This letter is part of our Four-Act Drama, a Constitutional Convention role-playing scheme for educators. For more information on our comprehensive exhibit on the Constitutional Convention, click here.
Act I concludes with Edmund Randolph’s (1753-1813) introduction of the Virginia Plan, which caused extensive debates and led many delegates to recognize that the Convention would likely last longer than initially anticipated. While this proposal sought to address the nation’s challenges under the Articles of Confederation, it faced considerable opposition. Delegates from Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland voiced strong criticism of the plan. These delegates not only favored preserving the confederation but also argued that the Convention had overstepped its Congressional mandate by attempting to establish a new national government. The Confederation Congress Authorization, granted on February 21, 1787, had permitted the Convention solely “for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” By introducing the Virginia Plan, they claimed, the Convention was surpassing the reach of its authority.
Although the Convention approved a version of the Virginia Plan in early June, delegates from smaller states opposed its proposal of proportional representation in both houses of Congress. These delegates instead supported the New Jersey Plan, introduced by William Paterson (1745–1806). This alternate plan retained the principle of state equality from the Articles of Confederation while increasing Congressional authority by granting additional powers. It also provided for a federal executive and a federal judiciary. This led to a significant impasse, with delegates from smaller states supporting the New Jersey Plan and delegates from the larger states continuing to support the Virginia Plan.
For several weeks, the Convention was at a standstill. The secrecy rule, as established in Act I, continued to prevent delegates from disclosing details of the proceedings. However, correspondence from early Act II illustrates delegates’ concerns. Some expressed doubts about the likelihood of reaching a resolution due to the diversity of opinions present, while others described the work as difficult and laborious. Many also reiterated their frustration at the slow pace of the proceedings.
The Convention reached a breakthrough on June 30 when Oliver Ellsworth (1745–1807) of Connecticut introduced the Connecticut Compromise. This motion promoted the idea that the nation was both federal and national in character. The compromise proposed proportional representation in the lower House to reflect the will of the people, and equal representation of states in the upper House to secure state interests. Ellsworth’s proposal helped reconcile the divide between supporters of the Virginia and New Jersey plans by offering a new solution for delegates.
Ellsworth’s motion helped move the Convention forward by providing a new option for delegates and alleviating the weeks-long stalemate. To explore the impact of the proposed legislative structure on the nation, the Gerry Committee was formed, consisting of one delegate from each state in attendance. The committee presented its findings on July 5, leading to another series of debates that concluded on July 16 with the approval of the motion.
Act II letters provide a glimpse inside the closed deliberations of the Convention as delegates grappled with the direction of the national government while balancing their respective state interests. Despite making significant progress during June and July, much work remained for delegates as they continued to shape the nation’s path forward.
The idea of separating the executive business of the confederacy from Congress, as the judiciary is already in some degree, is just and necessary. I had frequently pressed on the members individually, while in Congress, the doing this by a resolution of Congress for appointing an Executive committee to act during the sessions of Congress, as the Committee of the states was to act during their vacations. But the referring to this Committee all executive business as it should present itself, would require a more persevering self-denial than I supposed Congress to possess. It will be much better to make that separation by a federal act. The negative proposed to be given them on all the acts of the several legislatures is now for the first time suggested to my mind. Prima facie I do not like it. It fails in an essential character, that the hole and the patch should be commensurate. But this proposes to mend a small hole by covering the whole garment. Not more than 1. out of 100. state-acts concern the confederacy. This proposition then, in order to give them 1. degree of power which they ought to have, gives them 99. more which they ought not to have, upon a presumption that they will not exercise the 99. But upon every act there will be a preliminary question. Does this act concern the confederacy? And was there ever a proposition so plain as to pass Congress without a debate? Their decisions are almost always wise: they are like pure metal. But you know of how much dross this is the result. Would not an appeal from the state judicatures to a federal court, in all cases where the act of Confederation controlled the question, be as effectual a remedy, and exactly commensurate to the defect. . . .
Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.
![Finley, A. (1829) Pennsylvania. Philada. [Map] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/98688548/.](/content/uploads/2024/02/Map-of-PA--273x190.jpg)
