The official Journal of the Constitutional Convention records that “the order of the day being read, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider the state of the American Union.”
A Committee of the Whole is simply a procedural device by which a deliberative body can meet as a committee under relaxed rules. The procedure has been used in the English Parliament since the early 1600s. It is much like any other committee, except that all members of the body participate. Any decisions it makes are considered as recommendations and must be voted on by the main body in a regular meeting.
The first order of business of the Committee of the Whole is to elect a chairman. In this case, they elected Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts. That being decided, President Washington left the chair, and Mr. Gorham assumed it, recognizing Governor Randolph.
Randolph moved the Committee take up three resolutions: 1) that “a Union of the States merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of Confederation, namely, common defense, security of liberty and general welfare;” 2) that “no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual sovereignties, would be sufficient;” and 3) that “a national government ought to be established consisting of a supreme legislative, executive and judiciary.” [Italics in Madison’s notes.]
Discussion immediately centered on the meaning of the terms national and supreme. Mr. Charles Pinckney (Charles Cotesworth Pinckney will be referred to in these essays as General Pinckney) asked Randolph whether, by using those terms, “he meant to abolish the State governments altogether.” Randolph responded, he “meant by using these general terms merely to introduce the more particular ones.”
Gouverneur Morris interjected, first explaining the difference between “a federal and national, supreme” government, the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter being a compleat and compulsive operation.” Then, he staked out his own position quite clearly. “I cannot,” he said, “conceive of a government in which there can exist two supremes. A federal agreement which each party may violate at pleasure cannot answer the purpose…We had better take a supreme government now, than a despot twenty years hence.”
Gen. Pinckney and Delaware’s George Read expressed doubt that the Convention is even authorized to have such a discussion. After all, they reminded their colleagues, the February 1 resolution passed by the Confederation Congress called for them to meet “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” Mr. Gerry (Mass.) agreed, saying not only is the Convention not authorized to go beyond these instructions, but he doubted if Congress itself would have the right to pass such a resolution. “If we have right to pass this resolution,” he warned, “we have a right to annihilate the confederation.”
John Dickinson, like Read, represents Delaware, but wants to move the discussion forward. “All agree that the Confederation is defective, all agree that it ought to be amended,” he granted, but “the inquiry should be: 1. What are the legislative powers we should vest in Congress? 2. What judiciary powers? 3. What executive powers?”
After a number of procedural votes to postpone subjects or amend language, the Committee finally voted that “a national government ought to be established consisting of a supreme legislative, executive and judiciary.” The vote was six “ayes” (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina), one “nay” (Connecticut), and one “divided” (New York – Mr. Hamilton “aye” and Mr. Yates “no.”).
The Committee then took up Gov. Randolph’s resolution that States should be represented in the national legislature “proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants” in each State. Madison instantly cautioned against using the words “free inhabitants.” To do so, “might occasion debates which would divert the Committee from the general question of whether the principle of representation should be changed” from the present one vote per State. Without uttering the word, Madison deftly raised the sensitive issue of slavery, in hopes of avoiding it as long as possible. Navigating the murky waters of equality of States alone will be difficult enough. And it starts now.
Discussion had barely begun when Mr. Read moved that “the whole clause relating to the point of representation be postponed, reminding the Committee that “the deputies from Delaware were restrained by their commission from assenting to any change of the rule of suffrage, and in case such a change should be fixed on, it might become their duty to retire from the Convention.” In short, keeping talking about this and we leave!
Madison tried to reason with them, observing that “whatever reason might have existed for the equality of suffrage when the Union was a federal one among sovereign States, it must cease when a national government is put in its place.” He then suggested taking a “straw vote” to save the Delaware delegates from the embarrassment of a formal vote. Read was not satisfied, nor was he alone.
Supporting Madison in his efforts to mollify Read, several Members noted that nothing in the instructions to the Delaware delegates required or even justified their leaving the Convention. Even if the Convention were to pass such a resolution, Delaware could simply vote “nay.” Finally, the Committee agreed with Mr. Read to postpone the issue.
On this, the first day of debate, the key issues and obstacles to be addressed and overcome were introduced – the relationship between the national government and the States; equality or proportional representation in the national legislature; and slavery.