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 intern~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 repo~rs 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 ~THE 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 r~uirementon 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 ~23