As the Committee of Style moves forward with its work, the Convention continued holding its daily sessions in the East Room of the Pennsylvania State House. For the last week, the weather in Philadelphia has been cool and comfortable, but it is turning warm again and expected to be hot tomorrow and the delegates are anxious to complete their work and go home. Over the weekend, a flurry of letters hit the post roads.

Jonathan Dayton wrote to his father that “we have happily so far finished our business, as to be employed in giving it its last polish and preparing it for the public information. This, I conclude, may be done in three or four days.” James McHenry sent word to his wife, Peggy, that “it is likely the Convention will finish their business in about eight days.” Even George Washington is predicting “the Convention will have completed the business which brought the delegates together. God grant that I may not be disappointed in this expectation, as I am quite homesick.”

Although the Committee of Style is hard at work producing a final draft of the proposed Constitution, some delegates are still pressing for substantive changes. Elbridge Gerry wanted to reconsider the ratification process. As it stands, upon the application of two-thirds of the State legislatures, Congress must call a convention to consider amendments. Gerry dislikes many parts of the Constitution, but this part is particularly odious. Gerry is convinced that this provision would permit a national convention to “subvert the State Constitutions altogether.” By a vote of 9 - 1, the Convention agreed to reconsider. 

The debate was productive. After some discussion James Madison moved that amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by either two-thirds of both Houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the States. Ratification of proposed amendments would require approval by either three-fourths of the State legislatures or conventions held in three-fourths of the States. Alexander Hamilton seconded the motion and it passed with only Delaware in opposition and New Hampshire divided.

Despite the swift, overwhelming support of Madison’s proposal, Edmund Randolph was incensed. “I could never agree to give a power by which the articles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not interested in that property and prejudiced against it.” To obviate his objection, it was agreed to add, “provided that no amendments which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the 4th and 5th sections of article VII” – slavery.

Gerry was ready with another objection, shocked that the Convention would by-pass the current Confederation “with so little scruple or formality.” He found an unlikely ally in Hamilton, concurring as to “the indecorum of not requiring the approbation of Congress.” Hamilton also thought it “wrong to allow nine States to institute a new government on the ruins of the existing one.”  Pennsylvania’s Thomas Fitzsimons has not been a frequent participant on the floor of the Convention, but he pointed out that Congress had not been “left out” of the ratification. Rather, excluding it from the process was intended to “save Congress from the necessity of an act inconsistent with the Articles of Confederation under which they held their authority.”

Again, Randolph objected, declaring that “if no change should be made in this part of the plan, he should be obliged to dissent from the whole of it.” From the beginning, he said, “I have been convinced that radical changes in the system of the Union were necessary. Under this conviction I brought forward a set of republican principles as the basis and outline of a reform. These republican principles have, however, much to my regret been widely and irreconcilably departed from.” He believed State conventions should be held to review the Constitution, propose amendments, and submit them to a second general convention, “with the full power to settle the Constitution finally.” This went nowhere.

“If the approbation of Congress be made necessary, and they should not approve the Constitution,” mused Rufus King, “everything will go into confusion and all our labor be lost.” 

For a third time, Randolph took the floor, this time to state his objections to the entire system. He opposed empowering the Senate to try impeachment of the president; the number of each House required to override a presidential veto; the “smallness” of the number of Representatives in the House; lack of limitations on a standing army; lack of restraints on navigation acts; the “general clause concerning necessary and proper laws;” and so on. With all these difficulties in mind, “what course he was asked was he to pursue?” Should he promote the establishment of a plan “which he verily believed would end in tyranny?”

Randolph then staked out his position, “Unwilling to impede the wishes and judgments of the Convention,” he would nevertheless “keep himself free, in case he should be honored with a seat in the convention of his State, to act according to the dictates of his judgment.” The only way he could be influenced otherwise, is if the Convention submits the plan to Congress, then to the State legislatures, then to State conventions having the power to amend. He proposed a resolution to this effect, but no action was taken. 

Before adjournment, Charles Pinckney moved that the Committee of Style “prepare an address to the people to accompany the Constitution, and to be laid with the same before the United States in Congress.” It was approved nem. con.

Randolph is not alone in his increasing opposition to the proposed Constitution. Gerry has had his reservations all along. Last night he was among those delegates writing letters to folks back home, anxious to return to their families and business. In his usual endearing style to his young wife, “my dearest girl Ann,” he predicted that “Thursday will finish the business,” adding ominously, “to which I have every prospect at present of giving my negative.”