A Book of the United States / Exhibiting its geography, divisions, constitution, and government ... and presenting a view of the republic generally, and of the individual states; together with a condensed history of the land, from its first discovery to the present time. The biography of about two hundred of the leading men: a description of the principal cities and towns; with statistical tables

by Unknown

“Whereas there is provision, in the articles of confederation and perpetual union, for making alterations therein, by the assent of a congress of the United States, and of the legislatures of the several states; and whereas experience hath evinced, that there are defects in the present confederation,as a means to remedy which, several of the states, and particularly the state of New York, by express instruction to their delegates in congress, have suggested a Convention for the purpose expressed in the following resolution; and such Convention appearing to be the most probable means of establishing in these states a firm national government—

“Resolved, That in the opinion of congress, it is expedient, that on the second Monday in May next, a Convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, and reporting to congress and the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in congress, and confirmed by the states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigences of government, and the preservation of the Union.”

In consequence of this, delegates to the Convention were appointed from all the states, except Rhode Island.

To the generation, which since those times has come on to the stage, it may appear singular, that such obstacles to a Convention should have existed. But it is to be remembered that the path to be trod was new and untried. The political elements were in a deranged state. Sectional interests were at war. The principles of free government were not then drawn out and harmonized. No model existed adapted to the country. Is it surprising, then, that the process was slow—that fears were indulged—that opposite views were entertained? On the contrary, looking at the state of the country as it then was—the political and commercial jealousies, which had arisen among the states—their difference in extent, wealth, and population, as well as in the habits, religion, and education of their inhabitants—it may well excite our admiration, that a few years achieved such important changes, and produced a constitution, which has operated so happily in its practical influence upon political communities so distinct, and to this day so independent.

Among the causes which served to produce a general conviction of the necessity of a more efficient government, none, perhaps, had greater influence, than the insurrection in Massachusetts, in the year 1786. “This open and formidable opposition to the laws,” observes a writer, “threatened not only the destruction of the government of that state, but of the Union. So numerous were the insurgents in the western counties, and so confident of success, and even of support from their fellow-citizens, that they refused all terms of accommodation offered by the legislature. They completely obstructed judicial proceedings in several counties, and for a time,it was extremely doubtful, whether a sufficient force could be found in Massachusetts to reduce them to obedience.”[81]

The delegates appointed by the states to convene at Philadelphia, met at the time and place designated. George Washington was unanimously elected to preside in their deliberations.

A question of great magnitude presented itself, in the very commencement of their session, viz.: whether they should amend the old, or form a new system. For the former object they had been appointed, congress having limited their powers to revising the articles of the confederation. But the defects of the old government were so many, and so serious, that the voice of the majority decided in favor of an entirely new system. Accordinglyon the 29th of May, Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, submitted fifteen resolutions, as the basis of a new constitution. These resolutions, denominated the Virginia plan, were debated and amended, until the 15th of June, when Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey, presented a project, for revising the articles of confederation. This was called the Jersey plan. The propositions of this latter plan having been the subject of debate till the 19th of June, were rejected by seven states against three, and one divided. The resolutions of Mr. Randolph therefore again came under consideration, and on the 4th of July, with the exception of those relating to the executive, were referred to a committee, consisting of Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Gorham, Mr. Ellsworth, and Mr. Wilson, for the purpose of reducing them to the form of a constitution. On the 26th of the same month, those relating to the executive having been adopted, they, with various other propositions submitted by individuals, were referred to the same committee, and the Convention adjourned to the 6th of August, when the committee reported a draft of a constitution. This was under debate until the 8th of September, and underwent many material alterations. A committee, consisting of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hamilton, G. Morriss, Mr. Madison, and Mr. King was then selected “to revise the style, and arrange the articles.” The manner in which these eminent scholars and statesmen performed the duty assigned them, appears from the great precision and accuracy of the language of the Constitution, as well as the happy arrangement of its various articles.

The report of this committee was made on the 12th, and on the 17th of September, after a session of about four months, the Constitution was finally adopted, and signed by all the members then present.

During the progress of debate, several questions of interest arose in the Convention—but none, perhaps, more exciting than that which related to the relative weight of the states, in the two branches of the legislature. After much debate, the small states consented that the right of suffrage in the house, should be in proportion to the whole number of white, or other free citizens in each, including those bound to service for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons. While they yielded this point, they insisted on an equal vote in the senate.

To this the large states were unwilling to assent; and on this question, the states remained, for a time, about equally divided. On the first trial, in committee of the whole, six states against five decided that the right of suffrage in the senate should be the same as in the house; the states of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, being in the affirmative; and Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, in the negative.