Notes on the Constitutional Convention (Philadelphia, 1787) — Causes, Debates, and Consequences
Lead-up to the Philadelphia Convention: causes and path
Before 1787, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation for about a decade. The Articles were widely viewed as failing to provide a viable national government.
Key institutional flaws under the Articles:
No power to tax: Congress could requisition funds from the states, but states could ignore requisitions.
No power to regulate commerce: Discriminatory trade practices by foreign powers (Britain, France) harmed American trade, and the national government lacked tools to respond with discriminatory trade restrictions itself.
No means to enforce national decisions: Congress could negotiate treaties, but there was no mechanism to compel states to comply if they disagreed with treaty provisions.
No federal court system, no executive, and a legislature-only structure: No centralized enforcement or interpretation of treaties.
Postwar economic crisis and fiscal policy tensions:
States pursued divergent fiscal/monetary policies, creating a chaotic economic environment.
Debate over national vs. state policy: historians differ on whether focus should be on national power gaps or on state-level fiscal mismanagement.
The absence of national power under the Articles hindered international and internal governance, prompting calls for reform.
The path to Philadelphia: Annapolis, then Philadelphia, and the spark of Shay's Rebellion
Virginia proposed in 1786 that states meet in Annapolis to discuss commercial problems; only five states attended (12 delegates), which was not enough to take action.
Madison and Hamilton decided to push for a broader convention in Philadelphia in May 1787.
The path faced uncertainty: it was unclear whether states would comply, as with Annapolis.
Shay’s Rebellion (Massachusetts) played a critical role:
Armed farmers protested high taxes and foreclosures, closing civil courts to prevent foreclosures.
The rebellion underscored economic distress and the inability of Congress to stabilize the economy, influencing perceptions about the need for a stronger national government.
The rebellion persuaded some reluctant states and Congress to back a convention in Philadelphia and signaled to Washington the importance of attendance.
Consequence: Delegates gathered in Philadelphia in May 1787 with the broad aim of reforming or replacing the Articles, depending on consensus.
The Articles of Confederation: structure, powers, and limits
Founding framework after independence: The Continental Congress declared independence (1776) and states were asked to draft new constitutions.
Characteristics of the Articles:
A treaty-like arrangement among sovereign states, not a unified national government.
National powers included: declare war, print money, borrow money, negotiate treaties, appoint generals.
No federal taxing authority: Requisitions to states with no enforcement mechanism.
No federal authority to regulate commerce; could not compel states to comply with treaties.
No federal judiciary or executive; only a unicameral Congress with limited authority.
Structural consequences:
Economic and diplomatic weaknesses persisted because the national government could not tax or regulate interstate commerce effectively.
States acted autonomously, sometimes competitively, which undermined national cohesion.
Amendment provisions under the Articles:
Article 13 required unanimity for amendments; proposed amendments needed all states’ consent.
Attempts to amend (to grant limited taxing power) failed because one state declined (Rhode Island first, then New York).
The constitutional problem framing: The Philadelphia convention was called to propose changes that would meaningfully strengthen the national government beyond the Articles, countering the weaknesses noted above.
The Philadelphia Convention: delegates, aims, and early dynamics
Key players and dynamics:
Madison (Virginia) emerged as the central planner, studying historical failures of confederacies and pushing for bold reforms.
Washington’s presence lent legitimacy and impetus; Randolph and Mason (Virginia) helped coordinate early Virginia plans.
New York’s delegates (e.g., Yates, Lansing) initially favored adding powers to Congress without scrapping the Articles.
Some delegates feared illegitimate overreach and walked out, resisting perceived usurpation of the original mandate.
The operating plan before the convention opened:
Large-state delegates coordinated to push for a truly national government with expanded powers (tax, regulate commerce, military, federal supremacy).
Small-state delegates organized to preserve state equality in at least one house and to constrain national power.
The Virginians’ and Virginians’ allies’ early momentum:
Virginia Plan advocated a powerful national government with proportional representation in both houses, an energetic executive, and a national judiciary; it also proposed that the people elect the House, the House elects the Senate, and the Senate elects the President.
The New Jersey Plan and the initial opposition:
New Jersey Plan favored maintaining equal representation for states in a unicameral or limited bicameral framework, with a plural executive and a stronger federal authority than under the Articles but not a sweeping national framework.
The Connecticut Compromise (Great Compromise):
Aimed to reconcile differences between large- and small-state plans.
House of Representatives: representation by population (large-state benefit).
Senate: equal representation for each state (small-state protection).
The compromise helped keep the convention together and avoid walkouts that could derail unification.
The representational debate and its stakes:
Large states favored proportional representation because it would give them political leverage commensurate with population.
Small states demanded equal representation in at least one house to prevent domination by larger states.
The final compromise balanced both, keeping the convention viable even as tensions persisted.
The role of slavery in the debates:
Slavery as a population factor for representation in the House, and as a tax base factor for direct taxes.
Northern states emphasized that slaves should count for representation or taxes only to the extent that their status as people affected political power, while Southern states insisted slaves count toward representation to boost their political influence in Congress.
The three-fifths compromise: slaves would count as three-fifths of a person for representation and for direct taxes.
The foreign slave trade posed a live issue: Northern states wanted to end the foreign slave trade; Southern states wanted to preserve it for as long as possible to replenish their enslaved labor force.
A compromise allowed Congress to end the foreign slave trade after twenty years (1808), with protections for Southern states’ interests in the interim.
Other economic and political tensions intersecting representation:
Northern vs Southern economic interests colored debates over tariffs, trade regulation, and the scope of federal power.
Northern economies favored tariffs to protect manufacturing; Southern economies favored free trade and feared tariffs would raise costs of imported goods and provoke retaliatory tariffs on cotton exports.
The structure of the new government aimed to balance these economic and political demands while preserving a stable union.
The major proposals and their implications: Virginia Plan, New Jersey Plan, and the Connecticut Compromise
Virginia Plan (major features and implications):
A national government with broad powers to legislate on matters the states could not handle, including extensive taxing and commerce powers.
A national government elected indirectly by the people through a two-tier arrangement (the people elect the House; the House elects the Senate; the Senate and House together elect the President).
Proportional representation in both houses, which would empower larger states (e.g., Virginia) and diminish smaller states’ influence.
Strong federal supremacy and the potential for a unitary executive with considerable energy and authority to enforce federal will.
New Jersey Plan (alternative approach):
Maintained a more retentive constitutional framework, with equal representation for states in a unicameral or limited-bicameral legislature.
Limited national supremacy compared to the Virginia Plan; there would be a federal judiciary but without a comprehensive system of lower federal courts.
A plural or collective executive rather than a unitary executive, designed to limit the concentration of executive power.
Connecticut Compromise (resolve the deadlock):
Combines proportional representation in the House with equal representation in the Senate (two senators per state).
Ensures that large states gain representation by population in the House, while small states retain equal voice in the Senate.
This compromise preserved the convention and allowed the drafting process to proceed toward eventual ratification.
How representation, slavery, and taxation shaped the debates
Slavery and representation:
Slaves constituted a substantial portion of population in Southern states (e.g., 40% in Virginia; about 50% in South Carolina). Northern states had much smaller slave populations and many were moving toward emancipation, though emancipation was gradual.
Northern states argued against counting slaves for representation; Southern states argued for counting slaves to increase representation in the House.
The three-fifths compromise settled the count of slaves for representation in the House and for direct taxes in proportion to population.
Slavery and the slave trade:
Debate over ending the foreign slave trade: Northern states pressed for abolition; Southern states sought to preserve it to maintain their labor force.
Compromise: Congress would have the power to end the slave trade after twenty years (i.e., in 1808); in the meantime, Southern states would retain some protections for their slave-based economy.
Economic and political context affecting the slavery debate:
The North and South had developed different economic systems and interests, influencing attitudes toward tariffs, trade regulation, and the scope of federal power.
Slavery’s political power (via the Three-Fifths Clause) created a strong incentive for Southern states to accept other compromises that enhanced federal authority in areas like taxation and defense.
The new government: structure, powers, and constraints
A more powerful national government than the Articles, with important constraints on direct popular influence:
Direct power to tax and to enforce laws at the national level, including jail for nonpayment of taxes, signaling a strong central authority.
Authority to regulate interstate and international commerce; explicit federal supremacy to override state laws where conflicts arise.
A federal judiciary capable of interpreting treaties and national laws; federal courts to interpret and enforce federal authority.
A unicameral or unitary executive with broad powers to implement national policy (as argued by Madison and supported by Washington and Hamilton).
A system of separated powers (legislative, executive, judicial) to prevent the concentration of power and provide checks and balances.
Direct popular influence and its constraints:
The framework deliberately reduced direct political accountability to prevent populist pressures from destroying property rights and the national economic order.
Two-year terms for representatives in the House, longer terms for the Senate (six years in the initial design; Madison favored nine), presidential four-year terms, and a general bias toward insulation from direct public manipulation.
No recall, no mandatory instructions to vote on issues; a preference for stable, extended governance rather than constant popular intervention.
The two-pronged political strategy:
The constitution aimed to be more national and powerful than the Articles while ensuring that the new government would not be easily swayed by populist pressures or factional politics.
The result was a framework that could act directly on individuals, but that was designed to be relatively resistant to immediate popular surrender or manipulation.
How the Constitution was framed in the ratification era
Public opinion and political advantage dynamics:
Federalists, who supported the new Constitution, had advantages in the ratifying campaign: control of major newspapers, elite support, and a strategic geographical spread, particularly on the East Coast.
Anti-Federalists, who opposed or questioned the Constitution, faced structural disadvantages: malapportionment in some state ratifying conventions, less access to a broad media platform, and fears of central overreach.
The ratification environment and public sentiment:
While some sections of the country welcomed the new framework as a necessary improvement, others worried about a distant, powerful national government that could overshadow state sovereignty and popular control.
The Federalists’ advantages helped push ratification through despite significant public skepticism in various regions.
The Electoral College: a deliberate bulwark against direct popular rule
The framers distrusted direct popular election for the presidency due to concerns about:
The electorate’s capacity to make a well-informed choice on a highly consequential issue.
The political implications of counting slaves for representation but not enfranchising them.
The fear that a direct election could lead to candidate dominance by population centers, marginalizing smaller states.
The compromise: a system of indirect elections via an Electoral College, chosen by state legislatures (at the time), with electors exercising independent judgment on the presidential race.
Three problems with direct election cited by the framers:
1) Lack of informed public deliberation on a national executive.
2) Slavery’s exclusion from the direct electorate would distort representation and political power.
3) Small states feared the loss of influence and a presidency dominated by large states.Features of the Electoral College:
Each state legislature (initially) would determine the method of selecting electors.
Electors would meet in their own states, exercise independent deliberations, and select a president.
Amendment and change in the Constitution
Article Five provides two pathways to amend:
Congress can propose amendments, which must be ratified by three quarters of the states:
A constitutional convention can be called upon petition by two-thirds of the states, and proposed amendments from the convention must also be ratified by three quarters of the states.
The United States Senate itself was made unamendable in one sense: the equal representation of states in the Senate could not be altered by amendments; changing that would require a different arrangement, which the small states would never accept.
The Electoral College could be amended via the Article Five mechanism, requiring broad state consensus (two-thirds petition to Congress or two-thirds Congressional proposal followed by three-quarters ratification).
The time warp: counterfactual considerations
If the Philadelphia convention had not occurred or if it had failed, constitutional history could have diverged dramatically:
Possible continued risk of separate confederacies or continued political instability.
A higher risk of civil conflict or collapse of republican government, as imagined by Madison and Washington in private correspondence and context.
The crisis atmosphere documented in the 1780s might have led to alternative, less stable governance pathways.
What the framers believed about the Constitution and its democratic character
The Constitution created a government that was stronger, yet more insulated from direct popular influence:
Strong national powers (taxation, military, commerce, supremacy) coupled with a separation of powers and a federal judiciary.
Strong executive and a legislature with power to legislate for the whole country, but with limited direct accountability to the people (e.g., two-year House terms; no recall; limited mechanisms for public instruction of representatives to vote).
The debate over legitimacy and representativeness:
The public remained divided: many accepted the improved framework, while others believed it did not adequately represent the people or protect state sovereignty.
Federalists argued that the new structure would prevent factional and populist excesses by dispersing power and creating checks and balances; Anti-Federalists cautioned against concentrated power and potential tyranny.
The counterfactual: would there be a different constitutional trajectory today?
The episode demonstrates that the Constitution was the product of negotiated bargains among competing interests, not a purely philosophical blueprint.
The present-day relevance lies in recognizing the role of interest-group bargaining, sectional concerns, and political calculations in shaping foundational institutions.
The close of the episode: what’s next for scholarship and public understanding
Michael Klarman’s broader research interests and ongoing projects:
A book on the making of the Constitution and ongoing work on constitutional development from the founding era through the Civil War.
Potential future works linking race and American history with baseball and other sports to explore social change and racial attitudes.
How to learn more:
Klarman’s work is accessible via Harvard Law School: search for Michael Klarman on the faculty page, which includes his CV and contact information.
Key takeaways and the enduring significance of 1787
The Constitution created a more powerful national government than the Articles but embedded it within a framework designed to resist direct, rapid popular manipulation.
The nation’s founders balanced ambitious national power with structural protections for smaller states and a system of indirect popular influence (the Electoral College).
The debates over representation, slavery, and the slave trade reveal deep tensions between economic interests, regional identities, and moral questions that shaped the founding compact.
The ratification process was shaped as much by political advantage and propaganda as by abstract political theory, indicating that institutions are often the product of real-world bargaining rather than purely virtuous consensus.
The long-term question remains: how should we assess a government built on both strong national power and deliberate insulation from direct popular control? The answer depends on perspective, values, and the evolving political landscape.
The Articles of Confederation suffered from critical weaknesses that necessitated the 1787 Constitutional Convention. First, Congress had no power to tax, forcing it to rely on state requisitions, which states often ignored, leading to severe national debt and inability to fund government functions. Second, there was no power to regulate commerce, allowing states to enact their own tariffs and economic policies, causing interstate trade disputes and hindering a unified national economy. Third, the Articles provided no means to enforce national decisions, nor a federal executive or judiciary, rendering the central government impotent as states could disregard treaties or laws without consequence.
At the Constitutional Convention, several key compromises facilitated the Constitution's adoption. The Connecticut (Great) Compromise reconciled large and small state interests by creating a bicameral legislature: proportional representation in the House and equal representation (two senators) per state in the Senate. The Three-fifths Compromise addressed slavery's role in representation and taxation, counting enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person for both purposes. Lastly, the Slave Trade Compromise permitted the foreign slave trade to continue for twenty more years (until 1808) before Congress could abolish it, appeasing Southern economic concerns.