The Constitutional Convention: Calling for Compromise
To this day, scholars, commentators and politicians discuss the Constitutional Convention as a model for polite but vigorous political debate, and it is viewed as a great effort in deliberation and compromise.[i] In late June and early July of 1787, the debates at the Convention were at their most heated. Some delegates even went as far as suggesting that if no agreement were reached, the small-states and large-states would form separate Unions. Ultimately, this was avoided, and there are a number of crucial factors that eventually led to a compromise over representation in the legislature.
Benjamin Franklin[ii] deserves much credit as a great conciliator, and when debate became particularly contentious he appealed to the delegates’ religious beliefs to overcome their differences.[iii] Franklin expressed concerns, saying,
the small progress we have made after 4 or 5 weeks close attendance and continual reasonings with each other – our different sentiments on almost every question…is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding.
The other delegates respected Franklin as amongst the wisest delegates, and his opinions were always treated with the utmost respect.[iv] On June 28, he made a passionate request for prayer and compromise, saying,
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men . . . I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business.
This motion was postponed and never voted on, but it helped to change the tone of the debate for the better.
The next day, the Convention voted 6-4-1 to have proportional representation in the first branch of the national legislature, with Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware voting against, and Maryland divided. The delegations then approved a motion to postpone consideration of representation in the second branch of the legislature.
Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth[v], both delegates of Connecticut, introduced what would later be known as the Connecticut Compromise (or Great Compromise). Ellsworth expressed that he “was not sorry” that the first branch would have proportional representation, and said that he “hoped it would become a good ground of compromise with regard to the second branch.” He introduced a plan where there would be equal representation in the second branch of the legislature, and proportional representation in the first.
On June 30, Ellsworth suggested a return to the discussion of equal representation in the Senate. This was met with opposition from James Wilson who expressed his refusal to give in to a compromise that would allow one-third of the nation’s population to overrule the will of the other two-thirds. Wilson implored the delegates to consider the sovereignty of the individual, asking, “[c]an we forget for whom we are forming a Government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called states?”
Wilson also warned that if this compromise were made, the government would be “neither solid nor lasting.” Wilson did concede, however, that mandating proportional representation in the Senate would conflict with the goal of having the Senate be a small body.
In an attempt to introduce another dimension to the debate, James Madison changed the focus to slavery by arguing that
States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which resulted partly from climate, but principally from the effects of their having or not having slaves. These two causes concurred in forming the great division of interests in the U. States. It did not lie between the large and small States; it lay between the Northern and Southern.
For this reason, Madison proposed a legislative system where one branch had proportional representation based only on free population, and the other had proportional representation based on free population and three-fifths of all others. This would give the North an advantage in one branch, and the South an advantage in the other. Though certainly an interesting concept, this proposal never formally came to a vote.
On July 2, Ellsworth’s motion for equal representation in the Senate was brought to a vote, and it failed to pass, by a tied vote of 5-5-1, with Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland voting for, and Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina voting against. In response to the continued stalemate between the two factions, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney proposed a committee be formed, consisting of one delegate from each State to arrange some compromise.
Mr. Sherman advocated for this proposition, saying, “we are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something.” He thought a committee “most likely to hit on some expedient.”
Wilson and Madison opposed the idea of a committee. Madison stressed that it would only be a waste of time, and that any idea that the committee could come up with could be just as easily proposed in the whole Convention. Wilson objected to the committee having one member from each state because,
it would decide according to that very rule of voting which was opposed on one side. Experience in Congress has also proved the inutility of Committees consisting of members from each State.
Before voting on the motion, Elbridge Gerry defended the idea of committing this question to a committee, saying,
Something must be done, or we shall disappoint not only America, but the whole world . . . We must make concessions on both sides. Without these the Constitutions of the several States would have never been formed.[vi]
The delegations voted, 9-2, to bring the question to a committee, with New Jersey and Delaware voting against. The delegates then voted to have the committee be made up of one member from each state, which passed 10-1, with only Pennsylvania, likely due to Wilson’s protests, voting against. Mr. Gerry would chair the committee, and members who were considered to be amongst the most moderate were chosen to join him.[vii]
The Convention was then adjourned for two days so that the committee would have time to structure a compromise, and so that the delegates could attend the celebrations of the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Check in with the ConSource blog next week to read about the Gerry Committee’s report, and the Convention’s 4th of July celebration.
[i] Derek A. Webb, The Original Meaning of Civility: Democratic Deliberation at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, 64 S.C. L. Rev. 183, 187-89 (2012)
[ii] Delegate from Pennsylvania who was widely respected amongst the delegates for his wisdom. Franklin consistently encouraged debates, and implored the delegates to look part their own self interests when casting votes.
[iii] Gregory E. Maggs, A Concise Guide to the Records of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 As A Source of the Original Meaning of the U.S. Constitution, 80 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1707, 1715 (2012).
[iv] Dana Lansky, Proceeding to A Constitution: A Multi-Party Negotiation Analysis of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, 5 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 279, 310 (2000)
[v] Delegate from Connecticut who, along with Roger Sherman, proposed what came to be known as the Connecticut Compromise. He was also a vocal abolitionist.
[vi] State Constitutions and Charters, http://consource.org/library/?type=document&topics=&collections=state-constitutions-and-charters&deep=&sort=date
[vii] Dana Lansky, Proceeding to A Constitution: A Multi-Party Negotiation Analysis of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, 5 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 279, 327 (2000)
