C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

Creating the Constitution

What compromises emerged from the Constitutional Convention?

Introduction

When the American war for independence ended, no one was happier, or more
worried, about the future of the United States than a serious Virginia Patriot
named James Madison. While serving in Congress during the war, Madison had
tried and failed to get the states to work easily together, and he doubted that
things would improve now that the war was over.

After declaring independence in 1776, Congress tried to unite the states under one
national government. However, most members were nervous about creating a
strong central government and feared that it would trample the very rights they
were fighting to preserve.

Their solution was a plan of government known as the Articles of Confederation.

The Articles created “a firm league of friendship” in which “each state retains its
sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” This “league of friendship” was a loose
union in which the 13 states cooperated for common purposes. It was run by
Congress, in which each state had one vote.

On paper, the Articles of Confederation gave Congress several important powers.

It could declare war, raise an army and a navy, print money, and set up a postal
system.

In reality, however, these powers were limited by the inability of Congress to

impose taxes. Congress had to ask the states for funds to do anything, and all too
often, the states ignored Congress's “humble requests.” The result, said Madison,
was that the Articles were no more effective at binding the states into a nation
than “a rope of sand.”

In this lesson, you will read about the new nation's shaky start under the Articles of
Confederation. You will also learn how Madison and other leaders met in 1787 to
revise the Articles and ended up compromising to form “a more perfect Union.”
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

Social Studies
Vocabulary

Articles of Confederation

constitution

Constitutional Convention

Electoral College

Enlightenment

The Federalist Papers

Great Compromise

Northwest Ordinance

Northwest Territory

ratify

republic
 Three-Fifths Compromise

1. Early Quarrels and Accomplishments

Even before the American Revolution was over, the states began quarreling among
themselves. These issues ranged from disputes over boundaries to taxes on goods
that crossed state borders. New York, for example, taxed firewood from
Connecticut and cabbages from New Jersey. The inability of Congress to end such
disagreements was one of the key weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.

Developing Western Lands Congress did get the states to agree on one
important issue: how to develop the lands acquired in the Treaty of Paris. At that
time, there was no orderly way to divide up and sell these lands, so many settlers

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

walked in and simply claimed the land they liked. Disputes over who owned what
clogged the courts.

To end this confusion, Congress passed the Land Ordinance of 1785, under which
western lands were divided into six-mile squares called townships. Each township
was then divided into 36 sections of 640 acres each. One section of each township
was set aside to support the township's public schools and the others sold to
settlers.

Surveyors proceeded to lay out townships in the Ohio Valley, then known as the
Northwest Territory. By 1787, the government was ready to sell sections to
settlers, but this raised the question of how these areas should be governed. Were
they to be U.S. colonies or new states?

The Northwest Ordinance Congress answered this question in theNorthwest

Ordinance of 1787. This law divided the Northwest Territory into smaller
territories, each governed by a territorial governor. As soon as a territory had 5,000
free adult males, it could elect its own legislature, or lawmaking body. When the
population reached 60,000, a territory could apply to Congress to become a state.

The Northwest Ordinance included a list of rights that gave settlers the same
privileges as other citizens, except for one. Slavery was banned in the Northwest
Territory.

This system of settlement served the nation well. Over time, the United States
would continue to establish territories as it spread to the shores of the Pacific
Ocean and beyond.

Level:
A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

2. Shays' Rebellion and the Need for Change

Under the Articles of Confederation, the new nation had serious money problems.
The paper money printed by Congress during the war was worthless, and although
Congress had the power to make coins that would not lose their value, it lacked gold
or silver to mint into coins.

The states reacted to the money shortage by printing their own paper currency,
and before long, bills of different sizes and colors were distributed from state to
state. No one knew what any of these currencies was worth, but most agreed
they were not worth much.

Massachusetts Farmers Rebel The money shortage was particularly hard on

farmers who could not earn enough to pay their debts and taxes. In
Massachusetts, judges ordered farmers to sell their land and livestock to pay off
their debts. Led by Daniel Shays, a hero of the Battle of Bunker Hill,
Massachusetts farmers rebelled.

In 1786, Shays and his followers closed down courthouses to keep judges from
taking their farms. Then they marched on the national arsenal at Springfield to seize
the weapons stored there. Having disbanded the Continental army, Congress was
unable to stop them.

The Massachusetts government ended Shays' Rebellion in early 1787 by sending

militia troops to Springfield to restore order. To many Americans, however, the
uprising was a disturbing sign that the nation they had fought so hard to create
 was falling apart. "No respect is paid to the federal [national] authority," James
Madison wrote to a friend. "It is not possible that a government can last long
under these circumstances."

A Call for a Convention Shays' Rebellion shocked Congress into calling for a
convention to consider "the situation of the United States." Each state was invited
to send delegates to Philadelphia in May 1787 "for the sole and express purpose of
revising the Articles of Confederation."

Madison, who had devoted the past year to the study of both ancient and modern
governments, was ready. The lesson of the past was always the same. A nation that
was made up of many groups needed a strong central government, or it would soon
be torn apart by quarrels. The question was, would Americans heed this lesson?

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

3. Opening the Constitutional Convention

Philadelphia was already hot and humid when delegates began drifting into the
 city. On May 25, 1787, the Constitutional Convention met for the first time in the
east room of the Pennsylvania State House (now known as Independence Hall). The
Declaration of Independence had been debated in this very room just 11 years
earlier. The delegates would meet in the east room all summer. On some days,
temperatures rose well into the nineties.

The delegates' first action was to elect George Washington president of the
convention because no man was more admired and respected than the former
commander in chief of the Continental army. When the war ended, Washington
could have used his power and popularity to make himself a king. Instead, he went
home to Virginia to resume his life as an ordinary citizen. Despite his reluctance to
return to public life, however, Washington would play a key role by presiding over
the convention and lending it his prestige.

The Delegates Fifty-five delegates from 12 states attended the Constitutional

Convention. Rhode Island, which prided itself as "the home of the otherwise
Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

minded" and feared a strong national government, boycotted the meeting.

Some leaders of the revolution were also missing. John Adams and Thomas
Jefferson were representing the United States in Great Britain and France,
respectively. Others who did not attend included Sam Adams, John Hancock, and
Patrick Henry. They feared that a strong national government would endanger the
rights of states.
 As a group, the delegates were, in the words of a modern historian, "the well-bred,
the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed." Their average age was 42. At 81,
Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania was the oldest, arriving at the convention each
day in a sedan chair carried by four good-natured prisoners from a nearby jail.

Most of the delegates brought extensive political experience to the meeting. More
than two-thirds were lawyers, and most had served in their state legislatures or
held a state office. Thomas Jefferson was so impressed by the ability and
experience of these men that he called the convention "an assembly of demi gods."

The Father of the Constitution The best prepared of the delegates was James
Madison of Virginia. One delegate wrote of Madison, "In the management of every
great question he evidently took the lead in the Convention." Indeed, Madison's
influence was so great that later he would be called the "Father of the
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

Constitution."

Madison addressed the convention numerous times, and when he was not
speaking, he was taking notes. Sitting near the front of the room so that he could
hear everything that was said, Madison wrote down nearly every word.
Altogether, his notes covered more than 600 printed pages, and this remarkable
record helps us understand what went on inside the convention day by day.
The Rule of Secrecy At the time, however, no one outside the convention knew
what was happening. After choosing a president, the delegates voted on rules for
the convention, the most important of these being the rule of secrecy. The
delegates wanted to feel free to speak their minds without causing alarm or
opposition among the general public, so they agreed to keep secret whatever was
said in the meeting room until their work was done.

One day, Washington was handed some notes that had been dropped in the hall
outside the east room. Washington pocketed the paper until the end of debate the
next day, when, in his sternest voice, he lectured the delegates on the importance of
secrecy. "I know not whose paper it is," Washington said as he flung the notes on his
desk. "But there it is, let him who owns it take it." The notes were never claimed.
Instead, they lay on Washington's desk for days.

Like Washington, the delegates took the rule of secrecy seriously. During that long
summer, not a single word about the convention debates appeared in any
newspaper.

Shared Beliefs and Clashing Views Once the convention was organized, the
delegates got down to business. As a group, the delegates had much in common,
but they also had very different views on many issues facing the new nation.

To be sure, all the delegates were committed to the ideals of the Declaration of
Independence. The basic purpose of government, they believed, was to protect
the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And they agreed, in the
words of the Declaration, that the "just powers" of governments came from "the
consent of the governed."

In part, these beliefs reflected the ideas ofEnlightenment thinkers like England's
John Locke. Human institutions, these liberal thinkers had argued, should be based
on "laws of nature," among which were the rights to liberty and equality. The best
way to protect these rights, the delegates agreed, was through some form of
republic.

From New England's town meetings to lawmaking bodies like the Virginia House Level:

A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

of Burgesses, Americans had a long tradition of participating in their own

government. After the American Revolution, all the states had adopted
constitutions that embraced republican ideals. Despite many differences in
details, every state had some form of representative government and had
expanded the rights to vote and to hold office. The state constitutions helped to
shape the delegates' thinking.
 Despite the delegates' broad agreement on a government "of the people," many
questions were left unanswered. For example, who exactly should have a say in a
truly "representative" government? Even in liberal Pennsylvania, only free, white
males could vote, while other states allowed only wealthier citizens to vote or hold
office. Women could not vote in any state except New Jersey. (New Jersey women
would lose the right to vote in 1807.)

Perhaps the most troubling question of all was how powerful the national
government should be. Many delegates wanted to keep government close to the
people by preserving the rights of the states. They feared that a strong national
government would threaten individual liberty, but others, including Madison,
argued just the opposite. Look at what has happened under the Articles of
Confederation, they said, referring to events like Shays' Rebellion. If the central
government is too weak, it cannot do its job of protecting liberty and property.

Tempers often flared as the delegates wrestled with these and other issues behind
closed doors. Several times it seemed the convention might collapse in failure. But
the delegates ultimately found ways to save the convention—and the nation.

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 4. Issue: How Should States Be Represented in the New Government?

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 When the convention began, most delegates believed that their task was to revise
the Articles of Confederation, but to their surprise, the Virginia delegation
presented them with a completely new plan of government. After a lengthy debate,
the delegates made a bold move. They agreed to throw out the Articles of
Confederation and write a new constitution.

While the delegates—later known as the framers—agreed to design a new

framework of government, they were divided on a key issue. Should the
government's power to rule come from the states or the people? Under the
Articles of Confederation, the answer was the states. James Madison's answer
was that the government's power should come directly from the people.

The Virginia Plan Drafted by James Madison and proposed by Edmund Randolph,
the Virginia Plan called for a strong national government with three branches, or
parts. A legislative branch would make laws. An executive branch would carry out,
or execute, the laws. A judicial branch, or system of courts, would apply and
interpret the laws. Under the Virginia Plan, Congress was to be made up of two
houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the number of
lawmakers that a state could send to Congress depended on the state's population.
States with large populations would have more representatives than smaller states
would have.

Delegates from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other large states liked the Virginia
Plan. Having the new government represent people, not states, would give them
more representatives and more power in both houses of Congress.

The New Jersey Plan Not surprisingly, delegates from the small states disliked the
Virginia Plan. Just as the convention was about to vote on it, William Paterson of
New Jersey introduced a rival proposal.

Like the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan called for a government with three
branches. However, the legislative branch would have just one house, not two, and
each state would have an equal vote in Congress, no matter how big or small. This
plan, Paterson argued, would keep the small states from being "swallowed up" by
their more populous neighbors.

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 5. Resolution: The Great Compromise
The New Jersey Plan was warmly received by delegates from small states. The
majority of delegates, however, saw William Paterson's plan as offering little
improvement over the Articles of Confederation and rejected it. But they could
not agree on what should replace it.

Tempers Rise The debate over representation in Congress continued into July,
with tempers rising day by day. To most delegates from large states,
representation based on population seemed both logical and fair. "Can we forget
for whom we are forming a Government?" asked James Wilson of Pennsylvania.
"Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States?"

Wilson thought the answer was obvious, but his logic could not overcome the fears
of small-state delegates. One hot Saturday afternoon, Gunning Bedford of
Delaware tore into the delegates from large states. "They insist," he said, "they will
never hurt or injure the lesser states." His reply to his own concern was
straightforward. "I do not, gentlemen, trust you!" If the large states continued in their
efforts to "crush the smaller states," Bedford warned, "the small ones will find some
foreign ally of more honor and good faith who will take them by the hand

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 and do them justice."

Rufus King of Massachusetts was shocked at this reference to foreign powers, and
he said that he was "grieved, that such a thought had entered his heart." Still, every
delegate knew that Great Britain, France, and Spain were just waiting for the United
States to fall apart so they could pick up the pieces.

A Compromise Is Reached Finally, a compromise was proposed based on a plan put

forward earlier by the delegate from Connecticut, Roger Sherman. The
compromise plan kept a two-house Congress. The first house, the House of
Representatives, would represent the people and would include a number of
representatives from each state based on the state's population. The second house,
the Senate, would represent the states, and each state would have two senators
elected by their state legislatures. When it came time to decide, the vote was very
close, but the plan, which would become known as the Great Compromise, was
approved and saved the convention.

6. Issue: How Should Enslaved People Be Counted?

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 The Great Compromise kept the framers working together. But having agreed to
base representation in one house of Congress on state population, they faced a
new and difficult question. As Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania put it, "Upon
what principle shall slaves be computed in the representation?"

People or Property By the time of the convention, nine-tenths of people

enslaved in the United States lived in the South. Like everyone else, southerners
wanted as many representatives in the House as possible, so they argued that
enslaved people should be counted the same as any other people in determining
representation.

Northern delegates challenged this idea. Were enslaved people to be considered

full citizens with a right to be represented in Congress or were they property?
"Blacks are property and are used to the southward as horses and cattle to the
northward," argued Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. Most northern delegates
agreed that enslaved people should be counted only as property that could be
taxed like any other property. If enslaved people were to be counted as people in
determining representation, said Morris, "then make them citizens and let them
vote."

New Thinking on Slavery This argument signaled a growing division among white
Americans. The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution forced
many white people to reexamine their views on slavery, and some became active in
trying to end what they now saw as a great evil. Benjamin Franklin, for example,
became president of an antislavery society in 1787. In the North, this new thinking
led one state after another to pass laws ending slavery.

Although many southerners were uneasy about slavery, they were not yet ready
to abolish it. The South's economy was still very dependent on the labor of
enslaved African Americans. But some southern states did pass laws making it
easier for enslavers to free the people they enslaved.

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 7. Resolution: The Three-Fifths Compromise
After a bitter debate, Madison proposed a compromise. Count each enslaved
person as three-fifths of a person, he suggested, when determining a state's
population for representation in the House of Representatives. The delegates
approved this idea, which became known as the Three-Fifths Compromise,
because it seemed the only way to keep the convention moving forward.

Another Slavery Issue A dispute over trade raised another issue about slavery. To
help business in the North, northern delegates favored giving Congress broad
power to control trade between the states and other countries. However,
southern delegates worried that Congress might try to tax southern export crops
such as rice and tobacco. Southerners also worried that Congress would use its
power over trade to outlaw the trade of enslaved people brought from Africa.

Southerners had reason to be fearful. By 1787, several states had outlawed the
trade of enslaved people within their boundaries. A majority of the convention's
delegates favored ending this trade completely.

South Carolina and Georgia, however, objected that their economies would
collapse without a constant supply of new enslaved people. Neither state would
agree to any constitution that threatened to end the trade of enslaved people.

More Compromises on Slavery Again, the delegates settled on a compromise.

Congress would have the power to control trade, but with two limitations. First,
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 Congress could not place any tax on exports to other countries. Second, Congress
could not interfere with the trade of enslaved people for 20 years, or until 1808
when the clause banning the international trade of enslaved people took effect.

To satisfy southerners, the delegates also agreed to a provision known as the

fugitive slave clause. This clause said that people who escaped from enslavement
had to be returned to their enslavers, even if they were caught in a free state.

The compromises only postponed the day when Americans would have to resolve
the terrible contradiction between slavery and the ideals of liberty and equality. In
the meantime, generations of African Americans would spend their lives in
bondage.

8. Issue: How Should the Chief Executive Be Elected?

Another major question facing the delegates concerned who would head the new
government's executive branch. Early in the convention, Charles Pinckney urged
the creation of a "vigorous executive." James Wilson followed with a proposal that a
single person serve as the chief executive.

A sudden silence fell over the convention. The very idea of a single executive
brought to mind unhappy memories of King George III. Wilson broke the silence by
Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 explaining that good government depends on clear, timely, and responsible
leadership. Such leadership, he said, is most likely to be found in a single person.

One Executive or Three? Edmund Randolph of Virginia disliked this proposal,

preferring a three-member executive drawn from different parts of the country.
Three people, he argued, could lead the country better than one.

Benjamin Franklin opposed a single executive for different reasons. "The first man
put at the helm will be a good one," said Franklin, thinking of George Washington.
"Nobody knows what sort may come afterwards." The next chief executive, he
cautioned, might be overly ambitious or too "fond of war."

In spite of these objections, the framers agreed to a single executive, to be called

the president. To keep this leader from becoming too king-like, they limited the
president's term to four years, with a vice president who was also to be elected to
fill that term if the president died in office.

Choosing the Chief Executive Equally troubling was the issue of how to choose
the chief executive since some delegates wanted Congress to appoint the
president. Gouverneur Morris, however, objected, arguing that the president
"must not be made the flunky of the Congress. It must not be able to say to him:
'You owe your appointment to us.'"

Several delegates thought that the people should elect the president, but Madison
argued that voters would naturally vote for someone from their own state. As a
result, this method would not be fair to candidates from small states.

Still others suggested that the president be elected by a specially chosen group of
"electors" from each state. Such a group, they felt, would be able to look beyond
state interests to make a wise choice for the entire country.

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

9. Resolution: The Electoral College

After some 60 votes on the issue of how to elect the president, the framers
reached another compromise. Neither Congress nor the people, they decided,
should choose the president and vice president. Instead, a special body called the
Electoral College would elect the government's leaders.

The Electoral College System The Electoral College is made up of electors who
cast votes to elect the president and vice president every four years. Each state
has as many electors in the Electoral College as the number of senators and
representatives it sends to Congress. The votes cast by electors are called
electoral votes.

The delegates left the method of choosing electors up to each state.Before 1820,
state legislatures chose electors in most states. Today, the people choose their
state's electors when they vote in presidential elections. The electors then cast
their ballots for president and vice president on a date chosen by Congress.

Originally, the electors voted for two candidates without saying which one they
preferred for president or vice president. The candidate receiving the most votes
became president, while the runner-up became vice president. This system caused
Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 great confusion in the election of 1800 and was later changed.

Political Parties and Elections The Electoral College system seems very odd to
most Americans today. In our age of instant communication, it is hard to
appreciate the framers' concern that voters would not know enough about
candidates outside their own state to choose a president wisely.

The delegates could not have predicted how quickly communications would
improve in the United States. Nor could they foresee the rise of national political
parties. Within a few years of the convention, political parties were nominating
candidates for president and educating voters in every state about those
candidates.

The Electoral College system still affects presidential elections today. In most
states, the candidate who gets the most votes—even if less than a majority—wins
all of that state's electoral votes. As a result, a candidate can win a majority in the
Electoral College without necessarily winning a majority of the votes cast across
the country. In the presidential election of 2016, Donald Trump won the
presidency over Hillary Clinton by getting the most Electoral College votes, even
though Clinton received more votes than Trump in the popular election.

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 10. The Convention Ends

By the end of summer, the hard work of designing the Constitution was
completed. However, the new proposal still had to be approved by the states.

Approving the Constitution The first question before the framers was how many
states would have to ratify, or approve, the Constitution before it could go into
effect. Should ratification require approval by all 13 states or by a majority of 7
states? Ultimately, the framers compromised on 9 states.

The second question was who should ratify the Constitution—the people or the
state legislatures? Ratification by state legislatures would be faster and easier.
James Madison, however, argued strongly that the people were “the fountain of all
power” and should decide. The majority of delegates agreed, and after the delegates
signed the Constitution, the document was later ratified at special conventions by
delegates elected by the people in each state. However, ratification did not come
without difficulty.

Signing the Constitution On September 17, 1787, the delegates declared the Level: A

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

Constitution complete. As this last meeting began, Franklin shared his final
thoughts, which would be printed in more than 50 newspapers.

“I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution,” Franklin began before
pointing out that no convention could produce a perfect plan. “It therefore
astonishes me,” Franklin continued, “to find this system approaching so near to
perfection … and I think it will astonish our enemies.” Franklin added that he
approved the final plan “because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that
it is not the best.” He urged every member of the convention to “put his name to this
instrument.”

Not everyone was won over by Franklin's words. Thirteen delegates left the
convention before it ended and did not sign the Constitution.

Three other delegates—Edmund Randolph and George Mason, both of Virginia, and
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts—also did not sign. Mason believed it gave too
much power to the national government, and Gerry refused to sign because he
believed the new plan did not protect the rights of the people.

When the signing was over, Franklin confessed that he had often looked at the sun
carved on the back of George Washington's chair and wondered whether it was
about to rise or set. “But now,” he said, “I have the happiness to know that it is a
rising and not a setting sun.” A new day was dawning for the United States.

© 2024
Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 11. The Constitution Goes to the States

Newspapers in every state printed the Constitution as soon as they could get it.
What readers found was a plan that would create a “federal” system of
government, in which a strong national government shared power with the states.
Before long, the entire country was debating the same issues that had kept the
convention in session for four long months.

The Federalists Supporters of the Constitution called themselves Federalists. The

Federalists argued that the Constitution would create a national government that
was strong enough to unite the quarreling states into a single republic.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay led the Federalist campaign for
ratification. In a series of newspaper essays, they recalled the weaknesses of the
government under the Articles of Confederation. They showed how the
Constitution would remedy those weaknesses by creating a stronger, more
effective union of the states.

The Federalist leaders also addressed the fears of many Americans that a strong
government would threaten their freedom or take away their rights. The powers
given to the government, they pointed out, were strictly limited. In addition, those
powers were divided among three branches so that no one branch could become
too powerful. The influential articles written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were
later collected and published as The Federalist Papers.

The Anti-Federalists Anti-Federalists, opponents of the Constitution, found much

to dislike about the new plan. Congress, they feared, would burden the country with
taxes. They also claimed that the president had power enough to rule like a king, and
the judicial branch would overpower state courts.

The Anti-Federalists also complained about what was missing from the plan,
primarily that the plan listed the powers of the government but not the rights of
the people. Most of all, the Anti-Federalists feared change, and the idea of giving
up any state power to form a stronger Union made them uneasy.

After listening to the arguments, Madison wrote that the question facing the
nation was “whether the Union shall or shall not be continued. There is, in my
opinion, no middle ground to be taken.”

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 Lesson Summary
In this lesson, you read about the Constitutional Convention, the historic meeting
that replaced the Articles of Confederation with a new plan of government.

Early Quarrels and Accomplishments Under the Articles of Confederation,

Congress did not have the power to solve disagreements among states over such
issues as taxes. Congress passed laws on how to settle the Northwest Territory.

Shays' Rebellion Shays' Rebellion showed that under the Articles of

Confederation, the government was too weak to keep order.

The Great Compromise In 1787, delegates met at the Constitutional Convention

and agreed to replace the Articles. The Great Compromise established how states
were to be represented in the legislative branch of government.

The Three-Fifths Compromise The Three-Fifths Compromise settled the question

of how enslaved people were to be counted in determining a state's population.

The Electoral College and the Chief Executive Another compromise created a
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 single chief executive, to be chosen by the Electoral College.

The Constitution Delegates signed the Constitution in September 1787. They

agreed that 9 of the 13 states had to ratify the Constitution before it could go into
effect.

Reading Further

James Madison and the

Long, Hot Summer of 1787

James Madison is often called the “Father of the Constitution.” Although many
people had a hand in shaping the Constitution, most scholars agree that Madison
was the main driving force behind the document's creation. It was a process that
took more than 100 days of complex negotiation and compromise. Even so, it did
not turn out quite as Madison had wanted.

In the first week of May 1787, James Madison stood alone in the East Room of the
Pennsylvania State House. In order to prepare for the convention, Madison had
arrived early in Philadelphia and checked in to one of the city's finest boarding
houses, run by Mrs. Mary House. Within a few weeks, many of the nation's political
leaders would gather in the city. Although few of them knew it at the time, their
task would be to create a new plan of government for the United States.

Madison had carefully considered the great challenges facing the nation. The
United States was floundering under the Articles of Confederation, and Madison
believed that a stronger national government was needed to keep the country on
course. While other leaders also agreed on the need for reform, many of them

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

distrusted the power of a strong central government. Madison would have to

 persuade them to let go of their fears.

Unfortunately, it was not a fine time to be in Philadelphia. After a wet and rainy
spring, the summer weather was becoming increasingly hot and humid. To make
matters worse, the city was plagued with dense clouds of black flies, forcing
residents to sleep with their windows closed or be tormented by swarms of
buzzing, biting insects. Shutting their windows, however, meant they had to spend
their nights sweltering in the heat.

Madison had bigger concerns, though. As he looked around the East Room of the
State House, he imagined the events that would soon unfold there. The large room,
with a 20-foot-high ceiling and tall windows, would be crowded once all the
delegates were seated. Madison decided to sit up front, where he could get a clear
view of the proceedings, take notes, and see and hear everything that took place at
the convention.

Madison Leads the Way

At age 36, Madison was a small man, just five and a half feet tall, with pale skin and
thinning hair. He typically dressed in black. Madison was shy and spoke in a soft
voice that was often hard to hear, but he had great energy and was known to walk
with a bounce in his step and get by on just a few hours of sleep. Although he rarely
displayed personal warmth or charm, he was a brilliant conversationalist who
knew how to win others to his side.

Madison was well prepared to play a leading role at the convention. He had spent
several years as a member of Congress, studied the writings of great political
thinkers, and understood how political systems worked. He had also helped write
the Virginia Constitution of 1776, which was an important model of democratic
government that established a state government with separation of powers and a
two-house legislature.

Over the next two weeks, the other delegates began to arrive. They were all
wealthy, educated white men who were mostly lawyers or large landowners.
There were no workers or tradesmen. There were also no women, African
Americans, or American Indians.

The delegates rented rooms at various boarding houses and inns. The Indian
Queen, the largest inn in the city, was a center of social activity during the
convention, where leaders from around the nation would gather to eat, drink, and
exchange stories.

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

By mid-May, most of the Virginia delegation had arrived. This group included three
 major political figures: George Washington, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph.
These men met with Madison late into the night, and together they came up with a
set of 15 proposals, which made up a plan for a new government. Now known as the
Virginia Plan, these proposals embodied Madison's ideas on the kind of government
the nation needed.

The Convention Begins

The convention was due to begin on May 14, but many delegates had still not
arrived. Travel was difficult in those days because the roads were poorly kept and
coaches often got stuck in the mud or broke an axle. A trip that normally took a
week might take much longer because of problems on the road.

Finally, on May 25, the convention got underway, and for the next four months the
delegates would gather in the East Room to debate issues of government. To
maintain secrecy, they agreed to bolt the doors and shut the windows, but the
temperature in the room increased as the summer wore on. Many of the men wore
wigs and heavy wool suits in this stifling atmosphere, and with the doors and
windows closed, arguments were often fueled by the heat.

Through all these challenges, Madison sat at his table near the front, scribbling
away at his notes. In the evening, he took these notes back to his room and
laboriously copied them out, word for word. Although it was an ordeal that
Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

“almost killed” him, he was determined to keep a complete and accurate record of
the convention.
 Debating the Virginia Plan

From the start, the convention focused much of its attention on the Virginia Plan.
On May 29, Edmund Randolph presented the various points of the plan, summing
up its main idea the following day in a bold proposal: “that a national Government
ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive &
Judiciary.” Amazingly, Randolph's proposal was approved with little debate, and
Madison had achieved his first major goal without a struggle. The convention had
agreed to form a new government, but winning support for the plan's details
would prove much more difficult.

The toughest issues involved the national legislature. While the delegates all
agreed that Congress was a key part of government, they disagreed on how the
people and the states should be represented in Congress. Leading delegates like
Madison knew this dispute could derail the convention and instead focused on
what they thought would be a simpler issue—the executive branch. But this became
a difficult issue to negotiate, too. Should there be one executive or three? How long
should the executive serve? Should the executive be elected or appointed? For a
week, the discussion continuously circled around these questions as delegates
would vote on a question, discuss it some more, and vote again.

Crafting a Final Document

Frustrated by this seemingly endless debate, on June 9 the delegates decided to

tackle the thorny problem of representation in the legislature. The month-long
debate was so fierce that it sometimes appeared the convention would fall apart,
but the delegates always pulled back from the brink. Finally, on July 16, they
approved the Great Compromise, which set different forms of representation for
the two houses of Congress. Depressed, Madison realized that he had lost his
battle for a legislature based solely on representing the people rather than the
states. But with the greatest conflict behind them, the framers could work toward
a final plan for the new government.

By late August, the delegates formed the Committee on Postponed Matters to

take up the few issues that remained to be resolved. A few days later, the
committee reported back with its findings and more debate followed. By early
September, a Committee on Style—consisting of Madison and four others—was
formed to prepare a final draft to present to the full convention.

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

Ever mindful of the importance of this plan for the nation, the delegates made a
few more changes. Finally, Gouverneur Morris of New Jersey handwrote the final
document—4,300 words in all. “On the question to agree to the Constitution, as
 amended,” Madison recorded in his notes, “All the states, ay [yes].” And so at last, on
September 17, 1787, most of the delegates signed the Constitution and sent it off
to the states for ratification.

The exhausted delegates had finally completed their monumental task. However,
the Constitution was still not everything James Madison had hoped for because, in
his view, it left too much power in the hands of the states. But he had done what he
could and was prepared to live with the outcome, as he now turned to the fight for
ratification and the task of creating a new government.

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 © 2024 Teachers'

Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 Roots of American Democracy
Stop for a moment and notice the thoughts you have as you read the title of this
section. What ideas come to mind when you read the word roots? How about
American? Democracy?

Whatever your thoughts are, they are uniquely your own. But most likely they
grew out of something you've heard or read, or maybe seen on TV or in the
movies. This is how most ideas grow. They start from something outside
ourselves. Then we make them our own and sometimes improve on them.

The Americans who led the Revolution and created the Constitution were no
different from you. Starting with other people's ideas, they created the
government we live under today. The ideas they drew upon are the roots of
American democratic thinking and institutions. Let's look at some of these roots.

Religious Tradition

One important influence on early Americans was the Judeo-Christian religious

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 tradition. Nearly all the leaders of the Revolution believed in God. Most were
Christians whose ideas about human dignity and freedom owed much to the
teachings of the Bible. (The Bible includes sacred writings of both Judaism and
Christianity.) Many Americans saw human liberty not just in political terms, but as
a right bestowed by God.

Leaders like Thomas Jefferson were also influenced by the European

Enlightenment. The Enlightenment prized reason and observation as sources of
truth. Many Enlightenment thinkers sought a “natural religion” that was based on
observing the order and lawfulness of the universe. They thought of God as the
architect of this orderly universe. In discovering universal laws such as gravity,
they believed, scientists were revealing God's laws for the natural world. In a
similar way, people could find the “natural law” that should govern society. For
thinkers like England's John Locke, this natural law included basic rights that no
human law or ruler should violate.

That is why the Declaration of Independence speaks of “the Laws of Nature and
Nature's God.” These words express Jefferson's belief that liberty and equality
came from natural law—the law established by the God who created the world.

The English Parliamentary Tradition

In their thinking about government, early Americans drew on the English

parliamentary tradition. They knew it well because they had been English subjects.

As far back as Magna Carta (1215), the English had put limits on the king's ability
to rule as he pleased. For important matters like taxation, the king needed
approval from the leading citizens of his realm.

Over time, the English established Parliament as the body that represented the
king's subjects. Parliament was divided into two houses. The House of Lords was
made up of aristocrats who held their position for life. The House of Commons
was made up of representatives elected by the people.

The framers of the Constitution adapted this tradition and made it more
democratic. In place of a king who ruled for life, they put a president who had to run
for reelection every four years. In place of Parliament, they created a Congress with
two houses. The Senate was designed to be a small, thoughtful body, much like the
House of Lords. Unlike English lords, however, senators had to run for reelection
every six years. Even the House of Representatives was more democratic. In
England, the House of Commons could go seven years without elections. In the
United States, every member of the House of Representatives faced election every
two years.
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 Ideas from the English Bill of Rights can also be found mirrored in early American
documents. The English Bill of Rights spoke of individual rights where people were
allowed to petition the king and be tried by a jury when accused. The same ideals
can be found in the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which discusses the rights
of the criminally accused by requiring a jury and forbidding denial of "life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law."

Similarly, the Declaration speaks about individual rights in its famous line here:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The idea of the “rights of Englishmen,” found in the Magna Carta and the English
Bill of Rights would be a foundation for self-rule throughout the colonies and
beyond. The Mayflower Compact is a result of the English documents and
provides an even deeper look at early sources of American democracy. Pilgrims
aboard the Mayflower ship created the short 200-word document to unite the
new colony. By signing the agreement, the settlers decided on a form of
representative government. They also agreed to obey “just and equall laws”
created “for the generall good of the Colonie.” Although power was in the hands
of the Pilgrim leaders, the Mayflower Compact has been seen as a major step
towards democratic government in America because of its principles of common
consent and self-government.

Classical Liberal Principles

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 Another aspect of the Enlightenment was a school of thought calledclassical
liberalism. The most basic principle of classical liberalism was that human beings
could be trusted to decide what was best for themselves. The more freedom
people enjoyed, the better off society would be. Government should therefore
serve the people's needs instead of the other way around.

These ideas had been argued forcefully by John Locke.His Second Treatise on
Government was published in 1690, just as English parliamentary tradition was
taking its modern form. Locke's book spoke of each man's right to “life, liberty, and
estate [property].” Do these words sound familiar? Thomas Jefferson changed them
to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for the Declaration of Independence.

Locke describes the purpose of government as a "social contract" that requires the
consent of the governed. He says that a government may legitimately be dissolved
when the government fails to fulfill its proper functions with respect to the people
who empowered it.

For Locke, property ownership was central to classical liberalism. (And no wonder. ©

2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 He was a wealthy man, with investments in the silk and slave trades.) This aspect
of classical liberalism got a big boost from another English thinker, Adam Smith.
His book The Wealth of Nations came out the same year as the Declaration of
Independence. Smith argued that the best way for a nation to become wealthy
was to let people conduct their business as they pleased, free from government
interference. This was another argument for the liberty urged by classical
liberalism.

Civic Republicanism

Classical liberalism's optimistic belief in liberty had a weakness.Sometimes people

exercise their rights in ways that harm others. What if your next-door neighbor
plays loud music at three o'clock in the morning, waking up everyone in your
home? Should your neighbor be free to do as he pleases? To keep people from
using their freedom in selfish ways, early American leaders relied on the idea of
civic republicanism.

Civic republicanism went all the way back to the ancient Greeks, nearly 2,500
years ago. It called for citizens to do what was best for the republic (the whole
society), not just for themselves. Civic republicans would actively participate in
government. They would put unselfishness before greed, resist political
corruption, and play referee when two or more elements of society competed for
power. (Notice that this meaning of republican applies to everyone, not just
members of today's Republican Party.)

Many of the nation's early leaders believed that civic republicanism depended on
citizens receiving a good education. “Establish the law for educating the common
people,” urged Thomas Jefferson. Today these words are inscribed in the Jefferson
Memorial in Washington, D.C. Part of the reason you are asked to study American
history is the hope that you, too, will be a civic republican.

The First State Constitutions

Americans faced the task of creating new forms of government long before the U.S.
Constitution was written. Almost as soon as the Revolution broke out, legislative
assemblies in the former colonies began writing new constitutions. By the end of
1776, 10 states had completed the process. By 1780, every state had a written
constitution.

These first state constitutions reflected Americans' revolutionary thinking. They

helped create the context in which the U.S. Constitution was written.

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...
 What were the new ideas in these documents? Here are some of the most
important ones:

• A constitution needs to be written down. Unlike the British

constitution, early state constitutions were written documents.
Americans believed that putting constitutions in writing would make
it harder for state governments to violate basic principles.

• Power comes from the people. The first state constitutions reflected
republican ideals. A key ideal was that power comes from the
people, not from the king or any other authority. For this reason,
early state constitutions gave the most power to elected
legislatures. In fact, they generally created very weak executives
(such as a governor). This reflected Americans' fear and resentment
of the strong executives they had known under British rule.

• Separation of powers. State constitutions separated executive,

legislative, and judicial powers. They forbade the governor, or any
other executive officer, from serving in the legislature. They also
tried to protect the courts from executive control.

• “All men are created equal.” This republican ideal was, of course,
enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. State constitutions
echoed this idea. For example, Pennsylvania declared, “All men are
born equally free and independent.” In reality, however, the new
states did not favor absolute equality. All states established property
requirements for voting. Most state legislatures had an upper house
that was made up mostly of the well-to-do. In some states,
governors had to be quite wealthy. And only New Jersey allowed
women to vote. (Women in this state lost the right to vote in 1807.)
Still, the ideal of equality would be a powerful influence in the years
to come.

• Basic rights should be constitutionally protected. Americans agreed

early on that basic rights needed protection in the written
constitution. Vermont and Massachusetts, for example, devoted
part of their constitutions to “A Declaration of the Rights of the
Inhabitants” of their states. Such efforts planted the seed of the Bill
of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.

A few states even applied the ideas of equality and rights to slavery.The Vermont
and New Hampshire constitutions abolished slavery. In Massachusetts, a court
declared in 1783 that slavery could not be permitted under the state's bill of
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

rights. Delaware's constitution forbade any new importation of slaves. Over time,
other northern states passed antislavery laws.

These early constitutions were only a first attempt at self-government.In response

to various events, states revised their fundamental laws. In the 1780s, for instance,
Americans decided that they had gone too far in weakening the power of the
executive branch. States changed their constitutions to make the executive
stronger. They also moved toward having constitutional conventions instead of
letting the legislatures write their constitutions. Still, the first state constitutions
did establish principles that would continue to guide the American experiment in
self-government.

The Articles of Confederation

You have already learned the basics of the Articles of Confederation and the
details of the Constitution. Now you will dig deeper into the Articles and analyze
excerpts from it.

When the Treaty of Paris ended the American Revolution in 1783, the United Level: A ©

2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

States already had a government. The nation's first government was set up under
the Articles of Confederation, which the states adopted in 1781. Although the
government under the Articles was able to provide just enough leadership to win
the American Revolution, there were many drawbacks to the way this system was
set up.

The Articles of Confederation acted as more of a treaty than a constitution, and

they allowed individual states to retain their sovereignty. As Article II states:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power,
jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the
United States, in Congress assembled.

Under the Articles of Confederation, states retained most of the power, and the
national government was headed by Congress.

The national government had no president and no court system. The lack of a
national judiciary meant that state courts were each supreme in their own states;
there was no overarching entity to resolve dispute between states. The Articles
gave Congress the power to pass laws. Every law had to be approved by at least 9 of
the 13 states, and "[in] determining questions in the United States in Congress
assembled, each State shall have one vote" (Article V). This meant that large states,
such as Virginia, had the same voting weight as small states, such as Delaware.

Among the powers granted to Congress under the Articles were the powers to
declare war, create a postal system, and print money. The power to print money
was given to the states as well. Congress did have the power to regulate the value
of money. However, no single currency was established. Article IX states:

The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and
power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of
the respective States …

Without a single currency, trade between the states and with other nations
became difficult.

The Articles of Confederation also gave Congress the power to raise an army.
Congress would decide the number of troops it needed and then demand them
from the states. The number of troops requisitioned was in proportion to the
white population of each state.

The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority … to agree upon the
number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State … (Article IX).

Without its own standing army, the United States was unable to quickly respond
to potential threats.

The Articles of Confederation did not give Congress the power to collect taxes.
Nor could Congress force the states to give it funds.Instead, Congress had to ask
the states for money.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and
direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the
United States in Congress assembled (Article VIII).

However, the states often ignored Congress's requests.As a result, Congress had a
hard time running the country.

The government under the Articles was unable to manage or pay back
revolutionary war debts, which adversely impacted the economy.

There were many other problems for the new government to solve. For example,
states started arguing among themselves. Many of the quarrels were about taxes on
goods that crossed state borders, as the Articles did not give Congress the power to
regulate trade. New York, for example, taxed firewood from Connecticut and
cabbages from New Jersey. The states also disagreed over boundaries. However,
there was no national court system to handle these disagreements, and Congress
was unable to settle them.

Additionally, it was difficult for Congress to make changes to the Articles to

overcome the limitations on its power. According to Article XIII, once Congress
had agreed to any amendment to the Articles, all states needed to approve it:

… nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such
alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards
confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The Articles' limitations on Congress's power prevented it from addressing the

weaknesses in the Articles. Ultimately, the Articles of Confederation were
replaced with the Constitution.

To review the full text of the Articles of Confederation, visit the Articles of
Confederation page on the Library of Congress Web site:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html.
Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

__________________________________________________

• Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, November, 1777.

Entire Selection: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?

collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=127

Accessed March, 2017

Land Ordinances and the Settlement of the Northwest Territory

Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, the United States gained all the territory
east of the Mississippi River that was south of Canada and north of Florida. At that
time, there was no orderly way to divide and sell this land. Settlers walked into the
wilderness and claimed the land they liked. Disagreements over who owned what
clogged the state courts.

The Land Ordinances of 1784 and 1785

To end the confusion, Congress—under the Articles of Confederation—passed two

land ordinances in 1784 and 1785. The Land Ordinance of 1794 divided the
territory into districts that would govern themselves. This law also determined the
population levels that would make each district eligible to send a representative to
Congress. (This part of the Land Ordinance of 1784 would later be changed by
another law that you will read about in a minute.)

With the Land Ordinance of 1785, Congress specifically decided the public and
private ways in which the land could be used. Available land was divided into six
mile squares called townships. Each township was then divided into 36 sections of
640 acres each. One section of each township was to be set aside for the support of
public schools. This section would be rented to a settler, and the money from that
rent would be used to pay to educate the children in the township. (The actual land
was not always the place where a school was built.) The remaining sections in a
township were considered private land that would be sold to settlers.

Americans began to lay out townships in the Ohio Valley, then known as the
Northwest Territory. By 1787, the government was ready to sell sections to
settlers. This raised the question of how these areas should be governed. Were
they to be U.S. colonies? Or were they to be new states?
 The Northwest Ordinance

Congress answered this question in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.This law © 2024
Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

divided the Northwest Territory into smaller territories. Under the Northwest
Ordinance, each territory had to follow a three-step plan before it could become a
state.

The first step was for the territory to set up a government.Congress would
choose a governor and four other leaders. These five officers would set up the
laws for the territory. They would choose them from the laws already set up by
other states. Congress had the power to approve the laws selected by the
territory.

The second step was for the territory to reach a population of 5,000 free adult
males. Then the territory could elect its own legislature, or lawmaking body.

The third and final step was for the territory to reach a population of 60,000.Then
the territory could apply to Congress to become a state.

Five states formed from the Northwest Territory. Ohio was the first state to join the
Union under the plan set out by the Northwest Ordinance. Ohio became a state in
1803. Indiana was next. It became a state in 1816. Illinois joined the Union in 1818.
Michigan won statehood in 1837. The last state to organize from the Northwest
Territory was Wisconsin. It became a statein 1848.

The decision that Congress made about public and private land played a critical
role in the development of our nation. The Land Ordinance of 1785 and the
 Northwest Ordinance of 1787 would determine how land would be divided into
states. These laws also allowed private citizens to become landowners. One
historian believes that the United States might not have become a successful
country if Congress had made a different choice. He thinks that making some of
Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

the land private kept the territories from becoming permanent colonies of the U.S.
government. The expert also views Congress’s action as a way to ensure that the
land would be controlled by those who could get the best use out of it, which would
then increase the land’s value.

Democracy, Slavery, and Education in the States of the Northwest

Territory

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set up a process for how new states could join
the Union. The law also established important democratic ideals, or beliefs. The
Northwest Ordinance guaranteed, or protected, the rights of settlers living in the
Northwest Territory. These rights included freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
and the right to a trial with a jury. These same rights became part of the U.S.
Constitution in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. The
Bill of Rights is the group of the first ten amendments, or changes, to the
Constitution. They protect the rights and liberties of American citizens.

Slavery was banned in the Northwest Territory and in any state created from land in
the Northwest Territory. Therefore, Ohio and the four other states created from the
territory—Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin—all joined the Union as free
states. Southerners who supported slavery went along with the Northwest
Ordinance because they hoped that white settlers from the South would choose to
come live in the new states. These people would not be able to own any slaves, but
Southern slavery supporters thought they would not be against slavery like many
states were in the North.

Another reason that historians and experts consider the Northwest Ordinance to
be significant is because it is often regarded as one of the founding documents for
public education in this part of the nation. The law established a purpose for
education and why it was needed at that time. It stated that schools and education
would be encouraged because a base of religion, morality, and knowledge were
considered “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.” Many
people from New England settled in the Northwest Territory, and they brought their
views about education with them. These ideas shaped the attitudes that the area’s
residents had about education for years to come.

The Northwest Ordinance Affects American Indians

 The system of applying for statehood set out by the Northwest Ordinance served
the nation well. Over time, the United States would continue to add states from
territories as it spread to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. But the large number of
new settlers was not good for the American Indians who lived in those lands. The
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

Northwest Ordinance sounded as if it would protect the land for the American
Indians who lived there. It said:

The system of applying for statehood set out by the Northwest Ordinance served
the nation well. Over time, the United States would continue to add states from
territories as it spread to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. But the large number of
new settlers was not good for the American Indians who lived in those lands. The
Northwest Ordinance sounded as if it would protect the land for the Native
Americans who lived there. It said:

Art. 3: The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the
Indians, their lands and property shall never be taken from them
without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they
shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars
authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity
shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs being done
to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

Despite the words of the law, settlers were eager to take over American Indian
land. In 1789, the U.S. Constitution gave the federal government the right to make
treaties with American Indian tribes. Many of these treaties resulted in the tribes
losing their land. The federal government did not actually try to negotiate with the
American Indians. Instead, the United States wanted to pay for the land. From the
government’s point of view, this was the way to treat the American Indians fairly.
Then white settlers could continue to settle in the new lands.

The American Indians did not agree with this. For them, the issue had nothing to
do with money. They believed that the U.S. government did not have any right to
sell the land at all. Arthur St. Clair, governor of the Northwest Territory, met with
representatives from the Six Nations in 1788. These were representatives from six
different American Indian tribes. The Six Nations wanted the Ohio River to be the
border of the lands where whites were allowed to settle. St. Clair refused this
request and threatened war. Wanting to avoid conflict and feeling like they had no
other choice, the Six Nations signed a peace treaty with Governor St. Clair.

Not all American Indian tribes felt that avoiding war was the solution. Blue Jacket
of the Shawnee tribe and Little Turtle of the Miami tribe formed a confederacy, or
group, of American Indian peoples who were willing to use force to stop white
 settlement in the area. One of the names for this conflict that was fought between
1785 and 1795 is the Northwest Indian War. The confederacy launched two
devastating battles that killed more than 800 soldiers. These were the worst
defeats that American Indians ever inflicted on U.S. troops. President George
Washington then gave General Anthony Wayne command of a new army. General
Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

Wayne’s forces were able to defeat the American Indian confederacy, and the
white settlement of the Northwest Territory continued.

American Indians Lose More Land

Within a few decades, several Supreme Court cases and a federal law pushed
American Indians further away. One such court case was Johnson v. M'Intosh in
1823. The Illinois and Piankeshaw tribes had sold their land to an individual, but
the government tried to stop it. The dispute traveled through the court system all
the way to the Supreme Court. There, the justices said that the tribes did not own
their homeland and had no rights to sell it. The government, though, could sell it
from under the American Indians and force them to leave.

The government found even more reasons to take over American Indian land
when, in 1828, gold was discovered on Cherokee land in Georgia. In 1830,
Congress passed the Indian Removal Act which allowed President Andrew
Jackson to set aside land west of the Mississippi River as Indian Territories and
move the American Indians to this land.

Throughout this time period, many tribes fought to stay on their land. The Sauk
and Fox, led by their leader Black Hawk, fought the U.S. military in Illinois. The
Seminoles, led by their chief Osceola fought in Florida in what became the most
expensive military action for the U.S. government up to that time.

In spite of their long fight to keep their homes, the American Indians were unable
to hold onto their land.

Federalist and Anti-Federalist Writings

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton,

James Madison, and John Jay. These articles and essays were written in order to
promote the ratification of the United States constitution. The Anti-Federalist
Papers were written in opposition to the ratification of the Constitution. These
essays were written by numerous Founding Fathers, including George Mason and
Samuel Adams. Below are excerpts from Federalist No. 10 written by James
Madison and “Federal Taxing Power must be Restrained” by George Mason.
 Federalist No. 10

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be
removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, © 2024
Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the
administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its
violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the
form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion
or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good
and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve
the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our
inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of
government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and
be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence
of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the
majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number
and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the
impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor
religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such
on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the
number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean
a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the
government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common
passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a
communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is
nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious
individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of
property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their
deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have
erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political
rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their
possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes

 place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us
examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend
both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the
delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the
rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which
the latter may be extended.

“Federal Taxing Power must be Restrained”

Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause [Article 1,
Section 2] clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a
Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government
laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself,
entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This
power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every
thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a
consolidated government is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto
governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the
people of this great community [Virginia] submit to be individually taxed by two different
and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two
concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other. The general
government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state
governments, the latter must give way to the former….

Requisitions [under the Articles of Confederation] have been often refused, sometimes
from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of
circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a
wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this
power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient
information? Is it not well known that what would be a proper tax in one state would be
grievous in another? The gentleman who has favored us with a eulogium in favor of this
system [Wilson C. Nicholas], must, after all the encomiums he has been pleased to bestow
upon it, acknowledge that our federal representatives must be unacquainted with the
situation of their constituents. Sixty-five members cannot possibly know the situation and
circumstances of all the inhabitants of this immense continent. When a certain sum comes
to be taxed, and the mode of levying to be fixed, they will lay the tax on that article which
will be most productive and easiest in the collection, without consulting the real
circumstances or convenience of a country, with which, in fact, they cannot be sufficiently
acquainted.
 The mode of levying taxes is of the utmost consequence; and yet here it is to be
determined by those who have neither knowledge of our situation, nor a common
interest with us, nor a fellow-feeling for us. The subject of taxation differs in three
fourths, nay, I might say with truth, in four fifths of the states. If we trust the national

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

government with an effectual way of raising the necessary sums, it is sufficient: everything
we do further is trusting the happiness and rights of the people. Why, then, should we give
up this dangerous power of individual taxation? Why leave the manner of laying taxes to
those who, in the nature of things, cannot be acquainted with the situation of those on
whom they are to impose them, when it can be done by those who are well acquainted
with it? If, instead of giving this oppressive power, we give them such an effectual
alternative as will answer the purpose, without encountering the evil and danger that
might arise from it, then I would cheerfully acquiesce; and would it not be far more
eligible? I candidly acknowledge the inefficacy of the Confederation; but requisitions have
been made which were impossible to be complied with — requisitions for more gold and
silver than were in the United States. If we give the general government the power of
demanding their quotas of the states, with an alternative of laying direct taxes in case of
non-compliance, then the mischief would be avoided. And the certainty of this conditional
power would, in all human probability, prevent the application, and the sums necessary for
the Union would be then laid by the states, by those who know how it can best be raised,
by those who have a fellow-feeling for us. Give me leave to say, that the sum raised one
way with convenience and case, would be very oppressive another way. Why, then, not
leave this power to be exercised by those who know the mode most convenient for the
inhabitants, and not by those who must necessarily apportion it in such manner as shall be
oppressive? … An indispensable amendment … is, that Congress shall not exercise the
power of raising direct taxes till the states shall have refused to comply with the
requisitions of Congress. On this condition it may be granted; but I see no reason to grant it
unconditionally, as the states can raise the taxes with more case, and lay them on the
inhabitants with more propriety, than it is possible for the general government to do. If
Congress hath this power without control, the taxes will be laid by those who have no
fellow-feeling or acquaintance with the people. This is my objection to the article now
under consideration. It is a very great and important one. I therefore beg gentlemen to
consider it. Should this power be restrained, I shall withdraw my objections to this part of
the Constitution; but as it stands, it is an objection so strong in my mind, that its
amendment is with me a sine qua non of its adoption. I wish for such amendments, and
such only, as are necessary to secure the dearest rights of the people….

__________________________________________________

“Federal Taxing Power must Be Restrained” excerpt from “The Anti-Federalist

 Papers” edited by Morton Borden, 1965.

Entire Selection: http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary

source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-10/

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

C R E A T I N G T H E C O N S T I T...

Accessed July, 2019

“The Federalist Papers: No.10” excerpt from the Bill of Rights Institute

Entire Selection:
http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/35.htm

Accessed July, 2019

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A