was extensively changed during the debate (especially by John Rutledge and James Wilson in the Committee of Detail), its use at the convention led many to call Madison the "Father of the Constitution". During the course of the Convention, Madison spoke over two hundred times, and his fellow delegates rated him highly. William Pierce wrote that "... every Person seems to acknowledge his greatness. In the management of every great question he evidently took the lead in the Convention ... he always comes forward as the best informed Man of any point in debate." Madison recorded the unofficial minutes of the convention, and these have become the only comprehensive record of what occurred.

The Connecticut Compromise

The Connecticut Compromise combined the ideology presented in both the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan. Sherman knew that the ratification of the Constitution was dependent on a nationwide agreement on the selection process of State representatives. The Articles of Confederation allowed for smaller states to retain equal power and bearing as larger states, whereas prior to the Connecticut Compromise respective population size was not a consideration. Sherman found a fundamental flaw in this process, explaining that New York, which was comprised of a majority of the population of the United States, would be more of a 'mouthpiece' than Rhode Island, a State with a fraction of New York's population. However, in his Connecticut Compromise Sherman was meticulous in expressing that no State was innately more important or valuable than another. The Connecticut Compromise introduced a legislative body that consisted of a House of Representatives and a Senate. State Representatives elected to go to the House of Representatives were commensurate on the population of their respective State. However, the number of senators - those individuals selected by each State to serve as representatives in the Senate - was uniform: every state, regardless of size, was allowed two. Due to the fact that slavery was a major issue in the final agreement to ratify the Constitution - Southern states were very adamant about the preservation of slavery, while many of the Northern states were opposed to its ideology - the Connecticut Compromise proposed a three-fifths compromise in which all non-citizens would be tallied and considered 60% of the population of their respective host State.

Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence is the statement adopted by the Second Continental Congress meeting at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies,[2] then at war with Great Britain, regarded themselves as thirteen newly independent sovereign states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. Instead they formed a new nation—the United States of America. John Adams was a leader in pushing for independence, which was unanimously approved on July 2. A committee of five had already drafted the formal declaration, to be ready when Congress voted on independence. The term "Declaration of Independence" is not used in the document itself. Adams persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document,[3] which Congress would edit to produce the final version. The Declaration was ultimately a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The national birthday, Independence Day, is celebrated on July 4, although Adams wanted July 2. After ratifying the text on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms. Introduction Asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained. Preamble Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.[79] Indictment A bill of particulars documenting the king's "repeated injuries and usurpations" of the Americans' rights and liberties.[79] Denunciation This section essentially finished the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.[79] Conclusion The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions, and by necessity the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2. Signatures The first and most famous signature on the engrossed copy was that of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. Two future presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and a father and great-grandfather of two other presidents, Benjamin Harrison, were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26), was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer. The fifty-six signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows (from north to south):[80]

The New Jersey Plan

The New Jersey Plan, which William Paterson proposed to the Constitutional Convention, illustrated a unicameral legislation consisting of a single Congressional legislative body in which each State would have an equal number of representatives. William Paterson had hoped that his New Jersey Plan would address the concerns of both large and small states alike: large states would no longer need be concerned about the formation of potential alliances and smaller states would not be penalized on account of their inferior populations. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention came from different backgrounds and held different political views. For example, they argued about how many representatives each state should be allowed. The larger states favored the Virginia Plan. According to the Virginia Plan, each state would have a different number of representatives based on the state's population. The smaller states favored the New Jersey Plan. According to the New Jersey Plan, the number of representatives would be the same for each state. A delegate from Connecticut, Roger Sherman, proposed a two-house legislature, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The Senate would have an equal number of representatives from each state. This would satisfy the states with smaller populations. The House of Representatives would include one representative for each 30,000 individuals in a state. This pleased states with larger populations. This two-house legislature plan worked for all states and became known as the Great Compromise.

The Virginia Plan

The Virginia Plan (also known as the Randolph Plan, after its sponsor, or the Large-State Plan) was a proposal by Virginia delegates for a bicameral legislative branch.[1] The plan was drafted by James Madison while he waited for a quorum to assemble at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.[2][3] The Virginia Plan was notable for its role in setting the overall agenda for debate in the convention and, in particular, for setting forth the idea of population-weighted representation in the proposed national legislature. The Virginia Plan proposed a legislative branch consisting of two chambers (bicameral legislature), with the dual principles of rotation in office and recall applied to the lower house of the national legislature.[5] Each of the states would be represented in proportion to their "Quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants."[6] States with a large population, like Virginia (which was the most populous state at the time), would thus have more representatives than smaller states. Large states supported this plan, and smaller states generally opposed it, preferring an alternative put forward on June 15. The New Jersey Plan proposed a single-chamber legislature in which each state, regardless of size, would have one vote, as under the Articles of Confederation. In the end, the convention settled on the Connecticut Compromise, creating a House of Representatives apportioned by population and a Senate in which each state is equally represented. In addition to dealing with legislative representation, the Virginia Plan addressed other issues as well, with many provisions that did not make it into the Constitution that emerged. It called for a national government of three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Members of one of the two legislative chambers would be elected by the people; members of that chamber would then elect the second chamber from nominations submitted by state legislatures. The executive would be chosen by the legislative branch. Terms of office were unspecified, but the executive and members of the popularly elected legislative chamber could not be elected for an undetermined time afterward. The legislative branch would have the power to negate state laws if they were deemed incompatible with the articles of union. The concept of checks and balances was embodied in a provision that legislative acts could be vetoed by a council composed of the executive and selected members of the judicial branch; their veto could be overridden by an unspecified legislative majority.

Northwest Land Ordinance

The most significant intended purpose of this legislation was its mandate for the creation of new states from the region. It provided that at least three but not more than five states would be established in the territory, and that once such a state achieved a population of 60,000 it would be admitted into representation in the Continental Congress on an equal footing with the original thirteen states. The actual legal mechanism of the admission of new states was established in the Enabling Act of 1802. The first state created from the Northwest Territory was Ohio, in 1803, at which time the remainder was renamed Indiana Territory. The other four states were Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. A significant portion (about a third) of what later became the state of Minnesota was also part of the territory. Before the population of a territory reached 5000, there would be a limited form of government. There would be a governor, a secretary, and three judges, all appointed by Congress. The governor will have a "freehold estate therein, in one thousand acres of land,". The secretary and the judges will have a, "freehold estate therein, in five hundred acres of land". The governor would be commander-in-chief of the militia, appoint magistrates and other civil officers, and help create and publish laws as they see fit for their territory. They would have a three-year term. The secretary would be in charge of keeping and preserving the acts and laws passed by the territorial legislatures, the public records of the district and to transit authentic copies of such acts and proceedings every six months to the secretary of the Continental Congress. They would have a four-year term. The judges would be in charge will help the governor create and pass acts and laws and in making official court rulings. Their terms did not have a set time period. As soon as the population of a territory reached 5000 free, male inhabitants, then they would receive authority to elect representatives from their counties or townships for the general assembly. For every 500 free, males there would be one representative, until there were 25 representatives.

Committee of Postponed Parts

With this, the Convention has concluded its discussion of the Committee of Detail Report. To deal with those questions still outstanding, a new committee was formed will consisting of one delegate from each state. This group entitled "The Committee on Unfinished Parts," would become known as the Brearly Committee after its New Jersey representative, and would deal with those issues that had been postponed. These would include Congress's power to spend for the general welfare, creation of the Electoral College method of electing the President, and the President's role in treaty-making and in appointment of officers. The Committee of Detail Report of August 6, summarized where the delegates stood. On August 24, the delegates turned to the Presidential article and defeated four different modes of electing the President. In the end, the Convention selected members of the Brearly Committee whose objective was to settle outstanding issues. The chief of these was the Presidential clause. On September 4, the Brearly Committee recommended that the Convention support the Electoral College method of choosing a president. On September 6 and 7, the delegates agreed to a four-year renewable term for the President and that he be a natural born citizen. On September 8, the delegates settled the treaty making power and agreed on the impeachment of the President for "high crimes and misdemeanours." Finally, on September 15, the delegates added "the inferior officers clause." To summarize, the Brearly Committee, composed of Gilman, King, Sherman, Brearly, G. Morris, Dickinson, Carroll, Madison, Williamson, Butler, and Baldwin—a veritable cross-section of the delegates—proposed the adoption of an Electoral College in which both the people and the States are represented in the election of the President. This resolution of the difficult matter of Presidential election clearly meant that the partly national -partly federal model had become the deliberate sense of the convention. This structural compromise—Congress is partly federal and partly national—became the deliberate sense of the community by the end of the Convention. It is the model to which the delegates returned for the resolution of the most durable of issues, namely, the election of the President