Government in the United States, National, State and Local

by James Wilford Garner

The Problem of Representation in Congress.—The convention without much discussion decided that Congress should consist of two chambers or houses instead of one as was the case under the Articles of Confederation. This done, the next problem was to determine the basis of representation in each. This proved to be one of the most difficult tasks of the convention. The delegates from the large states insisted that representation in both houses should be based on population, so that a state such as Virginia with sixteen times the population of Georgia should have sixteen times as many representatives in Congress. But to this system of proportional representation, the delegates from the small states objected. They maintained that the importance of a state was not to be measured by its population; that the states were sovereign political entities, and when it came to participation in the government of the nation they were all equal, large and small alike. There was no more reason, said a delegate from one of the small states, why a large state should have more representation in Congress than that a large man should have more votes than a small man. For a time the differences seemed irreconcilable, and more than once it looked as if the convention would be disrupted on this question. The spirit of compromise triumphed, however, and it was finally agreed that the states should be represented equally in the senate but in proportion to their population in the house of representatives. As a result of this rule, Nevada to-day with a population of less than 100,000 sends the same number of senators to Washington as does New York with a population of some 10,000,000 souls. New York, on the other hand, sends forty-three representatives to Congress while Nevada sends but one. This was the first great compromise of the Constitution.

The Question of Counting the Slaves.—The next problem, which was almost equally difficult and which likewise had to be settled by compromise, was the question of whether the slaves should be counted in determining the population of the state for purposes of representation. The delegates from the Southern states argued that slaves were an important factor in contributing to the wealth and power of the country and should, therefore, be counted for purposes of representation. To this argument the delegates from the Northern states, where the slave population was inconsiderable, objected on the ground that the slaves at law were treated merely as property and were not allowed to vote in the states where they resided. The discussion over this question was long and at times exciting, but finally a compromise was reached by which it was agreed that in determining the population for purposes of representation, all the white population but only three fifths of the slaves should be counted. At the same time it was decided that direct taxes among the states should be apportioned on the same basis. This compromise was favorable to the slave states in that it gave them an increased number of representatives, but it was unfavorable in that it increased their proportion of direct taxes. This is known as the three-fifths compromise.

Federal Regulation of Commerce.—Another question which became the subject of heated discussion related to the national control of commerce. The Northern states wished Congress to be given the power to regulate commerce, but the Southern states, which at the time furnished the principal articles of export, feared that the power might be employed in such a manner as to injure their commerce, and might also be used to prohibit the slave trade and thus prevent the Southern planters from stocking their farms with laborers. They accordingly insisted that Congress should be expressly prohibited from interfering with the importation of slaves, and that it should be allowed to pass navigation acts only by a two-thirds majority of both houses. The whole matter was finally settled by a compromise which forbade Congress to interfere with the importation of slaves before the year 1808, but which allowed it to pass laws by a majority vote for the regulation of commerce. This was the last great compromise of the Constitution.

Other Compromises.—Many other questions were settled on the basis of compromise, though none of them occasioned so much discussion as the three mentioned above. Some have regretted that such compromises as that which allows the states equality of representation in the senate, as well as the one which allowed representation on the basis of the slave population, should have ever found their way into the Constitution; but it is certain that without these compromises the Constitution could never have been adopted.

After the settlement of the questions mentioned above, the work of framing the Constitution proceeded with less difficulty. Finally, on September 17, the completed draft was signed by thirty-nine delegates, after which the convention adjourned. A few were absent and did not sign for that reason; others, such as Gerry of Massachusetts and Mason of Virginia, disapproved of the Constitution and refused to attach their signatures.

Ratification of the Constitution.—Before adjourning, the convention resolved to send the draft of the Constitution to Congress with the request that it should transmit the instrument to the legislatures of the several states and that these in turn should submit it to conventions for ratification. It was agreed, moreover, that when it should have been ratified by conventions in nine states it should go into effect between the states so ratifying.

Opposition to the Constitution.—As soon as the text of the Constitution was made known to the people of the states, a flood of criticism was turned loose on it from almost every part of the country. Those who approved the Constitution and favored its ratification were called Federalists; those who opposed it were called Anti-Federalists. The principal grounds of opposition were that in providing for a national government with extensive powers the Constitution had sacrificed, to a large degree, the rights of the states; that such a government would prove dangerous to the liberties of the people; that the President for which the Constitution provided might become a dictator and a tyrant; that the senate would be an oligarchy; and that the Federal Constitution, unlike those of the states, contained no bill of rights for the protection of the people against governmental encroachment upon their inherent rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religious worship, freedom of assembly, and the like. The last mentioned objection was removed by the assurance on the part of the friends of the Constitution that in the event of ratification they would endeavor to have the Constitution amended at the earliest opportunity in such a way as to provide proper safeguards for the security of these rights, a promise which was carried out soon after the new government went into effect, by the adoption of the first ten amendments.

Ratification by the States.—The first state to ratify the Constitution was Delaware, one of the small states whose delegates in the Philadelphia convention had been strongly opposed to changing the existing system. This state ratified on December 6, 1787, without a dissenting vote. Its action was shortly followed by Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut, the last three of which were small states whose delegates in the Philadelphia convention had also been in the opposition. In Pennsylvania, however, the Constitution was ratified with less unanimity and only after a fierce struggle in which the Anti-Federalists attacked almost every part of it. Massachusetts was the next to ratify, although by a narrow majority, many of the leading citizens being opposed or indifferent. Maryland and South Carolina followed, and finally the favorable action of New Hampshire on June 21, 1788, insured its success, since nine states had now ratified and the Constitution could be put into effect between the states that had so ratified. Four days later, before news of the ratification of New Hampshire was received, Virginia fell in line and ratified, in spite of the powerful opposition of Patrick Henry, Mason, Lee, and others.

Attention was now turned to New York, where the opponents of the Constitution were believed to be in the majority. Geographically, New York was like a wedge which divided the Union into two parts, and hence its adhesion was especially desirable. Because of its favorable commercial position, the state enjoyed great advantages under the Articles of Confederation, since it could collect and turn into its own treasury the duties on all articles coming into its ports from abroad—a privilege of which it would be deprived under the Constitution. There was good reason, therefore, why it should hesitate to exchange its position for one less favorable. When the state convention assembled to take action on the Constitution, it was found that about two thirds of the members were at first opposed to ratification. Among the friends of the Constitution, however, was Alexander Hamilton, whose powerful argument prevailed, and the Constitution was ratified by a majority of three votes.

Rhode Island, like New York, enjoyed a favorable position under the Articles of Confederation, and was not in sympathy with the Constitution. She refused to ratify and remained out of the Union until May, 1790, more than a year after the Constitution had gone into effect. North Carolina likewise refused to ratify until November, 1789.