Constitution of 1787 (website)

SHORT RESPONSE
Chapter 6 (p.204-211)
Answer the following questions in at 3-4 sentences.
You will have 4 minutes.
How did the Constitution, in its final form, differ
from the plan that James Madison originally
proposed?
Answer
The Constitution was a combination of the New
Jersey Plan and Madison’s Virginia Plan. Rather
than having a legislature based on population, the
founding fathers created a bicameral legislature that
reflected the needs of small and large states. Every
state was allowed to send two members to the
Senate, while in the House the largest states would
have the most representatives.
CONSTITUTION OF 1787
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
Rise of a Nationalist Faction
Money debates
Money questions—debts, taxes, and tariffs—
dominated the postwar political agenda as a new
constitution was debated
Some wanted a strong central government (national
perspective), including creditors in the South
Philadelphia Convention
Virginia and New Jersey Plans
In May 1787, fifty-five delegates arrived in Philadelphia
Rhode Island opposed increasing central authority and did not
send representation
Most were strong nationalists
Forty-two had served in the Confederation Congress. They were also educated and propertied: merchants,
slaveholding planters, and “monied men.” George Washington was elected as the presiding official
Philadelphia Convention
Virginia and New Jersey Plans
The delegates considered the Virginia Plan (proposed by
James Madison), which rejected state sovereignty for national
authority, called for national government to be established by
the people, and proposed a three-tier election system
Smaller states liked the New Jersey Plan, which gave power
to raise revenue, control commerce, and make binding
requisitions on the states to the Confederation
It preserved the states’ control of their own laws and
guaranteed their equality
Philadelphia Convention
The Great Compromise
Debate between large and small states continued
The Connecticut delegates suggested that the Senate have
two members from each state, while the House have
representation by population
After bitter debate, delegates accepted this “Great
Compromise”
Philadelphia Convention
Negotiations over Slavery
Gov. Morris of New York condemned slavery at the convention, arguing
that it was a “nefarious institution”
Slaveholders recognized contradictions between slavery and
republicanism but only supported an end to the slave trade and not
slavery itself
Slave trade would not be regulated by Congress until 1808
Delegates developed a fugitive slave clause but also excluded the
words slave and slavery from the Constitution. Ultimately, delegates agreed that slaves would be counted as threefifths of a free person for purposes of taxation and representation
Philadelphia Convention
National Authority
Created powerful, pro-creditor national government with
powers of taxation, military defense, external commerce
All but three present at the convention signed the document
People Debate Ratification
The Antifederalists
Required ratification by nine of the thirteen states
“Federalists” supported a federal union
“Antifederalists” opposed the Constitution, feared that states
would lose power, and desired states to remain sovereign
In New York, where ratification was hotly contested, James
Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton defended the
proposed constitution in a series of 85 essays The Federalist
published by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander
Hamilton
People Debate Ratification
Federalists Respond
James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton defend
the proposed Constitution in a series of essays, collectively
titled The Federalist
These papers influenced political leaders throughout the
country and won acclaim as an important treatise of practical
republicanism
People Debate Ratification
The Constitution Ratified
People in coastal areas tended to be Federalists
Backcountry population tended to be Antifederalists
Short Answer
Federalists and Antifederalists both claimed to
represent the true spirit of the American Revolution.
Which of these competing visions of national identity
do you think was right? Why?