Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

The Tensions BetweeJl,

the Delegates
Some naively assume that the
citizens of this country after the
War for Independence were one
big happy family. rhis was
hardly the case. They were able
to unite (in a measUre) against a
cornmon foe, but that did not
mean that their views of
government and its role in the
new nation were the same. What
was true of the country at large
was true of the delegates to the.
Constitu tional convention in
particular. There' were at least
foutmajdr divisions among the
delegates who gathered as
representatives of their respective
states in Philadelphia to work on
a new Constitution:
1. The Federalists Vs. the
Anti-Federalists
This was the most basic and
serious division that eidsted in
the assembly. It is important to
realize however that theSe
designations were not used
during the debates themselves;
they were titles given to the two
sides during the ratification
debates that took place within
the various states. In the
convention itself, the terms used
were federalists and
nationalists.
The federalists were
concerned to strengthen the
central govemrnent but their
main concern was to preserve the
sovereignty of the states. These
men were called Anti-Federalis.ts
after the Convention. .
The nationalists were
concerned to preserve the
sovereignty of the states but their
main concern was strengthening
the central government. These
were known as the Federalists
after the Convention.
These two groups were not
consistent in maintaining their
20 '" ,THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon '" September, 1997
positions at all points nor were
they .evenagreed amongst
themselves (Dr. M .. E. Bradford
shows that there were at least
four types of Federalists and two
sorts of Anti-Federalists), but
they all recognized that an
unlimited government or
ungoverned st,ates would result
in a tyranny more dreadful than
anything attempted by George
III.
Thus, says Dr. Bradford, they
were careful to limit the
fundamental scope of the law
itself, leaving what. they called
i n t r n ~ l police and irulny of the
great questions concetning value
and faith to the regulation of .
state and local government and
to the operation of society itself.
Yet, this neutrality or the ..
inclination to leave these issues
to the states should not be
understood as an indifference to
these matters. The world of
eighteenth Century America was
a realm including many social,
political, and religious
establishments. The neutrality of
the general government with
respect to their interactions was
not the neutrality. of indifference
that would permit the
destruction of society. (Bradford,
A Worthy Company., p. ix)
2. The Big States vs. the
Small States
The differences in population'
between the states was not all
that significant. The large states
were those who held the largest
land claiins ancl/or the largest
populations (Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and
MassachUsetts). The small states
did not have claims to large
tracts ofland (New York,
Connecticut, New jersey,
Delaware, and Maryland). The
debate between the large states
and small states centered around
the manner of representation
they would have in Congress --
i.e. should their representation
be proportional (based upon
population) or should each state
have equal representation in the.
houses of Congress.
This would prove one of the
more difficult problems to solve
as the convention deliberated
and almost became the point
which caused the collapse of the
entire venture.
3. The North vs. the South
Even at this early date
Southerners and Yankees were
forming their distinctive
characters. john Adams had
written home that the characters
of gentlemen in the four New
England colonies differ from
those in the others .. . as much
as several distinct nations almost.
(Bowen, Miracle at Philadelphia,
p. 91) Pierce Buder from South
Carolina would write that the
interests of Southern and Eastern
states were as different as the
interests of Russia and Turkey.
(Ibid., p. 92)
These differences would have
much more serious consequences
for the country la ter on but it is
interesting to see that there was a
signifIcant difference between the
two sections of the country early
on.
4. Slaveryvs. Anti-slavery
Clearly, with the Framers,
slavery was not So much a moral
issue (they almost unanimously
condemned the slave trade and
coercive slavery) as a political
one. Th,ere were no radical
abolitionists present (thirty-five
of the fifty-flve were slaveholders
themselves). Many deplored the
practical effects of slavery but
none suggested that it was within
the authority of the Federal
government to deal with this
issue. This was to be one of
those matters left to the
individual states. james Madison
would later calm Southern fears
over the central governments
power to emancipate slaves in
the various states by declaring
that there was no power (in the
Constitution) to warrant it.
(Bradford, Worthy Company, p.
149)
The chief concern in the
Philadelphia convention was how
to count the slaves for the
purposes of representation.
Rufus King, who was the most
ardent in his opposition to
slavery, admitted that to him it
was always a question of
political power between
Northern and Southern interests.
(Ibid., p. 13) Kings view was to
become the dominate COncern of
the North in years to come.
The fact that the Federal
Convention did not more
forcefully address this issue has
been a sore spot for many. But
there are many reasons why
slavery (even among those who
were opposed to it) was not a
burning issue in the eighteenth
century:
1) From Pennsylvania
southward, many Americans (or
their forefathers) had been in
some form of temporary slavery
themselves. Indentured
servitude was a common
experience and thus, i t was not
viewed as something out of the
ordinary. As difficult as it may
be for us to imagine, slavery was
a fact of life to men of the
eighteenth century. It was as
much a part of world as families
and commerce.
2) Very little active
enslavement had occurred since
the 17605; the vast majority of
slaves who existed in this
country had been born into
slavery and thus, neither the
slaves nor their masters had ever
known any other way of life.
This is a vital point for us to keep
in mind, however: Slavery was
acceptable; enslavement was not.
3) Thus, slavery was not
being encouraged. Every state
except South Carolina had
prohibited the importation of
slaves constitutionally or by state
ordinance --- and even South
Carolina did so on a temporary
basis. The prohibition of slavery
in the Northwest Territory met
with virtually no resistance North
or South.
These factors taken together,
made slavery a secondary issue to
the founders. They knew it was a
problem but they believed there
were much bigger problems
facing the young states and it was
to these that they focused their
attention. Thus, even during the
ratification debates, the fact that
the Constitution did not address .
the problem of slavery
thoroughly received
comparatively little attention.
Other problems seemed more
pressing and threatening to the
future of the new Republic.
The Work of the Convention
In February 1787, the
Continental Congress called on
the states to convene for the sole
September, 1997 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 21
and express purpose of revi?ing
the ArticIesof Confederation.
The Convention was called to
'COnvene on Monday i May 14,
but when that day arrived, only
Virginia and Pennsylvania had
any delegates present. It was not
until the 25th of May thala
quorum w'asattained.
George Washington was
chosen to serve as.President of
the convention: TIlls was most
significant. Though he never
entered into the debates (until
the last day of the meeting) his
influence upon the proceedings
was huge. His presence 'had a
salutary effect upon the
proceedings: it kept tempers
within their bounds, curbing
tongues loosened by anger.
(Bowen, Miracle at Philadelphia,
p. 99) Most of the Framers '
either desired his ,good opinion
or' were restralned by the thought
of his disapprobation. (Bradford,
A Worthy Company, p. 137)
His influence was felt in ntore
than this however. He
apparepdy did much to direct
the proceedings through
post-adjournment persuasion in
the social context of The City
Tavern and various private
homes ... In some cases, a mere
disapproving look from the chair
may have been enough to tum
the course ofhistoyY. (Ibid., pp.
137,138)
The, rules of the conventi(;m
were set up in sl.\ch a way as, to
allow for the most full and free
debate possible. No record of
anything said or done was to be
published to the public until the
entire work was finished. No '
visitQrs or were allowed
ill, the room during the debates.
This has been viewed as a sinister
move on the part of plotting,
conspiratorial elements present
in 'the convention. Yet, there was
a very sound rationale for this
rule. No decision on any matter
was' to be considered final until
the whole constitution was
completed. Any portion of the , '
conStitution could be
reconsidered. Though this
meant that the pro<:eedings
would be at times agonizingly
ponderol.\s it did ensure two
things:
1) That nothing could be ' '
railroaded through the
Convention. Everyone would
have their say. Every position
would be thoroughly considered.
2) This also allowed for men
to change their minds with a
minimum of pain and
embarrassment. They could take
positions and abandon them
when they were given greater
light without feeling compelled
to defend thenlSelves over their
inconsistency. In the end, these
rules contributed no small part to
the,basic unity that resulted.
The Convention met
through01,lt the (sometimes '
unbearably hot) Philadelphia
summer. Somewhat
surprisingly, many of t,he issues
that had cal.1!led so much debate
among the people and the states
in the previous years, provoked
very litde discussion in the
convention itself.
That there should be a
Congress consisting of two
houses was the majority opinion.
That there should bean
executive aroused little
opposition (though the precise
form of the office did occasion
22 COUNSEL of Chalcedon September, 1997
some discussion). That Congress
should have the power to tax was
accepted with only the most
perfunctory debate. Everyone '
agreed that there should be no '
import duties on trade between
the states. The right of Congress
to coin, money passed ; ,
unanimously as did, interestingly
enough, the the
states to return fugitive slaves.
Thatwhich caused the most
debate was something that had
scarcely been discussed by the
public, the nature of the new
union. During the summer,
when it was especially hot"
debates ran long and tempers
short. At one, point in early July,
it looked as though everything
would collapse in a storm. July
10 was the lowest point of all.
The debate over the National or
Federal structure had raged for a
number of days. The delegation
most agitated by it all was the '
Delaware delegation led by J ohn
Dickenson and Gunning
Bedford.
Dickenson:inforrnedJames
Madison that Delaware . would
sooner submit t6 a foreign power
than submit to be deprived, in
both branches of the legislature,
of an equality of suffrage, and
thereby be thrown under the
domination of the larger states.
(Hendrick, The Bulwark of the
Republic, pp. 82.-38) Gunning
Bedford of Delaware had only a
few days before declared to the
delegates of the large states, I do
not, gendemen, trust you! More
disrressingly, he went on to
suggest that if the states were not
given equal representation in
Congress, the small states will
find some foreign ally of more
honor and good faith who will
take them by the band and do
them justice. (Bowen, op. cit., p.
131)
After hearing William
Patterson of New Jersey speak
similarly, James Wilson (a strong
nationalist from Pennsylvania)
responded, If the small sta tes
will not confederate on this plan,
Pennsylvania will not confederate
on any other. If New Jersey will
not part with her sovereignty it is
vain to talk of govemment.
(Hendrick, op. cit., p. 83)
Luther Martin (delegate from
Maryland) wrote that on July 10,
"We were on the verge of
dissolution, scarce held together
by the strength of an hair,
though the public papers were
announcing our extreme
unanimity." Washington wrote
to Alexander Hamilton (who was
in New York at the time), "I
almost despair of seeing a
favorable issue to the
proceedings of the Convention,
and do therefore repent having
had any agency in the business."
(Ibid., p. 140)
Finally the motion originally
given over a month earlier by
Roger Sherman was
reconsidered. It would later be
called the Great Compromise.
Madison notes, Mr. "Sherman
proposed that the proportion of
suffrage in the first branch
should be according to the
respective numbers of free
inhabitants; and that in the
second branch, or Senate, each
state should have one vote and
no more. This way there would
be equal representation in the
Senate (which satisfied the small
states) and proportional
representation in the House
(which met the demand of the
largestates). Subsequently, the
motion was amended to give
each state two senators and to
allow three-fifths of the non-free
population (slaves) to be counted
for the purpose of representation.
From this point on, things
moved relatively smoothly
toward a conclusion.
The work was finished and
the Constitution readied for
signing on Monday, September
17. A little past 3:00 p.m. the
delegates arranged themselves by
states according to their
geographical position (beginning
with New Hampshire and going
south) to sign the finished copy.
Only three members present
would refuse to sign: Edmund
Randolph and George Mason of "
Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts.
As the members were signing.
Dr. Franklin spoke, "Doctr.
Franklin looking towards the
Presidents Chair, at the back of
which a rising sun happened to
be painted, observed to a few
members near him. that Painters
had found it difficult to
distinguish in their art a rising
from a setting sun. 1 have, said
he, often and often in the course
of the Session, and the
vicissitudes of my hopes and
fears as to its issue. looked at that
behind the President without
being able to tell whether it was
rising or setting: But now at
length I have tlle happiness to
know that it is a rising and not a
setting Sun." (Max Farrand,
Records of the Federal
Convention. vol. II, p. 649) n
ACiU: The DeviJ's Advocate:
The SeductiQl1 oj Civil Liberties in
America by F. LaGaud Smith;
Marcon Publishers, 770-01
Wooten Road, Colorado Springs,
CO 80915; 1996; 311 pp. With
index. $24.95 hb.
This volume provides a soundly
researched examination of the
policies and practices of the ACLU
at the national level. The author
believes that "the organization has
exchanged its role as defender of
the specific guarantees in the Bill of
Rights for an activist expansion of "
civil liberties which reach beyond
specifically articulated freedoms."
(p.vii)
In chapter after chapter Smith
tellingly shows that AC\.U ideology
is founded on moral relativism and
thus is blind to its resulting
inconsistency and even hypocrisy. ""
The ACLU was fonned in 1920
with a goal of standing for civil
liberties - such as freedom of
political speech and practical racial
equality for individuals. In the
ensuing 75 plus years the ACLU"
has begun to define civil liberties
on its own terms. For example it
has broadened the First
Amendment guarantee of freedom
of political speech to include a
much broadened view of speech
such as the right to bum the
American flag; however, it does not
include a Christian teacher
explaining Christianity in
government schools. Creationists
of course cannot exercise their civil
liberty to express their view of
origins in the public classroom as
can evolutionists. The unborn
facing an abortion do not have the
SepleJl!.ber, 1997 ~ THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 2 3

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi