The Constitutional Convention of 1787

The convention that met in Philadelphia between May 25 and September 17, 1787, was the most consequential political gathering in American history. Originally authorized only to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, the fifty-five delegates who attended (though never all present at once) instead produced an entirely new Constitution that replaced the confederation with a federal republic possessing a powerful national government. The convention’s debates—over representation, slavery, executive power, and the relationship between the states and the nation—reflected the fundamental tensions of the revolutionary settlement and established the framework within which American politics would operate for centuries.

The Path to Philadelphia

The Crisis of the 1780s

By 1786, the weaknesses of the Confederation government had become apparent to most political leaders. The national government could not raise revenue, regulate commerce, enforce treaties, or maintain domestic order. The economic distress of the postwar period, combined with interstate disputes and diplomatic humiliations, created a sense of crisis among the political elite.

The movement for reform proceeded incrementally. The Mount Vernon Conference of March 1785, which resolved navigation disputes between Virginia and Maryland on the Potomac River, demonstrated that interstate cooperation was possible. The Annapolis Convention of September 1786, attended by delegates from only five states, issued a report—drafted by Alexander Hamilton of New York—calling for a general convention to meet in Philadelphia the following May to address the broader problems of the Confederation.

Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts (August 1786 through February 1787) provided the catalyst for action. The uprising of debt-ridden farmers, who shut down courts and threatened the federal arsenal at Springfield, confirmed the fears of political leaders that the republic was descending into anarchy. George Washington, who had previously resisted calls for his involvement in political reform, agreed to attend the Philadelphia convention, lending it the prestige and authority it needed to succeed.

The Delegates

Composition and Character

The convention attracted an impressive assembly of political talent. Of the fifty-five delegates who attended at various points during the summer, thirty-four were lawyers, and most had served in colonial or state legislatures. Twenty-one had fought in the Revolutionary War. Eight had signed the Declaration of Independence. Seven had been governors. The average age was forty-two.

The delegates were, by any measure, members of the political and economic elite. They were predominantly wealthy, well-educated (by the standards of the time), and experienced in public affairs. This elite composition has been the subject of historical debate: some scholars, following Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (1913), have argued that the delegates were motivated primarily by their economic interests as creditors, landowners, and merchants. Others have emphasized the delegates’ genuine commitment to republican government and their recognition that the Confederation was failing to sustain the Revolution’s achievements.

Key Figures

Washington was unanimously elected president of the convention on May 25. His presence lent the proceedings legitimacy, and his willingness to preside signaled that the convention was a serious undertaking rather than a mere discussion forum. Washington spoke rarely during the debates but his influence was pervasive; delegates knew that the first president under whatever constitution they produced would almost certainly be Washington.

James Madison of Virginia, thirty-six years old at the convention’s opening, was its most prepared and most influential participant. Madison had spent months studying the history of confederacies and republican governments, and he arrived in Philadelphia with a detailed plan for a new national government. His notes on the convention’s debates, published posthumously in 1840, remain the principal source for understanding what transpired behind the closed doors of the Pennsylvania State House.

Benjamin Franklin, at eighty-one the oldest delegate, served as a conciliatory presence. His physical infirmities limited his participation, but his reputation and his talent for compromise helped bridge divisions when the convention reached impasses. Franklin’s suggestion that the convention open its sessions with prayer was politely declined, but his general counsel in favor of moderation and compromise was widely respected.

Hamilton of New York was the convention’s most outspoken advocate for a powerful national government. His six-hour speech on June 18, in which he proposed a president and senate serving for life and a national government modeled on the British constitution, alienated many delegates and marginalized Hamilton for much of the convention. However, his subsequent work on The Federalist Papers and his leadership in the New York ratification struggle would prove essential to the Constitution’s adoption.

Several notable figures were absent. Thomas Jefferson, serving as minister to France, followed the convention’s proceedings through correspondence and later described the delegates as “an assembly of demi-gods.” John Adams, serving as minister to Britain, was also absent. Patrick Henry of Virginia refused to attend, reportedly saying that he “smelt a rat.” Samuel Adams and John Hancock of Massachusetts were not selected as delegates. Rhode Island refused to send any delegates, viewing the convention as a threat to state sovereignty.

The Major Debates

The Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan

The convention’s work began with the presentation of the Virginia Plan on May 29, drafted by Madison and introduced by Edmund Randolph. The plan proposed a radical departure from the Articles: a national government with three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial), a bicameral legislature with representation in both houses based on population or financial contributions, and a national veto over state legislation. The Virginia Plan represented the interests of the large states and reflected Madison’s conviction that the principal danger to republican government came from the states rather than from the national government.

The small states responded with the New Jersey Plan, introduced by William Paterson on June 15. The New Jersey Plan proposed to amend rather than replace the Articles, retaining the unicameral legislature with equal state representation but adding powers to tax and regulate commerce. The plan also proposed a plural executive and a supreme court. The New Jersey Plan represented the interests of the small states and reflected the conviction that the states, as sovereign entities, could not be subordinated to a national government.

The Connecticut Compromise

The dispute between large and small states over representation threatened to destroy the convention. The large states argued that representation should be proportional to population, on the principle that the government should reflect the will of the majority. The small states argued that equal representation was essential to protect their interests against domination by the large states.

The Connecticut Compromise, proposed by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut on July 5, resolved the impasse. The compromise created a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the House of Representatives and equal state representation in the Senate. Revenue bills would originate in the House, addressing the large states’ concern that the Senate should not control the purse. The compromise was narrowly adopted on July 16, with the vote split almost evenly along large-state/small-state lines.

Slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise

The convention’s treatment of slavery was its most morally fraught and politically consequential decision. The issue arose in the context of representation: should enslaved people be counted for purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives? The southern states, which had large enslaved populations, wanted enslaved people counted for representation but not for taxation. The northern states, which had smaller enslaved populations, wanted the opposite.

The Three-Fifths Compromise, adopted on July 12, counted three-fifths of the enslaved population for both representation and taxation. This formula was not new; it had been proposed as a basis for apportioning financial requisitions under the Articles in 1783. Its application to representation gave the southern states disproportionate political power: the South’s representation in the House was inflated by roughly 30 percent, and the Electoral College, which was based on congressional representation, gave southern states additional influence in presidential elections.

The convention also addressed the slave trade and fugitive slaves. On August 25, the delegates agreed to prohibit Congress from banning the importation of enslaved people before 1808—a twenty-year moratorium that reflected the insistence of South Carolina and Georgia. The Fugitive Slave Clause, adopted without significant debate on August 29, required the return of persons “held to service or labour” who escaped across state lines. These provisions, explored further in the discussion of the Revolution and slavery, embedded slavery in the constitutional order and ensured that the institution would remain a source of sectional conflict.

The Executive

The design of the executive branch generated extensive debate. The delegates considered proposals for a plural executive, an executive elected by Congress, an executive elected by the people, and an executive elected by state governors. The fear of monarchy—a fear rooted in the revolutionaries’ experience with King George III—made many delegates reluctant to create a powerful single executive.

The final design, shaped by the Committee of Detail and the Committee on Postponed Parts, created a single president elected for a four-year term by an Electoral College composed of electors chosen by the states. The president would serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, negotiate treaties (with the Senate’s advice and consent), appoint federal officers and judges, and veto legislation (subject to congressional override by a two-thirds vote). The president could be removed through impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The Electoral College was a compromise between election by Congress and direct popular election. It reflected the delegates’ distrust of direct democracy and their desire to give the states a role in presidential selection. The system’s complexity—each state would appoint electors equal to its congressional representation, and the electors would vote for two persons, with the highest vote-getter becoming president and the runner-up becoming vice president—would produce problems in the elections of 1796 and 1800, leading to the Twelfth Amendment.

The Judiciary

The convention’s treatment of the judiciary was less contentious than its debates over the legislature and executive. The delegates agreed on the need for a supreme court and authorized Congress to establish inferior courts. The Constitution guaranteed judicial tenure during good behavior and prohibited the reduction of judicial salaries, protections that reflected the revolutionary concern with judicial independence.

The convention left many details of the judicial system to be determined by Congress, a decision that allowed the First Congress to shape the federal courts through the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Constitution’s vagueness on judicial power would later enable Chief Justice John Marshall to establish the principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

The Final Document

The Committee of Detail and the Committee on Style

After the major debates were resolved, the convention appointed a Committee of Detail (July 24) to draft a complete constitution based on the resolutions adopted thus far. The committee’s draft, reported on August 6, filled in many details and added provisions that had not been explicitly debated.

A Committee on Style, appointed on September 8 and dominated by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, produced the final text. Morris’s literary skill is evident in the Constitution’s preamble—“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union”—which transformed the document from a compact among states into an act of popular sovereignty.

Signing and Adjournment

The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, by thirty-nine of the forty-two delegates present. Three delegates—Edmund Randolph and George Mason of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts—refused to sign, citing the absence of a bill of rights and the concentration of power in the national government. Franklin, in a final address, acknowledged that the Constitution was imperfect but urged the delegates to support it, noting that no convention could produce a perfect document.

The Ratification Struggle

Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The Constitution was sent to the states for ratification by special conventions, bypassing the state legislatures that might have been hostile to the transfer of power. The ratification debates pitted Federalists, who supported the Constitution, against Anti-Federalists, who opposed it.

The Federalists’ most powerful arguments were articulated in The Federalist Papers, eighty-five essays published in New York newspapers between October 1787 and August 1788. Written by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym “Publius,” the essays systematically addressed the Anti-Federalist objections and explained the Constitution’s provisions in terms accessible to educated readers.

The Anti-Federalists, who included prominent figures such as Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee, argued that the Constitution created a consolidated national government that would destroy state sovereignty, that the absence of a bill of rights left individual liberties unprotected, and that the president and Senate would become an aristocracy. Their most effective criticism—the absence of a bill of rights—would lead to the adoption of the first ten amendments.

The Ratification Process

Delaware ratified first, unanimously, on December 7, 1787. Pennsylvania ratified on December 12, though the Anti-Federalists in the western counties protested the speed of the process. New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut ratified quickly. Massachusetts ratified narrowly on February 6, 1788, after Federalists agreed to recommend amendments—a precedent that other states followed.

Maryland and South Carolina ratified in the spring of 1788. New Hampshire provided the crucial ninth ratification on June 21, 1788, but the new government could not function effectively without Virginia and New York. Virginia ratified on June 25, 89 to 79, after Madison promised to support a bill of rights. New York ratified on July 26, 30 to 27, under the influence of Hamilton’s leadership and the Federalist Papers. North Carolina and Rhode Island held out until 1789 and 1790, respectively.

Historical Assessment

The Constitutional Convention produced a document of remarkable durability. The Constitution of 1787, amended twenty-seven times, remains the framework of American government. The convention’s compromises—over representation, slavery, and executive power—reflected the political realities of 1787 but also embedded contradictions that would generate conflict for generations. The Three-Fifths Compromise and the fugitive slave clause gave slavery constitutional protection, laying the groundwork for the Civil War. The Electoral College and the equal representation of states in the Senate created democratic deficits that persist today.

The convention’s achievement was nonetheless extraordinary. The delegates created a government that balanced national power with state autonomy, popular sovereignty with institutional stability, and majority rule with minority rights. The Constitution’s capacity for amendment and reinterpretation has allowed it to adapt to circumstances that the framers could not have imagined, from the industrial revolution to the digital age. The Revolution’s legacy was secured, if imperfectly, by the Constitution that emerged from the Philadelphia convention.

Share this article