Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

by United States Constitutional Convention, James Madison, Adrienne Koch (Introduction)

Shares President Madison's account of the debates that shaped the Constitutional Convention as well as the U.S. Constitution

Genres: History, Politics, American History, Nonfiction, Law, Philosophy, Government

695 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 1969

Reviews

[Art · Rating 4 out of 5]

Original notes from the Constitutional Convention.
Madison at his best.
Great study to go along w/Federalist Papers.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a long, dry read, not least because the delegates went round and round in circles over the same issues for months. Even at the end of August they were still bickering over representation, and some delegates were trying to reopen debates that seemed to have already been decided. It's honestly a miracle that they ever agreed to anything at all. "On the question for a committee to prepare a bill of rights" on September 12, nearly everyone voted no. I think they were just tired at that point. While it was tough to get through, I'm glad I did it - I gained some fascinating insights, but I earned them the hard way.

On the Technology of 1787
It's easy to forget how fundamentally different their time period was. I know we think we know this, but it invades absolutely everything. For starters - they were all late! The delegates started trickling in to Philadelphia sometime in June, all wondering where and when the rest would show up, and jawing about how many they should wait for before getting started. Not until weeks later did they all arrive. Some showed up well after proceedings were underway. It's almost difficult to believe with our modern conception of schedule keeping facilitated by instantaneous communication and air travel. On the same note, so many structures of our government are fashioned around these realities - are solutions to problems that no longer exist. Mr. Butler supported infrequent elections, because "Georgia and South Carolina were too distant to send electors often," and as to the timing of Congressional sessions, there were arguments against winter (bad travel conditions) and against summer (because everyone is busy in the fields).

The most striking example is the Electoral College. It wasn't REALLY designed because of representation issues. Certainly that was part of it, but you can come up with much simpler ways to shift around voting power for a single office. The reason it's this convoluted mechanism about choosing people to choose other people is because they wanted to find the exact right balance of information. The average voter didn't know anything - literally. Forget the susceptibility to advertising, misinformation, lack of education that you might criticize modern voters for. We can at least NAME all the presidential candidates. Whether you love them or hate them, whether you're accurately informed of their policies or not, whether you've unwittingly fashioned your ideology based on the intervention of malicious internet trolls, you know who Elizabeth Warren IS. This wasn't true of the average person in 1787. The delegates considered having the federal or state legislators choose the president, but were worried about court intrigue shaping the decision. As Gov. Morris said, "As the Electors would vote at the same time throughout the US and at so great a distance from each other, the great evil of a cabal was avoided."

It's like these guys have never heard of Twitter or JetBlue. Obviously I'm being facetious but I think it's important to remember just how fundamental these issues were to their worldview. If the same people time traveled to 2017, they would have created an entirely different system.

On the Dumb Public and the Undeserving Poor
As a rule, the delegates think very highly of themselves and public servants, and very lowly of the public at large. To the degree that they are concerned about protecting their rights and representing their interests, it's pretty much a practical concern to prevent the possibility of future rebellion. They routinely complain that the public have utterly stupid ideas, like paper money, and frequently elect the wrong people to the state legislatures.

For example, several (including Ben Franklin, who spoke up only a handful of times) strongly urged for giving the President no salary to prevent corruption. It was taken as a given by all of them that the President would be a man of wealth and leisure. No salary should be necessary. In contrast, Mr. Sherman "was not afraid that the Legislature would make their own wages too high; but too low, so that men ever so fit could not serve unless they were at the same time rich." So to be fair, a handful of delegates make counterarguments, but they are certainly in the minority.

Even Madison urged for longer terms for Senators, primarily to protect the rich against the agitation of the poor as society became less equal over time: "The major interest might under sudden impulses be tempted to commit injustice on the minority … in framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changed which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former … How is this danger to be guarded against on republican principles? … Such being the objects of the second branch in the proposed government he thought a considerable duration ought to be given to it." To be fair, Madison is pretty consistent about trying to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and in this case those groups just happen to be rich and poor. But the delegates as a whole were definitely concerned with how to safeguard their own interests into the future - there is much hand-wringing over what on earth will happen as the population of the western states grows and these non-original colonies gain at least as much power as the first 13!

Beyond that, I'll let the delegates own words speak for them:

Mr. Butler declared, "We must follow the example of Solon who gave the Athenians not the best Government he could devise; but the best they would receive."

"Mr. Dickinson had a very different idea of the tendency of vesting the right of suffrage in the freeholders of the Country. He considered them as the best guardians of liberty; And the restriction of the right to them as a necessary defence against the dangerous influence of those multitudes without property and without principle with which our country like all others, will in time abound."

Mr. Gov. Morris: "The time is not distant when this country will abound with mechanics and manufacturers who will receive their bread from their employers … The ignorant and the dependent can be as little trusted with the public interest … As to merchants & c if they have wealth and value the right they can acquire it. If not they don't deserve it."

On Slavery
Their debates over slavery range from snarkily political, to practical, to principled. One delegate argued that if slaves were to be counted as population in the South, then cattle should be counted for the North, since both were property. Another bitterly complained that he wasn't sure if blacks were free or not - when talking about representation, the Southern states assure the Northern that slaves are equal to freeman and should be considered in proportion. But when talking about taxation (which was based on population), suddenly the Southern states insist with equal vehemence that a slave is only worth 3/5 of a freeman. Perhaps my favorite of these came from Gov. Morris, who I feel found the perfect balance, striking both the practical and moral absurdity of the practice: "The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with laudable horror, so nefarious a practice." Mic drop.

Small Government Conservatives
These guys were true Republicans, in the way our modern politicians claim to be but utterly fail to achieve - government should be small, small, small, including and especially the military. Madison: "A standing military force, with an overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty." One delegate rejects setting a time for Congress to meet - what if there's so little for them to do they decide to put the session off for a year? Madison also proposed "that the Committee prepare a clause or clauses restraining the Legislature of the U.S. from establishing a perpetual revenue." I don't think it's a stretch to say that these guys would be absolutely dumbfounded that the document they crafted was the foundation of our modern federal government with 2 million employees, to say nothing of the military-industrial complex.

James Madison is a Statesman
The delegates were politicians - primarily advocating for whatever was best for their home state and personal interests. - with one glaring exception. I have a greater appreciation for James Madison's reputation as a statesman after reading this. Pluck a quote from any random page and you could easily guess the region (North or South) and size (small or large) of the home state of the speaker. But not so with Madison. His speeches are balanced and nuanced, describing the desires of first one side, then the other, then relating this conflict to historical context, then proposing a reasonable solution or two, and finishing up with the weaknesses of the solution he himself just proposed, and a lamentation that since he hasn't thought of a way to mitigate them, he would be willing to hear from others who have ideas. One of the most notable of these passages occurs when he interrupts what feels like the 312th debate about small vs large state representation to inform his fellow delegates that they are missing the real problem. He didn't see the union in any real danger over the conflict between states over their sizes, but rather over slavery. He argued that if they wanted to tweak the 2 houses of the legislature to give one type of state the upper hand in each, the two types should be Northern and Southern, not large and small. He had the beginnings of such an idea, but never officially proposed it because he couldn't work out the details to his satisfaction in a way that would maintain the other checks and balances they were trying to achieve. You honestly can't tell from his comments where he stands. He is not concerned with whether large states get more representation, or whether slavery is allowed; he is concerned with crafting the system that is most likely to thrive despite these internal conflicts. Respect.

Fun Quotes
Mr. Wilson: "With regard to the sentiments of the people, he conceived it difficult to know precisely what they are. Those of the particular circle in which one moved, were commonly mistaken for the general voice."
Mr. Gerry: "The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Massachusetts it had been fully confirmed by experience that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute."
Mr. Wilson: "The House of Representatives will insert other things in money bills, and by making them conditions of each other, destroy the deliberative liberty of the Senate." Too bad he didn’t come up with a solution for this accurately predicted problem.
Mr. Gov. Morris on arguing that the national legislature should decide their own salaries: "There could be no reason to fear that they would overpay themselves."

Conclusion
I'm not about to suggest that this monster tome should be required reading for high schoolers, but at the same time it revealed to me some glaring inadequacies in the current way this time period is taught. First, we should not underestimate the degree to which the technology of the day shaped the government. If instant communication and easy travel were possible, the delegates would have been debating entirely different points and come to completely different conclusions. Second, modern Americans tend to idolize the Founding Fathers as embodying a number of traits that we now consider quintessentially American. I'd argue one of these traits we imagine these men to possess is that of sticking up for the common man, and we couldn't be more wrong. These men were rich, powerful snobs. They thought the common man was dumb, irresponsible, and untrustworthy. They spent gobs of mental energy during the convention trying to figure out how to figure out how to keep the common man from royally screwing up this government they were crafting. Third, they were nano-government conservatives. They were staunchly against a standing military in times of peace, perpetual revenue sources for the federal government, and the idea that Congress would need to meet for more than a week or two per year to keep things moving. Most modern politicians, no matter how much they claim they want small government, are light years away from that ideal.

Finally, the basis of our entire country is compromise. While urging the members to sign now that they'd finally gotten a draft ready, Franklin said, "Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die … One the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." How sad that the primary lesson imparted to US schoolchildren was the absolute necessity of compromise in the formation of the country, while that same trait is considered a dirty word in today's politics. Meanwhile, in modern times we worship every word of the Constitution as if it were the perfect embodiment of the infallible wisdom of idolized forefathers, when the reality is that they all had deep misgivings about some part or another of it. We've forgotten that as well.

As I said, I wouldn't make this required reading. But I'd make a strong argument for at least Franklin's speech at the end.

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

James Madison's notes. A long slog, but ultimately rewarding. Where have all the statesmen gone?

[S.D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

There’s lots of chatter in the States about returning the Constitution to its authors’ intent. It comes from folks who, having probably not read that slim document, couldn’t be expected to read 700+ pages of notes by the most prominent of those authors; in which they’d learn that their assumptions about that intent are… asinine. Of course, asininity presumes an incapability of learning…. Given Madison’s prolix in his Federalist Papers, his Notes have surprising brevity and clarity (their length due to the duration of the Convention), particularly in regard to the authors’ intent: a strong central government and very limited democracy. The voting public of 2010 leaves little to suggest the intent of Messrs. Madison, Morris, Hamilton, et. al was wrong.

[Wolf DeVoon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Day by day account of the Federal Convention, far more detailed than official records. Essential reading if you want to understand the motives and concerns of the Framers, none of whom got what they hoped to achieve. Persuasion was useless, compromise was an exasperating solution. If you don't want to buy the book, search Avalon at Yale. You can read Madison's Debates free with handy hyperlinks to related material.

Franklin's proposal of a judiciary to be elected by lawyers was wonderful, and I used it when I drafted the Freeman's Constitution (2001). Incredible shame that Franklin was heard with sincere respect and ignored at the Philadelphia convention, yet his influence was vital, urging delegates to sign the constitution that no one wanted, after 55 days of frustration.

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is one of the books that you imagine can't possibly be interesting (imagine reading a secretary's meeting minutes, who voted for what, the silly debates and power struggles)...yet, it really brought the whole process to life for me. Normally history is quite dry and seems so removed. I felt invested in the outcome of all the discussions.

I read this for an intro to political science course, so perhaps the class discussion helped make the book interesting. Nevertheless, my overall impression of my experience while reading this was one of awe and interest.

[Knoxx · Rating 5 out of 5]

To read this book allows us to enter the actual debates as our Founders were discussing the wording and reasoning to our Constitution. Every politician should be required to read this, and it should be taught to every American. We do not have to guess at what the Founding Fathers might have meant to say. We do not have to be content hearing a politician take one clause and explain it as being contrary to the intent of the Founders. We can read in their own words what they said, and we can, sadly, see how far off we are today from what was intended.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

These notes are the standard of truth about the debates. Madison was passionate about a constitution. He had the best library on the subject at the time, thanks in part to Jefferson sending additions from Europe. Waiting for all participants to pass, he found himself the lone survivor. After his death, they were published.

[Jennie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the text for the only class I ever took because the book looked interesting, and it's the only textbook I've ever looked forward to reading every day. Absolutely fascinating first-hand look at the framing of the Constitution.

[Michael Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Madison's telling of the American Constitutional convention. The essential first hand account.

[Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great first hand account of the convention.

[Dan Cotter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Original notes by James Madison.

[Rebecca Seifert]

"He had often wondered at the indifference of the superior classes of society to this dictate of humanity & policy; considering that however affluent their circumstances, or elevated their situations, might be, the course of a few years, not only might but certainly would, distribute their posterity throughout the lowest classes of Society. Every selfish motive therefore, every family attachment, ought to recommend such a system of policy as would provide no less carefully for the rights and happiness of the lowest than of the highest orders of Citizens."

"In England, the people will probably lose their liberty from the smallness of the proportion having a right of suffrage. Our danger arises from the opposite extreme: hence in Massachusetts the worst men get into the Legislature."

"Representation is made necessary only because it is impossible for the people to act collectively."

"All other matters civil & criminal would be much better in the hands of the States. The people are more happy in small than large States."

"The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere, & thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests & parties, that in the first place a majority will not be likely at the same moment to have a common interest separate from that of the whole or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be apt to unite in the pursuit of it."

[Michelle Palmer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for grad school classes on The American Presidency and other classes.

Good record of who said what about which topics in the Constitutional Convention.

[Alice Willard · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'll tell you what little jemmy was a verbose fella

[Purple Wimple · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised at how readable these are. And how insightful! Skip the commentaries about these notes-- just read the notes!

[Tammy Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nothing less than the genius of James Madison.