The Decision in Philadelphia review

“The Decision in Philadelphia” America is a young country in 1787. They have just won the war for their independence and are now under the new rule of the Articles of Confederation. This government is put in place to ensure that no one leader will have too much power. The newly formed nation still has the undesirable taste of monarchy in their mouth and are hesitant to enact some sort of executive power. The Articles rely on the committee’s to take care of that missing executive branch. Committee’s prove as weak during the period after the war as they did during war itself. The legislature and committee’s lack to enact major neccesties of a government proved it was time for a change. The authors make sure to point out the flaws of the articles of confederation. There are multiple examples the authors use. First the Colliers point out that the states will remain sovereign. This is a crucial mishap for the Articles of Confederation. This legislature had no ability to tax for one. They had no way of gathering a revinue for necessary things like an army for another. The army was funded during the war by basically IOU’s as the book says leaving huge debts. The Continental Congress would ask for some money from the states tax’s to try and even things out. If states did not pay, the Articles had no way to reprimand the states. Taxing was just one of the many weaknesses the congress under the current system lacked. Under the Articles of Confederation this near powerless government could do almost nothing to sort out the land claim issues that arose in the post war era. There was also the issue of not being able to have standing armies. This issue proved itself to be important during Shay’s Rebellion. This uprising was not easy to put down do in all parts to the inability of the Congress to have an army. This uprising was the straw that broke the camel’s back for the Articles of Confederation. It was now time for the delegates of the newly formed states to get together to what they thought at first was to repair the articles. This gathering of delegates is known as The Constitutional Convention. The convention began to get underway and now some of the delegates began to propose their ideas of government. Four people specifically posted their own plans. The four individuals were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, William Patterson, and Charles Pickney. First was James Madison’s proposal known as the Virginia Plan. This plan favored larger states. The Virginia Plan proposed a powerful bicameral legislature. There would be two houses in his plan. In the lower house, the people would elect the members. Then in turn, the lower house would elect those in the upper house. An executive leader would be picked by the legislature and would carry out the decree of the houses. This plan also created a judiciary branch of sorts. The executive and judicial had some power of veto. Charles Pickney’s plan was a bit different. It was a confederation of sorts that existed between all the states. His legislature was bicameral made up of two houses consisting of a House and Senate. Every one thousand inhabitant meant a representative in the house. The House would elect the Senators. These Senators would work in a rotation. These rotations would last for four years. Each elected official had representation over one of four regions that would be made. All of Congress would meet and elect the President. They also got to appoint the cabinet members. The entire Congress would settle disputes between states. Charles Pickney also had some form of a Supreme Court. William Paterson’s plan was known as the New Jersey Plan. Patterson understood that the Virginia Plan threatened to give the smaller states' less power by making both houses of the legislature balanced to inhabitants. This plan then would favor smaller states as opposed to the proposed Virginia Plan. Patterson’s plans stuck more to the idea of just simply amending the Articles and not totally changing them. This plan proposed that the existing Continental Congress would remain. Paterson gave the Congress some new much needed powers such as the power to tax and actually collect it too. He had an executive branch in which the executives would serve a single term. The state governors were subject to recall this executive. Those who served in his judiciary branch would serve for life. Alexander Hamilton proposed his own plan to combat the New Jersey and Virginia plan. This plan had a strong central government. States under his plan would be made into one nation. The plan like those before his had a bicameral legislature. The lower house would be voted in by the people and would have a three year term. People would be specified as electors and in turn those people would be responsible for electing the upper house. The national legislature had two crucial powers. They could veto states and appoint the governors of the state. He completely eliminated the authority of states. It is thanks in part to these issues that each provided that the constitution was formed. Charles Pickney’s plan was heavily argued and debated but he did things like bring about the terms president and house and senate. In his plan the house had the power to impeach and call a militia and other examples one would find in our current constitution. According to the book, “some twenty-one provisions of Pickney’s Plan appeared in the Constitution.” (pg. 72). The large and the small state were divided early on in the debate. The issue between the two was representation in Congress. The idea of each state having just one representative each each scared the large states. The small state plan or the New Jersey plan would have kept this similar setup from the Articles. On the other hand the smaller state feared the Virginia plan because of the idea of population determining number of delegates. Smaller states were worried they would not be able to compete. It was thanks to the Connecticut Compromise that this issue was resolved. Roger Sherman proposed the idea that in the house, population would determine the number of seats. The Senate would be made up of two Senators from each state. In this proposal each state would be represented. Smaller states would get an advantage with senators and larger states would be favored in population. Patterson was also behind the push for this Compromise as well as another delegate from Connecticut, Oliver Ellsworth. Not that the issue of apportionment was resolved it was onto other issues. One of those other issues dealt with slavery. Slaves made up a significant portion of America and they also populated much of the nation. Slaves were crucial to the economy in the south. They worked the farms and plantations. What to do with slavery in the constitution was a hot button issue. Some southerner’s would not accept the constitution if slavery was not allowed. Those delegates who did not have slaves had to put aside their belief’s for the time being though they were not in favor of the country involved in the slave trade. Language dealing with the slavery was excluded from the document. Now a committee was formed to deliberate on how to meet on middle ground regarding the issue. Another slavery question was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population. This was crucial to the apportionment of house members under the new system. The question was whether slaves were property or people. When it came to taxing, those with a large slave population were for counting slaves as property but when it came to the House, they thought slaves should be counted as people. Meanwhile, those who did not have contact with slaves thought the opposite. James Wilson finally proposed an idea they could all agree on known as the Three-Fifths Compromise. In representation matters, slaves were counted as three fifth human. The Collier’s were not happy with this decision. They feel the convention handled this in the complete wrong and most horrendous way. Regarding liberty and power, the delegates had to decide how to balance the distribution of power while also not infringing on the liberties of all people. The delegates understood that as the book says, “without government there would be anarchy.” (pg. 184). With this in mind they knew that a stronger government then the Articles of Confederation was needed. This government would need to be checked but not as much as the articles. Now the delegates had to decide what powers would be given to the national government. Power had to be divided among states and the national government. The proposal from the Virginia plan regarding this issue was looked upon. What was proposed was the necessary and proper clause. This meant the congress would do and pass the necessary laws and not overstep that. The committee of detail added to this clause by saying that congress could control commerce nationally and internationally which was much needed after the Articles. Much dissention came after this issue was debated. Some delegates did not even sign the constitution. There were many delegates who were unhappy with the final draft. Even some who signed were not completely happy with the final draft. Edmund Randolph of Virginia, George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts did not sign the document. They believed passing the constitution without a bill of rights was absurd and so they would not have anything to do with it. Elbridge Gerry was unhappy that the nation could now raise and use and army as it pleased. The Colliers’s understand that the document has had a lot of success but also some weaknesses. They are argued that the people who drafted this knew their people and what they would like to see in a new government. Most of the delegates were long time politicians. The direct elections were huge. Americans felt and feel totally represented. Second, the framers got human nature right. The constitution reflects the reality of human nature. The government can work with good people in it and bad. The framers were concerned with minorities as well. They built in freedom for all sorts of individuals. So few things can be withheld from Americans under this government and constitution. Finally the government is more responsive to the people than any other government. As good as all of that is there were four areas they failed according to the Collier’s. Specifically two areas were was racial issues and the issue of judicial review. The framers did not develop a humanitarian policy. Blacks were viewed as inferior to whites and so on. As far as the judicial review, they knew courts would settle disputes but they left the legislation vague. Now the court has been able to vaguely interpret the constitution and in some ways we now suffer from it. Overall the book was pretty well done. The strengths of the book were that it was fairly straight forward in describing the issues that faced the convention. They laid them out as precursors and then answered how they were taken care of in the constitution. Also the book did a good job of explaining all of the different plans. My only complaint was that often the author digressed and I do not see why they had to let their views come into play. The title suggests the book will be strictly factual. Instead the authors let their opinions be known and I think it would be more effective if we the reader could interpret the constitution on our own.