Revision of the Articles or a New Government?The moment the first problem was raised,representatives of the small states,led by William Paterson of New Jersey,were on their feet.They feared that,if the Articles were overthrown,the equality and rights of the states would be put in jeopardy.Their protest was therefore vigorous.They cited the call issued by the Congress in summoning the convention which specifically stated that they were assembled for "the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."They cited also their instructions from their state legislatures,which authorized them to "revise and amend"the existing scheme of government,not to make a revolution in it.To depart from the authorization laid down by the Congress and the legislatures would be to exceed their powers,they argued,and to betray the trust reposed in them by their countrymen.
To their contentions,Randolph of Virginia replied:"When the salvation of the republic is at stake,it would be treason to our trust not to propose what we find necessary."Hamilton,reminding the delegates that their work was still subject to the approval of the states,frankly said that on the point of their powers he had no scruples.With the issue clear,the convention cast aside the Articles as if they did not exist and proceeded to the work of drawing upa new constitution,"laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form"as to the delegates seemed "most likely to affect their safety and happiness."
A Government Founded on States or on People?The Compromise.Defeated in their attempt to limit the convention to a mere revision of the Articles,the spokesmen of the smaller states redoubled their efforts to preserve the equality of the states.The signal for a radical departure from the Articles on this point was given early in the sessions when Randolph presented "the Virginia plan."He proposed that the new national legislature consist of two houses,the members of which were to be apportioned among the states according to their wealth or free white population,as the convention might decide.This plan was vehemently challenged.Paterson of New Jersey flatly avowed that neither he nor his state would ever bow to such tyranny.As an alternative,he presented "the New Jersey plan"calling for a national legislature of one house representing states as such,not wealth or peoplea legislature in which all states,large or small,would have equal voice.Wilson of Pennsylvania,on behalf of the more populous states,took up the gauntlet which Paterson had thrown down.It was absurd,he urged,for 180,000men in one state to have the same weight in national counsels as 750,000men in another state."The gentleman from New Jersey,"he said,"is candid.He declares his opinion boldly....I will be equally candid....I will never confederate on his principles."So the bitter controversy ran on through many exciting sessions.
Greek had met Greek.The convention was hopelessly deadlocked and on the verge of dissolution,"scarce held together by the strength of a hair,"as one of the delegates remarked.A crash was averted only by a compromise.Instead of a Congress of one house as provided by the Articles,the convention agreed upon a legislature of two houses.In the Senate,the aspirations of the small states were to be satisfied,for each state was given two members in that body.In the formation of the House of Representatives,the larger states were placated,for it was agreed that the members of that chamber were to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population,counting threefifths of the slaves.
The Question of Popular Election.The method of selecting federal officers and members of Congress also produced an acrimonious debate which revealed how deepseated was the distrust of the capacity of the people to govern themselves.Few there were who believed that no branch of the government should be elected directly by the voters;still fewer were there,however,who desired to see all branches so chosen.One or two even expressed a desire for a monarchy.The dangers of democracy were stressed by Gerry of Massachusetts:"All the evils we experience flow from an excess of democracy.The people donot want virtue but are the dupes of pretended patriots....I have been too republican heretofore but have been taught by experience the danger of a leveling spirit."To the "democratic licentiousness of the state legislatures,"Randolph sought to oppose a "firm senate."To check the excesses of popular government Charles Pinckney of South Carolina declared that no one should be elected President who was not worth $100,000and that high property qualifications should be placed on members of Congress and judges.Other members of the convention were stoutly opposed to such "hightoned notions of government."Franklin and Wilson,both from Pennsylvania,vigorously championed popular election;while men like Madison insisted that at least one part of the government should rest on the broad foundation of the people.
Out of this clash of opinion also came compromise.One branch,the House of Representatives,it was agreed,was to be elected directly by the voters,while the Senators were to be elected indirectly by the state legislatures.The President was to be chosen by electors selected as the legislatures of the states might determine,and the judges of the federal courts,supreme and inferior,by the President and the Senate.