Constitutional Conversations: Opposing Views And Their Impact

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was marked by nearly four months of debate, disagreement, and occasional outbursts of ill temper. The delegates disagreed on several major issues, including representation, state versus federal powers, executive power, slavery, and commerce. Large and small states fought over representation in Congress, with large states favoring representation by population, and small states arguing for equal representation by state. The delegates also disagreed about whether the federal government or the states would have more power. Many delegates believed that the federal government should be able to overrule state laws, but others feared that a strong federal government would oppress its citizens. The issue of slavery was central to the debates over commerce and representation, with the Three-Fifths Compromise providing that three-fifths of enslaved people in each state would count toward congressional representation. The delegates also debated whether to allow the federal government to ban the importation of enslaved people. These opposing views reflected a broader divide between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, with the former building momentum toward ratification and the latter mounting an effective opposition in essays and debates.

Explore related products

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

$13.2 $24

A Debate on the Second Amendment (Constitutional Discourse Book 2020)

$3.99 $7.99

Constitutional Originalism: A Debate

$19.66 $34.95

The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power

$42.83 $49.95

The Anti-Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$10 $14.95

Opposing Perspectives on the Drone Debate

$47.31 $54.99

Federalists vs Anti-Federalists

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were the opposing factions during the debates over the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787. The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution, while the Anti-Federalists opposed it and demanded amendments to be made first.

Federalists

The Federalists were in favour of a strong central government and believed that the federal government should be able to overrule state laws. They were building momentum towards getting nine states to ratify the Constitution, knowing that the main opposition would come from Anti-Federalists in large and powerful states like Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia.

Anti-Federalists

The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, feared that a strong national government would oppress citizens and violate natural rights and civil liberties, including freedom of speech, religion, trial by jury, and liberty of the press. They believed that the states would lose their sovereignty and that a powerful president would lead a standing army against the people. To spread their message, Anti-Federalists published essays under pseudonyms like Brutus, Cato, and the Federal Farmer in New York newspapers, critiquing the Constitution.

The Great Compromise

One of the major issues debated by the delegates was representation in Congress. Large states favoured representation by population, while small states argued for equal representation by state. The compromise, known as the "Great Compromise" or the Connecticut Compromise, established the House of Representatives, apportioned by population, and the Senate, which represented the states equally.

Slavery

Another central issue was slavery. The Three-Fifths Compromise provided that three-fifths of enslaved people in each state would count toward congressional representation, increasing the number of congressional seats in southern states. The delegates also debated whether to allow the federal government to ban the importation of enslaved people, with some arguing that it would violate state rights and others raising moral objections to slavery.

Bill of Rights

While a bill of rights was not included in the original Constitution, many people, including Thomas Jefferson, believed it was necessary to protect the liberties of the people. James Madison, who initially opposed a bill of rights, later took the lead in drafting one in the first Congress.

State vs federal powers

The debate surrounding state versus federal powers has been a significant point of contention in American political history, with the Constitution outlining a system of dual sovereignty. This system recognises both the power of the federal government and the power reserved for the states. Over time, the balance of power between the two has shifted, with the federal government assuming more authority, particularly in the 20th century.

Federalists, who generally favoured a stronger national government, argued that a central authority was necessary to maintain order and stability. They believed that a uniform system of laws and policies was needed to ensure consistency across the nation. Alexander Hamilton, a key advocate for federal power, asserted that a robust national government was essential for protecting the country's interests and ensuring effective governance.

On the other hand, anti-federalists preferred a more decentralised form of government, with greater powers reserved for the states. They feared that a strong federal government would lead to tyranny and the erosion of individual liberties. Notable anti-federalists like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry advocated for states' rights and local control, arguing that states were better positioned to understand and address the needs of their citizens.

The Constitution, as a compromise between these opposing views, established a federal system with enumerated powers for the national government and reserved powers for the states. While the federal government holds authority over areas such as national defence, coinage, and interstate commerce, the states retain power over areas like public education, local law enforcement, and the regulation of businesses within their borders.

Over time, the expansion of federal power has been a continuous point of debate. The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, also known as the Elastic Clause, grants Congress the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" to carry out its enumerated powers. This clause has been interpreted broadly, allowing the federal government to assume more authority in areas such as civil rights, environmental protection, and economic regulation.

The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution and defining the boundaries between state and federal powers. Through its rulings, the Court has helped shape the balance of power, often resolving disputes between the federal government and the states. Landmark cases, such as McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden, have significantly influenced the understanding and application of federalism in the United States.

Executive power

The Constitutional Convention agreed to establish a single executive, rejecting the idea of a plural executive, which some feared could lead to a monarchy. Federalists argued that a separate President with executive powers was necessary to enforce federal laws and conduct foreign policy effectively, contrasting the limited power of the American President with the British Monarchy. They maintained that the President would be accountable to both the people and Congress, and could be impeached if he committed crimes.

However, there were disagreements on the manner of electing the executive. Some favoured election by Congress for a long term, without the possibility of reelection, while others preferred direct election by the people for a shorter term with no term limits. A compromise was reached, with the President elected for a four-year term by electors chosen by state legislatures, and no restrictions on reelection.

The Vesting Clause, which vests the President with "executive Power", has been interpreted differently. Critics debate how much power it grants the President, emphasizing the need for checks and balances. Supporters of a strong unitary theory argue that the President has sole authority over the executive branch and can control subordinate officers and agencies. This limits Congress's power to remove executive agencies or officers from presidential control.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has expressed more support for a stronger unitary executive theory, as seen in cases like Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen, where it upheld the President's removal power over agencies with a single director. However, some scholars argue that even weaker versions of the unitary theory centralize too much power, and that a decentralized executive would be more effective. They point to concerns about the impact on the Justice Department's investigatorial independence and potential abuses of power.

Explore related products

The Second Amendment Manifesto: What Every American Should Know about Their Constitutional Right to Own Guns

$7.99 $14.95

The Thirteen American Arguments: Enduring Debates That Define and Inspire Our Country

$11.64 $22

The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, and Origins

$157.49

Controversies in Tax Law: A Matter of Perspective (Controversies in American Constitutional Law)

$47.11 $63.99

Speeches at the Constitutional Convention: With the Right of Suffrage Passed by the Constitutional Convention

$1.99 $5.95

Documents of Revolution: Common Sense, The Complete Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, The Articles of Confederation, The Articles of Confederation, The U. S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights

$26.99 $26.99

Representation

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was assembled in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation, which was America's first constitution. The Articles of Confederation had given the Confederation Congress the power to make rules and request funds from the states, but it had no enforcement powers, couldn't regulate commerce, or print money. However, the delegates at the convention decided to completely redesign the government, and one of the fiercest arguments was over congressional representation.

The debate was between two groups of delegates. One group believed that they were not authorised to change the "federal" representational scheme under the Articles of Confederation, where the states were equally represented in a unicameral Congress by delegates appointed by the state legislatures. The other group believed that the current scheme of representation under the Articles of Confederation was flawed and needed to be replaced with a "national" one. This was because the larger states feared that a commonality of interest among the smaller states would work to their disadvantage, while the smaller states worried that a legislature could pass laws favouring a minority of the people.

The delegates debated whether representation should be based on population or divided equally among the states. The Virginia Plan, drafted by James Madison, proposed the creation of a bicameral national legislature, where the "rights of suffrage" in both houses would be proportional to the size of the state. This was supported by delegates from larger states, who argued that their states contributed more financially and defensively. However, delegates from small states objected to this idea, wanting each state to have the same number of representatives in Congress.

The compromise, known as the Connecticut Compromise or the Great Compromise, was to have one house of Congress (the House of Representatives) base its representation on population (with each state having at least one representative) and for each state to have two senators in the other house (the Senate) regardless of population. This compromise has worked for more than 200 years, but critics claim that the Senate is undemocratic because it gives each state two senators regardless of population.

Another issue central to the debates over representation was slavery. The "Three-Fifths Compromise" provided that three-fifths (60%) of enslaved people in each state would count toward congressional representation, which greatly increased the number of congressional seats in several states, particularly in the South. The delegates also debated whether to allow the new federal government to ban the importation of enslaved people from outside of the United States, including directly from Africa.

Slavery

The US Constitution, drafted in 1787, did not end slavery. In fact, slavery was a major component of the economy and society in the United States at the time. The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, southern states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union.

The Constitution only obliquely referred to slavery and never used the words "slave" or "slavery". The framers consciously avoided the words, recognising that they would sully the document. Instead, the Constitution included four clauses that indirectly addressed slavery and the slave trade: the Three-Fifths Clause, the ban on Congress ending the slave trade for twenty years, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the slave insurrections. The Three-Fifths Clause stated that representatives and direct taxes would be apportioned among the states according to the number of free persons and "three-fifths of all other persons". The “other persons” were the African slaves who made up around a third of the population of the Southern states. The Fugitive Slave Clause stated that a slave who was bound by the laws of their home state remained a slave even if they fled to a non-slavery state.

Some saw the Constitution as a pro-slavery document, including radical abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who called it a "covenant with death" and an "agreement with hell". Chief Justice Roger Taney endorsed this idea in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), stating that Black people were inferior and could not be citizens of the country. On the other hand, Black abolitionist Frederick Douglass initially agreed with Garrison but later changed his mind, defending the idea that the Constitution was anti-slavery and calling it a "glorious liberty document". Abraham Lincoln concurred, contending that the American Founding and its Constitution put slavery "in the course of ultimate extinction".

There were significant pro-slavery voices, but there were also forward-thinking framers who believed that slavery contradicted the natural rights of all and denied the idea of consent in a republic. Many framers harboured moral qualms about slavery. Some, including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, became members of anti-slavery societies. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", attacked slavery early in the Convention, stating:

> "We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man."

Other delegates, such as George Mason, spoke out against slavery, arguing that it discouraged arts and manufactures and corrupted slaveholders. John Dickinson, Luther Martin, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, and Edmund Randolph also opposed the slave trade on principle.

Frequently asked questions