148 Chapter 5 The Federalist Era: Nationalism Triumphant
But the delegates did “concede on both sides,” and
the debates went on. Again on July 17 collapse threat-
ened as the representatives of the larger states caucused
to consider walking out of the convention. Fortunately
they did not walk out, and finally the delegates adopted
what is known as the Great Compromise. In the lower
branch of the new legislature—the House of
Representatives—places were to be assigned according
to population and filled by popular vote. In the upper
house—the Senate—each state was to have two mem-
bers, elected by its legislature.
Then a complicated struggle took place between
northern and southern delegates, occasioned by the
institution of slavery and the differing economic inter-
ests of the regions. About one American in seven in the
1780s was a slave. Northerners contended that slaves
should be counted in deciding each state’s share of
direct federal taxes. Southerners, of course, wanted to
exclude slaves from the count. Yet Southerners wished
to include slaves in determining each district’s repre-
sentation in the House of Representatives, although
they had no intention of permitting the slaves to vote.
In theThree-Fifths Compromiseit was agreed that
“three-fifths of all other Persons” should be counted
for both purposes. (As it turned out, the compromise
was a victory for the Southerners, for direct taxes were
only rarely levied by Congress before the Civil War.)
Settlement of the knotty issue of the African slave trade
was postponed by a clause making it illegal for
Congress to outlaw the trade before 1808.
Questions involving the regulation of less contro-
versial commerce also caused sectional disagreement.
Southerners disliked export taxes because their staple
products were largely sold abroad. In return for a
clause prohibiting such taxes, they dropped their
demand that all laws regulating foreign commerce be
approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress.
Many other differences of opinion were resolved by
the give-and-take of practical compromise.
The final document, signed on September 17,
established a legislature of two houses: an executive
branch, consisting of a president with wide powers
and a vice president whose only function was to pre-
side over the Senate; and a national judiciary consist-
ing of a Supreme Court and such “inferior courts” as
Congress might decide to create. The lower, popu-
larly elected branch of the Congress—the House of
Representatives—was supposed to represent especially
the mass of ordinary citizens. It was given the sole
right to introduce bills for raising revenue. The
twenty-six-member Senate was looked on by many as
a sort of advisory council similar to the upper houses
of the colonial legislatures. Its consent was required
before any treaty could go into effect and for major
presidential appointments. The founders also
intended the Senate to represent in Congress the
interests not only of the separate states but of what
Hamilton called “the rich and the well-born” as con-
trasted with “the great mass of the people.”
The creation of a powerful president was the
most drastic departure from past experience, and it is
doubtful that the founders would have gone so far
had everyone not counted on Washington, a man
universally esteemed for character, wisdom, and
impartiality, to be the first to occupy the office.
Besides giving him general responsibility for execut-
ing the laws, the Constitution made the president
commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the nation
and general supervisor of its foreign relations. He was
to appoint federal judges and other officials, and he
might veto any law of Congress, although his veto
could be overridden by a two-thirds majority of both
houses. While not specifically ordered to submit a
program of legislation to Congress, he was to deliver
periodic reports on the “State of the Union” and rec-
ommend “such Measures as he shall judge necessary
and expedient.” Most modern presidents have inter-
preted this requirement as authorizing them to sub-
mit detailed legislative proposals and to use the full
power and prestige of the office to get Congress to
enact them.
Looking beyond Washington, whose choice was
sure to come about under any system, the
Constitution established a cumbersome method of
electing presidents. Each state was to choose “elec-
tors” equal in number to its representation in
Congress. The electors, meeting separately in their
own states, were to vote for two persons for presi-
dent. Supposedly the procedure would prevent any-
one less universally admired than Washington from
getting a majority in the Electoral College, in which
case the House of Representatives would choose the
president from among the leading candidates, each
state having but one vote. However, the swift rise of
national political parties prevented the expected frag-
mentation of the electors’ votes, and only two elec-
tions have ever gone to the House for settlement.
The national court system was set up to adjudicate
disputes under the laws and treaties of the United
States. No such system had existed under the Articles,
a major weakness. Although the Constitution did not
specifically authorize the courts to declare laws void
when they conflicted with the Constitution, the courts
soon exercised this right of judicial reviewin cases
involving both state and federal laws.
That the Constitution reflected the commonly
held beliefs of its framers is everywhere evident in
the document. It greatly expanded the powers of
the central government yet did not seriously
threaten the independence of the states. Foes of