Recomendaciones

a New Constitution

The delegates who convened in Philadelphia in May 1787 had political strife, international embarrassment, national weakness, and local rebellion fi xed in their minds. Recognizing that these issues were symptoms of fundamental fl aws in the Articles of Confederation, the del- egates soon abandoned the plan to revise the Articles and committed themselves to a second founding—a second, and ultimately success- ful, attempt to create a legitimate and effective national system of government. This effort would occupy the convention for the next fi ve months.

A Marriage of Interest and Principle For

years, scholars have disagreed about the motives of the Founders in Philadelphia. Among the most controversial views of the framers’ motives is the “economic interpretation” put forward by historian Charles Beard and his disciples.9 _{According to Beard’s}

account, America’s Founders were a collection of securities speculators and prop- erty owners whose only aim was personal enrichment. From this perspective, the Constitution’s lofty principles were little more than sophisticated masks behind which the most venal interests sought to enrich themselves.

Contrary to Beard’s approach is the view that the framers of the Constitution

were concerned with philosophical and ethical principles. Indeed, the framers did

try to devise a system of government consistent with the dominant philosophical and moral principles of the day. But, in fact, these two views belong together; the Founders’ interests were reinforced by their principles. The convention that drafted the American Constitution was chiefl y organized by the New England merchants and southern planters. Although the delegates representing these groups did not all hope to profi t personally from an increase in the value of their securities, as Beard would have it, they did hope to benefi t in the broadest political and economic sense by breaking the power of their radical foes and establishing a system of gov- ernment more compatible with their long-term economic and political interests. In the winter of 1787, Daniel Shays

led a makeshift army against the federal arsenal at Springfi eld to protest heavy taxes levied by the Massachusetts legislature. The rebellion proved the Articles of Confederation too weak to protect the fl edgling nation.

Thus, the framers sought to create a new government capable of promoting com- merce and protecting property from radical state legislatures and populist forces hostile to the interests of the commercial and propertied classes.

The Great Compromise The proponents of a new government fi red their opening

shot on May 29, 1787, when Edmund Randolph of Virginia offered a resolution that proposed corrections and enlargements in the Articles of Confederation. The proposal was not a simple motion but instead provided for virtually every aspect of a new government.

The portion of Randolph’s motion that became most controversial was called the Virginia Plan. This plan provided for a system of representation in the national legislature based upon the population of each state or the proportion of each state’s revenue contribution to the national government, or both. (Randolph also proposed a second chamber of the legislature, to be elected by the members of the fi rst chamber.) Since the states varied enormously in size and wealth, the Virginia Plan was heavily biased in favor of the large states.

While the convention was debating the Virginia Plan, opposition to it began to mount as more delegates arrived in Philadelphia. William Paterson of New Jersey introduced a new resolution known as the New Jersey Plan, which called for equal state representation in the national legislature regardless of population. Its main proponents were delegates from the less-populous states, including Delaware, When the framers of the Constitution met in 1787, they set out to establish a political system that would protect liberty and place limits on government. They also believed that a powerful government required a broad popular base. However, they debated how best to protect liberty and how to balance democracy with other concerns.

3 8 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U N D I N G A N D T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N

New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York, who asserted that the more populous states, such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Georgia, would dominate the new government if representation were determined by popu- lation. The smaller states argued that each state should be equally represented in the new regime regardless of that state’s population.

The issue of representation was one that threatened to wreck the entire consti- tutional enterprise. Delegates conferred, factions maneuvered, and tempers fl ared. James Wilson of Pennsylvania told the small-state delegates that if they wanted to disrupt the union, they should go ahead. The separation, he said, could “never hap- pen on better grounds.” Small-state delegates were equally blunt. Gunning Bedford of Delaware declared that the small states might, if forced, look elsewhere for friends. “The large states,” he said, “dare not dissolve the confederation. If they do the small ones will fi nd some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice.” These sentiments were widely shared. The union, as Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut put it, was “on the verge of dissolu- tion, scarcely held together by the strength of a hair.”

The outcome of this debate was the Connecticut Compromise, also known as the Great Compromise. Under the terms of this compromise, in the fi rst chamber of Congress, the House of Representatives, the representatives would be appor- tioned according to the population in each state. This, of course, was what dele- gates from the large states had sought. But in the second chamber, the Senate, each state would have equal representation regardless of its population; this provision addressed the concerns of the small states. This compromise was not immediately satisfactory to all the delegates. Indeed, two of the most vocal members of the small-state faction, John Lansing and Robert Yates of New York, were so incensed by the concession that their colleagues had made to the large-state forces that they stormed out of the convention. In the end, however, most of the delegates preferred compromise to the breakup of the Union, and the plan was accepted.

The Question of Slavery: The Three-Fifths Compromise Many of the confl icts

that emerged during the Constitutional Convention were refl ections of the fun- damental differences between the slave and the nonslave states—differences that pitted the southern planters and New England merchants against one another. This was the fi rst premonition of the confl ict that would later almost destroy the Republic.

More than 90 percent of the country’s slaves resided in fi ve states—Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia—where they accounted for 30 percent of the total population. In some places, slaves outnumbered nonslaves by as much as 10 to 1. For the Constitution to embody any principle of national supremacy, some basic decisions would have to be made about the place of slavery in the general scheme. James Madison hit on this point on several occasions as dif- ferent aspects of the Constitution were being discussed. For example, he observed,

It seemed now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lay, not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences formed the line of discrimination.10

Northerners and southerners eventually reached agreement through the Three- Fifths Compromise. The seats in the House of Representatives would be appor- tioned according to a “population” in which fi ve slaves would count as three free persons. The slaves would not be allowed to vote, of course, but the number of representatives would be apportioned accordingly.

The issue of slavery was the most diffi cult one faced by the framers, and it nearly destroyed the Union. Although some delegates believed slavery to be morally wrong, an evil and oppressive institution that made a mockery of the ideals and values espoused in the Constitution, morality was not the issue that caused the framers to support or oppose the Three-Fifths Compromise. Whatever they thought of the insti- tution of slavery, most delegates from the northern states opposed counting slaves in the distribution of congressional seats. James Wilson of Pennsylvania, for example, argued that if slaves were citizens they should be treated and counted like other citizens. If, on the other hand, they were property, then why should not other forms of property be counted toward the apportionment of representatives? But southern delegates made it clear that if the northerners refused to give in, they would never agree to the new government. William R. Davie of North Carolina heatedly said that it was time “to speak out.” He asserted that the people of North Carolina would

Despite the Founders’ emphasis on liberty, the new Constitution allowed slavery, counting each slave as three-fi fths of a person in apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. In this 1792 painting, Liberty Displaying the Arts and Sciences, the books, instruments, and classical columns at the left contrast with the kneeling slaves at the right—illustrating the divide between America’s rhetoric of liberty and equality and the realities of slavery.

4 0 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U N D I N G A N D T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N

never enter the Union if slaves were not counted as part of the basis for representa- tion. Without such agreement, he asserted ominously, “the business was at an end.” Even southerners such as Edmund Randolph of Virginia, who conceded that slavery was immoral, insisted on including slaves in the allocation of congressional seats. Pierce Butler of South Carolina declared that the North and South were as different as Russia and Turkey. Eventually the North and South compromised on the issue of slavery and representation. Indeed, northerners even agreed to permit a continua- tion of the odious slave trade until 1808 in order to keep the South in the Union. But in due course, Butler proved to be correct, and a bloody war resulted when the disparate interests of the North and the South could no longer be reconciled.



The Constitution Created Both Bold Powers