What is the significance of the philadelphia convention

Federalist supporters of the Constitution initially argued against the necessity for a bill of rights because the convention had not delegated powers to the new national government to stem individual liberties.

Some further argued that listing specific rights might imply that rights omitted were therefore subject to governmental control. This position was undercut by the fact that the Constitution did list some governmental restrictions within its text and by arguments, supported by Thomas Jefferson , that even if such guarantees were not foolproof, they would be better than nothing.

In time, leading Federalists , including Madison, agreed to work toward a bill of rights if the Constitution were adopted, thereby helping to head off the threat of a second convention. He is co-editor of the Encyclopedia of the First Amendment. This article was originally published in Farrand, Max, ed.

The Records of the Federal Convention of New Haven, Conn. Goldwin, Robert A. Washington, D. In The Federalist No. In this, as in so many areas, the so-called original meaning of the Constitution was not at all self-evident— even to the Framers of the Constitution themselves. The debate among the delegates over the nature of the American presidency was more high- toned and more protracted than that over representation in the Congress. They urged their fellow delegates to give the president an absolute veto over congressional legislation.

In the end, it was compromise that once again won the day—the delegates agreed to give the President a limited veto power, but one which could be over-ridden by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress.

Most of the delegates initially thought that the executive should be elected by the national legislature; still others thought the executive should be elected by the state legislatures or even by the governors of the states. James Wilson was virtually the only delegate who proposed direct election of the president by the people. He believed that it was only through some form of popular election that the executive branch could be given both energy and independence.

They voted against some version of the proposal on numerous occasions between early June and early September of , only agreeing to the version contained in our modern Constitution modified slightly by the Twelfth Amendment grudgingly and out of a sense of desperation, as the least problematic of the alternatives before them.

The other obvious solution—election by members of a national Congress whose perspective was likely to be continental rather than provincial—was ultimately rejected because of the problems it created with respect to the doctrine of separation of powers: the president, it was feared, would be overly beholden to, and therefore dependent upon, the Congress for his election.

The creation of an electoral college was a middle ground, and while many delegates feared that locally-selected presidential electors would be subject to the same sort of provincial thinking as ordinary citizens, they reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was the best they could do while still preserving an adequate separation of power between the executive and legislative branches.

It was a highly imperfect solution to a real problem, but, in the context of the times—perhaps until today—there may well have been no better alternative. For example, most of the delegates supported the imposition of property qualifications for voters in their individual states. But nowhere are those limitations more obvious than during the debates relating to the subject of slavery. In , slavery in America was in a state of decline, but it remained a significant part of the social and economic fabric in five of the states represented in the Convention.

Indeed, they enshrined the institution of slavery within their new Constitution. It was impossible to discuss questions relating to the apportionment of representation without confronting the fact that the slave population of the South—whether conceived of as residents or property—would affect the calculations for representation. The final resolution of that issue—the Three-Fifths Compromise, a formula by which slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person in apportioning both representation and taxation—was a purely mechanical and amoral calculation designed to produce harmony among conflicting interests within the Convention.

Who were the the 55 Delegates to the Convention? The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not represent a cross-section of America. The Convention included no women, no slaves, no Native Americans or racial minorites, no laborers.

As one historian noted, it was a "Convention of the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed. Other prominent Americans of the time, who might be expected to have been in Philadelphia, did not attend for various reasons. Prominent non-attendees include John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

The links below offer more information on the delegates. The Theory Behind Madison's Plan James Madison James Madison believed that protection for liberty lay in the structure of government, not in a listing of "parchment" guarantees. As he saw it, the primary threat to liberty in the past had come from oppressive majorities capturing the reigns of power.

Madison's solution, as he proposed it in Philadelphia, was to "enlarge the sphere" by transferring much power to the federal government. Because the nation is comprised of many more and more diverse communities of interests than are individual states, it becomes much more difficult for any one interest group to become a majority and capture control of power. Rather than see competing factions as a danger, Madison saw the saving multiplicity of interests as a protection for liberty: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.

Even if a majority were to capture one branch, Madison reasoned, it could only do limited harm if the other branches remained out of its domination. Battle for Ratification: The Federalists vs the Anti-Federalists Ratification came only after a hard-fought battle between those favoring adoption of the new Constitution the Federalists and those opposed the Anti-Federalists.

The Anti-Federalists had many complaints. They argued that the national government, and especially the president, had too much power. They complained that the six-year terms of senators were far too long. The United States Constitution that emerged from the convention established a federal government with more specific powers, including those related to conducting relations with foreign governments.

Under the reformed federal system, many of the responsibilities for foreign affairs fell under the authority of an executive branch, although important powers, such as treaty ratification, remained the responsibility of the legislative branch. After the necessary number of state ratifications, the Constitution came into effect in and has served as the basis of the United States Government ever since. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government faced many challenges in conducting foreign policy, largely due to its inability to pass or enforce laws that individual states found counter to their interests.

The Treaty of Paris, which ended the American War of Independence, stipulated that debts owed by Americans to British subjects were to be honored, and also stipulated that former British loyalists could bring forth suits in U. These provisions were unpopular and many states blocked their enforcement. This led to British refusal to vacate military forts in U.