You are on page 1of 3

Constitutional Convention

Shay’s Rebellion worried many Americans, especially the well-to-do. They feared that
mobs might get out of hand and bring radical changes to government in state after state. This
worry and other problems helped convince many people of the need for a stronger central
government. In May, 1787, delegates from 12 states met in Philadelphia. Their purpose was to
change the Articles of Confederation in order to strengthen the central government.
Some of the leading men in the country attended the Constitutional Convention. Many of
the key figures of the Revolution took part. Most of the delegates were leaders in their states. Of
the 55 members, 31 were college graduates at a time when very few Americans finished grade
school. Three quarters of the delegates had been members of Congress. Most of the men were
themselves well-to-do. Only one was a typical farmer. The most common profession among them
was law. The average age was 42. Absent from the convention were women, blacks, and Indians.
In our story we sit in on the debates of the convention. The men who speak are stating
positions they took in real life, although not in exactly the same words. We see that the
convention goes far beyond its original purpose of amending (changing) the Articles of
Confederation.
Ask yourself why the convention decided to write a new constitution. How did the Virginia
Plan propose to create a strong central government?

Philadelphia. May, 1787

The convention delegates agreed that George Washington should be the chairman, or
president. They also agreed to keep secret what they said and decided until the convention
ended. At first, they had trouble agreeing on the purpose of the convention.

WILLIAM PATERSON (New Jersey). We are here to change the Articles of Confederation.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON (New York). Change is not enough. We must write a completely new set
of articles. Our central government has failed.
PATERSON. Give it a chance!
HAMILTON. How many chances do you want? Farmers rebelled in Massachusetts last year.
Where will the troubles be next? Our central government cannot maintain order. It can do little
to defend the rights of property owners.
GEORGE MASON (Virginia). Shay’s Rebellion was serious. I’m not saying it wasn’t Farmers–
debtors–made a little noise. But a state army crushed them. There is no problem that the states
cannot handle.
JAMES WILSON (Pennsylvania). A rebellion is not a state concern. It is an attack against the
government of the nation. We must have a stronger central government. What we need is a
united country, not 13 separate countries going off in 13 different directions. We must work
together–or this is the end of us!
LUTHER MARTIN (Maryland). I disagree completely. This is a government of states. They must be
supreme. The national government exists only for them. Perhaps the states could give more
power to the national government–but only a little more. You talk as if you want the states to be
swallowed up. I say that a strong central government will make slaves of us all!
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS (Pennsylvania). The government we have now does not work. We must
be willing to make great changes. If necessary, we must start all over.
MARTIN. This is revolution! I oppose it.
HAMILTON. Gentlemen, the time has come for this convention to take strong steps to save our
nation. A weak national government is for a weak people. Believe me, we will be British colonies
once again unless we build a strong central government.
EDMUND RANDOLPH (Virginia). Virginia has a plan. We believe it will answer all complaints about
our government.
WASHINGTON (Virginia). Please read your plan.
RANDOLPH. Thank you, Mr. President. Before I read our plan, may I say a few words about the
Articles of Confederation? The writers of those Articles did a fine job. They wrote under the
pressure of a revolution and had no other constitution to serve as a model. How could they know
how it would work in practice?
How could anyone know that our government would face a rebellion? How could they
know what fierce arguments would arise between states? But a government that cannot control
trade or raise money cannot last. We have learned that we need a strong national government.
HAMILTON. Hear, hear!
RANDOLPH. According to our plan, a national legislature of two houses should be formed. The
legislature of Congress would have the power to pass all laws needed by the whole country.
JOHN LANSING (New York). And what does that mean?
RANDOLPH. Congress would have the power to pass laws in the national interest, even if one of
more states objected.
LANSING. What kinds of laws?
RANDOLPH. Laws concerning interstate and foreign commerce, for example. Laws to raise taxes
and coin money. Laws to help put down rebellions and settle arguments between the states.
MORRIS. Good, but suppose the states pass their own laws about such things?
RANDOLPH. A law passed by Congress would have the power to set aside any law passed by a
state.
MARTIN. That’s monstrous! We might as well still be governed by King George!
WASHINGTON. You are out of order, Mr. Martin. Let Mr. Randolph finish!
RANDOLPH. We should also have a national executive–a president–to carry out the laws. And a
national judiciary–courts–to decide whether the laws are just or unjust.
PATERSON. You go too far, Mr. Randolph. You are proposing a new constitution entirely. I say
make some changes but keep the Articles of Confederation. There’s nothing wrong with our one-
house Congress with each state having one vote. We should, however, increase the powers of
Congress. Let it tax imports. Give it the power to get money from the states. In fact, we could
even allow Congress to regulate trade among the states.
HAMILTON. That’s not enough, sir. Congress would still be too weak. It must have all the powers
it needs to make it strong. It must be able to control the flow of trade and money. It must be
strong enough to prevent any attacks on it. It must win the respect of our friends and enemies in
Europe. Our central government must be a true government, Mr. Paterson!
PATERSON. Not so fast! I haven’t finished. We could add an executive branch. Three people
would share executive duties. These men would be appointed by Congress. We could also have
federal courts, but I would limit their powers.
WILSON. You haven’t learned from experience, Mr. Paterson. Can’t you see that we must have a
central government with real strength?
LASTING. Mr. Randolph’s plan destroys the power and life of the states. Mr. Paterson would have
the states remain sovereign. Isn’t that what our American Revolution was all about?
ROGER SHERMAN (Connecticut). Gentlemen, gentlemen, there must be a way to solve this
problem to everyone’s satisfaction.
OLIVER ELLSWORTH (Connecticut). Why can’t we work out a compromise between Randolph’s
ideas and Paterson’s ideas?

POSTSCRIPT

A compromise was indeed worked out. It blended features of Randolph’s ideas (the
Virginia Plan) and Paterson’s ideas (the New Jersey Plan). The result was called the Connecticut
Compromise, or the Great Compromise, and it required a completely new constitution.
From the Virginia Plan, the compromise took the idea of a strong central government. It
provided for a two-house Congress. From the New Jersey plan came the idea that each state
should be equal in at least one house of Congress. The lower house, or House of Representatives,
would be chosen on the basis of population. States with large populations would have many
representatives; states with small populations would have few. The upper house, or Senate,
would have two members from each state. All states would be equal in the Senate.
The suggestion that the national government be allowed to set aside the laws of the states
was dropped. It was replaced by this statement in the new constitution: “This Constitution, and
the laws of the United States…shall be the supreme law of the land…” (Article VI, Clause 2).

You might also like