Karl E. Valois
|
State
|
Free(White)
|
Free(Other)
|
Slave
|
Total
|
|
N.H.
|
141,097
|
630
|
158
|
141,885
|
|
Mass.
|
373,324
|
5,463
|
None
|
378,787
|
|
R.I.
|
64,470
|
3,407
|
948
|
68,825
|
|
Conn.
|
232,374
|
2,808
|
2,764
|
237,946
|
|
N.Y.
|
314,142
|
4,654
|
21,324
|
340,120
|
|
N.J.
|
169,954
|
2,762
|
11,423
|
184,139
|
|
Penn.
|
424,099
|
6,537
|
3,737
|
434,373
|
|
Dela.
|
46,310
|
3,899
|
8,887
|
59,096
|
|
Md.
|
208,649
|
8,043
|
103,036
|
319,728
|
|
Va.
|
442,117
|
12,866
|
292,627
|
747,610
|
|
N.C.
|
288,204
|
4,975
|
100,572
|
393,751
|
|
S.C.
|
140,178
|
1,801
|
107,094
|
249,073
|
|
Ga.
|
52,886
|
398
|
29,264
|
82,548
|
Finally, on July 16, the report of the committee was voted on and approved. Proportional representation would be established in the lower house, money bills were to originate in the lower house, and the upper house was to guarantee equal suffrage for the states.
23
The members of the lower house were to be elected by the voters of the states directly; but the state governments would appoint the Senators.
The Great Compromise or the Connecticut Compromise was a federal compromise. The small states, by abandoning their dogged insistence to equal representation in the first branch of the national legislature, had given up their preference for a mere confederation. The large states, in surrendering their claims to proportional representation in the upper house, had forfeited any dreams they may have entertained for a consolidated government. The resolution of their dispute, ably orchestrated by members of the Connecticut delegation, led to the establishment of our present House of Representatives and Senate.
Another controversial subject confronting the delegates at the convention was the nature and extent of the executive branch. On June 1, Roger Sherman proposed “that the legislature should be at liberty to appoint one or more [executives] as experience might dictate.”
24
He then suggested that the executive be dependent on the legislature since an independent executive was “the very essence of tyranny.” He also felt that the legislature should be able to remove the president and that short terms with re-eligibility were most advisable.
25
When the vote was taken on a single executive, seven states, including Connecticut, voted in the affirmative.
26
On the important matter of presidential election, the Connecticut delegation desired that the executive be chosen by the national legislature. They also advocated that the president be independent from control by the state governors and thus Sherman and his colleagues opposed election by the governors. When, on July 17, Gouverneur Morris proposed s popular election of the executive, Sherman responded that the people “will never be sufficiently informed of characters . . . . They will generally vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will have the best chance for appointment.” The delegation then voted with the majority to dash Morris’ plan, and also against a proposal of election by state legislatures.
27
It fell to Oliver Ellsworth (with Sherman and Johnson absent) to propose a system in which electors chosen by the state legislatures would select an executive. But, on August 31, Sherman was appointed to a Committee of Eleven to compose acceptable compromises on a variety of still vexing problems. During the discussions, Sherman was able to clear the way for presidential selection when he suggested that, in the case of a candidate not receiving a majority of the electoral college, the House of Representatives (with each state having one vote) should make the final decision. As a result, it may be said that the Electoral College was another creation of the Connecticut delegation.
28
Due to his judicial experience, Sherman entertained definite ideas on the structure of the national judiciary. He seconded a motion by John Rutledge of North Carolina that no national courts below a supreme court be established, holding that such inferior courts would be too expensive and that there would be confusion over jurisdiction with state courts. Although Rutledge’s motion was passed, it was quickly reversed when James Madison moved to allow rather than oblige the national legislature to establish lower courts. Sherman was also opposed to granting the national legislature the power to negative state laws. On July 18, however, he compromised by his willingness to permit the legislature to create inferior courts. Connecticut then joined in the unanimous vote for their creation.
29
Sherman met with greater success in matters concerning the appointment process. After a complex series of political maneuverings, it was adopted that the appointment of judges be placed in the hands of the executive, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Lastly, in seeking an explicit statement of jurisdiction over disputed land claims, Sherman suggested that the national judiciary be given the right to adjudicate cases involving citizens and foreigners, citizens and other states, and citizens of different states. In order to protect the claims of former Connecticut citizens their homesteads in the Wyoming Valley in Pennsylvania, he added, “Citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different states.” This won approval in the convention on August 27.
30
On the issue of slavery, the Connecticut delegation remained fairly disinterested. There were only a few thousand slaves in the state in 1787, comprising less than two percent of the whole population; and, in 1784, a gradual emancipation law had been enacted without much debate. Personally, Sherman opposed slavery, albeit by no means was he emotional about the institution. On August 22, he stated that he “disapproved of the slave trade,”
yet as the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves . . . and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of Government, he thought it best to leave the matter as we find it. He observed that the abolition of slavery seem to be going on in the U.S. and that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees Complete it.
31
Hence, it was prudent, believed Sherman, to permit the southern states to continue their importation of slaves. Yet, he did not favor placing duties on slaves since this would imply that they were property. Meanwhile, the Connecticut delegation supported the three-fifths compromise in which five blacks would be equivalent to three whites for purposes of taxation and representation.
32
On August 16, the questions of commerce and the taxation of imports and exports was brought up. At this point, a number of southern states sought guarantees that exports would not be taxed.
33
Sherman, in the meantime, urged that Congress be forbidden to tax exports since such a tax could place an unfair burden on the commercial states—and thus render an equal tax on exports impractical. At the same time, he did not want to jeopardize all of the good work of the Convention up to that point by antagonizing the southern states. Connecticut’s economic situation, moreover, favored a prohibition on export taxes, as the state engaged in an extensive exportation of agricultural produce and livestock to the West Indies.
34
However, Sherman did want to extricate his state from economic dependence on New York. Accordingly, on August 28, he proposed:
Nor shall any regulation of commerce or revenue give preference to the ports of one State over those of another, or oblige vessels bound to or from any state to enter, clear, or pay duties in another and all tonage, duties, imposts, & excises laid by the Legislature shall be uniform throughout the U.S.
35
On the following day, without much wearisome debate, the Convention reached a series of agreements. The importation of slaves would not be banned for at least twenty years, a simple majority in each house would enact navigation acts affecting the entire nation, and no tax would be levied on exports.
36
By mid-September, the fifty-five delegates from the twelve states who participated in the convention had finished their work. They had decided to scrap the Articles of Confederation in favor of a more powerful national government. Through compromise they had come to surmount many obstacles such as the issue of representation in the new legislative body, the nature and powers of the executive, the structure of the judiciary, the status of black Americans (at least for the time being), and questions concerning the commerce power. By September 17, the new Constitution had been signed by thirty-nine delegates.
After the convention, Roger Sherman, one of the leading figures in the creation of the new government, assessed the work of the delegates and the prospects for success:
. . . Perhaps a better Constitution could not be made upon mere speculation, it was consented to by all the states present in convention—which is a circumstance in its favor so far as any respect is due to it. If upon experience it should be found deficient, it provides an easy and peaceable mode of making amendments. If it should not be adopted I think we shall be in deplorable circumstances, our credit as a nation is sinking. The resources of the country could not be drawn out to defend against a foreign invasion nor the forces of the union to prevent a civil war, but if the constitution should be adopted and the several states chose some of their wisest and best men from time to time to administer the govt. I believe it will not want any amendment. I hope that kind providence that guarded these states thro’ a dangerous and distressing war to peace and liberty, will atill watch over them and guide them in the way of Safety.
37
Roger Sherman
(1721-1793)
A leading Revolutionary War figure who worked indefatigably in the service of his state and in the creation of the new nation, Roger Sherman was born in Newton, Massachusetts on April 19, 1721. As a youth in Stoughton, Mass., he assisted his father on the family farm, became an apprentice shoemaker, and studied reading, history, and mathematics in the common schools. Driven by enormous ambition for pre-eminence, he emigrated to New Milford, Connecticut when he was twenty-two years old. There, he opened a general store, continued his shoemaking, and began to practice surveying. In 1745, he became county surveyor—a position of importance, responsibility, and fortune. It provided the impetus for his economic and social advancement. Between 1750 and 1761, he prepared and published a series of almanacs which helped to spread his reputation. Following a brief study of the law, he was admitted to the bar in 1754, and was soon enmeshed in town and provincial politics.
In 1761, Sherman moved to New Haven, where he continued in business until 1772. He represented the town in the Connecticut legislature, serving in the lower house (1764-1766) and then the council (1766-1785). He was also an elected judge of the Superior Court from 1766-1788 and mayor of New Haven from 1784-1793.
Sherman’s political and economic ambitions led him in the mid 1760’s to join forces with the moderate opposition to the new British imperial legislation formed at the conclusion of the Seven Years’ War. As a delegate to the Continental Congresses between 1774 and 1784, he was placed on committees to draft the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. In fact, he was the only American to sign four historic documents: the Continental Association of 1774, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution. A major participant at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, he argued for a stronger central government and engineered the famous “Connecticut Compromise,” which created our present bicameral legislature with its dual system of representation. After returning home to fight for ratification of the new constitution, he concluded his political career by service in the House of Representatives (1789-1791) and, upon the resignation of William Samuel Johnson, in the United States Senate (1791-1793). While still a member of that body, he died in New Haven on July 23, 1793.
Oliver Ellsworth
(1745-1807)
A prominent figure in Connecticut and national politics during the Revolutionary and Federal eras, Oliver Ellsworth was born in Windsor, Connecticut on April 29, 1745. Like Roger Sherman, the key to Ellsworth’s achievements was an insatiable ambition, which was further guided by a sincere desire to render public service. After an ignominious dismissal from Yale College for various sorts of mischievous behavior, he transferred to the College of New Jersey (Princeton), from which he graduated in 1766. Sensing opportunities for economic advancement, he abandoned theology in favor of the law and was admitted to the bar in 1771. The shift in vocations paid handsome dividends; by the latter part of the decade, he was among the leading lawyers in Connecticut. With the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775, he was serving as representative of his town in the General Assembly. Thereafter, he was appointed to the committee of the Pay Table and in charge of military expenditures. In 1777, he accepted the appointment as State’s Attorney for Hartford County. Ellsworth’s ascendancy in provincial politics continued in the next three years, as he was appointed a delegate to the Continental Congress, a member of Connecticut’s powerful Council of Safety, and was elected to the prestigious Governor’s Council. This was a meteoric rise for a man of only thirty-five years of age. From 1778 to 1783, he served in the Continental Congress and from 1785 to 1789 he was a judge to the Superior Court of Connecticut. Elected a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, he became a staunch defender of states’ rights; but when convinced of the Constitution’s merits and practicality, Ellsworth assumed leadership in the fight for its ratification in his native state.
In 1789, he was chosen as a senator from Connecticut and served there as the leader of the Federalist Party until 1796. A major contribution in that body was his authorship of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which created the district and circuit court system of our federal judiciary. He also was appointed by President Washington as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1796.
In 1799, Ellsworth was entrusted by President Adams to head a commission of three to procure a treaty between the United States and France to end the “quasi-war,” which had been waging since the past year. Upon becoming ill in Europe, he resigned from the Court and from his diplomatic mission. However, from 1801 to 1807, he served once again on the Governor’s Council and in that latter year was offered recognition for his many years of public service by an appointment as Chief Justice of his home state.
William Samuel Johnson
(1727-1819)
An American jurist and educator, William Samuel Johnson was born in Stratford, Connecticut on October 7, 1727. Graduating from Yale College in 1744 with distinction, he studied law and practiced in both the New York and Connecticut courts. In 1761, he was elected to represent Stratford in the General Assembly. His entrance into the stormy world of politics continued in 1765 with his selection as a Connecticut delegate to the Stamp Act Congress. In the following year, he became a member of the Council of Assistants, the upper house of the legislature of Connecticut. From 1766 to 1771, he represented the colony’s interests in Great Britain as a special agent. In 1772, he was appointed judge of the Superior Court of Connecticut and was commissioned major in the colonial militia.
During the American Revolution, however, he could not bring himself to join either the Patriot or the Tory faction, choosing to retire to private life at his home in Stratford. He re-emerged onto the political stage, however, as a representative to the Continental Congress from 1784 to 1787. Although he initially opposed a new convention, he was chosen as a delegate to the assembly in Philadelphia in 1787. Thereafter, he retained his seat in the Connecticut Council until 1789. Concurrently, he accepted the presidency of Columbia College (1787-1800) while serving as one of Connecticut’s first U.S. senators. Resigning the presidency of Columbia in 1800, due to poor health, he retired to Stratford until his death in 1819.
