Info Brief: The Reasons for Reform

Learn the context that preceded the Constitutional Convention and why reformers pushed for a new constitution.

How did the post-independence experience of governing—of actually being in charge—influence the Founding generation and shape the U.S. Constitution? One way of framing this question is as follows: How did we get from the Declaration of Independence (and the American Revolution) to the U.S. Constitution?

What changed?
What remained the same?
And how did this experience—and the debates of the period—shape the push to create a new national government in just a little over a decade?

Let’s begin by reviewing some of the key events (and factors) leading to the push for a new constitution.

The Articles of Confederation

When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, our nation already had a framework of government—the Articles of Confederation. And the Constitutional Convention itself was, in many ways, a response to the weaknesses of this form of government. The main thing to remember about the Articles of Confederation is the following: The Articles created a weak central government—a “league of friendship”—one that largely preserved state power (and independence):

The Articles created a national government centered on the legislative branch, which consisted of a single house. There was no separate executive branch and judicial branch. There was no separate House and Senate. The delegates in the legislative branch voted by state—with each state receiving one vote, regardless of its population.
The powers of the national government were limited. The national government didn’t have the power to tax or to regulate commerce between the states. It couldn’t force states to provide troops or send the government money.
Any proposed amendment to the Articles required unanimous approval from all 13 states. As a result, no amendment was ever ratified.
Furthermore, Congress couldn’t exercise many of the powers that it did have without support from nine of the 13 states. In other words, it couldn’t declare war, enter into treaties with other nations, spend money, or appoint a commander in chief of the military without the support of nine states. This supermajority requirement made it difficult for the national government to govern.

These features of the national government created several problems for the young nation. Without the power to tax, Congress struggled to fund that national government and pay its soldiers. Rather than having the power to tax individuals, the national government depended on voluntary contributions from state governments. Many states simply refused to pay their fair share. In addition, the national government struggled to defend the frontier, and many states raised trade barriers against one another—imposing taxes on one another’s goods, spurring unhealthy competition between the states, and harming the new nation’s economy.

Congress was powerless to address these issues.

The Early State Constitutions

The Constitutional Convention was also a response to the nation’s experience with revolutionary-era state governments. As the American people moved towards independence, Congress passed a resolution, proposed by John Adams, calling on the states to set up new governments. This represented an exciting moment for America’s political leaders. Congress was calling on them to form new governments based on reflection, deliberation, compromise, and, ultimately, free choice. The result?: state constitutions. This was an important constitutional precedent. The American people committed to being governed by written constitutions.

Between the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the beginning of the new national government under the U.S. Constitution (1789), Americans were governed by thirteen separate and (largely) independent state governments. With their new state constitutions, the American people and their leaders set out their own visions for a new form of republican government.

When crafting their early state governments, most of America’s constitution-makers still admired the British Constitution and drew on the theory of mixed government. This was the classical Aristotelian—and, now, British—idea that government should be organized around three key sources of authority: the one (the monarchy), the few (the aristocracy), and the many (the people).

Within the new state constitutions, they captured the idea of “the one” in the executive branch, led by a governor. Most states then divided their legislative branch into two houses—with an upper house (a senate) representing “the few” and a lower house (an assembly) representing “the many.” The key exception was Pennsylvania’s state constitution, which was the most radical, the most democratic, and the most criticized at the time. The Pennsylvania legislature had only one house (representing “the many”). Unlike the other states, it didn’t have an upper house.

In 1776, John Adams wrote his Thoughts on Government—which offered his own views on how best to craft a state government. Adams’s pamphlet proved influential—both by circulating widely in the states and by helping to shape Adams’s own role as constitution-maker when he helped frame the most respected early state constitution: the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. His goal was to figure out the best way to write a constitution that balanced the strengths and weaknesses of the one, the few, and the many.

Of course, divisions existed between Americans over how best to design a new government. Broadly speaking, conservatives tended to favor empowering the one (the governor) and the few (the upper house of the legislature), and, not surprisingly, radicals tended to privilege the many (the lower house of the legislature).

Overall, the early state constitutions organized their governments around a powerful legislature closely connected to the people and a weak executive branch and judiciary. Much to the chagrin of key Founders like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, these state governments pushed for (in their view) unwise policies like debtor relief laws and restrictive trade policies. In turn, the American economy cratered—with many key political leaders blaming America’s economic woes on the policies pushed by state legislatures that were too responsive to the immediate preferences of the people.

With the new Constitution, the framers were looking, in part, to respond to—what they perceived to be—the weaknesses of the powerful, democratic state legislatures.

Again, many took the Massachusetts Constitution—written, in large part, by John Adams—as a model. The Massachusetts Constitution looked to check the powers of the lower house of the state legislature. It created a powerful and independent governor—elected directly by the people and granted a veto that could check unwise legislation. It created a powerful and independent judiciary and tried to create an upper house with a property qualification designed to represent the wealthy and elite in Massachusetts. In the Massachusetts Constitution, we see important constitutional principles like separation of powers (dividing the powers of government between three branches) and checks and balances (providing each branch of government with the powers to check the other branches). It served as a model for key leaders at the Constitutional Convention.

Want to join the conversation?

Sort by:

No posts yet.