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.  

In late July, the Convention adjourned for two weeks, allowing the Committee of Detail to organize and refine the various proposals debated during June and July. Delegates reconvened on August 6 to review the Committee’s report, which consisted of 23 articles outlining the details of the proposed government.

The discussions in June and July allowed delegates to develop a new structure for the government, marking a departure from its organization under the Articles of Confederation. With the creation of a bicameral legislature, delegates focused on defining Congress’ powers and its relationship to state governments. While there was consensus on granting greater authority to the central government, delegates disagreed on the extent of congressional power and its impact on the sovereignty of state governments. The expansion from a single branch of government to three also prompted complex discussions about the separation of powers within the central government.

Throughout the continued deliberations, slavery emerged as a divisive topic, particularly concerning Congress’ authority to regulate or abolish it. The Committee report prohibited Congress from regulating the slave trade or discouraging it through taxation, though this language would differ in the final draft of the Constitution (see Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). While correspondence after the two-week break does not specifically mention the slavery debate, Madison’s notes indicate that it was a central topic during the third week of August. For further information regarding slavery’s treatment at the Convention, see debates on representation, the slave trade, and the fugitive slave clause.

As these broader discussions unfolded, delegate correspondence revealed continued frustrations with the prolonged Convention timeline. Many had initially anticipated a brief meeting to revise the Articles of Confederation, but as the Convention stretched into its third month with no clear end in sight, some delegates grew increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of progress. Adding to these frustrations were tensions among delegates, driven largely by conflicts between large and small states and differing regional interests.

Uncertainty also emerged regarding public reception of the proposed government. Because of the secrecy rule, outside public opinions regarding the Convention’s work varied. While some delegates expressed concerns about the public’s willingness to approve a framework so vastly different than the Articles of Confederation, others, like Washington, remained optimistic. Washington believed the proposed Constitution was “the best that can be obtained at the present moment under such diversity of ideas as prevail.”