Constitutional Convention of 1787

It has been but eleven years since the members of the Philadelphia congress assembled and made the final decision to separate from the tyrannous rule of King George III. Since then our young nation has had to struggle for not only our liberty but out dignity as well. We have had to fight with little to no resources, but we have not only managed to triumph over the British but also humiliate them on an international scale.

Our young nation may have been adept enough to defeat the British, but there is still one more matter of business that needs to be adhered to before we can have a free, respected, functioning society; the constitution. The current foundation of our national government is the articles of confederation, and so far they have not been capable of sustaining the unity of our nation. And so begins the journey toward shaping our vast nation’s establishment.

The day of the constitution’s conception was May 25, 1787. I, a simple journalist for the Philadelphia Gazette, was particularly fortunate to have been able to stealthily enter the imposing redbrick statehouse and listen to the different plans of action that the fifty-five eloquent intellectuals had to propose for our nation.

The day began with a great deal of organized chaos as the fifty-five emissaries began to assemble. I was surprised to see that some great revolutionaries such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine weren’t present, but seeing delegates such as the dapper William Patterson, passionate Patrick Henry, and brilliant Benjamin Franklin silenced my doubts immediately and made me confident in the legitimacy of the convention.

The opening speaker was the great Benjamin Franklin. As he strode up to the podium the esteem and reverence that the other delegates held for him was undeniable. The erudite Franklin appeared very confident as he brought up issues of unity and the states’ “inability to rally.” Franklin also addressed the previous struggles of the states as he spoke, “I hope to never to see the day when we the people will become so degenerate as to need an autocratic government.” He spoke with great passion and certainty as he asserted not only his own flaws, but the flaws of humanity as well and implored the delegates to “question their own infallibility” for the betterment of our nation.

After Franklin’s opening address the delegate from Virginia—James Madison—appropriately took the podium to present the Virginia Plan as an alternative for the Articles of Confederation. Madison declared his patriotism first and foremost, and then went on to enlighten the congregation with the Virginia Plan’s proposal. He explained that the Virginia plan had a completely different concept than the articles of confederation. What the Virginia Plan offered was a three branched: legislative, executive, and judicial government that had a bicameral legislature. The Virginia plan emphasized a strong central government and allowed the ability of government to use armed forces to enforce laws and regulate interstate trade, unlike the articles of confederation. Madison also deeply emphasized that the Virginia plan had a system of checks and balances in order to comply with the needs of most states and keep the largest amount of people content.

After Madison finished his speech the debate was immediately set in motion. The delegate from New Jersey, William Paterson, was especially concerned over the fact that the Virginia Plan offered more representation in the legislature for the states with more population. Delegate Patrick Henry was also equally bothered by that fact, as well as the fact that the representatives in the first chamber of the legislative branch elected the members of the second chamber. Essentially the delegates of the smaller states felt that if the Virginia Plan were to be chosen to govern the states there would be more representation for the bigger states and basically leave the less populated states with little to no say. Delegate James Wilson countered Paterson’s argument by stating, “bigger states need more representation because they represent a wider set of beliefs and opinions.” But Patrick Henry could not let the issue go of there being two houses in the legislature both technically based on population considering that the senate is elected by the house of representatives. He made a very good point of explaining that in the end we would be left with only four states ruling over the senate and House of representatives because of the large gaps in population between the states. When questioned about the difference of the senate and House of Representatives Madison responded, “The senate would probably be more experienced and wiser in order to advise the younger more inexperienced house of representatives.” Delegate Roger Sherman was not amused by this statement and attacked Madison by asking if Madison was implying that people who are inexperienced should be elected in the legislation; adding that if that happens then our country is bound to fall apart. Eventually delegate Wilson explained, “There will be plenty of experience in the legislature, but the senate will have even more experience.” That pretty much concluded the Virginia Plan’s presentation and the congregation prepared for the introduction of the New Jersey Plan.

The New Jersey Plan was introduced by delegate William Paterson, who passionately argued against Madison for the equal representation of smaller states in congress. Paterson explained that the New Jersey Plan supported a three-branch government that had a unicameral legislature that had equal representation from all states regardless of size and population. He explained that this would be the best way to represent all states considering that it would give no one state an advantage. But inevitably there was difference of opinion in the congregation.

The outspoken delegate Sherman was interested to know whether the New Jersey Plan’s lack of checks and balances was a means of controlling the people, but Paterson thoroughly explained that with a unicameral legislature there would be no need to have a system of checks and balances because if the most intellectual people come to a final decision with all the states being represented there will be no need to check the actions of another branch.

By and large the other delegates saw the New Jersey plan as being more or less a revision of the articles on confederation and were quite critical of the idea that the state governments would be stronger than the central government. Patrick Henry on the other hand disagreed completely and made the argument that state and local government are more closely related to the people and can serve the people appropriately; he even went as far as calling central government “nothing but an evil necessity.” Although there were many delegates critical of the New Jersey Plan it was irrefutable that Patrick Henry and William Paterson were able to maintain an excellent argument for the rights and representation of smaller states in the legislature.

At last, after all of the heated discussions that he took part in, delegate Sherman was finally able to present his position on the proper way to govern the country. Sherman presented the Connecticut compromise which, in order to please both big and small states, had a bicameral congress that had one chamber dependent on state population and one chamber that had two representatives from each state. The Connecticut compromise also offered a system of checks and balances as well as the three-fifths compromise to meet the south halfway on their wanting to count slaves as part of population for representational reasons, but refusal to give them rights. Delegate Madison felt compelled to mention that in the constitution it said that all men are created equal, but was quickly silenced when he was reminded that he was a slave owner as well. Delegate Sherman stated, “If you want them to have equal representation let them free!” as Madison tried to recant and explain his statement.

The convention ended as Benjamin Franklin uttered a few more words about the importance of unanimity. I couldn’t stay much longer because one of the guards had found me hiding at the convention and threw me out while expressing foul words of the journalistic occupation, but I had stayed long enough to see that there would be change in our young nation and luckily for the better. The convention was a total success and with the young intellectual minds that gathered it is unquestionable that the right choice will be made for the future of our nation.

Philadelphia Gazette

Millen Kebede