Wednesday, October 6, 2010

U.S. Constitution - A New Framework for Government

The Constitution: A Bundle of Compromises

Realizing that the Articles of Confederation weren't working out, delegates from the various states (except Rhode Island) met in Philadelphia. The delegates were directed by their states to revise the Articles of Confederation so that they would work better. Once in Philadelphia, the delegates wound up creating a brand new government called the U.S. Constitution. The new national government would assume new powers that it had not possessed under the Articles of Confederation. It would be given the power to tax and to enforce its own laws. Although some new powers were shifting from the states to the national government, the text of the Constitution begins with the words, "We, the people..." This demonstrates that it is the people, not the states, that are giving power to the national government. Thus, only the people can take that power back. The person that is generally given the most credit for creating the document was James Madison.

Great Compromise
In designing a document that would get the approval of people from different states, regions and economies the framers needed to compromise. Big states and small states disagreed over how each state would be represented in the new legislative branch. Delegates from states with large populations believed that they should be entitled to more representatives (proportional representation) in Congress since they would be representing more people. This proposal was called the Virginia plan and it also called for a bicameral (2-house) legislature. The New Jersey plan was proposed on behalf of states with smaller populations. They were fearful that the larger states would have too much power and be able to pass whatever laws they wanted without the consent of the smaller states. They proposed a unicameral (1-house) legislature in which each state would have the same number of representatives regardless of how large or small their population was. (equal representation) They finally came to agreement with the Great Compromise (Connecticut Compromise). This provided for a bicameral legislature in which smaller states would have fewer representatives in one house (House of Representatives) but an equal number of representatives (senators) in the other (Senate).

Three-Fifths Compromise
Another dispute arose over the issue of slaves. Should they be counted in a state's population even if they would not be given any rights? Delegates from states with few or no slaves did not believe that slaves should be counted. States with big slave populations, like Virginia, believed that they should count. Eventually, the delegates agreed that slaves would count as 3/5 of a person when counting the population of each state.

There was also disagreement about whether slavery should be addressed in the Constitution. The Constitution stayed silent on whether slavery would be legal or illegal in the U.S. Each state would get to make its own rules on the matter. But, an agreement was reached in which the importation of new slaves from Africa would be illegal after 20 years. While there would still be slaves in the country after 1807, they could only be ones that had already been
in the country or descendants of slaves in the country.

Federalists
The people that strongly supported the new framework for government were called the Federalists. They were led by Alexander Hamilton. Along with Madison and John Jay, Hamilton wrote opinion pieces in newspapers urging states to support the ratification of the Constitution. They are collectively known as The Federalist Papers.




Anti-Federalists and a Bill of Rights
The Antifederalists, who included Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith and Robert Yates, opposed the new framework. They feared that a centralized government could become oppressive if given too much power. They also wanted a Bill of Rights, which identifies the rights that the national government could never take away from American citizens, included in the document. They also changed the rules by which major changes to the government could take place. Once it was agreed that a Bill of Rights would be added to the Constitution was ratified. In fact, the Bill of Rights became the first ten amendments (major changes) to the Constitution. All of the original thirteen states would eventually ratify the document even though it stated that it would go into effect once 9 of the 13 agreed to it.

*Questions below map and chart.






















Questions to comment on:

1. Was the US Constitution an illegal document? If it was, should that matter?
2. Should there ever be compromise on an issue as serious as slavery? If not, how would you propose to get slave states to support the Constitution?
3. Should the U.S. Constitution have been ratified?
4. There was a lot of compromise among the big and small states in the drafting of the Constitution. At the time the largest state was Virginia (population: 747,610) and the smallest was Delaware (population: 59,096). Meaning Virginia was 12 to 13 times the size of Delaware and they received an equal number of representatives. This is not exactly democratic. (i.e. - one person, one vote) Today, the largest state is California (population: 36,961,664) and the smallest is Wyoming (population: 544,270). Thus, Wyoming gets two votes in the Senate just like California even though California has 68 times as many people! Should the Constitution be amended to distribute seats in the Senate more in a way that is more reflective of the population differences? Do you think that small states would ever ratify [approve] such a change?

12 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 3) I think the constitution should have been ratified because the design of it was more well thought out and had many things such as the 3 branches to support the country in a way that the Article of Confederation wasn't able to.

    4) I think that the Senate should stay the same because the House of Reps. is already based on the population and it would probably not be ratified by the small states because they would have less power in making decisions in government.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 2) I agree with Sidorela, that slavery should have been abolished, but also awknowledge the fact that this was another form of income for the states, a business. I do not think that taking peoples rights is understandable at all. The constitution speaks of the slaves as though they are objects, which they are not, they are human beings. I understand that I am looking at this with a contemporary perspective, but then again the British would not have wanted to be counted as three-fifths of a human being.

    4) I think that the fact that there are two representatives for each state, is working well becuase it's tradition. But I do wonder what it would be like if depending on the size of the state determined the number of representatives. I think it would be fair if it were depending on the size of the state, but could get a bit chaotic with different opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sidorela,

    Interesting points. The US would probably not have been able to become a powerful nation without the Constitution or something very close to it.

    Afsana,
    Good point about how the framework of the Constitution set up by Madison and others sets up a powerful government that controls itself. The competition between the branches assures that all of them will be kept in check.

    Sidorela and Bonnie,
    Interesting points concerning the struggle between doing what is right (abolishing slavery) and doing what is possible (getting all the states on board with the Constitution).

    Mr. Benson

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. I think the US Constitution is an illegal document. This is because not all states agreed upon it and was forced on them, I understand the change was needed but they did not approach the idea of the constitution with time and rushed into it with out the consent of some states like Rhode Island, if they are going to be the United States they should be united in the way they will run the country.
    2. I disagree with Bonnie and Sidorela, I don't believe in slavery but in order to make a change they needed the approval of those states that unfortunately did believe in slavery. The first step was to get them to agree with the document, if they pushed for the abolishing of slavery from the beginning those states would not agree and the country will not be prosperous. Abolishing slavery would come in time after the states became comfortable with a new method of government, I suppose of course.
    3. I agree with Sidorela, the constitution should have been ratified. Without the constitution the United States would not have been able to stand strong or strengthen
    1) There economy
    2) The view the world had of them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. #1: I think the US Constitution was an illegal document. So Yes it should matter because not many people were aware about the new government James Madison was making.In addition to that, the constitution says "We,the people.." but the people did not agreed on anything! and as Monica said they should of been united to come up with a constitution that works for all.
    #3: I agree with Sidorela and Monica, if the constitution wouldn't have been ratified then the US would of never became one of the most important and powerful country in the world.
    *By the way Mr. Benson the background is really nice but it is really hard to read the comments so if u don't mind can u change it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. #2 i think that slavery should have been abolished in the constitution too. slave work was the only way that the plantations could run down south but after the cotton gin and all the technological advances, shouldn't less slaves have been needed rather than a greater need for more land and slaves though?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks, Marlon. I agree. Hopefully this background works a little better.

    Kevin, interesting point, but keep in mind that if you were a businessman your main concern is making money. So the cotton gin made slavery profitable. Once it was profitable and there was an abundance of land to buy there would be no going back. Unfortunately, it would take a bloody war to bring an end to it. Sometimes war may be the only war to end an evil practice.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I completely agree with Doci; the United States wouldn't be a superpower if it weren't for the Constitution. Maybe my mentality might be a little biased, being that I'm from a different time period in which I've been exposed to the Constitution for a while, but I don't think there should've been any question about whether or not the Constitution should've been passed. It might've been scary for some, but like the guy said in a video we saw in class, the Constitution wasn't taking away people's rights. It was just a description of a new government. Also, there was a [somewhat] balance in power described in the Constitution to prevent the President from becoming a tyrant. This would have been enough for me to side with the Federalists on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete