Lesson Plans for the Birth of a Nation - The Start of the Constitutional Convention of 1787
Addressing the Flaws of the Articles of Confederation
In 1787, the fledgling United States faced a pivotal moment in its history. After winning independence from Britain just a few years earlier, the new nation found itself struggling under the Articles of Confederation. This document, which served as the country’s first governing framework, had numerous weaknesses that prevented the government from effectively managing the affairs of the nation. Recognizing the pressing need for reform, 55 delegates from 12 of the 13 states (Rhode Island chose not to participate) gathered in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, for what would become known as the Constitutional Convention. The task before them was clear: to create a stronger and more effective federal government.
The Need for Change: Flaws in the Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781, established a loose alliance of states with a weak central government. Under the Articles, Congress had very limited powers, including the inability to levy taxes, regulate interstate commerce, or enforce laws. Additionally, the government had no executive branch to carry out decisions and no national judiciary to resolve disputes between states. This lack of centralized authority led to numerous problems, including financial instability, ineffective responses to foreign threats, and growing tensions among the states.
One of the clearest examples of the Articles’ weaknesses came during Shays’ Rebellion in 1786, when a group of disgruntled farmers in Massachusetts, frustrated by high taxes and economic hardship, revolted against the state government. The federal government’s inability to raise an army or provide adequate support to quell the uprising revealed the urgent need for a more robust national government.
The Purpose of the Constitutional Convention
Initially, the convention’s purpose was to amend the Articles of Confederation. However, it quickly became apparent that mere amendments would not be enough to solve the nation’s problems. The delegates soon shifted their focus to creating an entirely new framework for governance—one that would give the federal government the authority it needed while balancing the power of the states and protecting individual liberties.
Key figures in American history, including George Washington, who was elected president of the convention, and James Madison, often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," played crucial roles in shaping the direction of the convention. Other notable delegates included Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris. These men, with their varying ideas and experiences, worked together to craft a government that would be both strong and flexible, capable of adapting to the needs of the new nation.
Drafting the New Constitution: Creating a Stronger Federal Government
The final product of the convention was the U.S. Constitution, a document that introduced a new structure of government designed to address the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. At the heart of this new framework was the separation of powers, which divided the federal government into three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.
The Executive Branch: Led by a president, this branch was responsible for enforcing laws passed by Congress. The creation of the presidency was a significant departure from the leaderless system under the Articles and provided the nation with a single, accountable figure who could act decisively in times of crisis.
The Legislative Branch: Congress was restructured into a bicameral body, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This system of representation balanced the interests of both large and small states, with the House based on population and the Senate giving equal representation to each state. The new legislative branch had broader powers, including the authority to levy taxes, regulate commerce, and raise an army.
The Judicial Branch: The creation of a national judiciary, headed by the Supreme Court, ensured that laws would be interpreted consistently across the nation. This branch would also serve as a check on both the executive and legislative branches, resolving disputes and ensuring that no branch overstepped its authority.
Together, these branches formed a system of checks and balances, designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. This was a key concern for many of the delegates, who were determined to avoid the type of tyrannical rule they had fought against during the American Revolution.
The Legacy of the Constitutional Convention
After months of intense debate and compromise, the Constitutional Convention concluded on September 17, 1787, with the signing of the U.S. Constitution. The document was then sent to the states for ratification, sparking a heated national debate between Federalists, who supported the new Constitution, and Anti-Federalists, who feared that it granted too much power to the federal government.
Despite the opposition, the Constitution was eventually ratified, and in 1789, the new government officially took effect. Over 230 years later, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, guiding the United States through times of peace, war, prosperity, and hardship.
The Constitutional Convention stands as one of the most important events in American history. By recognizing the flaws of the Articles of Confederation and drafting a new Constitution, the delegates in Philadelphia laid the foundation for a strong federal government that could unite the states and ensure the stability and success of the young republic. Their work endures as a testament to the importance of compromise, collaboration, and the ongoing pursuit of a more perfect union.
The Delegates of the Constitutional Convention: Selection and Representation of the States
The Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in 1787, was a historic gathering that resulted in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. The convention brought together 55 delegates from 12 of the 13 original states, all of whom played a critical role in shaping the future of the fledgling nation. These delegates were not chosen lightly; they were prominent political, legal, and military figures in their respective states, selected for their leadership, experience, and expertise in governance.
How Delegates Were Chosen
The process for selecting delegates varied somewhat from state to state, but in general, delegates were chosen by the state legislatures. Each state recognized the importance of sending its best minds to Philadelphia, where they would debate and decide the future of the nation. The men chosen were often those who had already established themselves as leaders in their colonies, many having served in the Continental Congress or in prominent roles during the American Revolution.
Some states, like Virginia and Pennsylvania, selected their delegates relatively easily, recognizing that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate and that major reform was needed. Other states, such as New York, faced more internal opposition and debate over the necessity of attending the convention. Nevertheless, the states eventually agreed to send representatives, knowing that their participation was vital in shaping the future structure of the national government.
Delegates were expected to represent the interests of their state, but they were also charged with creating a stronger national government. This often led to tension between state and national priorities, as many delegates were reluctant to cede too much power to a centralized authority.
Prominent Delegates and Their Contributions
Among the delegates, there were several key figures whose contributions had a lasting impact on the convention and the resulting Constitution:
George Washington (Virginia): As the presiding officer of the convention, Washington’s presence lent legitimacy and authority to the proceedings. Though he spoke infrequently, his leadership was crucial in guiding the debates and maintaining order.
James Madison (Virginia): Often called the “Father of the Constitution,” Madison was one of the most influential delegates at the convention. He arrived with a clear vision for a stronger federal government and was instrumental in shaping the structure of the new Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton (New York): A strong advocate for a powerful central government, Hamilton’s views often clashed with those of delegates who favored greater power for the states. Though his ideas were considered extreme by some, his influence was undeniable.
Benjamin Franklin (Pennsylvania): At 81, Franklin was the oldest delegate at the convention. His diplomatic skills and wisdom were invaluable, especially in brokering compromises between competing factions.
Gouverneur Morris (Pennsylvania): Morris is credited with writing the preamble to the Constitution and played a major role in drafting the final document. His eloquent writing helped define the tone and vision of the new government.
A List of Delegates by State
Here is a list of the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention, organized by the states they represented:
|
|
The Delegates' Role in Drafting the Constitution
The delegates debated a wide range of issues, including the structure of Congress, the powers of the executive branch, and the role of the judiciary. One of the most contentious debates involved the issue of representation in Congress, which was eventually resolved through the "Great Compromise." This compromise led to the creation of a bicameral legislature, with proportional representation in the House of Representatives and equal representation for each state in the Senate.
The delegates also had to navigate divisive issues like slavery, taxation, and states' rights, crafting compromises to ensure that a final document could be produced and signed. Not every delegate was satisfied with the final Constitution. Some, like George Mason and Edmund Randolph, refused to sign because they felt the document did not sufficiently protect individual rights. Their concerns would later lead to the addition of the Bill of Rights.
The delegates of the Constitutional Convention represented a diverse cross-section of the new American leadership. They brought with them varying perspectives, shaped by their experiences in their home states and during the Revolutionary War. Through debate, compromise, and negotiation, they succeeded in crafting a document that established the framework for a stronger federal government while preserving the principles of liberty and democracy. The U.S. Constitution remains one of the most influential documents in world history, and the efforts of these 55 delegates laid the foundation for the United States as we know it today.
The Hardships Faced by Delegates of the Constitutional Convention
The Constitutional Convention of 1787, held in Philadelphia, was a momentous event that led to the creation of the U.S. Constitution, shaping the foundation of the United States government. While the convention itself involved heated debates and significant compromise, many of the 55 delegates who attended faced substantial hardships just to be present at the convention. Their participation came at a great personal cost, as they dealt with dangerous travel, political opposition, and personal sacrifices that highlight their dedication to the cause of building a stronger nation.
Travel Hardships
One of the greatest challenges the delegates faced was simply getting to Philadelphia. In the late 18th century, travel was often grueling, time-consuming, and fraught with danger. Roads were poorly maintained, often muddy, and subject to the whims of the weather. Traveling from states as far as Georgia or New Hampshire could take weeks, with delegates navigating rough terrain by horseback or carriage. Many faced dangerous conditions such as torrential rains, muddy and impassable roads, or the threat of illness while traveling.
For example, George Washington, the most prominent delegate from Virginia, made a difficult journey to Philadelphia. At 55 years old, Washington faced physical discomforts from long days on the road, but his sense of duty to the country compelled him to attend. Despite being in retirement at his Mount Vernon estate, Washington recognized the importance of his presence at the convention to lend legitimacy to its proceedings.
Delegates from the more distant states, such as Abraham Baldwin and William Few from Georgia, faced even more challenging travel conditions. They had to traverse hundreds of miles of rugged and sometimes hostile terrain to reach Philadelphia, enduring unpredictable weather and the risk of accidents or illness along the way.
Political and Personal Sacrifices
In addition to physical hardships, many delegates had to overcome significant political and personal obstacles. For some, simply attending the convention was a risk to their political careers. Not all states were unified in their desire to amend or replace the Articles of Confederation. Some states were wary of giving too much power to a centralized federal government, and the idea of drafting a new constitution was controversial. Delegates who supported stronger federal authority often faced backlash from constituents who feared losing state sovereignty.
In states like New York, the political climate was deeply divided. Alexander Hamilton faced fierce opposition from his co-delegates Robert Yates and John Lansing, Jr., who left the convention early in protest of the move to create a new constitution rather than amend the Articles of Confederation. Despite this, Hamilton stayed and made significant contributions to the debates, although his political isolation made his efforts difficult.
Other delegates risked their personal lives and financial stability to attend the convention. Many were lawyers, plantation owners, or businessmen who left behind their livelihoods for the months the convention would take. This was especially significant for delegates like Benjamin Franklin, who, at 81 years old, was the oldest delegate at the convention and often arrived carried in a sedan chair due to his frailty. Despite his age and health issues, Franklin’s commitment to the convention never wavered, and his experience and wisdom helped broker compromises among the delegates.
Health Concerns
The physical toll of attending the convention was exacerbated by health concerns, especially in an era when medical knowledge was limited, and illnesses could be life-threatening. Many delegates were older and in poor health, but they pushed through these challenges out of a sense of duty.
For instance, James Madison, who would later be called the "Father of the Constitution," suffered from chronic health issues throughout his life, including bouts of illness that he endured during the convention. Despite these challenges, Madison worked tirelessly, drafting proposals and frameworks for the new government. His dedication and intellectual rigor were pivotal in the success of the convention, even at the expense of his own health.
Family Sacrifices
For many delegates, leaving their families behind for several months was a significant emotional hardship. At a time when communication was slow and unreliable, being away from home could be particularly distressing. Family matters, such as the death of a loved one or personal illness, could not be easily addressed, as delegates had limited means of returning home quickly.
George Mason of Virginia, for example, was torn between his duty to attend the convention and his obligations to his large family. He ultimately made the journey, contributing significantly to the debates but later refused to sign the Constitution due to his objections over the lack of a bill of rights.
Political Discontent and Risk
For some delegates, attending the convention meant facing political opposition at home. Many state legislatures were divided over the idea of reforming the Articles of Confederation, and some delegates faced suspicion or outright hostility for supporting stronger federal governance.
In New York, Alexander Hamilton represented a minority view in favor of a strong federal government. His co-delegates, Yates and Lansing, opposed his position and left the convention early in protest. This left Hamilton isolated, and though he continued to advocate for his ideas, he had to navigate political pressures from his state. Similarly, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, faced opposition for his reluctance to compromise on certain principles.
The Commitment to a Common Cause
Despite these various hardships—whether physical, political, or personal—the delegates pressed forward. Many believed that without a stronger federal government, the newly formed United States would be doomed to collapse under the weak Articles of Confederation. They saw the convention as an opportunity to secure the future of the nation and ensure its long-term stability.
Throughout the summer of 1787, the delegates endured sweltering heat, long debates, and frequent disagreements. Yet they continued to work through their differences, knowing that the stakes were high. The personal sacrifices they made—whether in terms of health, travel difficulties, or political opposition—demonstrated their commitment to the creation of a unified, stronger nation.
The Constitutional Convention was not just a series of debates and compromises but also a reflection of the personal endurance and sacrifice of the delegates who attended. Overcoming physical hardships, political opposition, and personal challenges, these men dedicated themselves to a cause greater than their own interests: the future of the United States. Their perseverance through these hardships resulted in the creation of the U.S. Constitution, a document that continues to guide the country to this day. Without their determination and willingness to endure hardship, the United States might never have achieved the stability and strength that the Constitution provided.
The First Week of the Constitutional Convention: Setting the Stage for a New Nation
In May 1787, delegates from across the United States converged on Philadelphia to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and craft a more robust system of government. The Constitutional Convention, held in the Pennsylvania State House (Independence Hall), would become one of the most significant events in American history. Over the course of the convention, debates, compromises, and the brilliance of key figures would shape the U.S. Constitution. But the first week of the convention was crucial in setting the tone and establishing the groundwork for what would be months of intense work.
Day 1: May 25, 1787 — A Modest Beginning
The convention was scheduled to begin on May 14, but poor weather and long travel delays kept many delegates from arriving on time. It wasn’t until May 25, 1787, that the convention officially commenced, although only 29 of the 55 expected delegates were present that first day. Those in attendance represented seven states: Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and others, but many key figures were still en route. The turnout was disappointing, but the delegates made the most of the day by addressing procedural matters and preparing for the days ahead.
George Washington was unanimously elected president of the convention, a vital step in establishing credibility for the gathering. Washington’s reputation as the hero of the American Revolution and his widely regarded character lent legitimacy to the convention. Although he rarely spoke during the convention, his presence and leadership were essential for maintaining order and focus.
Following Washington’s election, the delegates agreed to meet six days a week, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., an ambitious schedule for what they knew would be a long and difficult process. With the rules of procedure established, the groundwork was laid for more delegates to arrive and for the substantive discussions to begin.
Day 2: May 26, 1787 — Deliberations Delayed
The second day was largely uneventful, as the low turnout continued to prevent the convention from making any significant progress. Some delegates used the time to discuss what their roles should be and how much authority they had. The initial purpose of the convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation, but several key delegates, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, hoped for something much more transformative—a complete overhaul of the national government.
However, with so few delegates present, the official work of the convention was postponed. The delegates spent time informally discussing their goals, ideas, and concerns. Many were beginning to realize that revising the Articles might not be enough to solve the country's problems, but these discussions remained unofficial as they awaited a larger quorum.
Day 3: May 28, 1787 — Establishing Rules
By May 28, the number of delegates had grown, and the convention began to take on a more official tone. One of the primary tasks on this day was to establish rules for how the convention would operate. James Madison and Edmund Randolph of Virginia led much of this effort, knowing that clear rules were essential for the months of debate that lay ahead.
The delegates adopted several key rules, including a commitment to secrecy. All discussions and proceedings of the convention would be kept confidential to allow for open and honest debate without fear of public backlash. This rule of secrecy was considered vital, as many delegates anticipated fierce disagreements and did not want their words to be used against them in their home states.
Another important rule was that any delegate could propose an issue for discussion, ensuring that every state, large or small, would have an equal voice in the proceedings. These procedural rules laid the foundation for productive debate, although the most significant conversations were still to come.
Day 4: May 29, 1787 — The Virginia Plan is Unveiled
The fourth day of the convention proved to be a turning point, as Edmund Randolph introduced the Virginia Plan, a bold proposal that went far beyond merely amending the Articles of Confederation. The Virginia Plan, largely drafted by James Madison, called for the creation of a new, stronger national government with three separate branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The plan outlined a bicameral (two-house) legislature, with representation based on population in both houses—a concept that favored larger states like Virginia and Pennsylvania.
The Virginia Plan also gave the federal government much more authority than the Articles of Confederation had, including the power to veto state laws and the authority to enforce national laws. This plan sparked immediate debate, as smaller states feared losing their influence in a system that gave more power to larger states.
This was the first serious proposal presented at the convention, and it made clear that many delegates were aiming for a significant change, not just revisions to the existing government. The presentation of the Virginia Plan shifted the convention into high gear, as it became clear that the task ahead would involve a complete restructuring of the national government.
Day 5: May 30, 1787 — National vs. State Power
On May 30, the convention officially adopted a resolution that signified the delegates’ intention to move beyond simply amending the Articles of Confederation. They agreed that a new national government, with legislative, executive, and judicial branches, should be established. This decision marked the formal beginning of the delegates’ work to draft a new constitution, setting the stage for weeks of debates over how power would be divided between the states and the federal government.
The discussion on May 30 also brought into focus the tension between those who favored a strong national government and those who feared it would encroach on states’ rights. This tension would define many of the debates to come, with small states and larger states often finding themselves at odds.
Day 6: May 31, 1787 — The Great Debate Begins
By the end of the first week, the delegates had committed themselves to the monumental task of drafting a new constitution. With the introduction of the Virginia Plan, discussions about how to structure the new government began in earnest. The debate over how representation in the legislature should be determined—whether it should be based on population, as the Virginia Plan suggested, or on equal representation for all states—dominated the conversation.
Smaller states, such as Delaware and New Jersey, voiced strong objections to the idea of proportional representation, fearing they would be overpowered by larger states. This set the stage for one of the most critical debates of the convention: how to balance the interests of both large and small states in a unified national government.
A Foundation for Future Progress
The first week of the Constitutional Convention was marked by modest beginnings, procedural groundwork, and the unveiling of the Virginia Plan. Although the number of delegates present remained small at the outset, the stage was set for the significant debates that would follow. By the end of the week, it was clear that the convention would not simply amend the Articles of Confederation but would craft a new framework for governance. The decisions made in those first few days laid the foundation for the months of deliberation and compromise that would eventually result in the United States Constitution. The first week, though just the beginning, would prove crucial in shaping the direction of the convention and the future of the nation.
The Second Week of the Constitutional Convention: Debating the Shape of Government
The second week of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia marked a critical turning point. Having established procedural rules in the first week and laid the groundwork with the presentation of the Virginia Plan, the delegates now plunged into serious debates about the shape of the new national government. The discussions from June 1 to June 7, 1787, revealed the deep divisions among the delegates and introduced themes that would dominate the convention: the balance of power between large and small states, the division of authority between national and state governments, and the structure of the legislative branch.
Day 7: June 1, 1787 — Debating the Executive Branch
As the second week began, the delegates tackled one of the most contentious issues: the nature of the executive branch. Should the nation have a single executive or multiple executives? How long should the executive serve? How much power should the executive hold? These were critical questions for a country that had just emerged from a revolution against monarchical tyranny.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed the idea of a single executive, or president, arguing that a unitary executive would ensure decisiveness and accountability. However, this idea was controversial. Many delegates, wary of centralized power, feared that a single executive could become tyrannical, much like the kings they had fought to overthrow. Some delegates supported the idea of a plural executive to prevent any one person from gaining too much authority.
Edmund Randolph of Virginia, who had introduced the Virginia Plan, voiced concerns about a single executive, fearing it might create a “foetus of monarchy.” The debate ended inconclusively that day, with delegates undecided on whether the executive would be singular or plural. However, the discussion reflected the larger struggle to balance strong national leadership with protections against tyranny.
Day 8: June 2, 1787 — Representation in the Legislature
On June 2, the focus shifted to the legislative branch, and the question of representation dominated the conversation. The Virginia Plan had proposed a bicameral legislature with representation in both houses based on population, a proposal that favored the larger states. Smaller states, such as New Jersey and Delaware, opposed this idea, fearing that they would be marginalized if representation were based solely on population.
The smaller states began to coalesce around the idea that each state, regardless of size, should have equal representation in at least one house of the legislature. This proposal was critical for ensuring that smaller states would not be overpowered by the larger, more populous ones like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. The debate between proportional representation and equal representation would continue throughout the convention, eventually leading to the “Great Compromise” later that summer.
By the end of June 2, no agreement had been reached, but the divisions between the large and small states were becoming more pronounced. The delegates realized that finding a balance between these competing interests would be crucial to the success of the convention.
Day 9: June 4, 1787 — The Virginia Plan Takes Shape
On June 4, the delegates revisited the Virginia Plan, refining its details and discussing the structure of the legislative branch in more depth. One of the key points of discussion was the division of the legislature into two houses: a lower house, where representatives would be elected by the people, and an upper house, where members would be chosen by state legislatures. This bicameral system was intended to balance the power of the people with the interests of the states, a reflection of the delegates’ desire to create a mixed government that represented both the will of the people and the sovereignty of the states.
The national veto over state laws, another provision of the Virginia Plan, also received attention on this day. This proposal, which would allow the national legislature to strike down state laws that conflicted with national interests, was deeply controversial. While some delegates supported it as a way to strengthen national unity, others saw it as an overreach of federal power and an infringement on state sovereignty. This debate was emblematic of the broader struggle to define the relationship between the federal government and the states.
Day 10: June 5, 1787 — Revisiting the Executive and Judiciary
By June 5, the delegates returned to the thorny issue of the executive branch, continuing the debate over whether the country should have a single executive or multiple executives. The idea of a single executive was gaining ground, largely due to the arguments made by James Wilson, who believed that a single executive would provide the government with the necessary energy and decisiveness to function effectively.
The length of the executive’s term was also debated. Should the president serve for life, as Alexander Hamilton would later propose, or for a fixed term? The idea of a lifetime presidency was too close to monarchy for many of the delegates, and the general consensus leaned toward a limited term, although the specifics had not yet been determined.
In addition to the executive, the delegates also discussed the judiciary on June 5. The Virginia Plan called for a national judiciary to be established, with the power to interpret laws and resolve disputes between states. While most delegates agreed that a national court system was necessary, the exact structure and role of the judiciary were still up for debate. The creation of a Supreme Court and the broader judicial system would be hashed out in the weeks to come.
Day 11: June 6, 1787 — Focusing on Proportional Representation
On June 6, the debate over representation in the legislature flared up again, with delegates like James Madison and Charles Pinckney arguing passionately for proportional representation. Madison believed that the legislature should reflect the population of the states, with larger states having more representation. He argued that this was the most democratic approach and would ensure that the government truly represented the people.
However, the smaller states continued to resist, fearing that their interests would be overridden by the larger states. William Paterson of New Jersey voiced strong opposition to the idea of proportional representation, insisting that the smaller states needed an equal voice in at least one chamber of the legislature. The divide between large and small states was deepening, and it was becoming clear that a compromise would be necessary to keep the convention on track.
Day 12: June 7, 1787 — The New Jersey Plan Takes Shape
By June 7, delegates from the smaller states began preparing to counter the Virginia Plan with their own proposal, which would become known as the New Jersey Plan. This plan, introduced the following week by William Paterson, would advocate for a unicameral legislature in which each state, regardless of size, would have equal representation. The smaller states saw this as their best chance to protect their interests and prevent domination by the larger states.
While the New Jersey Plan had not yet been formally presented, it was clear by the end of the second week that the convention was moving toward a major confrontation between the large and small states over the issue of representation. The stage was set for a pivotal debate that would determine the future structure of the U.S. government.
Setting the Stage for Compromise
The second week of the Constitutional Convention was marked by intense debates over the nature of the executive, the structure of the legislature, and the relationship between the national government and the states. While no final decisions were made, the delegates had begun to stake out their positions on critical issues, laying the groundwork for the compromises that would be necessary in the weeks to come.
The Third Week of the Constitutional Convention: Rising Tensions and the Introduction of the New Jersey Plan
By the third week of the Constitutional Convention, the debates in Philadelphia were intensifying. With fundamental disagreements about the structure of the new government simmering just below the surface, the delegates wrestled with how to balance the needs of large and small states and how to structure the executive and legislative branches. From June 8 to June 14, 1787, the discussions took a pivotal turn, culminating in the introduction of the New Jersey Plan, which would spark a major showdown between the large and small states.
Day 13: June 8, 1787 — Debating the National Legislature
The third week began with delegates returning to the contentious issue of representation in the national legislature. The Virginia Plan, introduced earlier by Edmund Randolph and drafted by James Madison, called for a bicameral legislature with both houses based on proportional representation. This structure favored larger states, as it would give them more power due to their larger populations.
Charles Pinckney of South Carolina continued to defend proportional representation, arguing that the larger states contributed more to the national economy and defense and therefore deserved greater influence in the government. However, delegates from smaller states, including William Paterson of New Jersey and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, maintained that proportional representation would unfairly diminish the voice of smaller states. They argued that states, not individuals, should be the primary political entities in the union.
The debate over representation remained unresolved, but the tension was palpable. The delegates knew that without a compromise, the convention could fail, but at this point, both sides were entrenched in their positions.
Day 14: June 9, 1787 — Revisiting the Executive Branch
On June 9, the discussion shifted back to the executive branch, with delegates continuing to debate how much power the executive should have and how the executive should be selected. There were deep concerns about creating an office that resembled a monarchy, which was still fresh in the minds of many delegates after the Revolutionary War. Yet, they also understood the need for an energetic and effective executive capable of leading the new government.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania reiterated his belief in a strong, single executive, arguing that a single leader could act decisively and with accountability. Wilson also proposed that the executive should be elected directly by the people. This was a radical idea at the time, and most delegates were hesitant to entrust such power to the general population, fearing it could lead to mob rule or ill-informed decisions.
Most of the delegates were more inclined to have the executive chosen either by the national legislature or by electors, a proposal that would eventually lead to the creation of the Electoral College. The exact details of how the executive would be elected remained unresolved, but the discussion laid the groundwork for further refinements in the weeks to come.
Day 15: June 11, 1787 — The Great Compromise Emerges
June 11 was a critical day in the convention as the delegates began to seriously consider what would eventually become the Great Compromise. Roger Sherman of Connecticut introduced a plan that would balance the interests of both large and small states. Sherman’s plan called for a bicameral legislature with two houses:
A House of Representatives, where representation would be based on population, giving larger states more influence.
A Senate, where each state, regardless of size, would have equal representation, ensuring that smaller states would not be overwhelmed by their larger counterparts.
This compromise aimed to bridge the growing divide between the large and small states. While many delegates from larger states were still resistant to the idea of equal representation in the Senate, Sherman's plan was a step toward resolving the impasse.
Sherman's proposal laid the foundation for what would later be known as the Connecticut Compromise or the Great Compromise, which would be officially agreed upon in July. However, at this point in the convention, the delegates had not yet reached consensus, and the debate over representation continued.
Day 16: June 12, 1787 — Revising the Virginia Plan
On June 12, the delegates returned to the Virginia Plan, which had served as the basis for much of the convention’s discussions so far. James Madison and Edmund Randolph pushed for revisions to clarify and refine the plan in response to the ongoing debates.
One of the key issues under discussion was the national veto over state laws. The Virginia Plan proposed that the national legislature should have the power to veto any state laws that conflicted with federal laws or national interests. Madison, in particular, was a strong advocate of this provision, believing that it was necessary to prevent states from undermining the national government.
However, many delegates opposed this idea, arguing that it gave too much power to the federal government and undermined state sovereignty. The debate over the balance of power between the federal government and the states would continue to be a major theme throughout the convention.
Day 17: June 13, 1787 — The New Jersey Delegates Push Back
By June 13, tensions between the large and small states had reached a boiling point. Delegates from smaller states, led by William Paterson of New Jersey, were increasingly frustrated by the Virginia Plan’s emphasis on proportional representation and a strong national government. They saw these proposals as a direct threat to the autonomy and influence of smaller states.
That day, Paterson and the other delegates from smaller states began circulating an alternative proposal, which would become known as the New Jersey Plan. This plan, in stark contrast to the Virginia Plan, called for:
A unicameral legislature with equal representation for each state, regardless of size.
A national government with limited powers, similar to those under the Articles of Confederation.
A plural executive, rather than a single president, to prevent any one person from gaining too much power.
Retention of the sovereignty of individual states, with the federal government acting only in specific, limited areas, such as defense and trade.
The New Jersey Plan was an attempt by the smaller states to preserve their influence in the new government and prevent domination by the larger states. It was a clear rejection of the sweeping changes proposed by the Virginia Plan.
Day 18: June 14, 1787 — The New Jersey Plan is Introduced
On June 14, William Paterson formally introduced the New Jersey Plan to the convention, setting the stage for a direct confrontation between the large and small states. Paterson framed the plan as a defense of the sovereignty of the states, arguing that the Virginia Plan would create a government that was too powerful and too centralized.
The New Jersey Plan aimed to revise the Articles of Confederation, rather than replace them, maintaining a structure where states had equal representation and retained significant independence. Paterson warned that smaller states would never accept a system that allowed larger states to dominate them, and he called for a government that respected the equality of all states.
The introduction of the New Jersey Plan represented a major turning point in the convention. It sharpened the divisions between the delegates and highlighted the fundamental disagreements over the structure of the new government. The stage was now set for a pivotal debate in the coming weeks over whether the United States would have a national government that prioritized population-based representation, or one that preserved the sovereignty and equality of the states.
A Convention Divided
The third week of the Constitutional Convention was defined by growing tensions and the introduction of the New Jersey Plan, which directly challenged the Virginia Plan. As the debates over representation in the national legislature and the structure of the executive continued, it became clear that the delegates were deeply divided over the future of the United States government.
The large states, led by Virginia and Pennsylvania, were pushing for a strong national government with proportional representation, while the smaller states, led by New Jersey and Connecticut, were fighting to preserve their independence and equal representation. These divisions threatened to derail the convention, but they also laid the groundwork for the compromises that would ultimately allow the delegates to move forward.
The Fourth Week of the Constitutional Convention: The Great Debate Intensifies
By the time the Constitutional Convention entered its fourth week—from June 15 to June 21, 1787—the discussions had reached a crucial turning point. With the Virginia Plan advocating for proportional representation and a strong national government, and the New Jersey Plan offering a counterproposal that emphasized state sovereignty and equal representation, the debate over how the new government would be structured was at the forefront of every conversation. This week would mark the beginning of intense discussions and critical decisions that would shape the future of the United States.
Day 19: June 15, 1787 — The New Jersey Plan is Debated
On June 15, the convention kicked off the week with a formal presentation of the New Jersey Plan by William Paterson. This alternative proposal, championed by the smaller states, called for a unicameral legislature where each state would have equal representation, regardless of population. Unlike the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan sought to maintain the basic structure of the government under the Articles of Confederation, while giving the national government slightly more power—mainly to regulate commerce and tax.
Paterson defended his plan with vigor, arguing that the larger states, under the Virginia Plan’s system of proportional representation, would hold too much power and could dominate the smaller states. He emphasized that equality between states, rather than population-based representation, was essential for protecting the interests of the smaller states.
The New Jersey Plan immediately sparked a fierce debate. Delegates from larger states, such as James Madison and Edmund Randolph, rejected the proposal outright, seeing it as insufficient for creating the strong national government they believed was necessary. They feared that a weak national government would lead to disunity and make it difficult for the country to respond to national crises.
Meanwhile, delegates from smaller states argued that without equal representation, they would lose any meaningful influence in the new government. The lines were drawn between large and small states, and the rest of the week would be spent trying to find a middle ground.
Day 20: June 16, 1787 — The Case for Proportional Representation
On June 16, the delegates returned to the debate over representation in the legislature. The Virginia Plan, with its bicameral legislature and proportional representation in both houses, continued to be championed by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, both of whom believed that representation based on population was the most democratic way to govern a nation.
Madison argued that the people, not the states, were the foundation of the government. In his view, the government’s authority came from the citizens of the nation as a whole, and thus representation should reflect the population. Larger states, with more people, should have more representation because they contributed more to the national economy and defense.
However, this line of reasoning failed to convince delegates from smaller states. William Paterson and Luther Martin of Maryland pushed back, insisting that the states themselves were sovereign and should be treated equally, regardless of population size. They feared that if proportional representation were adopted in both houses of the legislature, the interests of smaller states would be ignored, leading to a government dominated by a few populous states.
The debate became increasingly heated, with both sides digging in. The convention was clearly at an impasse, and there was growing concern that without a compromise, the convention could break down.
Day 21: June 18, 1787 — Alexander Hamilton’s Radical Proposal
On June 18, Alexander Hamilton delivered one of the most surprising speeches of the convention, proposing his own radical plan for government. Hamilton, known for his strong belief in centralized authority, argued that both the Virginia and New Jersey Plans fell short in creating a government strong enough to hold the nation together.
In his proposal, Hamilton called for a president elected for life, much like a monarch, and for the upper house of the legislature to also serve for life. Hamilton’s plan mirrored aspects of the British system of government, which he admired for its stability and strength. While he supported the idea of a strong national government, his plan went much further than most delegates were comfortable with.
Hamilton’s speech shocked many at the convention. While few supported his ideas of life terms and a powerful executive, his speech highlighted the growing frustration with the slow progress of the convention. Hamilton’s plan was not taken seriously as a viable solution, but it added a new layer to the debate, emphasizing the deep divisions over how much power should be concentrated in the hands of the federal government.
Day 22: June 19, 1787 — The Virginia Plan Triumphs Over the New Jersey Plan
After days of debate, the convention finally came to a key decision on June 19. The delegates voted on whether to move forward with the Virginia Plan or the New Jersey Plan. The vote was decisive: the Virginia Plan, with its vision of a strong national government and proportional representation, was approved as the basis for further discussion.
This vote was a major victory for the larger states, but it left the smaller states feeling defeated and vulnerable. Delegates from smaller states, like Roger Sherman of Connecticut and William Paterson, were concerned that the Virginia Plan, as it stood, would marginalize the smaller states and erode their influence in the new government. They warned that without changes, the smaller states might refuse to ratify the Constitution.
The approval of the Virginia Plan as the basis for further discussion did not end the debate over representation. In fact, it only heightened the tension between the delegates, and it became clear that a compromise would be necessary to prevent the convention from breaking apart.
Day 23: June 20, 1787 — The Debate Continues
On June 20, the debate over representation continued, with no resolution in sight. The smaller states were now even more vocal about their need for equal representation in at least one house of the legislature. Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed once again that the convention adopt a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the lower house and equal representation in the upper house. This compromise, known as the Connecticut Compromise, had been floated earlier in the convention but had yet to gain significant traction.
As the week progressed, the delegates recognized that this proposal offered a possible solution to the impasse. However, it was not yet clear whether the larger states would be willing to accept equal representation in the upper house, as this would limit their influence in the new government.
The debate remained unresolved by the end of the day, but it was becoming increasingly clear that some form of compromise along the lines of Sherman’s proposal would be necessary to keep the convention moving forward.
Day 24: June 21, 1787 — Momentum Builds for a Compromise
By June 21, momentum was building for a compromise that could resolve the conflict between large and small states. Benjamin Franklin, one of the elder statesmen at the convention, called for unity and urged the delegates to find a middle ground. Franklin’s influence and reputation for wisdom made his appeals difficult to ignore, and his call for compromise began to resonate with the delegates.
As the week drew to a close, many delegates recognized that the success of the convention hinged on finding a solution to the issue of representation. The idea of a bicameral legislature with different forms of representation in each house began to gain support, and discussions of a possible compromise continued behind the scenes.
The convention had reached a critical juncture. The Virginia Plan had triumphed over the New Jersey Plan, but the divisions between large and small states persisted. The Connecticut Compromise was beginning to emerge as a viable solution, but more negotiation and debate would be needed in the weeks to come.
A Critical Moment
The fourth week of the Constitutional Convention was marked by significant developments and growing tension. The decisive vote in favor of the Virginia Plan marked a victory for the larger states and proponents of a strong national government, but it also deepened the divisions between the large and small states. The rejection of the New Jersey Plan left the smaller states feeling marginalized, and the convention seemed to be teetering on the brink of collapse.
However, the seeds of a compromise had been planted. Roger Sherman’s proposal for a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the House of Representatives and equal representation in the Senate was beginning to gain support, and many delegates recognized that a compromise would be essential to preserve the unity of the states.
The Fifth Week of the Constitutional Convention: The Path Toward Compromise
By the time the Constitutional Convention reached its fifth week—from June 22 to June 28, 1787—the debates had reached a critical juncture. After a month of intense discussions, the division between large and small states over the issue of representation had become a major obstacle. The approval of the Virginia Plan in the previous week, with its call for proportional representation based on population, had pleased larger states but left smaller states feeling marginalized. The growing demand for a compromise had set the stage for one of the most pivotal weeks of the convention, as delegates began moving toward a solution that would eventually become known as the Great Compromise.
Day 25: June 22, 1787 — Calls for a Solution
On June 22, the convention resumed with growing frustration on both sides. The debate over representation in the national legislature had been the central issue for weeks, and the smaller states, led by delegates like William Paterson of New Jersey and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, were becoming increasingly vocal about their opposition to proportional representation in both houses of the legislature. They insisted that equal representation in at least one chamber was necessary to protect their interests.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the most respected figures at the convention, urged the delegates to move toward compromise. Franklin, known for his ability to mediate disputes, made an emotional appeal for unity and reminded the delegates that their task was to secure the future of the fledgling nation. He warned that the country could not afford to be divided and that the convention would fail if the delegates could not find common ground.
Franklin’s plea for compromise set the tone for the week. While no formal decisions were made on June 22, the discussion began to shift toward finding a solution that could satisfy both large and small states.
Day 26: June 23, 1787 — Sherman’s Proposal Gains Traction
On June 23, the delegates returned to Roger Sherman’s earlier proposal, which called for a bicameral legislature with different forms of representation in each house. Sherman’s plan, which had been floated in previous weeks but had yet to gain widespread support, suggested that the lower house, or House of Representatives, should be based on proportional representation, while the upper house, or Senate, should have equal representation, with each state, regardless of size, having an equal vote.
This proposal, later known as the Connecticut Compromise or Great Compromise, began to gain traction. Delegates from smaller states supported it as a way to ensure that they would not be dominated by the larger states, while delegates from larger states started to see it as a necessary concession to keep the convention moving forward.
The idea of having proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate appealed to both sides because it provided a balance between the interests of the people (represented in the House) and the states (represented in the Senate). This was seen as a way to preserve the federal nature of the government while also addressing the concerns of large states that sought to reflect their larger populations.
Day 27: June 25, 1787 — Continued Debate Over the Senate
On June 25, the debate shifted to focus more closely on the specifics of how the Senate would be structured under Sherman’s proposal. The smaller states continued to push for equal representation in the Senate, where each state would have the same number of representatives, regardless of population. This idea was strongly opposed by many delegates from larger states, including James Madison and James Wilson, who argued that proportional representation was the fairest way to reflect the voice of the people in both houses of the legislature.
Madison, in particular, was deeply concerned that equal representation in the Senate would allow a small minority of states to block legislation that reflected the will of the majority of the population. He believed that the government should be directly accountable to the people and that representation based on population was the most democratic solution.
However, many delegates, including Roger Sherman and William Paterson, countered that the states—not the people—were the foundational political entities in the union, and that equal representation in the Senate was essential to protect the interests of smaller states. The debate grew increasingly heated, but by the end of the day, it was clear that the idea of equal representation in the Senate was gaining momentum.
Day 28: June 26, 1787 — The Larger States Begin to Bend
On June 26, the delegates from the larger states began to show signs of compromise. While they remained committed to the idea of proportional representation in the House of Representatives, they started to recognize that equal representation in the Senate might be the only way to keep the smaller states from abandoning the convention.
Benjamin Franklin once again played a key role in mediating the discussions. He emphasized that the delegates had a responsibility to the people and the future of the nation to reach an agreement. Franklin reminded the convention that the success of the United States depended on the unity of the states and that a fair compromise was better than no agreement at all.
Although the larger states were still reluctant to fully embrace the idea of equal representation in the Senate, many began to acknowledge that without it, the convention could not move forward. The need for a functional, lasting government was becoming more important than the desire to hold out for the ideal structure.
Day 29: June 27, 1787 — Details of the Compromise
On June 27, the delegates began working out the details of what would later become known as the Great Compromise. The basic framework was now clear: the House of Representatives would have proportional representation, with seats allocated based on population, and the Senate would have equal representation, with each state having two senators.
The next challenge was determining how these representatives would be chosen. The delegates debated whether members of the Senate should be elected directly by the people or by state legislatures. Many believed that having state legislatures select senators would help preserve the states’ interests in the national government and prevent the Senate from becoming too powerful.
In the end, the idea of having state legislatures choose senators gained the most support, as it reinforced the federal structure of the government and ensured that the states would have a direct voice in the new system.
Day 30: June 28, 1787 — A Call for Prayer and Reflection
The week ended on June 28 with a powerful moment of reflection. Benjamin Franklin, sensing that tensions were still high and that the convention was at a critical point, called for the delegates to pause and seek guidance. He suggested that the delegates turn to prayer, hoping that a moment of reflection would help ease the divisions and remind the convention of the gravity of their task.
Franklin’s call for prayer was not a formal religious service but rather a moment to remind the delegates of the importance of their work and the need for unity. His appeal resonated with many delegates, and while it did not immediately resolve the ongoing debates, it brought a sense of calm and focus to the convention.
By the end of the week, the basic framework for the Great Compromise was largely in place, though the finer details would continue to be debated in the weeks to come. The idea of a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate was gaining support, and the delegates were beginning to see a path forward.
The Road to Compromise
The fifth week of the Constitutional Convention marked a crucial turning point in the debates over representation. After weeks of deadlock, the idea of a bicameral legislature with different forms of representation in each house was becoming the most viable solution to the conflict between large and small states. Roger Sherman’s proposal for equal representation in the Senate, paired with proportional representation in the House of Representatives, was emerging as the key to breaking the impasse.
The Sixth Week of the Constitutional Convention: Approaching the Great Compromise
As the sixth week of the Constitutional Convention unfolded—from June 29 to July 5, 1787—the delegates were inching closer to a breakthrough that would eventually become known as the Great Compromise. The previous week had seen intense debates over representation in the national legislature, with smaller states rallying behind Roger Sherman’s proposal for a bicameral legislature with equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. The stage was set for the final resolution of one of the convention's most contentious issues. However, while the larger framework for compromise was beginning to emerge, there were still many details to resolve.
Day 31: June 29, 1787 — Defending Equal Representation
The sixth week began on June 29 with the continued debate over equal representation in the Senate. Although the smaller states had found increasing support for their position, many delegates from larger states still resisted the idea. James Madison and James Wilson, both strong proponents of proportional representation, argued passionately that a government based on population was the fairest way to represent the people’s interests. Madison, in particular, feared that giving equal representation to the states in the Senate would allow a minority of states to block the will of the majority.
Gunning Bedford Jr. of Delaware made an impassioned defense of equal representation in the Senate. He warned that the smaller states would never accept a government that gave larger states all the power. Bedford went so far as to suggest that if the larger states insisted on proportional representation in both houses of Congress, the smaller states might seek alliances outside the union. His dramatic rhetoric underscored just how high the stakes had become, and many delegates realized that without a compromise, the convention might collapse.
By the end of the day, it was clear that many delegates recognized the need for some form of equal representation in the Senate, though the larger states remained uneasy about the concessions they would need to make.
Day 32: June 30, 1787 — The “Great Compromise” Takes Shape
On June 30, the convention continued to work toward what would later be called the Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise. Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both from Connecticut, were the driving forces behind this proposal, which sought to balance the interests of large and small states.
Sherman’s plan for a bicameral legislature gained further traction. His compromise called for a House of Representatives in which representation would be based on population, giving larger states more power in that chamber. At the same time, the Senate would give equal representation to each state, with two senators per state, regardless of population size.
The compromise sought to balance the interests of the people and the states, reflecting the dual sovereignty that the delegates were trying to build into the new federal system. This structure was seen as a way to satisfy the demands of both the larger and smaller states and avoid a complete breakdown of the convention.
While many delegates were beginning to see the merit of this approach, others, particularly from larger states like Virginia, remained hesitant. They worried that equal representation in the Senate would diminish their influence and undermine the democratic principles of the new government. Nevertheless, the tide was turning toward compromise.
Day 33: July 2, 1787 — A Critical Vote
On July 2, the convention held a crucial vote on the issue of representation in the Senate. The question before the delegates was whether to adopt equal representation in the Senate, as proposed by Sherman and Ellsworth, or to continue pushing for proportional representation.
The vote ended in a tie, with five states voting for equal representation and five voting against it. Georgia was divided, and its delegates could not come to a consensus. The deadlock underscored how deeply divided the convention still was on the issue, and it was clear that further deliberation would be necessary to resolve the impasse.
Despite the tie, the fact that the vote was so close showed that the smaller states had gained significant ground in the debate. Many delegates from larger states recognized that equal representation in the Senate was becoming inevitable, even if they were not yet ready to fully support it.
To break the deadlock, the convention decided to form a committee to resolve the issue of representation. This committee, made up of one delegate from each state, was tasked with finding a compromise that would allow the convention to move forward.
Day 34: July 3, 1787 — Committee Deliberations
On July 3, the newly formed committee met to deliberate on the issue of representation. The committee’s members, chosen from a cross-section of both large and small states, were tasked with finding a middle ground that could satisfy the concerns of both sides.
The committee’s discussions reflected the broader debates that had consumed the convention for weeks. Delegates from smaller states, like William Paterson of New Jersey and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, argued that equal representation in the Senate was essential for protecting the interests of smaller states. Without it, they feared that the larger states would dominate the new government.
Delegates from larger states, like James Madison and James Wilson, continued to push for proportional representation, but they began to recognize that some compromise would be necessary. The larger states, while still concerned about losing influence in the Senate, started to accept that equal representation in one house might be the only way to keep the smaller states engaged in the process.
The committee’s work was slow and methodical, and no final decisions were made on July 3, but the discussions laid the groundwork for the compromises that would come in the following days.
Day 35: July 4, 1787 — A Day of Reflection
On July 4, the convention took a brief pause from its heated debates to celebrate Independence Day. The day provided the delegates with a much-needed break from the intense discussions that had consumed the convention for the past five weeks. It was a time for reflection, and many delegates used the holiday to consider the gravity of the decisions before them.
For some delegates, the holiday reminded them of the importance of unity and the hard-fought battle for independence just a decade earlier. The stakes of the convention were high, and many realized that failure to reach an agreement could threaten the survival of the new nation.
While no formal discussions took place on July 4, the holiday offered the delegates a moment to step back and consider the broader implications of their work. Many returned to the convention the next day with a renewed sense of purpose.
Day 36: July 5, 1787 — The Committee Reports
On July 5, the committee tasked with resolving the issue of representation presented its report to the convention. The committee’s recommendation was a compromise that closely mirrored the earlier proposal put forward by Sherman and Ellsworth:
The House of Representatives would have proportional representation, with the number of representatives from each state based on its population.
The Senate would have equal representation, with each state, regardless of size, having two senators.
This proposal, known as the Great Compromise, was seen as a way to bridge the gap between the larger and smaller states and create a functional, lasting government. The committee also recommended that all revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives, where representation was based on population. This gave the larger states a key role in financial legislation, helping to balance the power dynamics between the two chambers.
The report from the committee was not immediately accepted by all delegates, but it provided a concrete framework for further discussion and moved the convention closer to resolving its biggest disagreement. The Great Compromise was not yet finalized, but it was clear that the delegates were now moving toward an agreement that would allow the convention to continue its work.
A Path Toward Unity
The sixth week of the Constitutional Convention marked a critical turning point in the debates over representation. After weeks of deadlock and intense discussions, the Great Compromise began to take shape. The proposal for a bicameral legislature, with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate, was emerging as the most viable solution to the conflict between large and small states.
Although the compromise was not yet fully accepted, the work of the committee and the close votes in favor of equal representation in the Senate indicated that the convention was moving toward a resolution. The holiday break on July 4 gave the delegates a moment to reflect on the importance of their task, and many returned to the convention with a renewed sense of purpose.
The Seventh Week of the Constitutional Convention: Finalizing the Great Compromise
By the seventh week of the Constitutional Convention—from July 6 to July 12, 1787—the momentum toward a final agreement on the issue of representation was building. After intense debates, the committee’s proposal for the Great Compromise, which called for a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the House of Representatives and equal representation in the Senate, had been laid out at the end of the previous week. However, key details still needed to be resolved before the delegates could fully unite behind the compromise. The seventh week proved to be pivotal, as the delegates worked through these issues and edged closer to a breakthrough that would shape the future of the U.S. government.
Day 37: July 6, 1787 — Debating the Compromise
The week began on July 6 with the delegates debating the merits of the committee’s proposal. The Great Compromise had already received substantial support from smaller states, which saw equal representation in the Senate as essential for protecting their interests. However, delegates from the larger states, such as James Madison of Virginia and James Wilson of Pennsylvania, remained concerned about the disproportionate influence that smaller states would gain through equal representation in the Senate.
Madison, who had long advocated for a system of proportional representation in both houses of Congress, argued that giving each state the same number of senators regardless of population was undemocratic and undermined the principle of government by the people. He feared that it would give smaller states like Delaware and Rhode Island the power to obstruct national legislation favored by the majority of citizens.
Despite these objections, many delegates from larger states began to recognize that the Great Compromise was the only way forward. The reality of political necessity was beginning to outweigh their ideal preferences, as the delegates realized that without a compromise, the convention could collapse, and the union could be weakened or even fall apart.
Day 38: July 7, 1787 — Negotiating Representation in the House
On July 7, the focus shifted to the details of proportional representation in the House of Representatives. The delegates debated how representation would be calculated and how often a census would be conducted to adjust the number of representatives for each state. There was also discussion about whether enslaved individuals should be counted as part of the population for purposes of representation, which introduced the difficult and divisive issue of slavery into the broader conversation.
The Three-Fifths Compromise emerged as a potential solution to the question of how to count enslaved individuals in determining a state’s population. Under this proposal, each enslaved person would be counted as three-fifths of a person for both representation and taxation purposes, for census matters, not as three-fifths of an individual. This compromise allowed Southern states, where slavery was prevalent, to increase their representation in the House without giving them full credit for their enslaved populations. Northern delegates were uneasy with the moral implications, but they recognized that the compromise was a necessary evil to move the convention forward.
This debate over representation in the House highlighted the broader tension between Northern and Southern states, and the Three-Fifths Compromise would become one of the most controversial elements of the final Constitution. Nonetheless, it helped resolve the issue of how to allocate representation in the House, allowing the delegates to focus on other pressing matters.
Day 39: July 9, 1787 — A Vote on the Great Compromise
By July 9, the time had come for the convention to take a formal vote on the Great Compromise. The delegates were well aware that the future of the convention—and possibly the union itself—depended on the outcome of this vote. After weeks of passionate debate, negotiation, and hard-fought compromises, the delegates were finally ready to make a decision.
The vote was close, but the Great Compromise was ultimately approved by a slim margin. The vote provided for:
A House of Representatives based on proportional representation, with seats allocated to each state according to its population.
A Senate where each state, regardless of size, would have two senators, ensuring equal representation.
The passage of the Great Compromise marked a major victory for the convention. It resolved the most contentious issue—the balance of power between large and small states—and allowed the delegates to move forward in drafting the rest of the Constitution.
Day 40: July 10, 1787 — Revisiting the Executive Branch
With the issue of representation largely settled, the delegates turned their attention to the structure of the executive branch on July 10. How the new nation would select its leader was still a matter of great debate. Some delegates favored a plural executive, arguing that having multiple individuals in the executive role would prevent any one person from accumulating too much power. Others, like James Wilson, believed in a strong, single executive who could act decisively on behalf of the nation.
The question of how the executive would be elected also came up for discussion. Several options were on the table, including direct election by the people, election by the national legislature, or election by a group of electors chosen by the states—a system that would eventually become the Electoral College.
While the convention had not yet reached a final decision on the executive branch by the end of the day, the debates reflected a growing consensus that the country needed a single, energetic executive, but one who was subject to checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power.
Day 41: July 11, 1787 — Powers of the Executive
On July 11, the debate over the powers of the executive continued. Many delegates were concerned about giving the president too much authority, fearing that the executive could become tyrannical. They sought to ensure that the president would be constrained by the separation of powers and would be accountable to the legislature and the people.
Some delegates, including Alexander Hamilton, favored a strong executive who would serve for life, much like a monarch. However, most delegates rejected this idea as being too close to the kind of centralized power they had fought against during the American Revolution.
Instead, the delegates began leaning toward a system where the president would serve for a limited term—eventually settled at four years—and could be removed from office through impeachment. This system would ensure that the president had enough authority to lead effectively, but not so much that the office could become dictatorial.
Day 42: July 12, 1787 — Finalizing the Compromise
By July 12, the delegates were in the process of fine-tuning the details of the Great Compromise and the broader structure of the government. With the framework of the legislative branch now largely settled, they continued to refine the role of the executive and judiciary branches, ensuring that the separation of powers would allow for checks and balances across all branches of government.
The approval of the Great Compromise was a significant turning point, but the convention still had much work ahead. The delegates began discussing other important issues, such as the powers of the federal government, the relationship between state and national authorities, and the establishment of a judicial branch that could interpret the laws and resolve disputes between the states.
The sense of progress was palpable by the end of the seventh week. While there were still many contentious issues to address, the delegates had overcome one of the greatest obstacles—representation—and had laid the foundation for the new federal system of government.
Progress Through Compromise
The seventh week of the Constitutional Convention was a milestone in the creation of the U.S. Constitution. After weeks of heated debate and close votes, the delegates finally approved the Great Compromise, which resolved the conflict between large and small states by creating a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate. This breakthrough allowed the convention to move forward on other critical issues, including the structure of the executive and judicial branches.
Comments