- The Articles of Confederation
- What was the Articles of Confederation?
- Shays's Rebellion
- The Constitutional Convention
- The Constitutional Convention
- The US Constitution
- The Federalist Papers
- The Bill of Rights
- Social consequences of revolutionary ideals
- The presidency of George Washington
- Why was George Washington the first president?
- The presidency of John Adams
- Regional attitudes about slavery, 1754-1800
- Continuity and change in American society, 1754-1800
- Creating a nation
Shortly after the end of the Revolutionary War, American leaders realized that the nation needed a new, stronger Constitution. But what would the new system of government look like?
- Between May and September 1787, delegates from 12 states convened in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation, which had proven insufficient to cope with the challenges facing the young nation.
- The convention was the site of spirited debate over the size, scope, and structure of the federal government, and its result was the United States Constitution.
- The notorious Three-Fifths Compromise apportioned representation to the southern slaveholding states in a scheme that counted five enslaved men and women as three.
Creating a new government
From May 25 to September 17, 1787, 55 delegates from 12 states convened in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. Rhode Island was the only state that refused to send representatives to the convention, which assumed as its primary task the revision or replacement of the Articles of Confederation.
Though the Articles of Confederation had provided the framework for governance since the declaration of the American Revolution against Britain, many of the fledgling nation’s political leaders agreed that the creation of a stronger central government was essential to the development of the power and potential of the United States. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government lacked the power of taxation, had no authority to regulate commerce, and was impotent to resolve conflicts arising between states.
Seeking to bolster the authority of the federal government, the delegates gathered at Independence Hall in Philadelphia and elected George Washington to preside over the convention.
One of the most spirited debates at the convention regarded the composition of the legislative branch of government. Should the legislature be unicameral—consisting of one house—or bicameral—consisting of two houses? Perhaps more importantly, how should representation in the legislature be apportioned?
James Madison proposed the Virginia Plan, which called for a bicameral legislature in which representation would be based on population. The larger states supported this plan, because it would accord them greater representation based on their more numerous populations. However, the smaller states opposed it, and submitted a competing proposal, the New Jersey Plan. According to this scheme, which was basically inherited from the Articles of Confederation, the legislature would be unicameral and each state would have a single vote.
Portrait of James Madison
Drafting the Constitution
The delegates ultimately combined elements of both plans in what became known as the Connecticut Compromise. The legislative branch would be bicameral, consisting of an upper house—the Senate—and a lower house—the House of Representatives. Representation in the House would be based on population, and each state was allotted two seats in the Senate. The office of the president would constitute the executive authority and was to be chosen by the electoral college.
The structure of government would be federalist in nature, consisting of three independent branches: the legislature, Congress; the executive, the president: and the judicial, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would adjudicate disputes between states, and Congress was authorized to levy taxes, declare war, raise an army, regulate interstate commerce, and draft laws consistent with the purpose of exercising these powers.
The compromise also addressed another major point of contention between northern and southern states over the issue of slavery. Should enslaved people be counted for the purpose of a state’s representation in Congress? And if so, how? The northern states did not think enslaved people should be counted at all, while the southern slaveholding states thought they should. The Three-Fifths Compromise established that enslaved men and women would be represented in the House at a ratio of 3 to 5 of their actual numbers. Thus, every five individuals would count as three for the purposes of both legislative representation and taxation.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was one of the most notorious provisions of the Constitution. For delegates from the northern states, many of whom were morally opposed to the institution of slavery, the compromise was viewed as a necessary evil in order to secure the ratification of the Constitution since the southern states had threatened to refuse to ratify the document if the interests of southern slaveholders were not protected therein.
Ratifying the Constitution
Before the Constitution could take effect, it had to be ratified—formally approved by the assemblies of at least nine of the 12 states that had sent delegates to the convention.
Painting depicting the signing of the Constitution
Ironically enough, after the acrimonious debates over legislative representation, the small states were the first to ratify the Constitution. The most serious opposition to ratifying the document came from the larger states of Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. These states were home to large rural populations that sympathized with the plight of farmers like Daniel Shays, who had spearheaded a rebellion against what he perceived as the unjust economic policies and political corruption of the Massachusetts state legislature.
According to many of the Constitution’s opponents, it would create a large, intrusive, and much too powerful federal government that would inevitably recreate the tyranny that the Patriots had fought against in the American Revolution. In order to combat this opposition and get the Constitution ratified, a series of amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, was appended to the document to ensure that the federal government would respect the natural rights of citizens.
What do you think?
If you had been a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, would you have supported the New Jersey Plan or the Virginia Plan?
Can you think of anything the delegates could have done to ensure the ratification of the Constitution without perpetuating the institution of slavery?
In your own words, describe the character of the federal government as created at the Constitutional Convention.
Want to join the conversation?
- In the Overview, it said only 12 states convened. Which state did not??(5 votes)
- From the author:Rhode Island. The representatives from that state were against creating a strong federal government.(25 votes)
- What is the significance of 3/5 that they picked that number?(4 votes)
- The value of 3/5 originated from a proposed amendment to the Articles of Confederation. Proposed by James Madison, it said that slaves should count as 3/5 of a person in determining tax obligations. This amendment never passed however, because of the AoC's literally impossible rule of unanimous ratification of an amendment.(4 votes)
- in the eight paragraph what did the three fifths compromise have to do with taxes ?(4 votes)
- The population of the slaves would be counted as three- fifiths in total when apportioning representatives,as well as presidential elector and taxes.(3 votes)
- The 3/5th compromise doesn't make sense. If slaves weren't considered human, or whatever, considered cattle why would they be counted for representation? Those people must have been "greedy for representation" or some trash.(2 votes)
- The southern states wanted to get representation from them, but they didn't want them to have the natural rights talked about in the constitution. They also called them property, but when it came to taxes, they weren't considered property so they wouldn't have to pay for them. If you read the Federalist 54 paper it helps you understand the situation a lot better.(4 votes)
- Why did only 9 of the 12 states have to approve whatever was getting presented to them.(2 votes)
- In America, the majority rules. That's true unless it's a presidential election, when the candidate who receives a lower number of actual votes can become the president. This happened in two recent elections, 2000 and 2016.(5 votes)
- Why weren't Thomas Jefferson and John Adams not present ?(3 votes)
- Both were abroad during the time of the convention, and couldn't attend. Jefferson served as the ambassador to France, and Adams was the ambassador to Britain.(2 votes)
- It says "Between May and September 1787, delegates from 12 states convened in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation,"
Which state did not?(1 vote)
- "The northern states did not think enslaved people should be counted at all, while the southern slaveholding states thought they should."
Is this information correct? Aren't the Southerns cruel to slaves so why they care so much about slave's representation now?(2 votes)
- Yes. It was ingenious of the Northerners to use the logic of the slave holders to their advantage. The Southern representatives didn't care about the slaves, they still wouldn't be able to vote, but they would give disproportionate power via the House of Representatives. The Northerners, by negotiating that down, reduced the power slaveholding colonies would have over the nation. (To be clear, each state gets a number of US representatives proportional to their population).(4 votes)
- why was it only 9/12 states, what was the 13th state and why weren't they apart of this?(3 votes)
- To what extent, if any, did the delegates at the Philadelphia Convention represent the interests of the American people at the time?(1 vote)
- They seem to have represented the interests of white men of property, many of whom owned black people. The delegates were not people of color, they were not women, they were not young, they were not employees. I'd say they represented the interests of a property-owning white male minority "of a certain age."(2 votes)