C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

The 13 states that independence brought together to form the United

States of America had very different physical and human geographic
features. Most of the Southern states were larger than most of the
Northern states. However, as the map on the opposite page shows, a
state's population often had little relation to its size. For example, the
populations of tiny Rhode Island and the much larger Georgia were
close to the same.

For the colonists, differences between the states' geographic features

raised basic questions about what form the nation's government should
take. Should a large state like Georgia have the same voice in
government as a small state like Connecticut, which had a greater
population? Should Connecticut have as much power as New York,
which was larger and had more people, too? At first, the answer to both
questions was yes. Under the nation's first constitution, called the
Articles of Confederation, each state had one vote in Congress.

In time, however, some people began to question the fairness of this

system. Yet, basing a state's political power on its population raised
other questions. For example, should a state with both slaves and free

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
people have as much power as a state with no slaves and the same
total population? The populations of the Southern states contained a
high percentage of slaves, as the maps on this page show. The maps
also show that counting only free people would drop most of these
states in the population rankings, compared to the Northern states.

Such geographic concerns arose in 1787, when representatives of 12

states met to write a new constitution for the United States. In this unit,
you will learn how the delegates handled population-related disputes
and other issues in framing the form of government we have today.

When the American war for independence ended, no one was happier
than a serious Virginia Patriot named James Madison. And no one was
more worried about the future of the United States. While serving in
Congress during the war, Madison had tried and failed to get the states
to work easily together. He doubted that things would improve now
that the war was over.

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

After declaring independence in 1776, Congress had tried to unite the

states under one national government. This proved to be a difficult
task. Most members of Congress were nervous about creating a strong
central government. They feared that such a government would
trample the very rights they were fighting to preserve.

Their solution was a plan of government known as the Articles of

Confederation. The Articles created “a firm league of friendship” in
which “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.”
This “league of friendship” was a loose union in which the 13 states
cooperated for common purposes. It was run by Congress, in which
each state had one vote.

On paper, the Articles of Confederation gave Congress several

important powers. It could declare war, raise an army and a navy, print
money, and set up a postal system.

In reality, however, these powers were limited by the inability of

Congress to impose taxes. Instead, Congress had to ask the states for
funds to do anything. All too often, the states ignored Congress's

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
“humble requests.” The result, said Madison, was that the Articles were
no more effective at binding the states into a nation than “a rope of
sand.”

In this chapter, you will read about the new nation's shaky start under
the Articles of Confederation. You will also learn how Madison and other
leaders met in 1787 to revise the Articles and ended up compromising
to form “a more perfect Union.”

Even before the American Revolution was over, the states began
quarreling among themselves. Many of their quarrels were about taxes
on goods that crossed state borders. New York, for example, taxed
firewood from Connecticut and cabbages from New Jersey. The states
also disagreed over boundaries. The inability of Congress to end such
disagreements was one of the key weaknesses of the Articles of
Confederation.

Developing Western Lands Congress did get the states to agree on

one important issue: how to develop the western lands acquired in the
Treaty of Paris. At that time, there was no orderly way to divide up and
sell these lands. Settlers walked into the wilderness and claimed the
land they liked. Disputes over who owned what clogged the courts.

To end this confusion, Congress passed the Land Ordinance of 1785.

Under this law, western lands were divided into six-mile squares called
townships. Each township was then divided into 36 sections of 640
acres each. One section of each township was set aside to support the
township's public schools. The other sections were to be sold to
settlers.

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
Surveyors proceeded to lay out townships in the Ohio Valley, then
known as the Northwest Territory. By 1787, the government was
ready to sell sections to settlers. This raised the question of how these
areas should be governed. Were they to be U.S. colonies or new states?

The Northwest Ordinance Congress answered this question in the

Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This law divided the Northwest
Territory into smaller territories, each governed by a territorial
governor. As soon as a territory had 5,000 free adult males, it could
elect its own legislature, or lawmaking body. When the population
reached 60,000, a territory could apply to Congress to become a state.

The Northwest Ordinance included a list of rights that gave settlers the
same privileges as other citizens, except for one. Slavery was banned in
the Northwest Territory.

This system of settlement served the nation well. Over time, the United
States would continue to establish territories as it spread to the shores
of the Pacific Ocean and beyond.

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
Under the Articles of Confederation, the new nation had serious money
problems. The paper money printed by Congress during the war was
worthless. Congress had the power to make coins that would not lose
their value. But it lacked gold or silver to mint into coins.

The states reacted to the money shortage by printing their own paper
currency. Before long, bills of different sizes and colors were distributed
from state to state. No one knew what any of these currencies was
worth, but most agreed they were not worth much.

Massachusetts Farmers Rebel The money shortage was particularly

hard on farmers who could not earn enough to pay their debts and
taxes. In Massachusetts, judges ordered farmers to sell their land and
livestock to pay off their debts. Led by Daniel Shays, a hero of the
Battle of Bunker Hill, Massachusetts farmers rebelled.

In 1786, Shays and his followers closed down courthouses to keep

judges from taking their farms. Then they marched on the national
arsenal at Springfield to seize the weapons stored there. Having
disbanded the Continental army, Congress was unable to stop them.

The Massachusetts government ended Shays' Rebellion in early 1787

by sending militia troops to Springfield to restore order. To many
Americans, however, the uprising was a disturbing sign that the nation
they had fought so hard to create was falling apart. “No respect is paid
to the federal [national] authority,” James Madison wrote to a friend. “It
is not possible that a government can last long under these
circumstances.”

A Call for a Convention Shays' Rebellion shocked Congress into

calling for a convention to consider “the situation of the United States.”
Each state was invited to send delegates to Philadelphia in May 1787
“for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of
Confederation.”

Madison was ready. For the past year, he had devoted himself to the
study of governments, both ancient and modern. The lesson of the past
was always the same. A nation that was made up of many groups
needed a strong central government, or it would soon be torn apart by
quarrels. The question was, would Americans heed this lesson?

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

Philadelphia was already hot and humid when delegates began drifting
into the city. On May 25, 1787, the Constitutional Convention met
for the first time in the east room of the Pennsylvania State House (now
known as Independence Hall). The Declaration of Independence had
been debated in this very room just 11 years earlier. The delegates
would meet in the east room all summer. On some days, temperatures
rose well into the nineties.

The delegates' first action was to elect George Washington president of

the convention. No man was more admired and respected than the
former commander in chief of the Continental army. When the war
ended, Washington could have used his power and popularity to make
himself a king. Instead, he went home to Virginia to resume his life as
an ordinary citizen. But despite his reluctance to return to public life,
Washington would play a key role by presiding over the convention and
lending it his prestige.

The Delegates Fifty-five delegates from 12 states attended the

Constitutional Convention. Rhode Island, which prided itself as “the
home of the otherwise minded” and feared a strong national

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
government, boycotted the meeting.

Some leaders of the revolution were missing. John Adams and Thomas
Jefferson were representing the United States in Great Britain and
France, respectively. Others who did not attend included Sam Adams,
John Hancock, and Patrick Henry. They feared that a strong national
government would endanger the rights of states.

As a group, the delegates were, in the words of a modern historian,

“the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed.” Their
average age was 42. At 81, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania was the
oldest. He arrived at the convention each day in a sedan chair carried
by four good-natured prisoners from a nearby jail.

Most of the delegates brought extensive political experience to the

meeting. More than two-thirds were lawyers. Most had served in their
state legislatures or held a state office. Thomas Jefferson was so
impressed by the ability and experience of these men that he called the
convention “an assembly of demi-gods.”

The Father of the Constitution The best prepared of the delegates

was James Madison of Virginia. One delegate wrote of Madison, “In the
management of every great question he evidently took the lead in the
Convention.” Indeed, Madison's influence was so great that later he
Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
would be called the “Father of the Constitution.”

Madison addressed the convention numerous times. When he was not

speaking, he took notes. Sitting near the front of the room so that he
could hear everything that was said, Madison wrote down nearly every
word. All together, his notes covered more than 600 printed pages.
From this remarkable record, we know what went on inside the
convention day by day.

The Rule of Secrecy At the time, however, no one outside the

convention knew what was happening. After choosing a president, the
delegates voted on rules for the convention. The most important of
these was the rule of secrecy. The delegates wanted to feel free to
speak their minds without causing alarm or opposition among the
general public. They agreed to keep secret whatever was said in the
meeting room until their work was done.

One day, Washington was handed some notes that had been dropped in
the hall outside the east room. Washington pocketed the paper until the
end of debate the next day. Then, in his sternest voice, he lectured the
delegates on the importance of secrecy. “I know not whose paper it is,”
Washington said as he flung the notes on his desk. “But there it is, let
him who owns it take it.” The notes were never claimed. Instead, they
lay on Washington's desk for days.

Like Washington, the delegates took the rule of secrecy seriously.

During that long summer, not a single word about the convention
debates appeared in any newspaper.

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

Shared Beliefs and Clashing Views Once the convention was

organized, the delegates got down to business. As a group, the
delegates had much in common. But they also had very different views
on many issues facing the new nation.

To be sure, all the delegates were committed to the ideals of the

Declaration of Independence. The basic purpose of government, they
believed, was to protect the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.” And they agreed, in the words of the Declaration, that the
“just powers” of governments came from “the consent of the
governed.”

In part, these beliefs reflected the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers

like England's John Locke. Human institutions, these liberal thinkers
had argued, should be based on “laws of nature.” Among these laws
were the rights to liberty and equality. The best way to protect these
rights, the delegates agreed, was through some form of republic.

From New England's town meetings to lawmaking bodies like the

Virginia House of Burgesses, Americans had a long tradition of
participating in their own government. After the American Revolution,
all the states had adopted constitutions that embraced republican
ideals. Despite many differences in details, every state had some form
of representative government. States had also expanded the rights to
vote and to hold office. The state constitutions helped to shape the
delegates' thinking.

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
Despite the delegates' broad agreement on a government “of the
people,” many questions were left unanswered. For example, who
exactly should have a say in a truly “representative” government? Even
in liberal Pennsylvania, only free, white males could vote. Some states
allowed only wealthier citizens to vote or hold office. Women could not
vote in any state except New Jersey. (New Jersey women would lose the
right to vote in 1807.)

Perhaps the most troubling question of all was how powerful the
national government should be. Many delegates wanted to keep
government close to the people by preserving the rights of the states.
They feared that a strong national government would threaten
individual liberty. Others, including Madison, argued just the opposite.
Look at what has happened under the Articles of Confederation, they
said, referring to events like Shays' Rebellion. If the central government
is too weak, it cannot do its job of protecting liberty and property.

As they met behind closed doors, the delegates wrestled with these
and other issues. Tempers often flared. Several times it seemed the
convention might collapse in failure. But in the end the delegates found
ways to save the convention—and the nation.

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
When the convention began, most delegates believed that their task
was to revise the Articles of Confederation. To their surprise, the
Virginia delegation presented them with a completely new plan of
government. After a lengthy debate, the delegates made a bold move.
They agreed to throw out the Articles of Confederation and write a new
constitution.

While the delegates—later known as the framers—agreed to design a

new framework of government, they were divided on a key issue.
Where should the government's power to rule come from? From the
states? Or from the people? Under the Articles of Confederation, the
answer was the states. James Madison's answer was that the
government's power should come directly from the people.

The Virginia Plan Drafted by James Madison and proposed by

Edmund Randolph, the Virginia Plan called for a strong national
government with three branches, or parts. A legislative branch would
make laws. An executive branch would carry out, or execute, the laws.
A judicial branch, or system of courts, would apply and interpret the
laws.

Under the Virginia Plan, Congress was to be made up of two houses, the
House of Representatives and the Senate. The number of lawmakers
that a state could send to Congress depended on the state's population.
States with large populations would have more representatives than
smaller states would have.

Delegates from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other large states liked the
Virginia Plan. Having the new government represent people, not states,
would give them more representatives and more power in both houses
of Congress.

The New Jersey Plan Not surprisingly, delegates from the small
states disliked the Virginia Plan. Just as the convention was about to
vote on it, William Paterson of New Jersey introduced a rival proposal.

Like the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan called for a government with
three branches. However, the legislative branch would have just one
house, not two. Each state would have an equal vote in Congress, no
matter how big or small. This plan, Paterson argued, would keep the
small states from being “swallowed up” by their more populous
neighbors.

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

The New Jersey Plan was warmly received by delegates from small
states. The majority of delegates, however, saw William Paterson's plan
as offering little improvement over the Articles of Confederation and
rejected it. But they could not agree on what should replace it.

Tempers Rise The debate over representation in Congress continued

into July, with tempers rising day by day. To most delegates from large
states, representation based on population seemed both logical and
fair. “Can we forget for whom we are forming a Government?” asked
James Wilson of Pennsylvania. “Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings
called States?”

To Wilson, the answer was obvious. But his logic could not overcome
the fears of small-state delegates. One hot Saturday afternoon,
Gunning Bedford of Delaware tore into the delegates from large states.
“They insist,” he said, “they will never hurt or injure the lesser
states.”His reply to his own concern was straightforward. “I do not,
gentlemen, trust you!” If the large states continued in their efforts to
“crush the smaller states,” Bedford warned, “the small ones will find
some foreign ally of more honor and good faith who will take them by

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
the hand and do them justice.”

Rufus King of Massachusetts was shocked at this reference to foreign

powers. He said that he was “grieved, that such a thought had entered
his heart.” Still, every delegate knew that Great Britain, France, and
Spain were just waiting for the United States to fall apart so they could
pick up the pieces.

A Compromise Is Reached Finally, a compromise was proposed

based on a plan put forward earlier by Roger Sherman of Connecticut.
The compromise plan kept a two-house Congress. The first house, the
House of Representatives, would represent the people. In this house,
the number of representatives from each state would be based on the
state's population. The second house, the Senate, would represent the
states. Each state would have two senators, to be elected by their state
legislatures. The vote was very close, but the compromise plan was
approved. This plan saved the convention and became known as the
Great Compromise.

The Great Compromise kept the framers working together. But having
agreed to base representation in one house of Congress on state
population, they faced a new and difficult question. As Gouverneur
Morris of Pennsylvania put it, “Upon what principle shall slaves be
computed in the representation?”

People or Property? By the time of the convention, nine-tenths of the

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
slaves in the United States lived in the South. Like everyone else,
southerners wanted as many representatives in the House as possible.
They argued that slaves should be counted the same as any other
people in determining representation.

Delegates from the North challenged this idea. Were slaves to be

considered people with a right to be represented in Congress? Or were
they property? “Blacks are property and are used to the southward as
horses and cattle to the northward,” argued Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts. Most northern delegates agreed. Slaves should be
counted only as property that could be taxed like any other property. If
slaves were to be counted as people in determining representation in
Congress, said Morris, “then make them citizens and let them vote.”

New Thinking on Slavery This argument signaled a growing division

among white Americans. The Declaration of Independence and the
American Revolution forced many whites to reexamine their views on
slavery. Some became active in trying to end what they now saw as a
great evil. Benjamin Franklin, for example, became president of an
antislavery society in 1787. In the North, this new thinking led one state
after another to pass laws ending slavery.

Although many southerners were uneasy about slavery, they were not
yet ready to abolish it. The South's economy was still very dependent
on the labor of enslaved African Americans. But some southern states
did pass laws making it easier for owners to free their slaves.

After a bitter debate, Madison proposed a compromise. Count each

slave as three-fifths of a person, he suggested, when determining a
state's population for representation in the House of Representatives.
The delegates approved this idea, which became known as the Three-
Fifths Compromise, because it seemed the only way to keep the
convention moving forward.

Another Slavery Issue A dispute over trade raised another issue

about slavery. To help business in the North, northern delegates
favored giving Congress broad power to control trade between the
states and other countries. This proposal made southern delegates
nervous. They worried that Congress might try to tax southern export
crops such as rice and tobacco. Southerners also worried that Congress
would use its power over trade to outlaw the slave trade—the importing
of slaves from Africa.

Southerners had reason to be fearful. By 1787, several states had

outlawed the slave trade within their boundaries. A majority of the

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
convention's delegates favored ending the slave trade completely

South Carolina and Georgia, however, objected that their economies

would collapse without a constant supply of new slaves. Neither state
would agree to any constitution that threatened to end the slave trade

More Compromises on Slavery Again, the delegates settled on a

compromise. Congress would have the power to control trade, but with
two limitations. First, Congress could not place any tax on exports to
other countries. Second, Congress could not interfere with the slave
trade for 20 years, or until 1808.

To satisfy southerners, the delegates also agreed to a provision known

as the fugitive slave clause. This clause said that escaped slaves had to
be returned to their owners, even if they were caught in a free state.

Without such compromises, the states might never have come together
in a single union. Still, the compromises only postponed the day when
Americans would have to resolve the terrible contradiction between
slavery and the ideals of liberty and equality. Meanwhile, generations
of African Americans would spend their lives in bondage.

Another major question facing the delegates concerned who would

head the new government's executive branch. Early in the convention,
Charles Pinckney urged the creation of a “vigorous executive.” James
Wilson followed with a proposal that a single person serve as the chief
executive.

A sudden silence fell over the convention. A single executive? The very
idea brought to mind unhappy memories of King George III.

Wilson broke the silence by explaining that good government depends

on clear, timely, and responsible leadership. Such leadership, he said, is
most likely to be found in a single person.

One Executive or Three? Edmund Randolph of Virginia disliked this

proposal. He preferred a three-member executive drawn from different
parts of the country. Three people, he argued, could lead the country
better than one.

Benjamin Franklin opposed a single executive for different reasons.

“The first man put at the helm will be a good one,” said Franklin,
thinking of George Washington. “Nobody knows what sort may come
afterwards.” The next chief executive, he warned, might be overly
ambitious or too “fond of war.”

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
In spite of these objections, the framers agreed to a single executive, to
be called the president. To keep this leader from becoming too kinglike,
they limited the president's term to four years. A vice president was
also to be elected to fill that term if the president died in office.

Choosing the Chief Executive Equally troubling was the issue of how
to choose the chief executive. Some delegates wanted Congress to
appoint the president. Gouverneur Morris objected. The president
“must not be made the flunky of the Congress,” he argued. “It must not
be able to say to him: ‘You owe your appointment to us.'”

Several delegates thought that the people should elect the president.
Madison, however, argued that voters would naturally vote for
someone from their own state. As a result, this method would not be
fair to candidates from small states.

Still others suggested that the president be elected by a specially

chosen group of “electors” from each state. Such a group, they felt,
would be able to look beyond state interests to make a wise choice for
the entire country.

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
After some 60 votes on the issue of how to elect the president, the
framers reached another compromise. Neither Congress nor the people,
they decided, should choose the president and vice president. Instead,
a special body called the Electoral College would elect the
government's leaders.

The Electoral College System The Electoral College is made up of

electors who cast votes to elect the president and vice president every
four years. Each state has as many electors in the Electoral College as
the number of senators and representatives it sends to Congress. The
votes cast by electors are called electoral votes.

The delegates left the method of choosing electors up to each state.

Before 1820, state legislatures chose electors in most states. Today,
the people choose their state's electors when they vote in presidential
elections. The electors then cast their ballots for president and vice
president on a date chosen by Congress.

Originally, the electors voted for two candidates without saying which
one they preferred for president or vice president. The candidate
receiving the most votes became president. The runner-up became vice
president. This system caused great confusion in the election of 1800
and was later changed.

Political Parties and Elections The Electoral College system seems

very odd to most Americans today. In our age of instant
communication, it is hard to appreciate the framers' concern that
voters would not know enough about candidates outside their own state
to choose a president wisely.

The delegates could not have predicted how quickly communications

would improve in the United States. Nor could they foresee the rise of
national political parties. Within a few years of the convention, political
parties were nominating candidates for president and educating voters
in every state about those candidates.

The Electoral College system still affects presidential elections today. In

most states, the candidate who gets the most votes—even if less than a
majority— wins all of that state's electoral votes. As a result, a
candidate can win a majority in the Electoral College without
necessarily winning a majority of the votes cast across the country. In
the presidential election of 2000, George W. Bush won the presidency
over Al Gore by getting the most Electoral College votes, even though
Gore received more votes than Bush in the popular election.

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

By the end of summer, the hard work of designing the Constitution was
finished. But the new plan still had to be approved by the states.

Approving the Constitution The first question before the framers

was how many states would have to ratify, or approve, the
Constitution before it could go into effect. Should ratification require
approval by all 13 states? By a majority of 7 states? The framers
compromised on 9 states.

The second question was who should ratify the Constitution—the people
or the state legislatures? Ratification by state legislatures would be
faster and easier. James Madison, however, argued strongly that the
people were “the fountain of all power” and should decide. The majority
of delegates agreed. After the delegates signed the Constitution, the
document was later ratified at special conventions by delegates elected
by the people in each state. However, ratification did not come without
difficulty.

Signing the Constitution On September 17, 1787, the delegates

declared the Constitution complete. As this last meeting began,
Franklin shared his final thoughts, which would be printed in more than
50 newspapers.

“I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution, “Franklin

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
began. Then he pointed out that no convention could produce a perfect
plan. “It therefore astonishes me,” Franklin continued, “to find this
system approaching so near to perfection . . . and I think it will astonish
our enemies.” Franklin added that he approved the final plan “because
I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.” He
urged every member of the convention to “put his name to this
instrument.”

Not everyone was won over by Franklin's words. Thirteen delegates left
the convention before it ended and so did not sign the Constitution.

Three other delegates—Edmund Randolph and George Mason, both of

Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts—also did not sign. Mason
believed it gave too much power to the national government. Gerry
refused to sign because he believed the new plan did not protect the
rights of the people.

When the signing was over, Franklin confessed that he had often looked
at the sun carved on the back of George Washington's chair and
wondered whether it was about to rise or set. “But now,” he said, “I
have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun.”A
new day was dawning for the United States.

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
Newspapers in every state printed the Constitution as soon as they
could get it. What readers found was a plan that would create a
“federal” system of government, in which a strong national
government shared power with the states. Before long, the entire
country was debating the same issues that had kept the convention in
session for four long months.

The Federalists Supporters of the Constitution called themselves

Federalists. The Federalists argued that the Constitution would create a
national government that was strong enough to unite the quarreling
states into a single republic.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay led the Federalist
campaign for ratification. In a series of newspaper essays, they recalled
the weaknesses of the government under the Articles of Confederation.
They showed how the Constitution would remedy those weaknesses by
creating a stronger, more effective union of the states.

The Federalist leaders also addressed the fears of many Americans that
a strong government would threaten their freedom or take away their
rights. The powers given to the government, they pointed out, were
strictly limited. In addition, those powers were divided among three
branches so that no one branch could become too powerful. The
influential articles written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were later
collected and published as The Federalist Papers .

The Anti-Federalists Opponents of the Constitution were known as

Anti-Federalists. They found much to dislike about the new plan.
Congress, they feared, would burden the country with taxes. They
claimed the president had power enough to rule like a king. The judicial
branch, they said, would overpower state courts.

The Anti-Federalists also complained about what was missing from the
plan. Their main complaint was that the plan listed the powers of the
government but not the rights of the people. Most of all, the Anti-
Federalists feared change. The idea of giving up any state power to
form a stronger Union made them uneasy.

After listening to the arguments, Madison wrote that the question

facing the nation was “whether the Union shall or shall not be
continued. There is, in my opinion, no middle ground to be taken.”

In this chapter, you read about the Constitutional Convention,

the historic meeting that replaced the Articles of Confederation
with a new plan of government.

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
Early Quarrels and Accomplishments Under the Articles of
Confederation, Congress did not have the power to solve disagreements
among states over such issues as taxes. Congress passed laws on how
to settle the Northwest Territory.

Shays's Rebellion Shays's Rebellion showed that under the Articles of

Confederation, the government was too weak to keep order.

The Great Compromise In 1787, delegates met at the Constitutional

Convention and agreed to revise the Articles. The Great Compromise
established how states were to be represented in the legislative branch
of government.

The Three-Fifths Compromise The Three-Fifths Compromise settled

the question of how slaves were to be counted in determining a state's
population.

The Electoral College A third compromise created a single chief

executive, to be chosen by the Electoral College.

The Constitution Delegates signed the Constitution in September

1787. They agreed that 9 of the 13 states had to ratify the Constitution
before it could go into effect.

James Madison is often called the “Father of the Constitution.”

Although many people had a hand in shaping the Constitution,
most scholars agree that Madison was the main driving force
behind the document's creation. It was a process that took
more than 100 days of complex negotiation and compromise.
Even so, it did not turn out quite as Madison had wanted.

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

In the first week of May 1787, James Madison stood alone in the East
Room of the Pennsylvania State House. Within a few weeks, many of
the nation's political leaders would gather there. Although few of them
knew it at the time, their task would be to create a new plan of
government for the United States. Madison knew it, though, and he
wanted to be ready.

Madison had thought long and hard about the great challenges facing
the nation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States was
floundering. Madison believed that a stronger national government was
needed to keep the country on course. Other leaders also agreed on the
need for reform. However, many of them had fears of a strong central
government. Madison would have to work hard to change those ideas.

Madison had arrived early in Philadelphia to prepare for the convention.

He had checked in to one of the city's finest boarding houses, run by
Mrs. Mary House. Soon most of his fellow delegates from Virginia would
be there also. That would give them a chance to make plans before the
convention began.

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
Unfortunately, it was not a fine time to be in Philadelphia. It had been a
wet and rainy spring. Now, as summer neared, it was becoming
increasingly hot and humid. To make matters worse, the city was
plagued with dense clouds of black flies. Residents had to sleep with
their windows closed or be tormented by swarms of buzzing, biting
insects. Shutting their windows, however, meant they had to spend
their nights sweltering in the heat.

Madison had bigger concerns, though. As he looked around the East

Room of the State House, he imagined the events that would soon
unfold there. The room was large, with a 20-foot-high ceiling and tall
windows. But it would be crowded once all the delegates were seated.
Madison decided to sit up front, where he could get a clear view of the
proceedings. He planned to take notes and wanted to be able to see
and hear everything that took place at the convention.

Madison Leads the Way

Madison was 36 years old at the time of the convention. He was a small
man, just five and a half feet tall, with pale skin and thinning hair. He
typically dressed in black. He was shy and spoke in a soft voice that
was often hard to hear. Nevertheless, he had great energy. He walked
with a bounce in his step and could get by on just a few hours of sleep
a night. Although he rarely showed personal warmth or charm, he was a
brilliant conversationalist who knew how to win others to his side.

Madison was well prepared to play a leading role at the convention. He

had spent several years as a member of Congress. He had studied the
writings of great political thinkers and understood how political systems
worked. He had also helped write the Virginia Constitution of 1776. This
document established a state government with separation of powers
and a two-house legislature. It was an important model of democratic
government. Madison would bring all this past experience to bear at the
convention.

Over the next two weeks, the other delegates began to arrive. They
were all wealthy, educated white men. Most were lawyers or large
landowners. There were no workers or tradesmen. There were also no
women, African Americans, or American Indians.

The delegates took rooms at various boarding houses and inns. One of
these inns, the Indian Queen, was the largest in the city. Soon it would
be filled with leaders from around the nation. Here they would gather to
eat, drink, and swap stories. It was a center of social activity during the
convention.
Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
By mid-May, most of the Virginia delegation had arrived. This group
included three major political figures: George Washington, George
Mason, and Edmund Randolph. These men met with Madison late into
the night. Together they came up with a plan for a new government, a
set of 15 proposals now known as the Virginia Plan. This plan embodied
Madison's ideas on the kind of government the nation needed.

The Convention Begins

On May 14, the convention was due to begin, but many delegates had
still not arrived. Travel was difficult in those days. The roads were bad
and coaches often got stuck in the mud or broke an axle. A trip that
normally took a week might take much longer because of problems on
the road.

Finally, on May 25, the convention got underway. For the next four
months, the delegates would gather in the East Room to debate the
issues. To maintain secrecy, they agreed to bolt the doors and shut the
windows. As the summer wore on, the heat increased. Many of the men
wore wigs and wool suits, and with the doors and windows closed the
room was stifling. In this hothouse atmosphere, arguments were often
intense.

Through it all, Madison sat at his table near the front, scribbling away at
his notes. In the evening, he took these notes back to his room and

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
laboriously copied them out, word for word. It was an ordeal that
“almost killed” him, he said. But he was determined to keep a complete
and accurate record of the convention.

Debating the Virginia Plan

From the start, the convention focused much of its attention on the
Virginia Plan. On May 29, Edmund Randolph presented the various
points of the plan. The next day, he summed up its main idea in a bold
proposal: “that a national Government ought to be established
consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary.” Amazingly,
Randolph's proposal was approved with little debate. Madison had
achieved his first major goal without a struggle. The convention had
agreed to form a new government. But winning support for the plan's
details would prove much more difficult.

The toughest issues involved the national legislature. The delegates all
agreed that Congress was a key part of government. But they
disagreed on how the people and the states should be represented in
Congress. Convention leaders like Madison knew that this dispute could
derail the convention. So, they focused on what they thought would be
a simpler issue—the executive branch. But this turned out to be a tough
issue, too. Should there be one executive or three? How long should the
executive serve? Should the executive be elected or appointed? For a
week, the debate circled around and around these questions. Delegates
would vote on a question, discuss it some more, and vote again.

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

Crafting a Final Document

Frustrated by this seemingly endless debate, on June 9 the delegates

decided to tackle the thorny problem of representation in the
legislature. The month-long debate was so fierce that, at times, it
looked like the convention would fall apart. But the delegates always
pulled back from the brink. Finally, on July 16, they approved the Great
Compromise, which set different forms of representation for the two
houses of Congress. Depressed, Madison realized that he had lost his
battle for a legislature based solely on representing the people rather
than the states. But with the greatest battle behind them, the framers
could work toward a final plan for the new government.

By late August, the delegates formed the Committee on Postponed

Matters to take up the few issues that remained to be resolved. A few
days later, the committee reported back with its findings. More debate
followed. But by early September, a Committee on Style—consisting of
Madison and four others—was formed to prepare a final draft to present
to the full convention.

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
Ever mindful of the importance of this plan for the nation, the delegates
made a few more changes. Finally, Gouverneur Morris of New Jersey
handwrote the final document—4,300 words in all. “On the question to
agree to the Constitution, as amended,” Madison recorded in his notes,
“All the states, ay [yes].” And so at last, on September 17, 1787, most
of the delegates signed the Constitution. It was ready to go to the states
for ratification.

The exhausted delegates had finally completed their monumental task.

The Constitution was not everything James Madison had hoped for. In
his view, it left too much power in the hands of the states. But he had
done what he could and was prepared to live with the outcome. Now he
would turn to the fight for ratification and the task of creating a new
government.

Stop for a moment and notice the thoughts you have as you read the
title of this essay. What ideas come to mind when you read the word
roots? How about American? Democracy?

Whatever your thoughts are, they are uniquely your own. But most
likely they grew out of something you've heard or read, or maybe seen
on TV or in the movies. This is how most ideas grow. They start from
something outside ourselves. Then we make them our own and
sometimes improve on them.

The Americans who led the Revolution and created the Constitution
were no different from you. Starting with other people's ideas, they
created the government we live under today. The ideas they drew upon
are the roots of American democratic thinking and institutions. Let's
look at some of these roots.

Religious Tradition

One important influence on early Americans was the Judeo-Christian

religious tradition. Nearly all the leaders of the Revolution believed in
God. Most were Christians whose ideas about human dignity and
freedom owed much to the teachings of the Bible. (The Bible includes
sacred writings of both Judaism and Christianity.) Many Americans saw
human liberty not just in political terms, but as a right bestowed by
God.

Leaders like Thomas Jefferson were also influenced by the European

Enlightenment. The Enlightenment prized reason and observation as
sources of truth. Many Enlightenment thinkers sought a “natural
religion” that was based on observing the order and lawfulness of the

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
universe. They thought of God as the architect of this orderly universe.
In discovering universal laws such as gravity, they believed, scientists
were revealing God's laws for the natural world. In a similar way,
people could find the “natural law” that should govern society. For
thinkers like England's John Locke, this natural law included basic rights
that no human law or ruler should violate.

That is why the Declaration of Independence speaks of “the Laws of

Nature and Nature's God.” These words express Jefferson's belief that
liberty and equality came from natural law—the law established by the
God who created the world.

The English Parliamentary Tradition

In their thinking about government, early Americans drew on the

English parliamentary tradition. They knew it well because they had
been English subjects.

As far back as Magna Carta (1215), the English had put limits on the
king's ability to rule as he pleased. For important matters like taxation,
the king needed approval from the leading citizens of his realm.

Over time, the English established Parliament as the body that

represented the king's subjects. Parliament was divided into two
houses. The House of Lords was made up of aristocrats who held their
position for life. The House of Commons was made up of
representatives elected by the people.

The framers of the Constitution adapted this tradition and made it more
democratic. In place of a king who ruled for life, they put a president
who had to run for reelection every four years. In place of Parliament,
they created a Congress with two houses. The Senate was designed to
be a small, thoughtful body, much like the House of Lords. Unlike
English lords, however, senators had to run for reelection every six
years. Even the House of Representatives was more democratic. In
England, the House of Commons could go seven years without
elections. In the United States, every member of the House of
Representatives faced election every two years.

Classical Liberal Principles

Another aspect of the Enlightenment was a school of thought called

classical liberalism. The most basic principle of classical liberalism was
that human beings could be trusted to decide what was best for
themselves. The more freedom people enjoyed, the better off society
2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
would be. Government should therefore serve the people's needs
instead of the other way around.

These ideas had been argued forcefully by John Locke. His Second
Treatise on Government was published in 1690, just as English
parliamentary tradition was taking its modern form. Locke's book spoke
of each man's right to “life, liberty, and estate [property].” Do these
words sound familiar? Thomas Jefferson changed them to “life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness” for the Declaration of Independence.

For Locke, property ownership was central to classical liberalism. (And

no wonder. He was a wealthy man, with investments in the silk and
slave trades.) This aspect of classical liberalism got a big boost from
another English thinker, Adam Smith. His book The Wealth of Nations
came out the same year as the Declaration of Independence. Smith
argued that the best way for a nation to become wealthy was to let
people conduct their business as they pleased, free from government
interference. This was another argument for the liberty urged by
classical liberalism.

Civic Republicanism

Classical liberalism's optimistic belief in liberty had a weakness.

Sometimes people exercise their rights in ways that harm others. What
if your next-door neighbor plays loud music at three o'clock in the
morning, waking up everyone in your home? Should your neighbor be
free to do as he pleases? To keep people from using their freedom in
selfish ways, early American leaders relied on the idea of civic
republicanism.

Civic republicanism went all the way back to the ancient Greeks, nearly
2,500 years ago. It called for citizens to do what was best for the
republic (the whole society), not just for themselves. Civic republicans
would actively participate in government. They would put unselfishness
before greed, resist political corruption, and play referee when two or
more elements of society competed for power. (Notice that this
meaning of republican applies to everyone, not just members of today's
Republican Party.)

Many of the nation's early leaders believed that civic republicanism

depended on citizens receiving a good education. “Establish the law for
educating the common people,” urged Thomas Jefferson. Today these
words are inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. Part
of the reason you are asked to study American history is the hope that
you, too, will be a civic republican.
Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
Americans faced the task of creating new forms of government long
before the U.S. Constitution was written. Almost as soon as the
Revolution broke out, legislative assemblies in the former colonies
began writing new constitutions. By the end of 1776, 10 states had
completed the process. By 1780, every state had a written constitution.

These first state constitutions reflected Americans' revolutionary

thinking. They helped create the context in which the U.S. Constitution
was written.

What were the new ideas in these documents? Here are some of the
most important ones:

• A constitution needs to be written down. Unlike the British

constitution, early state constitutions were written
documents. Americans believed that putting constitutions
in writing would make it harder for state governments to
violate basic principles.

• Power comes from the people. The first state

constitutions reflected republican ideals. A key ideal was
that power comes from the people, not from the king or any
other authority. For this reason, early state constitutions
gave the most power to elected legislatures. In fact, they
generally created very weak executives (such as a
governor). This reflected Americans' fear and resentment
of the strong executives they had known under British rule.

• Separation of powers. State constitutions separated

executive, legislative, and judicial powers. They forbade the
governor, or any other executive officer, from serving in
the legislature. They also tried to protect the courts from
executive control.

• “All men are created equal.” This republican ideal was, of

course, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
State constitutions echoed this idea. For example,
Pennsylvania declared, “All men are born equally free and
independent.” In reality, however, the new states did not
favor absolute equality. All states established property
requirements for voting. Most state legislatures had an
upper house that was made up mostly of the well-to-do. In
some states, governors had to be quite wealthy. And only
New Jersey allowed women to vote. (Women in this state
lost the right to vote in 1807.) Still, the ideal of equality

2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
would be a powerful influence in the years to come.

• Basic rights should be constitutionally protected.

Americans agreed early on that basic rights needed
protection in the written constitution. Vermont and
Massachusetts, for example, devoted part of their
constitutions to “A Declaration of the Rights of the
Inhabitants” of their states. Such efforts planted the seed
of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.

A few states even applied the ideas of equality and rights to slavery.
The Vermont and New Hampshire constitutions abolished slavery. In
Massachusetts, a court declared in 1783 that slavery could not be
permitted under the state's bill of rights. Delaware's constitution
forbade any new importation of slaves. Over time, other northern
states passed antislavery laws.

These early constitutions were only a first attempt at self-government.

In response to various events, states revised their fundamental laws. In
the 1780s, for instance, Americans decided that they had gone too far
in weakening the power of the executive branch. States changed their
constitutions to make the executive stronger. They also moved toward
having constitutional conventions instead of letting the legislatures
write their constitutions. Still, the first state constitutions did establish
principles that would continue to guide the American experiment in
self-government.

Level: A 2019 Teachers' Curriculum Institute