The History Teacher's Magazine, Vol. I, No. 4, December, 1909 — John Shaqi
The History Teacher's Magazine, Vol. I, No. 4, December, 1909Various
History
The History Teacher's Magazine, Vol. I, No. 4, December, 1909
Various
History -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Social sciences -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals
The history of the convention itself falls roughly into three stages:
during the first month the delegates were busy presenting their plans
of union, each party attempting to enforce its will upon the minds of
the others. Then followed a month during which the parties gradually
came to an agreement, each waiving some of the things which it regarded
as essential in return for concessions upon the part of the others.
Finally, during the third month, though the debates still went on, they
were occupied mainly with the settlement of details, none of which was
of primary importance. If this threefold division of the work of the
Convention is kept in mind, the teacher will find it comparatively easy
to bring order out of the apparent chaos of the deliberations of the
three and a half months’ session at Philadelphia.
Taking each period in its order, we find that during the first month
there were two radically opposed opinions in the Convention. On the
one hand, were those who believed that a strong central government
should be established; on the other, those who believed that all that
was necessary or proper was that the Articles of Confederation should
be amended by giving to Congress more power, and by creating a strong
executive and a judicial department. The plans of the first party were
set forth in the Virginia Plan, which was probably drawn up by Madison
and presented to the Convention by Randolph; those of the other in the
New Jersey Plan, which was presented by Patterson. Each of these plans
should be carefully and thoroughly studied. Beside them, the student
will do well to acquaint himself also with the proposals laid before
the Convention by Hamilton and by Pinckney.
After a month of debating propositions and counter-propositions, the
differences narrowed themselves down to the single question of what
should be the method of representation in Congress. For a time it
seemed as though no agreement could be reached upon this subject. Then
came the compromise offered by Ellsworth and Sherman, of Connecticut,
which the Convention finally adopted--the first great compromise
of the Constitution. Next followed the debate between the Northern
States and the Southern States upon the question as to what should be
the basis of representation. This, too, was finally settled by what
is known as the second compromise of the Constitution. Finally there
remains to be studied the debates over the questions of the slave
trade, and foreign and interstate commerce. Here again the Convention
divided on sectional lines, till the difference was settled by the
third great compromise of the Constitution.
Now the Convention entered upon its third stage. Debates and
differences of opinion were still frequent, but they related almost
entirely to questions of detail, not to fundamental principles, so
that by September 17th the Convention was able to adjourn after having
transmitted the Constitution to the Congress of the Confederation for
action.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account