Was the Constitutional Convention a coup d etat?

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Was the Constitutional Convention a coup d etat?"

Pamela Sullivan
6 years ago
Views:

1 Was the Constitutional Convention a coup d etat? The Federal Convention ( known now as the Constitutional Convention ) is understood by most Americans as the historic meeting place of the most patriotic and powerful men of America at the time, the founding fathers, and popular figures of the new country; men like Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and of course George Washington. There, in Philadelphia, in the wake of their victorious revolution over Great Britain, these men carefully crafted the U.S. Constitution to serve as the backbone of what would become one of the most prosperous countries the world has ever seen. The esteemed greatness of this convention in 1787 always seems to overshadow the fact that the newly created Constitution was a replacement. From March of 1781 up to when it was replaced, the Articles of Confederation had served as the U.S. Constitution. While much discussion and debate still reside over the validity of the Constitution's secret making and origin, I do not believe it can be defined as coup d'état. The Constitutional Convention was host to many well-known individuals, and almost all the attendees had taken part in the Revolution. While seventy delegates were appointed by the States to attend the convention, ultimately there would be fifty-five. Every state sent at least one delegate other than Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania sent the most, with eight delegates. While some notable figures were missing from the Convention ( such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Patrick Henry and others ), the convention hardly lacked power and intellect without them, and Jefferson would refer to the attendees as a gathering of "demi-gods". Delegates slowly made their way to the Convention's home in a sticky-hot summer Philadelphia over many months, as travel was difficult in the eighteenth century. On the designated day of May 14 of 1787, only Virginia and Pennsylvania were represented, and it wasn't until the 25th of May that a quorum of seven states was secured. The last delegate, John Francis Mercer of Maryland didn't arrive until August 6th. While there were fifty-five delegates, because of business or disapproval over how things were headed, "no more then eleven states were represented at any one time and scarcely more then thirty delegates at any given meeting." 1 In the previous February, Congress meeting in New York had sanctioned this convention "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."

2 While many delegates when representing the credentials from his state legislature added a little to this familiar phrase of Congress, it didn't seem to indicate the direction the Convention was going to end up at, with a completely new Constitution. Instead, it was, for the most part, small things, like adding the date and the time since the U.S. had declared their independence, naming their deputies, or going a little further like New York who spoke of "possible alterations and provisions adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union." 1 Virginia also gave the reasoning for why Congress itself couldn't revise the Articles, stating that "Congress would be too much interrupted by their ordinary daily business; moreover they would lack the valuable counsels of certain individuals who were not congressman." 2 The condition of the nation, the sufficiency of the Articles, and the importance of union among the states was on everyone's mind as the Convention began. The Articles of Confederation was a wartime constitution and while it was not ratified by all thirteen states and put into effect until March 1 of 1781, it had been used by Congress during the Revolutionary War for a number of jobs. While it had served Congress well during the war, the document seemed to lack much for a post-war nation. George Reed, a delegate from Delaware, stated during the Convention that "The Confederation was founded on temporary principles. It cannot last; it cannot be amended. If we do not establish a good government on new principles we must either go to ruin or have the work to do over again." 4 And while this language may seem bold, it seemed to be quite common as the Convention moved on. A very influential factor for the delegates regarding their what seemed unanimously shared view that the Articles needed to be reformed was Shay's Rebellion. Shay's Rebellion was an armed uprising from 1786 to 1787 led by Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays. He, with thousands of rebels, had led an unsuccessful attack against the United States' armory at Springfield to overthrow the government which he believed was economically unjust. This rebellion seemed to highlight the weaknesses of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation and brought George Washington back into the political sphere. Madison believed that the greatest weakness regarding the Articles was its absence of sanctions. "There was no power to tax and compel payment. Also, there was no executive who could enforce sanctions. In his letter to George Washington (April 16, 1787), Madison insisted: 'A National Executive must also be provided.... In like manner the right of coercion should be expressly declared.'" 5

3 Despite the surplus of negative opinions and discontentment towards the Articles of Confederation by powerful political figures, it didn't seem as if the general public shared these same urgent concerns regarding the health of the nation and the adequacy of the Articles. "Why fight a war and achieve independence only to be taxed by a powerful Congress instead of by a powerful Parliament? Let the states govern themselves!" 6 These views were common among Americans at the time. "There was a lack of concern and the absence of any sense of national crisis on the part of the public in the year of the great Convention. The sense of crisis was felt mainly by the nationalists at the Convention, the sense of crisis that they might miss the moment, or in contemporary terms, 'miss the window of opportunity.'" 7 In late May of 1787, William Grayson of Virginia questioned the need for the Convention saying "'What will be the result of their meeting I cannot with any certainty determine, but I hardly think much good can come of it: the people of America don't appear to me to be ripe for any great innovations.'" 8 As the Convention continued, it became even more clear that the objective of many of the delegates was more than a revising of the Articles, but a completely new replacement for them. While to some of the delegates this need for an entirely new document was a new idea, it seems as if many attendees had this plan in their heads long before the convention ever began. Gary North held to this belief when he wrote in his book 'Conspiracy in Philadelphia' that "The Articles were completely scrapped by the delegates. There is little doubt that this had been the original intention of the small group of men who rst promoted the idea of the Convention, beginning with the meeting held in the spring of 1785 at Washington s home at Mount Vernon." 9 Edmund Randolph, the Governor of Virginia, called on the attendees of the Convention to view the health of the nation, "'Look' Randolph said, 'at the public countenance, from New Hampshire to Georgia! Are we not on the eve of war, which is only prevented by the hopes from this Convention?'" 10 But Randolph did not speak only to poke holes at the then current state of affairs but had what he believed to be a solution to the problem. "He outlined what amounted to an entirely new national government, with a national executive, a national judiciary, and a national legislature of two branches: the 'first branch' ( the representatives ) to be elected by the people, the 'second branch' ( the senators ) to be elected by the first branch." 11 This structure of government that Randolph laid out in its form of fifteen resolves, was drafted by James Madison before the Convention had officially begun and is referred to as the "Virginia Plan" or the "Randolph Plan". This plan, along with the "New Jersey Plan", which was proposed by William Paterson, served as the roadmap for the delegates in the creation of the new Constitution.

4 As August was coming to a close, the Convention neared its end. Of the original fifty-five delegates, forty-four remained. And while no date had been set for dissolution, since the beginning, no members of the Convention had planned on sitting any longer than September. 12 At this time the subject of ratification became the center of all discussions and debate. From these discussions came the question of whether the new Constitution should be ratified by the state legislatures or the people. The answer and in some ways compromise to this question was the proposal by the original Virginia Plan, which had called for the ratification of the document to be voted on by "Assemblies of Representatives...expressly chosen by the people." On September 12, the final draft of the Constitution was completed and presented before the whole Convention for its consideration. And on the 17th it was approved and signed by thirty-five of the thirty-eight present delegates, with Mr. Randolph, Mr. Gerry, and Mr. Mason refusing to sign. Over the next few months, ratifying conventions were hosted throughout the states, with Pennsylvania being the first state to hold a convention on November 3rd, and Delaware the first state to ratify the convention on December 7. While the eventful and argue-some task of creating the Constitution was over, it was not smooth sailing from there, but rather more of the same. Catherine Bowen in her book "Miracle at Philadelphia" agrees when she writes "It was all to be done over again. And this time the argument would not be contained neatly within four walls. The whole country must know and read, scorn, reject or accept." 13 Over the next few months, intellectual wars were waged between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists through pamphlets that praised and defended or criticized and attacked the new document. On June 21, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution making it officially established. While it was now official, there were four states who had yet to ratify, as some states were more friendly toward the document than others. From these disagreements came a compromise in the addition of the Bill of Rights, something that had previously been rejected after consideration during the Convention. And in May of 1790, Rhode Island would become the last of the thirteen states to ratify the Constitution. The delegates operated in complete secrecy. The debates and votes were done behind shut doors and closed windows. The public could only speculate on what was going within. But was it a coup d'etat? The Anti-federalists certainly believed so, arguing against the Constitution with numerous pamphlets, letters, and essays. Patrick Henry, an extremely popular figure in early America, refused to attend the Convention because he said "he smelt a rat", and several other influential figures of that time also declined to attend for similar reasons regarding the intentions and secrecy around the Convention's

5 purpose. A coup d'etat is defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary as "a sudden decisive exercise of force used in politics" or "a violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group." 14 And Dictionary.com defines it as "a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force." 15 So, for an event to be defined as a coup d'etat it must be sudden. As has been a continuing theme throughout this essay, nothing surrounding the convention was swift or sudden in any way. As was mentioned earlier, while the Convention was scheduled to start on May 14 of 1787, it wasn't until almost a full month later that all the delegates arrived. Transportation was slow and took especially long for the delegates who had further to travel. And while the Convention was very secretive, it also did not seem as if the members were trying to rush things along. Topics of controversy among the delegates were discussed at a great measure, and even things that had been agreed upon earlier were re-looked at. While it was understood that the delegates couldn't continue meeting for a huge period of time ( as the members had other matters to attend ), there was no sense of urgency to finish up. As a result of this, the final draft of the Constitution wasn't approved until September. The ratifying process around the states was a long process, as the Federalists and Anti-Federalists fought for the minds of the people of the new nation. And it wouldn't be until 1790 that Rhode Island, the thirteenth state, would ratify the Constitution. Was it a change in government? Definitely. The whole purpose of the writers of the Constitution was to create a new government with more power which they believed would help fix the problems under the articles. With this power came the ability to tax, more diplomatic power regarding foreign powers, and a more centralized government. There is no dispute here, as the new constitution clearly reshaped the government at the time, with the addition of both the executive and judicial branches of government. This brings up the most crucial point of the coup d'etat definition: was it illegal or by force? While this new government was certainly not put into effect by physical force, the argument can, and has been made, concerning the legality of it all. The members of the Convention were intelligent, crafty individuals, lawyers, and great public speakers, who were well aware of what they were doing. The secrecy was for a reason after all. They understood the designed purpose by Congress for the Convention, but they also saw the lack of unity, and the great turmoil throughout the nation, and understood that just a few revisions to the Articles of Confederation wasn't going to solve these problems. "From the opening of the Convention, no consideration was given to a mere revising of the Articles of Confederation. Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia opened the main

6 business of the Convention on May 29 by giving a speech on why a totally new government ought to be created." 16 Gary North in his book, "Conspiracy in Philadelphia" spoke on how these delegates and so-called conspirators, in five points went about this most likely illegal business. The first task was to for a naive Congress to authorize a Convention to revise the Articles. Then secondly, under a cloak of oath-bound secrecy, they scrapped the idea of revising the Articles for a completely new plan for a new document. Then as the third step, they got around the rules of the Articles by replacing them with new judicial boundaries regarding state and national power. Fourthly, they replaced the sovereign, and voice of the states, with the voice of the people; hence "We the People of the United States" begins the constitution, compared to the Articles beginning which names each individual state. And finally, through voting by state legislatures, the new government was ratified. It could be said here that "Congress in some sense committed suicide by not calling a halt to the Convention when the rule of secrecy was imposed in May." 17 As some members of Congress sat in the Convention and still did not rebel against the oath of secrecy. This process was by no means transparent. And as Washington had written to Jay in a letter in March, 'In strict propriety a Convention so holden may not be legal.' But they proceeded anyway." 18 So while most likely it was not a legal transfer of power, I do not believe it covers all the bases to be considered a coup d'etat. It was a slow transfer that happened right in front of the Congress' eyes. And while a great number of the public may not have agreed with the document, it was ratified, as the supporters of the document were certainly not confined to the members of the Convention. And though some may argue against it, the support for the Constitution is still alive today, because while its origins may be shady, it continues to be a powerful foundation for America. Notes 1 Catherine Drinker Bowen, Miracle at Philadelphia, 1966, 24 2 Bowen, 24 3 Bowen, 25 4 Bowen, 75 5 Gary North, Conspiracy in Philadelphia, 2013, 80 6 Bowen, 11 7 North, 117

7 8 Bowen, 12 9 North, Bowen, Bowen, Bowen, Bowen, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "coup d'etat", accessed February 9, Dictionary.com, "coup d'etat", accessed February 9, North, North, North, 132

Constitutional Convention. May 1787

Constitutional Convention. May 1787 Constitutional Convention May 1787 Annapolis Convention September 11 to September 14, 1786 Annapolis, Maryland Purpose - How to fix the articles of confederation Alexander Hamilton (New York) MUST resolve