Last week, we covered the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in September 1787. We left off with the delegates signing the draft Constitution and preparing to go home.
Farewell Parties
Before we leave Philadelphia, I want to say a few things about a few parties. The delegates worked six days a week during the convention, and spent most of their evenings, socializing either in public taverns or in someone’s home. Because they had taken an oath of secrecy, they tended to remain with each other in the evenings to talk about various issues at the convention, without involving any outsiders.
 |
| Confederation Congress at City Hall, NY |
Benjamin Franklin hosted quite a few dinners, as did Robert Morris. It was at one of these parties that a famous bet took place.
Maryland delegate James McHenry recorded an incident at a party toward the end of the Convention. Alexander Hamilton was hanging out with Robert Morris and Governeur Morris. Hamilton, who had been a very close aide to Washington during the war, told the men that Washington never allowed any man to be familiar with him. By that, he meant, act in a casual and friendly way. Governeur called BS on Hamilton and said that among gentlemen, there was always the ability to be friendly and casual.
So Hamilton made a bet with Morris “If you will, at the next reception evenings, gently slap him on the shoulder and say, 'My dear General, how happy I am to see you look so well!” then Hamilton would buy him dinner for him and a dozen of his friends.” It could be that Morris was hesitant to take the bet until Hamilton said * oh yeah, I triple dog dare you! *
“A few days later, the men were at a party with Washington, Gouverneur Morris entered, bowed, shook hands, laid his left hand on Washington's shoulder, and said, 'My dear General, I am very happy to see you look so well!' Washington withdrew his hand, stepped suddenly back, fixed his eye on Morris for several minutes with an angry frown, until the latter retreated abashed, and sought refuge in the crowd." Hamilton paid off his bet, but Morris later noted his mortification and said that, although he had won the bet, he had wished he had never made it.
This is not to say that Washington did not enjoy a good party. The weekend before the Convention ended, Washington attended a farewell party at City Tavern thrown by his friends in the Philadelphia Regiment of Light Horse. Many of these men were veteran Continental Officers that Washington knew from the war.
The bar bill from that party had achieved some fame of its own. According to the bill, the men drank 54 bottles of Madiera wine, 60 bottles of Claret 22 bottles of hard cider, as well as many more of whiskey, beer, punch, cigars, etc. - with only 55 men in attendance. That meant multiple bottles of booze for each guest. The bill also included a charge for broken glassware, as well as even more alcohol for the twelve musicians who were hired for the night. The total cost of the party, over 89 pounds sterling, would be over $20,000 in today’s inflation adjusted currency.
A few days later, Washington attended another party at City Tavern, following the signing, where the delegates from the convention bade farewell to each other.
Delivering the Constitution
With the festivities behind them, the delegates headed home. On the night the final version was signed, printers worked overnight to publish 500 copies of the final document. One of the printers was John Dunlap, who had printed the Declaration of Independence on the night it was finalized, and who was also an attendee at the party at City Tavern with Washington and the soldiers of the Philadelphia Light Horse.
Many delegates brought copies of the Constitution directly from the convention directly to various state officials or other important leaders. Washington personally mailed copies to Thomas Jefferson in France, as well as his old friend the Marquis de Lafayette.
Even with the convention at an end, Washington observed his promise of secrecy, apologizing to the Marquis that he could not comment on the debates. Washington told his friend that he considered the final product “a Child of fortune, to be fostered by some and buffited by others.” Washington said he would not say anything for or against it and simply said the document would speak for itself. Washington headed for home the day after the Convention completed its business.
During his trip home, he had to cross an abandoned bridge in Maryland over a flooded river. The bridge collapsed as his carriage crossed the bridge, sending it crashing into the river. Fortunately, Washington and his travelling companion, John Blair, had exited the carriage before it had attempted the crossing. Washington continued home.
Like many, Washington had his concerns about the document. During the Convention, he wrote to Hamilton, who had left for a short time in July saying “I almost dispair of seeing a favourable issue to the proceedings of the Convention, and do therefore repent having had any agency in the business.”
By the end of the Convention though, believed that it was the best they could do, and that the alternative to ratification was worsening anarchy under the Articles. While Washington was not the most outspoken advocate of the final document, he most definitely supported its ratification and privately encouraged others to move forward with making it the basis of the new federal government.
The printed copy that was circulated immediately after the convention included the constitution itself, the letter to the Confederation Congress, and additional resolutions on ratification. All three were signed by Washington. The Convention Secretary, William Jackson, carried copies of the documents to New York to deliver to the Confederation Congress.
Hopefully, most of us are familiar with the preamble to the constitution, which tries to outline its purpose. But the letter to Congress, which also received a unanimous vote of the delegates and was signed by Washington, is often forgotten. I think it gives great insight into the delegates’ views on the importance of the proposed constitution. It’s a short letter, so I’ll read it in full:
Sir,
We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most adviseable.
The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-Hence results the necessity of a different organization.
It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.
In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible.
That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not perhaps to be expected; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interest been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.
It was then signed by George Washington and noted it was by the unanimous order of the Convention.
The third document included with the letter and the Constitution itself were the unanimous resolutions of the Convention on what should be done with the proposed document.
It resolved that the constitution should be laid before the Confederation Congress, then submitted to the states. It did not request that Congress vote on the document, endorse it, or do anything else. It was to be a simple intermediary to distribute the document to the states. Each state legislature should then call a convention of the people to ratify the document and then give notice to Congress of the state’s approval or disapproval.
The convention further resolved that as soon as nine states have ratified the constitution, that the Congress should fix a day on which electors, appointed by the states, to vote for a president. It would be up to the states to schedule elections for Senators and Representatives.
After the electors voted, they would present these votes to the Confederation Congress. The Congress would simply hold the votes until the newly elected Senators and Representatives convened to count the votes and certify the election. At that point, the new government would take the reigns of power and the Confederation Congress would simply dissolve and disappear.
It was pretty gutsy that this convention, which had been formed on the premise of recommending amendments to the Articles of Confederation, came back with an entirely new government and even provided the instructions on how to bring it into existence. It then essentially ordered the Confederation Congress to comply and to destroy itself in favor of a new government, implemented on the terms spelled out by the Convention.
It was probably only the fact that the most respected leaders in the country had done this, that it was given the deference that it received. That, and the national consensus that the Articles of Confederation were failing, made its members willing to go along with the Convention’s resolutions.
Confederation Congress
The Confederation Congress had been poorly attended over the summer, in part due to the fact that nearly one-third of its members were serving at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. By the time the Convention Secretary, William Jackson, arrived in New York on September 20, to deliver the Constitution to Congress, four of the delegates that had signed the document had beat him there. More arrived over the next week, when Congress began debating what to do with the proposed document. There were only eleven state delegations present. Maryland only had one delegate in Congress. Two were required for the state to cast a vote. Rhode Island, which was the only state not to send delegates to the Convention, had also not sent delegates to Congress. Rhode Island did send a note to Congress saying it had refused to send delegates to the convention out of a “fear… of making innovations on the Rights and Liberties of the Citizens at large.”
Delegates to the Confederation Congress were not sure what to do. They had supported a Convention to recommend amendments to the Articles of Confederation. This was an entirely new document. Further, the document called on the states to ratify it, not the Confederation Congress.
Some delegates questioned whether the Convention had the authority to do this and whether the Congress needed to do anything at all since the document clearly wasn’t asking them to make amendments to the Articles. There was some debate as to whether the Confederation Congress should make its own suggested changes to the proposed document before forwarding to the states. They also had the option to endorse or reject the document in its entirety.
James Madison had to rush to New York because his Virginia delegation was evenly divided on whether to support the constitution. He was the tie breaking vote in favor. Madison then fought to shut down proposals to have the Confederation Congress suggest changes to the documents. Many states were already considering the original proposal. If Congress made changes, then there would be two different documents to consider, making ratification far more complicated.
The constitution was read aloud in Congress on September 20th, the day it arrived. Congress then scheduled a date one week later, Wednesday, September 26, to consider the constitution. Congress knew that this was coming. Although the debates at the convention were secret, delegates who served on both bodies made sure Congress had some idea when it could expect the final product.
Back in mid-August, the President of Congress, Arthur St. Clair, instructed all states to make sure they had at least two delegates present by September 26. Rhode Island, which blew off the entire convention, also did not bother to send delegates to Congress. All other states had at least two delegates present, except Maryland which had only one.
Quite a few of the more active convention delegates who were no longer in Congress, also traveled to New York to be part of the discussion. These included Gouverneur Morris and Alexander Hamilton, who both lived in New York, as well as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, and John Rutledge of South Carolina.
Interestingly, Congress did not record any of their debates. The records for those days simply note that Congress was in session, that there was a motion to transmit the Constitution to the states, then on September 28, the notes reproduce the Constitution itself and the fact that Congress was transmitting it to the states.
Unlike the Convention, the Confederation Congress did not usually act in secrecy. Its proceedings were usually covered by the newspapers. Despite the importance of this issue, there were no newspaper reports of the debates. Most of what we know of the debates comes from New York Delegate Melancton Smith, who kept notes, and from letters written by other delegates who were present. But the public at the time remained in the dark.
Dissenters like Richard Henry Lee of Virginia argued that it was absurd that Congress could not make any changes to a document that was supposed to be a list of recommended changes for Congress. Lee, and Nathan Dane of Massachusetts were two of the most outspoken critics in Congress. They saw the Convention’s legitimacy, only as an advisory committee to Congress, not an independent power that was bypassing Congress.
To these men, this was a power grab. The Articles required that major changes had to be unanimous. This was to prevent sovereign states from being forced to cede power against its will. The Convention was now suggesting that a group of nine states could implement an entirely new government. Even if it wanted to do so, Congress could not endorse this plan unless all thirteen states agreed.
Given the fact that 10 of the 33 delegates present in New York had been delegates to the Convention, and given the general view that the Confederation Congress was a disaster and that speedy ratification as necessary, the majority voted not to amend, or even debate, the contents of the proposed Constitution.
Nationalists, like Madison, wanted Congress to endorse the new Constitution. That, of course, brought up the debate that members should be able to criticize parts of the proposed Constitution, and raise their objections. Lee proposed some pretty popular amendments, like guarantees for freedom of religion and the press, the right to a jury trial and independent judges, restrictions on a standing army in times of peace, protections against excessive bail, fines, cruel and unusual punishment, unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. How could any of these basic protections be objectionable? Why not add them?
No one objected to these protections on the merits, but for the federalists, making any changes, no matter how agreeable, would derail the process. Madison compared the Convention to another house in the government. If the Confederation made changes to the document, then it would have to be resubmitted to the Convention. That would be impossible since the Convention already dissolved. The document hammered out through considerable compromises. Unravelling all of that would tear all that apart and effectively end this process.
Others like Rufus King said that they all realized the Articles of Confederation were not working. That is why the states called for this convention in the first place. The states are the sovereign entities that stand for the will of the people. It should be up to the people of the states to decide whether this proposed constitution, as written by the convention, is worthy of ratification. If the people don’t like it, they will reject it. It’s not up to Congress to decide that for them. It’s Congress’ job to transmit the proposal to the people for their consideration.
In the end, a majority of all state delegations present supported a measure to transmit the proposed constitution to the states without comment or alternation. Total debate on the topic took only three days. On September 28, the Confederation Congress sent the proposed Constitution to the states. They did not recommend any changes and expressed no public views on it, in whole or in part. Congress considered its work on the matter complete.
Next week, we will take a look at how the states reacted to the proposed Constitution.
- - -
Next Episode 352 First States Ratify the Constitution (coming soon)
Previous Episode 350 Signing the Constitution
 |
| Click here to donate |
 |
| Click here to see my Patreon Page |
An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.
| Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com" |
Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List
Further Reading
Websites
“From George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 10 July 1787,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0236
Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/translet.asp
The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Revolution in Government https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/white-papers/the-constitutional-convention-of-1787-a-revolution-in-government
The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Day by Day Account: https://www.nps.gov/inde/learn/historyculture/stories-constitutionalconvention.htm
Franklin closing speech to the convention: https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/assessments_64.pdf
Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)
Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention Assembled at Philadelphia, in the Year 1787, Richmond; Wilbur Curtiss, 1839.
Brant, Irving James Madison: Father of the Constitution, 1787-1800. Bobbs-Merrill Co. 1950 (borrow only).
Donovan, Frank R. Mr. Madison’s Constitution: The Story Behind the Constitutional Convention, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1965 (borrow only)
Farrand, Max The Framing of the Constitution of the United States, Yale Univ. Press, 1913.
Farrand, Max (ed) The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. 1, Vol. 2, and Vol 3, Yale Univ. Press, 1911.
Ford, Worthington, Chauncey The Federal Constitution in Virginia, 1787-1788. Cambridge: University Press, 1903.
Jameson, J. Franklin Studies in the History of the Federal Convention of 1787, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1903.
Madison, James Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, Ohio Univ. Press, 1966.
McMaster, John Bach (ed) Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution: 1787-1788, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1888.
Meigs, William M. The Growth of the Constitution in the Federal Convention of 1787, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co. 1900.
Richardson, Hamilton P. The Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 Analyzed, San Francisco: Murdock Press, 1899.
Scott, James B. James Madison's notes of debates in the Federal convention of 1787, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1918.
Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*
Amar, Akhil Reed America’s Constitution: A Biography, Random House 2005.
Beeman, Richard R. Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution, Random House, 2009.
Bowen, Catherine Drinker Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, Little, Brown & Co. 1966 (borrow at archive.org).
Collier, Christopher Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787, Random House, 1986 (borrow at archive.org).
Morris, Richard B. Witnesses at the Creation: Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the Constitution, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1985.
Rossiter, Clinton 1787: The Grand Convention, Macmillan Co. 1966 (borrow on archive.org).
Smith, Page The Constitution: A Documentary and Narrative History, Morrow Quill, 1978.
Stewart, David O. The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution, Simon & Schuster, 2007.
* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
