Читать книгу The Handy American History Answer Book - David L Hudson - Страница 12
ОглавлениеWho are considered the Founding Fathers of the United States?
The term is used to refer to a number of American statesmen who were influential during the revolutionary period of the late 1700s. Though definitions vary, most include the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the signers of the U.S. Constitution among the nation’s Founding Fathers.
Of the fifty-six members of the Continental Congress who signed the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), the most well-known are John Adams (1735–1826) and Samuel Adams (1722–1803) of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) of Pennsylvania, John Hancock (1737–1793) of Massachusetts, and Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) of Virginia.
The thirty-nine men who signed the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787, included notable figures such as George Washington (1732–1799), who would go on, of course, to become the first president of the United States; Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804), who, as a former military aide to George Washington, went on to become the first U.S. secretary of the treasury; and James Madison (1751–1836), who is called the “Father of the Constitution” for his role as negotiator and recorder of debates between the delegates. At age eighty-one, Benjamin Franklin was the oldest signer of the Constitution and was among the six statesmen who could claim the distinction of signing both it and the Declaration of Independence; the others were George Clymer (1739–1813), Robert Morris (1734–1806), George Read (1733–1798), Roger Sherman (1721–1793), and James Wilson (1742–1798).
Patriots and politicians conspicuous by their absence from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were performing other government duties at the time, and would each go on to become U.S. president; Samuel Adams and John Jay (1745–1829), who were not appointed as state delegates but who continued in public life, holding various federal and state government offices (including governor of their states); and Patrick Henry (1736–1799), who saw no need to go beyond the Articles of Confederation (1777) to grant more power to the central government. Henry’s view on this issue foreshadows the discontent that crested nearly one hundred years later, when twelve southern states (including Virginia) seceded from the Union, causing the Civil War (1861–1865) to break out.
Adams, Franklin, Hancock, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Henry: These names come to mind when the words “Founding Fathers” are uttered. Each of them had a profound impact in the political life of the United States—even beyond their starring roles as patriots and leaders during the American Revolutionary era. However, it is important to note that in many texts and to many Americans, the term “Founding Fathers “refers only to the men who drafted the U.S. Constitution since that document—more than two hundred years after its signing—continues to provide the solid foundation for American democratic government.
What was the Articles of Confederation?
The Articles of Confederation was the initial constitution created by the original thirteen states of the fledgling United States of America. Created in 1777 by the Continental Congress, the Articles were not ratified until 1781. The Articles created a legislative branch—a Congress—that had many powers, including the power to wage war, deal with foreign nations, and borrow money.
But the Articles created a weak central government. The central feature of the Articles of Confederation was that “each state retains its sovereignty, independence, and freedom.” It created no judicial or executive branches. It allowed individual states often to prevent action by Congress. On many important matters, nine of thirteen states had to approve a matter before it could become law or approved policy. In sum, the Articles of Confederation created a relatively weak central government that was not equipped to deal with intrastate rivalries and conflicts.
Which states were the original thirteen?
In order of admission, they are:
1. Delaware
2. Pennsylvania
3. New Jersey
4. Georgia
5. Connecticut
6. Massachusetts
7. Maryland
8. South Carolina
9. New Hampshire
10. Virginia
11. New York
12. North Carolina
13. Rhode Island
Vermont was fourteenth and the first free state (without slavery).
What man is said by some historians to have been, technically, the first president of the United States?
Samuel Huntington (1731–1796) was a leading early American statesman from Connecticut. He served as chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court and as governor of Connecticut—his last public office. But Huntington was also the first president of the Continental Congress when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. Thus, some have made the claim that Samuel Huntington was technically the first president of the United States.
What significant piece of legislation impacting the future growth of the country passed under the Articles of Confederation?
Probably the finest achievement of the government under the Articles of Confederation was the passage of the Northwest Ordinance in July 1787. It created a territory of land that eventually became the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. The law provided a process by which these individual territories could eventually become states.
The Northwest Ordinance provided that none of the territories could allow slavery. It also provided for a great measure of religious freedom, providing: “No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship, or religious sentiments, in the said territory.”
What caused some leaders to want a new constitution?
It became apparent that a stronger central government was needed to protect the interests of the country as a whole. The economic interests of the Northern states clashed with the economic interests of the Southern states. Some states feuded over navigational rights over rivers. Congress could not force states to contribute money and funds needed to address emergency circumstances.
What happened to Daniel Shays?
Shays fled to Vermont after his forces were defeated by the Massachusetts militia. A court in Massachusetts convicted him of treason while he hid in exile in Vermont. Sentenced to death, Shays appealed for a pardon, which was granted by then Massachusetts governor John Hancock. Shays then relocated to New York, where he died in 1825 in Sparta.
Other leaders saw the need for a strong central government after Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1786–1787. A group of economically desperate farmers—led by former Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays (1747–1825)—marched on the county courthouse to protest and prevent the courts from issuing foreclosure notices on farmers. The Massachusetts government, led by governor James Bowdoin and General Benjamin Lincoln, organized a state militia and crushed the rebellion.
What meetings of states caused even more discontent with the Articles?
In March 1785, representatives from Virginia and Maryland met to discuss navigational rights and other issues surrounding the Potomac River. The delegates met at Mount Vernon, the home of General George Washington. The representatives from the so-called Mount Vernon conference agreed that more states needed to be involved in the discussions.
This led to the Annapolis Convention, which met in 1786. Every state was invited to send representatives, but representatives from only five states—Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and New York—attended. The attendees agreed that there should be a national convention called to address problems with the Articles of Confederation. This led directly to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.
What was the stated purpose of the Philadelphia Convention?
The stated purpose of the Philadelphia Convention was to “revise the Articles of Confederation.” Instead, the delegates eventually scrapped the Articles of Confederation entirely and created a new system of government—what became known as the United States Constitution.
Who were the leaders of the Philadelphia Convention?
There were many leaders of the Philadelphia Convention—a group of men whom Thomas Jefferson referred to as an “assembly of demigods.” The delegates who attended the Convention unanimously selected George Washington—the hero of the Revolutionary War—as the president of the Convention. Washington’s presence brought confidence to the others and established the proceedings as legitimate in the eyes of many.
Another leader in the Convention was James Madison, who is sometimes called “the Father of the Constitution.” Madison, a politician from Virginia, fervently believed the nation needed a strong central government to help guard against sectional divisions and other problems between the states. He came to the Convention early and prepared an outline of such a structure of government. He wrote a memorandum, “Vices of the Political Systems of the United States.” His planned structure of government was known as the Virginia Plan. Madison also took detailed notes during the Convention.
George Washington’s presence at the Philadelphia Convention comforted the attendees that this was a legitimate proceeding in the formation of the government (painting by Howard Chandler Christy [1873–1952]).
What exactly was James Madison’s role in the Philadelphia Convention?
James Madison (1751–1836) played a key role in the Philadelphia Convention. He arrived early, and had prepared well for the Convention. A month before the Convention opened, Madison published a document called “Vices of the Political Systems of the United States,” in which he criticized many aspects of the Articles of Confederation.
At the Convention, he introduced several resolutions to provide for a stronger central government. His most famous contribution in terms of resolutions was the so-called Virginia Plan. Though sometimes referred to as the Randolph Plan because Edmund Randolph formally introduced it, Madison wrote the essence of the measure. Madison’s plan consisted of a bicameral legislature—a House of Representatives and a Senate. The number of representatives in each house would be determined by the state’s population. Under this plan, the people would elect members to the House of Representatives, but then members of the House would elect and vote on membership to the Senate. The Virginia Plan also included plans for a national (or federal) judiciary.
He also took a detailed set of notes about the proceedings of the Convention. Historians emphasize that without Madison’s notes, we would know little about the historic meetings in Philadelphia that eventually led to the United States Constitution. Madison instructed that his detailed notes of the Convention not be released until the last delegate at the Convention died. Ironically, that last delegate was Madison, who died in 1836 at age eighty-five.
Madison also played a key role in persuading fellow Virginian George Washington to attend the proceedings. The delegates elected Washington as chairman of the meeting. Washington’s presence was important, given his leadership and popularity after the Revolutionary War.
What did Madison do to help ratify the Constitution?
Madison knew the delegates’ work was not complete simply because they had finished and signed the new Constitution. They had to convince the states to ratify this new constitution, which radically changed the power of the central government.
Using pseudonyms, Madison—along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay—drafted a series of essays called The Federalist Papers which advanced forceful arguments for the necessity of the new Constitution. Madison also argued in the Virginia legislature for Virginia to ratify the Constitution. Madison argued directly against Virginia governor Patrick Henry.
What was the Virginia Plan?
The Virginia Plan, introduced on May 29, 1787, formed the basis of the Convention and was debated word by word. The plan contained fifteen resolves. It was the first plan introduced in the Convention and the one that most closely resembled the Convention’s final product. It proposed that the powers of the federal government should be expanded to accomplish three goals: “common defence [sic], security of liberty, and general welfare.” Resolve number three provided for two houses of Congress, or a bicameral legislature. Under the Virginia Plan, the people would elect the first branch. Then the members of the first branch would elect the second branch of the “National Legislature.”
Under the Virginia Plan, the U.S. Congress would possess great power. Resolve number six granted Congress the power to negate, or veto, any laws passed by state legislatures. Resolve number seven provided Congress the power to appoint the “National Executive” or leader of the country. Thus, under this plan, Congress—not the people—would select the national leader. Resolve number nine provided for a “National Judiciary,” or a set of judges that could hear cases throughout the country.
The Virginia Plan envisioned the structure of the new United States government under the new Constitution discussed in the Philadelphia Convention. Under the Virginia Plan, there would be three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It also called for a bicameral legislature composed of a House and a Senate. It determined that each house would be selected based on the population of the respective states, meaning that the larger, more populous states would have more representatives and senators. The Virginia Plan also called for a very strong national government.
With what other plan did the Virginia Plan compete?
The other major plan for the structure of the new Constitution was the so-called New Jersey Plan, proposed by William Paterson. This plan called for a weaker national government, only one house of Congress, and equal representation in the legislative branch. It also called for executive and judicial branches, but they would clearly be less powerful than the one-house legislature.
On June 15, 1787, Paterson introduced his plan. “Can we, as representatives of independent states, annihilate the essential powers of independency?” Paterson said when introducing his proposal. He wanted a weaker central government.
The New Jersey Plan contained many features, including a multiperson executive. Under the New Jersey Plan, Congress could act only on certain matters. Congress would elect the members of the federal executive. Congress could remove the persons of the federal executive if a majority of state leaders voted such action necessary.
Interestingly, the New Jersey Plan contained language providing that the laws of the U.S. Congress “shall be the supreme law of the respective States.” This formed the basis for the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The supremacy clause provides that the laws of the national, or federal, government are the supreme law of the land, trumping the laws of the various states.
What was the Great Compromise?
The Great Compromise of 1787 was a measure articulated by Roger Sherman (1721–1793) of Connecticut that created the ultimate form of the U.S. Congress. It combined features of both the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. It allowed representatives from the larger states and the smaller states to agree on the composition of Congress. Under the Great Compromise, one house—the U.S. House of Representatives—is based on proportional representation. This meant that the larger states would have more representatives. The other house—the U.S. Senate—was based on equal representation, as each state would have two senators. Each side received something from the Great Compromise: the larger states received proportional representation in the House, but the smaller states received equal representation in the Senate.
How precarious was the Great Compromise and its ultimate success?
It was a very precarious time, and the Convention almost divided irreparably over this issue of legislative representation. Fortunately, delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed a measure that eventually saved the Constitution.
Roger Sherman was an influential politician with a distinguished political career. Sherman has the distinction of signing several great American documents—the Declaration and Resolves of 1774 (a document where the colonists declared their resolve to oppose British power), the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and finally the United States Constitution.
Sherman played an influential role in the Convention, but he is most remembered for his compromise that saved the Convention and the Constitution. Under this so-called “Great Compromise,” the states would be represented equally in the Senate, and the states would be represented proportionally in the House of Representatives based on population. This proposal reflects our current system. In the House of Representatives, a state’s number of representatives is based on the state’s population. In the Senate, each state has two senators.
However, Sherman’s proposal was voted down 6–5 when it was first introduced. The delegates continued to argue over the issue of proportional versus equal representation. On July 2, the states voted 5–5 on the question of equal representation in the Senate. The states of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland favored equal representation. The states of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina opposed equal representation. The state of Georgia could have broken the tie, but the two Georgia delegates present—William Houstoun and Abraham Bald-win—split.
Four delegates from Georgia were present at the Convention. However, two of the members—William Few and William Pierce—left the convention for New York to vote on pressing matters in Congress. Few and Pierce would have voted against equal representation. The Convention hung in the balance. The small states would have lost the question of equal representation were it not for the vote of Abraham Baldwin. Baldwin lived in Connecticut virtually his whole life, having moved to Georgia only three years before the Convention. Some historians assert that Baldwin saved the Constitution because he split the Georgia votes, saving the small states from defeat. They argue that Baldwin voted the way he did because he knew the small states would collapse the Convention if they lost the equal representation question in the Senate.
The Convention then agreed to allow a committee of one person from each of the eleven states to be formed to explore the question of how to organize the Congress. The states voted 10–1 in favor of such a committee. The committee was composed primarily of individuals in favor of a senate chosen by equal representation. On July 5, the committee read its report to the entire delegation, calling for proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate. Many of the delegates who had wanted proportional representation in both houses had conceded this issue, realizing that the delegates from small states might leave if they did not get their way.
Did all fifty-five delegates sign the final product of the Philadelphia Convention?
Several delegates left before the Convention convened in September. These included William Richardson Davie, Oliver Ellsworth, William Houston, William Houstoun, John Lansing, Jr., Alexander Martin, Luther Martin, James McClurg, John Francis Mercer, William Pierce, Caleb Strong, George Wythe, and Robert Yates.
Additionally, three members of the Convention stayed until the end but refused to sign the document: Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason IV.
Who were the fifty-five Founding Framers of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention?
The following table lists the states of the framers and their names:
| Framers of the Constitution | |
| State | Framers |
| Connecticut | Oliver Ellsworth, William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman |
| Delaware | Richard Bassett, Gunning Bedford, Jacob Broom, John Dickinson, George Read |
| Georgia | Abraham Baldwin, William Few, William Houstoun, William Pierce |
| Maryland | Daniel Carroll, Luther Martin, James McHenry, John F. Mercer, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer |
| Massachusetts | Elbridge Gerry, Nathan Gorham, Rufus King, Caleb Strong |
| New Hampshire | Michael Gillman, John Langdon |
| New Jersey | David Brearley, Jonathan Dayton, William Houston, William Livingston, William Paterson |
| New York | Alexander Hamilton, Robert Lansing, Robert Yates |
| North Carolina | William Blount, William Richardson Davie, Alexander Martin, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson |
| Pennsylvania | George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Benjamin Franklin, Jared Ingersoll, Thomas Mifflin, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, James Wilson |
| South Carolina | Pierce Butler, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Rutledge |
| Virginia | John Blair, James Madison, George Mason IV, James McClurg, Edmund Randolph, George Washington, George Wythe |
Why did Gerry, Randolph, and Mason refuse to sign the Constitution?
Ironically, Randolph later refused to sign the Constitution at the end of the Convention. He refused to sign it in part because he believed his constituents in Virginia would disapprove of the Constitution. He argued that the people in the states, through their representatives, should have the “full opportunity” to propose amendments to the Constitution. However, during the ratification battle in his home state of Virginia, Randolph fought for its adoption.
Gerry and Mason, key contributors throughout the summer, refused to sign the Constitution in part because it lacked a Bill of Rights. Gerry said that its major failure was in failing to provide for a bill of rights. He later wrote: “There is no security in the proferred system, either for the rights of conscience or the liberty of the Press.” For his part, a few days earlier, Mason said: “I would sooner chop off my right hand than put it to the Constitution.”
George Mason IV, shown here, wrote the Bill of Rights with James Madison. Mason had, along with Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry, opposed signing the Constitution with these assured rights for citizens.
Mason honestly believed that the system of constitutional government would produce either a “monarchy or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy.” He also felt the “Constitution has been formed without the knowledge or idea of the people.” Mason believed the delegates had exceeded their authority by secretly creating a powerful national government that would take away the powers of the states.
What did the new Constitution say about slavery?
The new Constitution did not directly address the slavery problem, probably because many of the members knew other members—particularly from the more agrarian, Southern states—would not be willing to compromise on the measure. However, the vast majority of the delegates did not want to dissolve the Union over slavery.
The issue of slavery was closely tied to the question of congressional representation. The Southern states wanted to count slaves in their population numbers because they would obtain more seats in the House of Representatives. The Northern states did not want to count slaves for purposes of legislative representation, since slaves would not vote or pay taxes. The Northern states also did not want the Southern states to obtain more power than they had.
The delegates eventually agreed to tie taxation to representation and to count slaves as three-fifths of a person. Some historians contend the Convention agreed to this compromise over slavery and representation in exchange for the exclusion of slavery in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
The Northern and Southern delegates bargained over the issues of slavery and trade well into August. On August 24, the Committee of Eleven issued a report that contained four provisions: (1) Congress could not prohibit the exportation of slaves until 1800; (2) Congress could tax imported slaves; (3) Exports could not be taxed; and (4) Congress could pass navigation acts by simple majority. The Northern states, which depended on commerce, wanted Congress to pass laws regulating trade.
The Constitution would extend the date to allow the importation of slaves until 1808. The Constitution also contained a clause, called the Fugitive Slave Clause, which allowed Southerners to go into northern states to recover runaway slaves. Unfortunately, the fugitive slave clause enabled the capture of free blacks in northern territory by southern slaveowners.
Thus, the Constitution approved of slavery—if somewhat less than enthusiastically—by counting slaves for the population of states for representative purposes. It also protected the African slave trade for twenty years and guaranteed that masters could recover their runaway slaves. Because of its approval of slavery, famed abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison famously burned a copy of the Constitution, calling it a “covenant with death and an agreement with Hell.” However, not all members of the Convention approved of slavery. Gouvernour Morris famously referred to it as “the curse of Heaven on the states” that sanction it.
James Madison spoke about the Constitution and slavery at the Virginia ratification convention. Madison said: “The southern states would not have entered into the union of America without the temporary possession of that trade.” However, Madison pointed out that under the Articles of Confederation, the slave trade could have continued forever. At least under the new Constitution, the importation of slaves would end in twenty years.
Also, the Constitution never uses the words “slave” or “slavery.”
After the Constitution was signed, what happened during the ratification process?
Article VII of the Constitution provides: “The ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.” This meant that the “real fight” did not come on the convention floor. It came in the states over whether to ratify the Constitution. Many merchants, manufacturers, and big plantation owners in the South favored the Constitution. They knew the new Constitution would help protect their business interests.
But many small farmers did not want to sacrifice their individual freedom and become dependent on businesspeople. The battle over ratification became a great issue of the day. It captured the headlines and much space in the newspapers. Pamphlets were printed on each side. In September, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions to vote on the new document. Under the ratification process, the state legislatures would vote to call special conventions. Delegates—often the state legislators themselves—would vote at the conventions.
What were the principal objections of the Anti-Federalists to the Constitution?
The Anti-Federalists were particularly concerned with the so-called “necessary and proper” clause of the new Constitution. Article I, Section 18 provided Congress with the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” for executing its powers vested in the Constitution. Other Anti-Federalists were concerned with the supremacy clause in Article I. Many Anti-Federalists viewed this clause as wiping out the powers of state governments.
Many Anti-Federalists also argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the president. Some feared that the president and the Senate would unite to become similar to the King of England and the upper house of the English Parliament, the House of Lords. The King of England and the House of Lords represented aristocrats, the upper class of society, and tended to ignore the interests of regular people.
The ratification process was not easy. Political leaders were divided. Supporters of the new Constitution with its strong central government called themselves Federalists. Opponents of the Constitution were called Anti-Federalists. Many of them opposed the Constitution because it failed to provide for a bill of rights and gave too much power to the federal government at the expense of state governments.
What were The Federalist Papers, and what was their importance?
The Federalist Papers were a series of anonymous essays that galvanized much popular support for the Constitution during the ratification struggle. In the most populous states of New York and Virginia, the Anti-Federalists fought hard. After the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison co-wrote a series of articles with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay that became known as The Federalist Papers. These eighty-five essays—written under the pen name Publius—are still considered the definitive work on the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson once called them “the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.”
These articles discussed the framework of the Constitution, including the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers among the three branches of government. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison sought to persuade readers that the newly designed government was the best course of action for the young country. Hamilton wrote that the nation faced a “crisis.” He wrote that if the country voted against the new Constitution, that decision would “deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”
In Federalist Paper No. 45, Madison argued that the state governments did not have much to fear from the federal government. Madison wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
The cover of the first collection of The Federalist Papers, published in 1788. Written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, the essays argued for the merits of the U.S. Constitution.
Did the Anti-Federalists have their own writings?
Yes, the Anti-Federalists also relied on a series of anonymous essays. Several Anti-Federalists also wrote articles under pen names attacking various aspects of the Constitution. An Anti-Federalist who called himself the “Federal Farmer” critiqued the Constitution in a series of letters published in the Poughkeepsie (New York) Country Journal from November 1787 to January 1788. The letters also appeared in pamphlet form. For many years, it was assumed that Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was the author. Now, some historians believe the author was New York Anti-Federalist Melancton Smith.
The “Letters from the Federal Farmer” criticized the new Constitution and its proponents as showing a “strong tendency to aristocracy.” The Federal Farmer argued that the Constitution concentrated too much power in the central government. The author of the Federal Farmer also made some accurate predictions about the future of our government. For example, the Federal Farmer wrote: “This system promises a large field of employment to military gentlemen and gentlemen of the law.”
Robert Yates, a New York judge who served in the Convention until he left in July, wrote a series of articles under the pen name “Brutus.” Brutus was the Roman republican who helped assassinate Julius Caesar to prevent Caesar from overthrowing the Roman Republic. In one of his articles he criticized the powers granted to the judicial branch. He wrote: “The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government and subject to no control.”
How did the battle play out between Federalists and Anti-Federalists?
The battle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was intense. However, the Federalists possessed advantages. They enjoyed most of the media support. The large newspapers from Boston, New York, and Philadelphia took up the Federalist cause. They also seemed to have the best ammunition—the detailed document known as the Constitution. Though the Anti-Federalists made many arguments against provisions of the Constitution, they did not have their own document. The Anti-Federalists could only criticize the new document.
However, the Anti-Federalists seized upon the lack of a bill of rights as a prime weapon in the ratification battles. Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution, and it did so unanimously on December 7, 1787. Then an intense battle began in Pennsylvania. James Wilson took the lead in defending the Constitution in his home state.
In a well-known address delivered on October 6, 1787, Wilson argued that the inclusion of a bill of rights was “superfluous and absurd.” The new Congress, Wilson argued, “possesses no influence whatsoever upon the press.” Wilson pointed out that many Anti-Federalists were criticizing the new document because it provided for a standing Army. Wilson responded: “Yet I do not know a nation in the world which has not found it necessary and useful to maintain the appearance of strength in a season of the most profound tranquility.”
In what states was the ratification debate of the Constitution closest and most intense?
Ratification was most difficult in the populous states of Massachusetts and New York. The debate in Massachusetts was particularly intense. Massachusetts voted 187–168 in favor of the Constitution on February 6, 1788, only after the Federalists agreed to recommend amending the Constitution to include protections for individual liberties.
Massachusetts became the first state officially to recommend amendments to the Constitution during the ratification process. Though the nine proposed amendments bear little resemblance to the final U.S. Bill of Rights, they were an important precursor to the Bill of Rights.
The state assembly had to vote on a state convention. Many of the Anti-Federalists in the state legislature refused to attend the assembly. They did not want the Assembly to have a quorum, or a sufficient number of members to take a valid vote. Allegedly, a mob of people broke into a local home and dragged two Anti-Federalists to the Assembly floor in order to create a quorum. The delegates voted 45–2 in favor of a ratification convention. The state convention met for five weeks. Finally, on December 12, the delegates voted for ratification by a vote of 46–23. The vote upset some citizens with Anti-Federalist sympathies. A mob of such people attacked James Wilson in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution on December 12 by a vote of 46–23. The Pennsylvania delegates also considered fifteen amendments proposed by Anti-Federalist Robert Whitehill. These proposed amendments were similar to what later became the U.S. Bill of Rights.
What happened in Virginia with respect to ratification?
Actually, New Hampshire became the required ninth state on June 21, 1788, voting 57–46 in favor of the Constitution. Although the Constitution was technically in effect after New Hampshire ratified it, the support of Virginia was essential. Virginia did not know that New Hampshire had become the necessary ninth state. Because Virginia was such a large and powerful state, her ratification of the Constitution was crucial.
Virginia was the home of James Madison, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, all of whom supported the Constitution. However, the state was also the home of a group of well-known Anti-Federalists, including Patrick Henry and George Mason. The battle in Virginia was particularly difficult. After one debate, Madison fell ill and was bedridden for three straight days. Some great statesmen, such as the brilliant orator from Virginia Patrick Henry, led the Anti-Federalists. During the debate on ratification in his state, Henry asked: “What right had they [the Constitution delegates] to say, ‘We the People’?”
In arguing against the Constitution, Mason wrote, “It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people.” However, state delegate Edmund Pendleton countered in the Virginia Ratification Convention, “In reviewing the history of the world, shall we find an instance where any society retained its liberty without government?”
In June, Governor Edmund Randolph spoke in favor of the Constitution, even though he had failed to sign it the previous September. Randolph explained that he did not sign because the document did not contain necessary amendments. However, he said that because other states had proposed amendments to be passed after ratification, he would vote in favor of ratification. He also pointed out that eight other states had already ratified the Constitution.
Patrick Henry charged that Randolph had been persuaded to change positions by none other than George Washington. Though this charge cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, Washington did later name Randolph his first attorney general.
Madison managed to gather enough support for the Constitution in the Virginia state convention on June 25, 1788. The delegates narrowly approved the Constitution. Two days later, a committee at the state convention proposed a bill of rights be added to the Constitution. Virginia voted in favor of ratification by a narrow vote of 89–79. Virginia also attached proposed amendments as well, many of which would later be contained in the Bill of Rights. Some Anti-Federalists were very upset and wanted to resist the new Constitution. However, at a meeting in Richmond, Patrick Henry said that they must accept defeat: “As true and faithful republicans [honorable citizens] you had all better go home.”
Many Anti-Federalists became supporters of the new government. For example, Anti-Federalist Elbridge Gerry, who refused to sign the Convention, later became James Madison’s vice president.
Why were the first ten amendments—the Bill of Rights—added to the Constitution?
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in part because many people wanted to ensure themselves protection from the new, strong federal government created by the new Constitution. The two leading political parties of the time were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists generally supported a very strong central government; the Anti-Federalists showed more concern for the rights of individual state governments. The issue of the Bill of Rights was not a huge issue at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 when the Constitution was created. Representative George Mason raised the issue, but it was quickly defeated.
However, the Bill of Rights became a huge political issue during the ratification debates in certain states. Eventually, supporters of the Constitution and ratification in a few states were able to secure ratification of the new Constitution only by promising that there would soon be the addition of a Bill of Rights.
What member of the House is sometimes called “the Father of the Bill of Rights”?
James Madison (1751–1836), fourth president of the United States, served in the U.S. House of Representatives for his home state of Virginia from 1789 until 1797. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced in the House his proposals for amending the U.S. Constitution—creating a so-called Bill of Rights. This speech earned Madison the moniker “Father of the Bill of Rights.” Madison sought to introduce measures which would provide a degree of individual freedom for the people from infringements by the government. Madison believed that a Bill of Rights would increase popularity for the new federal government and the U.S. Constitution. In his speech, Madison referred to the provisions in his proposed Bill of Rights as “the great rights of mankind.” Madison’s speech is one of the most significant in American history.
James Madison, who later became the country’s fourth president, was a key player in the Philadelphia Convention and in the writing of the Constitution. He is often thought of as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.”
Where did Madison look for possible proposals that eventually became included in the Bill of Rights?
Madison compiled a list of various proposals from various state constitutions. Many states had a section similar to the eventual Bill of Rights. Some of these sections were called Declarations of Rights.
Isn’t it true that the original Constitution (before the Bill of Rights) was already a bill of rights?
There is some credence to the argument that the Constitution as it existed before the Bill of Rights already was a type of bill of rights. For example, the Constitution prohibited Congress or state legislatures from passing bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. Bills of attainder are laws that target a specific group of people, while ex post facto laws are laws that make something a crime after the fact.
Furthermore, the Constitution prohibits Congress from suspending a writ of habeas corpus except in very limited situations, such as war. Another provision of the Constitution prohibits individuals in political office from having to take religious tests to qualify for office. All of these provisions in the body of the Constitution do provide a measure of individual freedom—similar to what the Bill of Rights does.
Who were the original members of President Washington’s Cabinet?
Washington sought to form a group of key advisors to assist him in leading the new federal government. He chose Alexander Hamilton as secretary of the treasury, Thomas Jefferson as secretary of state, Henry Knox as secretary of war (present-day secretary of defense), Edmund Randolph as attorney general, and Samuel Osgood as postmaster general. Congress approved of these executive branch agencies.Hamilton, Jefferson, Knox, and Randolph regularly counseled Washington on a wide range of matters. As postmaster general, Osgood did not participate in those discussions.
What two members of Washington’s Cabinet disagreed mightily over many issues?
Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed mightily over many issues. Their disagreements in part contributed to the rise of the two-party political system in the United States. Hamilton was a Federalist, the party that generally favored a very strong central government and tended to ally with Great Britain. Jefferson became a Democratic-Republican, which favored a less powerful central government and tended to ally with France. Hamilton favored a strong fiscal policy, including the creation of the National Bank. Jefferson viewed the measure as an unconstitutional grab of power by the federal government. The only thing Hamilton and Jefferson seemingly could agree on was their mutual affinity for President Washington.
What did Washington think of political parties?
Washington disfavored political parties, believing they would create discord in the country. In his farewell address upon leaving office, he warned the country that political parties “are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.” He warned that partisan politics and different political factions could create a “frightful despotism” for the country.
How did Washington contribute to the tradition of executive privilege?
In 1796, the House of Representatives demanded to see administration documents concerning the Jay Treaty. Washington refused to hand over the documents, reasoning that only the Senate—not the House—is responsible for the ratification of treaties. Washington’s act of refusing to comply with the House’s demands is seen as a precursor to the concept of executive privilege.
When was the Washington Monument built?
The Washington Monument, the tallest building in the nation’s capital, was built between 1848 and 1884. The monument, inspired by the shape of an Egyptian obelisk, stands 555 feet and 5/8 inches tall. Marble, granite, and blue gneiss were used in its construction.
It remains one of the most popular tourist destinations in Washington, D.C.
What was the Jay Treaty?
The Jay Treaty was a treaty with Great Britain that the United States signed in 1794 during Washington’s second term. At the time, British troops remained stationed in the American Northwest in defiance of the Treaty of Paris, the treaty that ended the Revolutionary War. Great Britain claimed the Americans had not paid back all pre-Revolutionary debts. Also, British ships were blocking American merchant vessels in the Caribbean in an attempt to stem American trade with France. Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to negotiate a treaty with British officials. The resulting agreement was known as the Jay Treaty. The British agreed to remove their troops from the Ohio frontier. America’s debts would be settled by arbitration. The British received most favored nation status for trading. Though criticized, the treaty—which was in effect for ten years—prevented an American-British conflict until the War of 1812.
What was the “Whiskey Rebellion”?
The Whiskey Rebellion was an uprising among many grain farmers in western Pennsylvania. They objected to the Whiskey Act of 1791, a tax the federal government imposed on whiskey. The farmers believed the federal government overstepped its bounds by imposing too great a tax burden on farmers. The protest was seen by some as reminiscent of the colonists’ protest of the British government’s Stamp Act tax on the colonists.
Washington eventually considered the resistance movement serious enough that he led a formidable force of more than thirteen thousand troops to suppress the rebellion. It was the only time a sitting president actually led troops toward a battle. Washington led the troops to Carlisle, Pennsylvania, but not all the way to face the farmers who were just outside Pittsburgh. The farmers kowtowed to the federal authority, and Washington pardoned those in the uprising who swore allegiance to the federal government.
What were the controversial “Alien and Sedition Acts”?
The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798, caused great controversy. This legislation consisted of four laws: (1) the Naturalization Act, which increased the required period of residence for would-be citizens from five to fourteen years; (2) the Alien Friends Act, which gave the president the power to remove from the country outsiders he deemed “dangerous”; (3) the Alien Enemies Act, which gave the president the power to deport those aliens who were from countries at war with the United States; and (4) the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to make “false, scandalous, and malicious” writings against the government. Many—including Vice President Thomas Jefferson—opposed these laws as an invasion of state rights and a violation of individual freedoms. For example, many believed the Sedition Act of 1798 violated the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
For the most part, the Sedition Act was used to prosecute editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers. These editors published newspapers that criticized President John Adams and his foreign policy towards France. Men such as Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the General Advertiser in Philadelphia (also known as the Aurora), and Anthony Haswell, editor of the Vermont Gazette, were arrested for their sharp criticism of Federalists. The Alien and Sedition Act was never appealed to the Supreme Court, even after judicial review was established by Marbury v. Madison.
What famous document did Madison draft in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts?
Madison—and his friend Thomas Jefferson—adamantly opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, adopted by the Federalist-controlled Congress and signed by President John Adams. In response, Madison and Jefferson drafted the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, documents approved by the states’ respective state legislatures, declaring the new federal laws null and void. Madison drafted the Virginia Resolution, while Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions.
What was the XYZ Affair?
The XYZ Affair refers to a failed peace mission (1797–1798) between three American envoys (Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Marshall, and Elbridge Gerry) and three agents of the French foreign minister Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand (Jean Conrad Hottinger, Pierre Bellamy, and Lucien Hauteval). Talleyrand instructed his envoys to refuse negotiations with the American envoys unless Talleyrand received a personal payment (in actuality, a bribe) of $25,000 and a $10 million loan to France. The three Americans refused and negotiations ended, exacerbating tensions between the two countries. Adams later referred to the three French agents as X, Y, and Z.
What was the Quasi-War?
The Quasi-War was the name given to the conflict between France and the United States between 1798 and 1800. French and American vessels fought at sea for much of that time, though there never was a formal declaration of war.
How was the U.S. Supreme Court created?
Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provided that “the judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Constitution was adopted in 1787 and ratified in 1788. However, the Constitution did not create the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress passed a law known as the Judiciary Act of 1789, which created the Court and established its jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for six justices on the Court—a chief justice and five associate justices.
Who was the principal author of the Judiciary Act of 1789?
Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut was the principal author of the Judiciary Act of 1789. A member of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, Ellsworth became a U.S. senator when the Senate first convened in 1789. He was elected chair of the committee designed to follow the dictates of Article III of the new Constitution to create a federal judicial system. William Paterson from New Jersey, another member of the 1787 Convention and an original U.S. senator, also assisted in the drafting of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Both Ellsworth and Paterson later became justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. They were both classmates at the College of New Jersey (later Princeton College) before they entered politics.
Who were the first six justices on the U.S. Supreme Court?
The first six justices on the U.S. Supreme Court were John Jay (chief justice), John Rutledge, William Cushing, James Wilson, John Blair, and James Iredell. Robert H. Harrison was one of the first six justices nominated to the Court, but he declined the nomination because of poor health. In his place, President George Washington nominated Iredell of North Carolina.
John Jay was the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, serving from 1789 to 1795. He was the second governor of New York state from 1795 until 1801.
When did the U.S. Supreme Court initially meet?
The U.S. Supreme Court initially met on February 2, 1790, in the Royal Exchange Building on New York City’s Broad Street. The Court met on the second floor of the building in the afternoons, as the New York state legislature met there during the morning hours. A year later, the Court convened in Philadelphia, the new national capital. The U.S. Supreme Court did not meet in Washington, D.C., until February 2, 1801.
Why is John Marshall considered the greatest of the chief justices?
In his 1996 biography of Marshall, author Jean Edward Smith referred to the chief justice as “the Definer of the Nation.” Marshall’s opinions gave the U.S. Supreme Court and the judicial branch the power and respect they deserved. He did this in many ways. For example, he persuaded his colleagues to drop the practice of in seriatim opinions, where each justice would speak and issue his own opinion. Under Marshall, the Court often spoke in one unified voice—many times through Chief Justice Marshall himself. He also established the principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which gave the judiciary the power to review the constitutionality of legislation and executive regulations. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her book The Majesty of the Law: “It is no overstatement to claim that Chief Justice Marshall fulfilled the Constitution’s promise of an independent federal judiciary.”
Another factor of Marshall’s greatness is that he was the first chief justice to serve for a significant period of time. Marshall served thirty-four years on the Court. In comparison, the first chief justice, John Jay, served only six years, and John Rutledge and Oliver Ellsworth served shorter periods of time. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who served from 1902–1932, believed part of Marshall’s greatness lay in his “being there” during the formative period of the nation. But Marshall was more than just an accidental force of history. He had great leadership abilities that enabled him to guide the Court during his lengthy term as the Chief.
What were the underlying facts of Marbury v. Madison?
Federalist President John Adams was leaving office, having suffered defeat at the hands of his vice president and political rival, Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican party. The Federalist Congress quickly passed a new judiciary act that created many new judgeships, including forty-five justice of the peace positions. Adams’s secretary of state, none other than John Marshall himself, then had to sign the commissions for these “midnight justices” for them to take office.
Chief Justice John Marshall is still considered the greatest justice to lead the U.S. Supreme Court in all of American history. He served on the bench from 1801 to 1835.
Unfortunately, Marshall did not have time to deliver all the commissions before the new Jefferson Administration took over the White House. Seventeen justices of the peace, including William Marbury, did not receive their commissions before Jefferson assumed office. Marbury sued Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison (our future fourth president), asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver Marbury his commission.
What did the Court rule in Marbury v. Madison?
Chief Justice John Marshall, who seemingly had a bit of a conflict of interest, wrote the opinion for the Court. He noted that Marbury was entitled to his commission, as he had been appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and otherwise qualified for the position. The Court also determined that Madison wrongfully withheld Marbury’s commission from him.
However, Marshall also ruled that Marbury’s suit must fail because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the Court to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional. Marshall reasoned that Section 13 conflicted with Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which provided that the Supreme Court had only appellate jurisdiction (not original jurisdiction) over Marbury’s case. In other words, Marshall reasoned that Section 13 was unconstitutional, because it attempted to confer original jurisdiction to litigants such as Marbury, but the Constitution provided that the Court had only appellate jurisdiction, meaning the suit had to be filed in the lower courts. Marshall explained that “the jurisdiction had to be appellate, not original.”
Marshall explained that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review—the ability to determine the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of laws. He famously wrote that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
What happened to William Marbury?
Marbury never became a justice of the peace, although he did become a prominent and successful banker in Washington, D.C.
When did the House of Representatives first meet?
The U.S. House of Representatives first met on March 4, 1789, but it could not perform any real work until April 1, 1789, when it achieved a quorum.
What are the exclusive powers of the House of Representatives?
The exclusive powers of the House of Representatives are to impeach public officials (they are tried in the Senate), to initiate revenue legislation, and to elect the president of the United States if there is no victor from the electoral college vote.
What are the qualifications for a person to serve in the House?
To serve in the House, a person must be at least twenty-five years of age, be a citizen of the United States for at least seven years, and reside in the state they represent at the time of the election.
What is the Speaker of the House?
The Speaker of the House is the presiding officer of the House of Representatives. The Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides: “The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
The House of Representatives elects its speaker at the beginning of each Congress.
Who was the first Speaker of the House?
The first Speaker of the House was Frederick Muhlenberg (1750–1801), a member of the Federalist Party from Pennsylvania. Muhlenberg was a minister who served two terms as Speaker of the House—from 1789 to 1791 and 1793 to 1795. His brother, John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg (1746–1807), also served in the House at the same time. John Peter served the same two terms as did Frederick, as well as an additional term from 1799–1801. John Peter also later served in the U.S. Senate in 1801.
When did the Senate first meet?
The United States Senate met for the first time in New York City on March 4, 1789. However, there was not a quorum until April.
Where did the Senate move?
The Senate moved from New York City to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on December 6, 1790. It remained in Philadelphia for about a decade before moving to its present location—Washington, D.C.
How are senators elected?
Senators used to be elected by state legislatures. However, in 1913 the Seventeenth Amendment became law. This constitutional amendment provided that senators would be elected directly by popular vote. It provided, in part: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the People thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.”
Frederick Muhlenberg was the first Speaker of the House.
What are the qualifications for a person to serve in the Senate?
A person must be at least thirty years of age, be a citizen of the United States for nine years, and reside in the state for which they are elected to serve.
What original members of the Senate later served on the U.S. Supreme Court?
Oliver Ellsworth (1745–1807) and William Paterson (1745–1806) were members of the first U.S. Senate. Ellsworth served as senator for his home state of Connecticut from 1789 until 1796, when he was nominated by President George Washington to serve as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Paterson served as senator for his home state of New Jersey. He was not a senator for very long, as he served from March 1789 until November 1790 before becoming governor of New Jersey. He later served as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning in 1793.
