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, September 5, 1787

September 05, 2020 - 4 minute read


Philadelphia newspaper clipping

David Brearley opened today’s session with “a further report” from the Committee of Postponed Parts,” referred to as the “Committee of Eleven” in James Madison’s notes. Like yesterday, a robust debate on how the President is to be elected consumed a considerable amount of the delegates’ time. However, before that debate resumed, the Convention approved several of the Committee’s recommendations. 

Without dissent, the Convention added to Congress the powers “to declare war and to grant letters of marque and reprisal.” It  also imposed a limitation to Congress’s power to “raise and support armies” – that “no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” Elbridge Gerry objected. “It implied,” he warned, “there was to be a standing army…which is dangerous to liberty and unnecessary for so great an extent a country as this.” Roger Sherman, a member of the Committee, remarked that the appropriations were not required for two years, but permitted only. As the legislature is elected every two years, “it would be inconvenient to require appropriations for one year only.” The Committee’s recommendation was agreed to nem. con.

The Committee’s report proposed that Congress shall “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular States and the acceptance by the Legislature become the seat of the Government of the United States.”  It also proposed that “the United States in Congress be requested to allow and cause to be paid to the Secretary and other officers of this Convention such sums in proportion to their respective times of service, as are allowed to the Secretary and similar officers of Congress.” Both were approved nem. con.

When the election of the President was again taken up, Charles Pinckney renewed his opposition. After further review of the proposal last night, Pinckney has honed his arguments. “The electors will not have sufficient knowledge of the fittest men,” he reasoned, “and will be swayed by an attachment to the eminent men in their respective States.” The “dispersion of votes would leave the appointment with the Senate, and as the President’s reappointment will thus depend on the Senate, he will be the mere creature of that body.” Pinckney further argued that the President would, therefore, ally with the Senate against the House of Representatives. Finally, he concluded, the ability to be reelected will put the President in the position of becoming “fixed for life under the auspices of the Senate.” 

John Rutledge agreed with Pinckney. This gives too much power to the Senate, he alleged, and moved to postpone. His motion failed 2 – 8 – 1 divided. The Convention wants to move forward and decide.

George Mason claims to have not made up his mind on this issue but has concerns about the current recommendation. Like Pinckney and Rutledge, he believes it puts too much power in the hands of the Senate. “As it will rarely happen that a majority of the whole votes will fall on any one candidate; and as the existing President will always be one of the five highest, his re-appointment will of course depend on the Senate.”  This is likely to cause a coalition between the President and the Senate, enabling them “to subvert the Constitution.” 

Gouverneur Morris insisted they are exaggerating the point. Each elector will have two votes, one of which much be cast for someone outside of his own State. It is more likely that “the votes will fall on characters eminent and generally known.” Moreover, it the President does a good job, it will be known, and he will be re-elected without resort to the Senate.

Various motions to amend the Committee’s recommendation were offered by James Wilson, James Madison, Hugh Williamson, Elbridge Gerry , Richard Spaight , George Mason, and John Rutledge. Each was defeated decisively.

Debate on the mode of choosing the President concluded with an ominous declaration by Mason. “As the mode of appointment is now regulated, he could not forbear expressing his opinion that it is utterly inadmissible. He would prefer the Government of Prussia to one which will put all power in to the hands of seven or eight men and fix an aristocracy worse than absolute monarchy.” If all thirteen States join the new government, the Senate would be composed of twenty-six Senators. Fourteen would constitute a quorum. The result would be that eight Senators could actually elect the President. This simply was not acceptable.

James McHenry’s notes of September 5 reflect the sentiment of many of his colleagues as the days wear on. In his diary, McHenry wrote,“ The greatest part of the day spent in desultory conversation on that part of the report respecting the mode of choosing the President – adjourned without coming to a conclusion.”

Today’s Pennsylvania Gazette published an interesting commentary, to wit: 

The year 1776 is celebrated (says a correspondent) for a revolution in favor of liberty. The year 1787, it is expected, will be celebrated with equal joy, for a revolution in favor of Government. The impatience with which all classes of people (a few officers of government only excepted) wait to receive the new federal constitution, can only be equaled by their zealous determination to support it…Every State (adds our correspondent) has its SHAYS, who, with either their pens, or tongues, or offices, are endeavoring to effect what Shays attempted in vain with his sword…Toryism and Shayism are nearly allied. They both lead to slavery, poverty, and misery.

The article concluded, “We hear that the CONVENTION propose to adjourn next week, after laying America under such obligations to them for their long, painful and disinterested labors, to establish her liberty upon a permanent basis, as no time will ever cancel.”

Back to top