s. history us history us history - Embassy of the United States

CHAPTER 4: THE FORMATION OF A NATIONAL GOVERNMENTOUTLINE OF U.S. HISTORYquired was a fundamental rethinkingof the Confederation.The Annapolis conference issueda call for all the states to appointrepresentatives to a convention to beheld the following spring in Philadelphia.The Continental Congress wasat first indignant over this bold step,but it acquiesced after Washingtongave the project his backing and waselected a delegate. During the nextfall and winter, elections were heldin all states but Rhode Island.A remarkable gathering of notablesassembled at the Federal Conventionin May 1787. The state legislaturessent leaders with experiencein colonial and state governments, inCongress, on the bench, and in thearmy. Washington, regarded as thecountry’s first citizen because of hisintegrity and his military leadershipduring the Revolution, was chosenas presiding officer.Prominent among the more activemembers were two Pennsylvanians:Gouverneur Morris, who clearly sawthe need for national government,and James Wilson, who laboredindefatigably for the national idea.Also elected by Pennsylvania wasBenjamin Franklin, nearing the endof an extraordinary career of publicservice and scientific achievement.From Virginia came James Madison,a practical young statesman, a thoroughstudent of politics and history,and, according to a colleague, “froma spirit of industry and application ...the best-informed man on any pointin debate.” He would be recognizedas the “Father of the Constitution.”Massachusetts sent Rufus Kingand Elbridge Gerry, young men ofability and experience. Roger Sherman,shoemaker turned judge, wasone of the representatives fromConnecticut. From New York cameAlexander Hamilton, who had proposedthe meeting. Absent fromthe Convention were Thomas Jefferson,who was serving as ministerrepresenting the United States inFrance, and John Adams, serving inthe same capacity in Great Britain.Youth predominated among the 55delegates — the average age was 42.Congress had authorized theConvention merely to draft amendmentsto the Articles of Confederationbut, as Madison later wrote, thedelegates, “with a manly confidencein their country,” simply threw theArticles aside and went ahead withthe building of a wholly new formof government.They recognized that the paramountneed was to reconcile twodifferent powers — the power oflocal control, which was alreadybeing exercised by the 13 semi-independentstates, and the power ofa central government. They adoptedthe principle that the functions andpowers of the national government— being new, general, and inclusive— had to be carefully definedand stated, while all other functionsand powers were to be understood asbelonging to the states. But realizingthat the central government had tohave real power, the delegates alsogenerally accepted the fact that thegovernment should be authorized,among other things, to coin money,to regulate commerce, to declarewar, and to make peace.DEBATE AND COMPROMISEThe 18th-century statesmen whomet in Philadelphia were adherentsof Montesquieu’s concept of thebalance of power in politics. Thisprinciple was supported by colonialexperience and strengthened by thewritings of John Locke, with whichmost of the delegates were familiar.These influences led to the convictionthat three equal and coordinatebranches of government should beestablished. Legislative, executive,and judicial powers were to be soharmoniously balanced that noone could ever gain control. Thedelegates agreed that the legislativebranch, like the colonial legislaturesand the British Parliament, shouldconsist of two houses.On these points there was unanimitywithin the assembly. Butsharp differences also arose. Representativesof the small states — NewJersey, for instance — objected tochanges that would reduce their influencein the national governmentby basing representation upon populationrather than upon statehood,as was the case under the Articles ofConfederation.On the other hand, representativesof large states, like Virginia,argued for proportionate representation.This debate threatened to goon endlessly until Roger Shermancame forward with arguments forrepresentation in proportion to thepopulation of the states in one houseof Congress, the House of Representatives,and equal representation inthe other, the Senate.The alignment of large againstsmall states then dissolved. Butalmost every succeeding questionraised new divisions, to be resolvedonly by new compromises. Northernerswanted slaves counted whendetermining each state’s tax share,but not in determining the numberof seats a state would have in theHouse of Representatives. Under acompromise reached with little dissent,tax levies and House membershipwould be apportioned accordingto the number of free inhabitantsplus three-fifths of the slaves.Certain members, such as Shermanand Elbridge Gerry, still smartingfrom Shays’s Rebellion, fearedthat the mass of people lacked sufficientwisdom to govern themselvesand thus wished no branch of thefederal government to be elected directlyby the people. Others thoughtthe national government should begiven as broad a popular base aspossible. Some delegates wished toexclude the growing West from theopportunity of statehood; otherschampioned the equality principleestablished in the Northwest Ordinanceof 1787.There was no serious differenceon such national economic questionsas paper money, laws concerningcontract obligations, or the roleof women, who were excluded frompolitics. But there was a need for7273