Skip to Main Content

Convention: A Daily Journal

Center for Civics Education

Convention: A Daily Journal

Convention: A Daily Journal is a day-by-day journal of the 1787 Constitutional Convention convened by twelve of the original thirteen states to amend the Articles of Confederation and create a “more perfect union.” It chronicles the daily activities of the Convention, profiles the delegates and their interactions with each other, and looks back to life in America in the 1780s. Writing in the first person, the story is told from an “observer” hearing events as told in contemporary newspaper accounts and delegates’ personal notes and letters.


Wednesday, August 15, 1787

August 15, 2020 - 4 minute read


This morning’s edition of The Pennsylvania Gazette carried a disturbing report originally published by The New Haven Gazette on August 2. It reads:

Newspaper clipping

A circular letter is handing about the country, recommending a kingly government for these States. The writer proposes to send to England for the bishop of Osnaburgh, second son to the king of Great-Britain, and have him crowned KING over this continent. We have found by experience, says he, that we have not wit enough to govern ourselves, that all our declamations and parade about republicanism, liberty, property and the rights of man, are mere fluff and nonsense, and that it is high time for us to tread back the wayward path we have walked in these twelve years. This plan, we are told, gains friends and partisans rapidly, and it surely is necessary for the great body of the people to be on their guard. The Federal Convention may save us from this work of curses (A ROYAL GOVERNMENT) if we are only wise enough to adopt their recommendations when they shall be communicated to us.

It is uncertain whether the author of this “circular letter” is truly aware of a serious attempt to establish a monarchy in the United States or is using such rumors as a ploy to pressure delegates to the Convention to support an energetic executive. But the rumors are not new. They have been swirling for some time, especially in Connecticut. An anonymous “extract of a letter from Philadelphia” printed in The Fairfield Gazette on July 25 refers to “a scheme for a coalition…yet a profound secret,” proposing that Nova Scotia and Canada be allied to the “American empire.” The present government is so defective that “we can expect no relief but from an energetic and vigorous administration under the auspices of Royal Authority.” General Washington, the letter continued, “though exceptional in every respect of his virtues, would probably decline the crown if it were offered him,” hence the offer should be made to Osnaburgh, Prince Frederick, Duke of York.

Where the letter got off track was its assertion that “the convention has the subject in their deliberation, and are harmonious in their opinions; the means only of accomplishing so great an event appears principally to occupy their counsels.” While there must have been whispers and discussions about this simmering issue, they were not brought to the Convention floor. This morning’s session adhered to its agenda - to continue considering, point by point, each section of the report of the Committee of Detail.

Article VI, Sect. 11 of the report simply provides that the laws of the United States should be styled, “Be it enacted by the Senate and Representatives in Congress assembled.” It passed without opposition (nem. con.). Sect. 12 was more contentious, providing that “each House shall possess the right of originating bills, except in the case beforementioned.” The “beforementioned clause” requires that “money bills” originate in the House and was defeated on Monday. However, this new section, Sect. 12, forced reconsideration. Hugh Williamson questioned whether they should debate this subject “till the powers of the Senate should be gone over.” His motion to postpone passed 6 – 5.

The final section of Article VI requires that before bills become law, they shall be submitted to the President. If he disapproves of the bill, he shall return it, together with his objections, to the House in which it originated. A two-thirds vote by both Houses of Congress will override the President’s veto. After being presented with a bill, the President will have seven days to act, otherwise the bill will become law.

James Madison proposed that bills be submitted not only to the President but to the “Supreme Judiciary Department” as well. Opposition to involving judges in the legislative process resulted in a quick, decisive 3 – 8 defeat for Madison’s motion. As usual, Gouverneur Morris was ready with alternatives. He “suggested the expedient of an absolute veto in the executive” and an increase from two-thirds to three-fourths the number required of both Houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. An absolute presidential veto was not even considered but the three fourths requirement took hold. “Requiring three-fourths to repeal, though not a complete remedy, will prevent the hasty passage of laws,” Morris argued.

Maryland’s Daniel Carroll wanted to postpone further consideration of the president’s veto power until they discussed the entire issue of the presidency. Increasingly frustrated by motions to postpone, Nathaniel Gorham blurted out that he could “see no end to these difficulties and postponements. Some cannot agree to the form of government before the powers are defined. Others cannot agree to the powers till it is seen how the government is to be formed,” he grumbled. “Strenuous against postponing,” John Rutledge agreed. He “complained much of the tediousness of the proceedings.”

Oliver Ellsworth took the floor to support his frustrated colleagues. “We grow more and more skeptical as we proceed,” he groused. “If we do not decide soon, we shall be unable to come to any decision.” The mood was to forge ahead, defeat the motion to postpone, and grapple with the issue before them. Only Delaware and Maryland supported postponement.

Hugh Williamson seized the moment to put into a formal motion Morris’s recommendation of three-fourths. It passed by a close vote of 6 – 4 – 1.

Prior to adjournment, the Convention agreed to give the President ten instead of seven days to veto a bill. It is surprising that such an inoffensive, innocuous change would evoke opposition from New Hampshire and Massachusetts without explanation. But it did. Tomorrow the Convention will take up the proposed powers of the new legislature.

Back to top