To say that the Founding Fathers “… were impelled by class motives… ” is a statement that is purely speculative. To say that we know what motivated these men to write the Constitution is totally false. We do not know whether their reasons for drafting the document were personal, moral or political. All we do know is that, through their actions, the most influential document of our country’s history was created. The politics of the Constitutional Convention were, at best, shady.
When I say this I mean that the common onception (or mis-conception as the case may be) of the wisest men in the country at the time donning their powdered wigs and heading off to change history is a bit overly-dramatized. What actually occurred was a very different scenario. It began with the larger states recognizing the weaknesses of the Articles of the Confederation and attempting to change the way things were being run. Their first problem was that, in order to get the changes made, they would have to get the approval of at least some of the small states.
Whether they gained that approval through straight-forward agreement or through default was of little consequence to the large states, so they called for a meeting, a “Convention”, of sorts. The larger states knew that it would be difficult to get the smaller states to attend such a convention because the small states liked things the way they were, with a large amount of the power lying in the hands of the individual states themselves.
In order to solve this problem the larger states announced that a Constitutional Convention was being held with the purpose of amending the current problems in he Articles of the Confederation and that if a state was to not attend then they would then forfeit their say in what changes were to be made. This move forced the smaller states into attendance and set the stage for the most important summer of our history. When the Constitutional Convention began each of the states was looking out for their own concerns.
The larger states wanted a government which had a strong central executive branch and that had a congress which represented each state due to population. The smaller states, fearing a loss in influence, wanted the representation to be equivalent across the oard, with each state having an equal number of congressional representatives. The southern states wanted to count their slaves as citizens for the purpose of population figures, but not for taxation. The northern states said that if the slaves were counted for population then they should also be counted for taxation. This was the way it was at the beginning of the convention.
Many delegates became angry and went home. Delegates such as Luther Martin, from Maryland. Martin was an avid supporter of states rights and became agitated and left in disgust before the signing of the Constitution. New Yorkers Alexander Hamilton, John Lansing and Robert Yates were all nationally prominent leaders. Hamilton was constantly upset by the lack of support for his proposal of a constitutional monarchy. Both Lansing and Yates voted for the ill-fated proposal of weak central government. All three became overly disturbed by the way things were going and left before work was completed on the drafting of the Constitution.
Such was the way things were going. It appeared that with each state harboring their own agendas a plan, suitable to at least a strong majority of states, was not to be. The outlook was grim on the delegates coming to a decision on the framework of the new government. It was obvious that all sides would have to begin making provisions if an agreement were ever to be made. This is exactly what happened. The decision was made that there would be a Congress but the question of representation remained. Most states wanted proportional representation, however, the smaller states wanted equal representation for all.
A compromise was made. In fact it was to be referred to as “The Great Compromise. ” The Great Compromise said that there were to be to ouses of the Congress. The lower houses representation was to be proportional (One representative for every 40,000 citizens) while the representation in the upper house would be equal for all states. Once this compromise had been made the convention made steady progress. The next issues faced did not take as long to solve. The admission of new states posed a problem as did the use of western lands. Easterners were suspicious of the cheap sale of land to farmers.
Easterners were also more interested in the federal regulation of trade and commerce. The South complained of the Congressional monopoly of trade and its power over taxation. Of course, any argument involving taxation would also, eventually include the issue of the value of slaves for the purposes of taxation and representation due to population. This difficulty was overcome by the Three Fifths Compromise. This compromise stated that slaves could be counted as three fifths of a citizen for the purposes of taxation and population. It was also decided that slave trade could continue for the next twenty years (until 1808).
As for the issue of the adding of new tates, it was decided that Congress would have the power to impose the conditions of admission. After four months of hard argument and negotiations our country was left with a new, stronger government. The system we were left with was one that had: -A strong executive (The president) whose powers could be checked by the legislative branch(The Congress). -A legislative branch (Congress) whose representation was bipartisan with its lower house (The House of Representatives) represented due to population and an upper house (The Senate) with equal representation for all states.
A judiciary branch (The Supreme Court) that could check the actions of the other two branches in order to determine whether those actions stayed within the premises set down by the Constitution. This system of “checks and balances,” in which no branch enjoys uncontrolled power, is one which remains even today. It would appear that, even though it has its share of problems, this system of government is the most fair and effective form of governing. So, the actions of those our “Founding Fathers,”one summer over a hundred years ago, have set into motion a chain of events that have led to the nation we are today.
