Dear Reader, if you have not yet read your copy of the Constitution, now would be a good time to do so. It is instructive, as well as just plain interesting, to observe what ideas did or did not make it into the Constitution, and why.
For two weeks, delegates to the Constitutional Convention have been debating the fifteen points of a plan known as the Virginia Plan, presented by Gov. Randolph on May 29. Because the purpose of the Convention is to “amend the Articles of Confederation,” it would seem appropriate that debate would have begun with the Articles themselves. But it did not. It began with a proposal for an entirely new government.
On more than one occasion, some delegates have reminded their colleagues that their instructions are limited to “amending” the Articles, nothing more. Some have even threatened to walk out. Others, on both sides, have planted their philosophical stakes firmly in the ground of obstinacy, insisting they “could never support” the position of their opponents.
But they are still here, still seeking solutions, yet still skeptical of achieving consensus. This morning, just prior to a vote on a motion by Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin rose, saying he “had thrown his ideas of the matter on a paper,” which he asked James Wilson to read. “It has given me great pleasure,” he began, “to observe that till this point, the proportion of representation, came before us, our debates were carried on with great coolness and temper. If anything of a contrary kind has on this occasion appeared, I hope it will not be repeated; for we are sent here to consult, not to contend with each other; and declarations of a fixed opinion, and of determined resolution, never to change it, neither enlighten nor convince us. Positiveness and warmth on one side, naturally beget their like on the other; and tend to create and augment discord and division in a great concern, wherein harmony and Union are extremely necessary to give weight to our Councils, and render them effectual in promoting and securing the common good.” Franklin continued by explaining how he had changed his own opinion on the matter of representation and offered a proposal of his own. But his wisdom and ability to calm the storm swirling about them had a greater impact than any technical revision he might propose.
The motion on the table by Roger Sherman proposed that “the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more.” John Rutledge disagreed, proposing that the first branch should be “according to the quota of contribution” (tax payments). South Carolina’s Pierce Butler agreed; the States ought to be represented “in proportion to their wealth.”
Wilson and Rufus King offered a new motion, that suffrage in the first branch ought to be “according to some equitable ratio of representation.” Explaining the reason for the new motion, King pointed out the difficulty in determining the actual financial contributions of each State and that it would be constantly changing. It was simply impractical. Dr. Franklin joined them, moving from his original position regarding representation to supporting some form of proportional representation. The motion passed 7 – 3 – 1, three small States (New Jersey, Delaware, and New York) voting “nay,” with Maryland divided. Wilson had been able to persuade three small States from the South (Georgia and both Carolinas) to join the large States and Connecticut. The reason for his success soon became apparent.
Wilson’s next motion, seconded by Charles Pinckney, proposed that the phrase “equitable representation” be followed by “in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State.” Wilson quickly reminded them that the three-fifths calculation had been used in the Confederacy for raising revenue.
Wilson has obviously been negotiating with delegates outside of Convention sessions, seeking three more votes in favor of proportional representation. He found them in the “three-fifths compromise,” guaranteeing slave States greater representation by counting three fifths of the slaves, and a tacit recognition of the “peculiar institution” – slavery.
Elbridge Gerry, a corresponding member of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and delegate from the large State of Massachusetts, denounced the idea that “property” be the “rule of representation.” “Blacks are property,” he sneered, “and are used to the southward as horses and cattle in the northward; and why should their representation be increased to the southward on account of the number of slaves, than horses or oxen to the north.” No one else spoke. On May 30, James Madison had moved that “or the number of free inhabitants” be stricken from consideration of the general principal of representation. The unease underlying that earlier request may be the reason why today Madison moved to refer “the detail of the standard of representation” to a subcommittee. But, without further debate or discussion, as if the decision were foreordained, Wilson’s motion containing the “three-fifths clause” passed 9 – 2. Only New Jersey and Delaware voted “nay.”
Sherman immediately moved that each State have one vote in the second branch of the national legislature. “Everything depends on this,” he insisted. After a second by Connecticut’s Oliver Ellsworth, the motion was defeated 5 – 6. But Wilson’s next motion, that representation in the Senate should be the same as in the House, passed 6 -5. Wilson has pulled off a big win for proportional representation, but today’s decision was anything but final and the division among the delegates is even more clearly drawn.