The Constitutional Convention of 1787: Fifth Grade Social Studies
In May of 1787, fifty-five visionary leaders from twelve different states gathered inside the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia with the initial goal of revising the Articles of Confederation, but ended up inventing a revolutionary new framework for American democracy.
The Gathering in Philadelphia
The United States in the spring of 1787 was a country in deep distress. Shays' Rebellion had exposed severe domestic instability, the national treasury was bankrupt, commercial trade wars raged between neighboring states, and European empires looked upon the young republic with open contempt. Recognizing the gathering danger, the Confederation Congress issued a formal call for the states to send delegates to Philadelphia for "the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."
Only Rhode Island refused to participate, fearing that any strengthening of the national government would infringe upon its local independence and trade practices. The other twelve states selected fifty-five delegates—an extraordinary gathering of statesmen, lawyers, merchants, physicians, and plantation owners that Thomas Jefferson later admiringly referred to from his diplomatic post in Paris as "an assembly of demigods."
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION (1787) |
| Pennsylvania State House, Philadelphia |
| |
| GEORGE WASHINGTON JAMES MADISON |
| - Presiding Officer - "Father of the Constitution" |
| - Gave convention dignity - Researched ancient governments |
| - Unanimously elected - Took comprehensive daily notes |
| |
| BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ALEXANDER HAMILTON |
| - Oldest delegate (81) - Passionate nationalist |
| - Urged compromise & unity- Advocated strong central power |
| |
| KEY PROCEDURAL RULES: |
| 1. Complete secrecy (windows nailed shut, guards at doors) |
| 2. Each state delegation cast one single vote |
| 3. Freedom to reconsider previous votes at any time |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Key Delegates and Their Historic Roles
The delegates brought immense practical experience to the convention. More than half had attended college, thirty-nine had served in the Continental Congress, eight had signed the Declaration of Independence, and many had served as high-ranking officers in the Continental Army.
George Washington of Virginia was unanimously elected president of the convention. His presence alone commanded profound respect and reassurance throughout the nation. Washington spoke very rarely during the four months of deliberations, but his dignified leadership, moral authority, and quiet impartiality held the contentious gathering together when tempers flared.
Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, at eighty-one years of age, was the oldest and most revered delegate in attendance. Renowned worldwide as a philosopher, scientist, and diplomat, Franklin used his gentle humor, worldly wisdom, and calming presence to soothe bitter arguments between opposing factions.
James Madison of Virginia, a brilliant thirty-six-year-old scholar who stood barely five feet four inches tall, arrived in Philadelphia weeks early with trunks full of history books. He had spent years analyzing ancient Greek city-states, the Roman Republic, and modern European confederacies to discover why past republican governments had collapsed. Madison drafted the foundational framework for the new government and took detailed, meticulous notes of every speech and debate, earning him the enduring title of "Father of the Constitution."
Alexander Hamilton of New York, an ambitious, brilliant former aide-de-camp to George Washington, passionately championed a strong, energetic national government. Hamilton argued that only a powerful central authority could maintain law, build a world-class commercial economy, and defend the United States against foreign aggression.
Other influential delegates included James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Virginia, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut. Notably absent were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were serving as American ambassadors to France and Great Britain, respectively, and Patrick Henry, who declined his appointment as a delegate, famously declaring that he "smelt a rat" tending toward monarchy.
The Rule of Secrecy
At the very start of the proceedings, the delegates adopted a strict rule of absolute secrecy. Guards were stationed outside the doors of the Pennsylvania State House (now known as Independence Hall), and the heavy windows were nailed shut throughout the sweltering Philadelphia summer. Delegates pledged on their honor not to speak or write to anyone outside the room about the debates, nor to share information with journalists or family members.
This rule of secrecy was essential to the success of the convention. It allowed delegates to speak their minds freely, change their opinions when presented with compelling counterarguments, and propose radical ideas without fear of sensationalized headlines or public political backlash. Had the public been exposed to the daily, fiery disagreements over slavery, representation, and taxation, external political pressure would have torn the convention apart before an agreement could be reached.
The Virginia Plan vs. The New Jersey Plan
On May 29, 1787, Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph presented the Virginia Plan, which had been drafted primarily by James Madison. The Virginia Plan stunned the convention by boldly abandoning the Articles of Confederation altogether rather than merely amending them. It proposed creating a completely new national government with sovereign powers divided among three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| TWO OPPOSING VISIONS OF UNION |
| |
| THE VIRGINIA PLAN (Madison) THE NEW JERSEY PLAN (Paterson)|
| - Favored by LARGE states - Favored by SMALL states |
| - Bicameral Legislature - Unicameral Legislature |
| (Two Houses) (Single House) |
| - Representation based on - Equal representation: |
| POPULATION or wealth ONE VOTE per state |
| - Strong national executive - Plural executive branch |
| - Federal court system - Supreme federal court |
| - Power to veto state laws - Power to tax and regulate |
| trade, but state sovereignty|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
The Virginia Plan: Proportional Representation for Large States
The core of the Virginia Plan was a bicameral (two-house) legislature. In both houses—the lower house elected by the people and the upper house chosen by the lower house—representation would be based on each state's population or financial contributions to the national government. This proposal deeply appealed to populous states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, because their large populations would give them far more legislative representatives and greater political power in shaping national laws.
The New Jersey Plan: Equal Representation for Small States
Delegates from smaller states were horrified by the Virginia Plan. Men like William Paterson of New Jersey, Gunning Bedford Jr. of Delaware, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut feared that proportional representation would allow a coalition of three large states to dominate national policy, crushing the independence and vital interests of small states. Bedford went so far as to warn that small states would look to foreign alliances for protection if their equal sovereignty was stripped away.
On June 15, William Paterson presented the New Jersey Plan as an alternative. Paterson's plan preserved the existing unicameral Congress under the Articles of Confederation, where every state, regardless of size, held exactly one vote. It proposed giving Congress vital new powers to levy import taxes and regulate interstate commerce, and created an executive council and a federal judiciary. However, it maintained the fundamental structure of a loose confederation of equal states.
The convention ground to a tense, deadlocked standstill. For weeks, delegates engaged in bitter, exhausting debates that threatened to dissolve the gathering and leave the United States fractured into rival regional confederacies. It became abundantly clear that unless both large and small states were willing to sacrifice cherished demands and forge a compromise, the Constitutional Convention would end in utter failure.
Chapter Review and Exercises
Summary Review Exercises
Exercise One asks students to explain why delegates to the Constitutional Convention were instructed to merely revise the Articles of Confederation, yet quickly decided to discard them and create an entirely new framework of government. The response should explain that leaders recognized the structural weaknesses of the Articles—such as the total absence of executive and judicial branches, the inability to tax, and the impossible requirement for unanimous consent to amend the document—were too profound to be solved by minor revisions.
Exercise Two asks students to analyze the strategic purpose and practical consequences of the rule of secrecy adopted during the proceedings in Philadelphia. The response should discuss how keeping debates confidential shielded delegates from public scrutiny and political intimidation, allowing them to debate openly, propose experimental ideas, admit when they were mistaken, and compromise without losing face among their constituents back home.
Exercise Three requires students to contrast the structural proposals of the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan, focusing specifically on their divergent views regarding legislative representation. The response should contrast the Virginia Plan's bicameral legislature where representation was determined by population (favoring large states) against the New Jersey Plan's unicameral legislature where each state received one vote (favoring small states).
Detailed Solutions
Solution to Exercise One clarifies that while Congress intended only modest repairs to the Articles, visionary thinkers like James Madison arrived with a predetermined blueprint for a complete structural overhaul. They understood that the fundamental flaw was state sovereignty itself, and that only a true national government deriving its authority directly from the people could successfully maintain national order and prosperity.
Solution to Exercise Two explains that the rule of secrecy was essential to create a safe harbor for honest intellectual discourse. Without the press or the public recording every word, delegates could make concessions, back down from rigid positions, and invent creative institutional compromises that would have been politically impossible in an open legislative assembly.
Solution to Exercise Three details that the clash between the Virginia and New Jersey Plans was fundamentally a struggle over democratic equality versus state sovereignty. The Virginia Plan argued that people, not geographic land boundaries, should be equally represented in the federal government, while the New Jersey Plan insisted that states were equal, sovereign entities that must retain parity to avoid being subjugated by populous neighbors.