12 Constitutions and Contracts: Is another new contract really necessary?
12 Constitutions and Contracts: Is another new contract really necessary?
Learning Objectives
- Identify the reasons for a new contract revising or replacing the Articles of Confederation
- Understand the controversies and compromises of the Constitutional Convention
- Distinguish between ratification and amendment
If the Articles are not working, what do we do next?
Fifty-five delegates arrived at Philadelphia in May 1787 tasked with reworking the Articles of Confederation. It was apparent that the very loose confederation of states and the weak central government would not work as a long term solution for governing the new nation. Throughout the long, hot Philadelphia summer, delegations from twelve states discussed, debated, and finally worked out a new blueprint for the nation–designed to resolve conflicts between small and large states, northern and southern states, and those favoring a strong federal government with those arguing for state sovereignty.
The closest thing to minutes of the Constitutional Convention is the collection of James Madison’s letters and notes about the proceedings in Philadelphia. Several such letters and notes may be found at the Library of Congress’s American Memory project.
Many delegates to what is now called the Constitutional Convention wanted to strengthen the role and authority of the central government but feared allowing too much centralized power. They intended to preserve state autonomy without preventing states from working collectively. They wanted to protect the political rights of all free men but also feared mob rule, a potential result of Shays’ Rebellion had it succeeded. Delegates replaced the Articles of Confederation rather than make revisions. Although James Madison is known as the father of this new contract–the Constitution–George Washington’s support gave the convention and the Constitution hope of success due to his perceived sense of fairness, his overall credibility and his reputation as a non-partisan leader.
After rejecting a unitary government (monarchy) and living with the weaknesses of confederation government (during the Revolution), the delegates opted for a federal system with a strong central government balanced by state and local power. Each of these levels of the federal structure would employ separation of power as well as checks and balances between branches. Division of power between branches of government and between the federal and state governments, slavery, trade, taxes, foreign affairs, representation, and even the procedure to elect a president were just a few of the contentious issues of the convention. Diverging plans, strong egos, regional demands, and states’ rights made solutions difficult. Five months of debate, compromise, and creative strategies produced a new constitution creating a federal representative republic with a strong central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments.
Ten months of public and private debate were required to se