The Real Constitutional Convention

The United States had some fundamental problems in the late 1780 's. Many saw this and were looking for a way to produce a national government that would be more than the virtually powerless government the United States currently had. Pennsylvania was represented in the federal convention by a larger delegation than any of the other states.

By the fall of 1786, America’s unrest towards their government had reached a tipping point. During this state of political chaos and rebellions, George Washington and James Madison called a meeting to order of five states in Annapolis, Maryland. At this meeting prominent visionaries debated the fate of their country and discussed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. After meeting in Maryland, the Congress called all the states to a meeting in Philadelphia during May of 1787. In these meetings, the delegates chose to keep incomplete notes and essentially have the meetings in secret to assure that they could speak freely amongst one another. Not soon after the Constitutional Convention began, it became incredibly clear that the panel was

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to address problems in governing the United States which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation since it’s independence from Britain. Fifty-five delegates from the states attended the convention to address these issues. The delegates consisted of federalists who wanted a strong central government to maintain order and were mainly wealthier merchants and plantation owners and anti-federalists who were farmers, tradesmen and local politicians who feared losing their power and believed more power should be given to the states. The Constitutional Convention dealt with the issue of the debate between federalists and anti-federalists. The debates, arguments and compromises

This book tells the story of the Philadelphia convention, in the summer of 1787. Throughout, Stewart uses descriptive language to portray the delegates, both remembered —such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton— and forgotten —such as James Wilson and George Mason— in the turmoil of creating the United States constitution. It illustrates both the great conflicts and high-stake compromises that those delegates faced, all ultimately dominated by one inelegantly polarizing issue: slavery. With calculated endorsement by influential delegates such as Franklin and Washington, who

As our nation’s history has shown we have made mistakes in our past and been forced to learn from those mistakes. We have taken certain ideas and beaten them to death at times. The members of the constitutional convention of 1787 did the same thing as they were trying to decide what should be written in the constitution and how the government should be structured. Many plans were presented and rejected as the members argued until finally a great compromise was made and the structure our government for finally started to take shape.

55 delegates of twelve states wrote the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 and in 1788 the states ratified it. That gathering at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall brought nearly all of the nation’s most prominent men together, including Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and George Washington. Several of the men appointed had records of service in the army and in the courts and others were experienced in colonial and state government. When Thomas Jefferson found out who had been appointed he wrote “It is really an assembly of demigods” to John Adams. That summer in Philadelphia, the men, drew out a document defining the distinct powers for the the president, the federal courts and the Congress. This division of authority that was established is known as the principle of separation of powers, and it ensures that none of the branches of government can overstep their boundaries.

With the creation of the Articles remained the lack of a strong central authority to resolve disputes between the states. To organize the states for the collective good, including the organization of a militia, was crucial to the development of the Constitutional Convention (Hamilton et al., 2008). The aftermath of Shay’s Rebellion reinforced the fears of national leaders about the dangers of ineffective state governments and of popular democracy out of control. In the climate of economic turmoil and repressions, the Philadelphian convention was conned to prescribe solutions to the Articles of Confederation. Although the initial thought was instructing delegates to propose revisions for the Articles of Confederation, instead, they wrote an entirely new constitution instead (Hamilton et al., 2008)

In 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in hopes of revising the Articles of Confederation before the new, established country would become unsustainable. The Articles of Confederation had failed the country as the central government was not strong enough to uphold the country and protect the people’s rights. They were then abandoned and the Founding Fathers began to draft a new government system, what we now know as the US Constitution. At the time the dilemma was, should the Constitution be ratified? The Constitution should be ratified considering that it averts abuse of power, is effective in regulation, and is in the interest of the people.

The Constitution wasn’t fair and was poorly made so they had to create a new one. The Congress started off by adding improvements but it needed too many improvements they had to start over. If they hadn't started over the Constitution Would not have been as good, and there would still be poorly written parts. The new constitution was called the Constitutional Convention. People complained that their Liberty was being taken away and they wanted it back the Congress thought about the complaints and decide to consider revising the Constitution. The revising turned into the Constitutional Convention.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the constitution proved to be a more significant event in American political history than the Declaration of Independence. Many of the american leaders believed we needed to a new, stronger government. They had to persuade the states that stronger government was the right direction to ensure the country’s success.They did that with the constitutional convention but, To sway the states in the right direction documents such as the Federalist papers led the states to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. Which then led to the U.S. Constitution that we still live by to the day.

In May 1787, the Founding Fathers, who were made up of 55 delegates from one of the 13 states besides Rhode Island, met in Philadelphia for what would come to be called the Constitutional Convention [BRE]. When they met they intended to fix the consitution that was already in place, which was called the Articles of Confederation. This document had many weaknesses which ultimatly led to its downfall: it only had a legislative branch, so it could not hold trials or enforce laws, it could not raise taxes (it was able to raise money, however to do this the legislative branch had to ask the states for funds), it could not draft an army, so the federal government would have to use state militia, it could not control interstate or foreign commmerce,

The 1787 Constitutional Convention was paramount in unifying the states after the Revolutionary War. However, in order to do so, the convention had to compromise on many issues instead of addressing them with all due haste. This caused the convention to leave many issues unresolved. Most notably were the issues of slavery, race, secession, and states’ rights. Through the Civil War and the Reconstruction, these issues were resolved, and in the process the powers of the federal government were greatly expanded.

In the book “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” by Carol Berkin she explains the constitution from start to finish from how it all began, to the debates inside the convention and finally the end product. Berkin takes the reader and puts him directly in the middle of the convention of 1786; throughout the book you can feel the excitement, the frustration, the tensions between delegates and the overall commitment to making a new government work for all.

This essay is a review of the Decisions in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. The body of this work will highlight a few of the differences found in Collier and Collier’s Decision in Philadelphia (2007) and Middlekauff’s The Glorious Cause (2005) and paint a picture for the reason for the convention, the need for a change from the Articles of Confederation, as well as some of the key takeaways from the Constitution that impact us still today. The Decision in Philadelphia highlights well the overarching theme of compromise. Compromise was and still is the cornerstone to the government in the United States of America. This essay will showcase this theme over and over as it was critical to allow for the collective good to succeed. Webster’s dictionary defines compromise as the settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions. Compromise is further defined as the blending qualities of different things, those different things were the ideals, principles, and values of the Constitution’s framers.

The last half of the 18th century was very important for the United States. During this era, the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was very important in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of the constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.