The history of the convention itself falls roughly into three stages: during the first month the delegates were busy presenting their plans of union, each party attempting to enforce its will upon the minds of the others. Then followed a month during which the parties gradually came to an agreement, each waiving some of the things which it regarded as essential in return for concessions upon the part of the others. Finally, during the third month, though the debates still went on, they were occupied mainly with the settlement of details, none of which was of primary importance. If this threefold division of the work of the Convention is kept in mind, the teacher will find it comparatively easy to bring order out of the apparent chaos of the deliberations of the three and a half months’ session at Philadelphia.
Taking each period in its order, we find that during the first month there were two radically opposed opinions in the Convention. On the one hand, were those who believed that a strong central government should be established; on the other, those who believed that all that was necessary or proper was that the Articles of Confederation should be amended by giving to Congress more power, and by creating a strong executive and a judicial department. The plans of the first party were set forth in the Virginia Plan, which was probably drawn up by Madison and presented to the Convention by Randolph; those of the other in the New Jersey Plan, which was presented by Patterson. Each of these plans should be carefully and thoroughly studied. Beside them, the student will do well to acquaint himself also with the proposals laid before the Convention by Hamilton and by Pinckney.
After a month of debating propositions and counter-propositions, the differences narrowed themselves down to the single question of what should be the method of representation in Congress. For a time it seemed as though no agreement could be reached upon this subject. Then came the compromise offered by Ellsworth and Sherman, of Connecticut, which the Convention finally adopted—the first great compromise of the Constitution. Next followed the debate between the Northern States and the Southern States upon the question as to what should be the basis of representation. This, too, was finally settled by what is known as the second compromise of the Constitution. Finally there remains to be studied the debates over the questions of the slave trade, and foreign and interstate commerce. Here again the Convention divided on sectional lines, till the difference was settled by the third great compromise of the Constitution.
Now the Convention entered upon its third stage. Debates and differences of opinion were still frequent, but they related almost entirely to questions of detail, not to fundamental principles, so that by September 17th the Convention was able to adjourn after having transmitted the Constitution to the Congress of the Confederation for action.
With the work of the Convention behind us, there remains the third stage of the history of the Constitution to be studied. Instead of acting finally upon the document, after a brief period of deliberation, Congress on September 29th submitted it to the States for ratification. This ratification was not accomplished without difficulty. Opposition to the new form of government was active, often virulent. The grounds for this opposition should be carefully studied. Unless we understand it clearly, we shall be in no position to understand the basis of the constitutional strife which raged in the United States for the next seventy years, which culminated when the eleven Southern States finally seceded from the Union. The objection to the new Constitution was based first upon the feeling that the central government outlined in the Constitution was too strong and would ultimately overshadow and destroy the State governments; second, upon the fact that the Constitution contained no Bill of Rights, and that therefore the sacred rights of the people for which they had fought in the Revolution might be interfered with. The first objection was finally overcome by the argument and by the feeling among the people that life in America would soon be impossible unless a stronger federal government than then existed could be established; the second, by the promise that a series of amendments embodying the principles known as the Bill of Rights would speedily be adopted. Thus the Constitution was finally ratified, and in April, 1789, the new government went into operation.
The further history of the Constitution belongs to a later period of American history and is therefore outside the limits of this article. It remains only, then, to indicate to the teacher the sources where he may profitably seek further information on this subject. For the story of the development of the English Constitution, specific references can hardly be given, any one of the half dozen standard text-books on English history should be adequate for the study of this subject. The three great charters of English liberty may be found in any of the source books of English history, such as, for instance, Kendall’s or Colby’s or Lee’s; while, for the history of colonial institutions, the student is referred to the works on colonial history already mentioned in previous articles. The basis for the study of the work of the Convention is to be found (1) in the “Journal of the Convention,” published in Elliot’s “Debates,” and, especially, (2) in Madison’s “Notes,” which are much fuller and much more satisfactory. Of the secondary histories of the period, only some half dozen need be mentioned: (1) Fiske’s “Critical Period,” (2) Curtis’s “Constitutional History,” Vol. 1; (3) McLaughlin’s “The Confederation and the Constitution,” (4) Walker’s “Making of the Nation,” (5) Landon’s “Constitutional History,” and (6) Hart’s “Formation of the Union.” There are others, of course, but these are more than sufficient for the ordinary student.
TRANSITION, 1788-1789.
The period of transition, 1788-1789, is one of much interest for the student and the teacher of American history. After the Constitution had been ratified by the requisite number of States there remained many details to be attended to before the new government could be put into operation. Hasty generalizations have been made respecting this period; and many a student has found his queries upon the precise mode of transfer to the new government unanswered. Frank Fletcher Stephens, Ph.D., has published in the “University of Missouri Studies” a monograph, which covers this transitional period. Treating first the action of the old Congress, Dr. Stephens follows the action of each of the States upon the election of senators, of representatives, and of presidential electors, closing with the determination in 1789 of relations between the national government and the State governments. While the chapters upon the first elections for national officers are of value, the closing chapter upon federal and State relations is particularly so. The author shows how the United States revenue system took the place of the State tariffs, and how the change was made successful by appointing to the national offices many of the customs officials trained in the State service. Other subjects over which the authority of the new government was paramount were admiralty matters, naturalisation, and paper money; and upon each of these the authority of the national government superseded the action of the States. Respecting pensions and light-houses, we have a voluntary surrender to the nation of the obligations incurred by the States in caring for their veterans or in promoting commerce. The monograph throws much light upon a neglected period of our history. E. K. Y.