Part of a series of articles titled The Constitutional Convention: A Day by Day Account for July 1 to 15, 1787.
Article
July 11, 1787: North vs. South, East vs. West
National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution
"[I do] not well see, on what principle the admission of blacks in the proportion of three-fifths, could be explained. Are they admitted as citizens—then why is not other property admitted into the computation? These . . . difficulties, however . . . must be overruled by the necessity of comprimise."
--James Wilson (PA), speaking in the Convention
Wednesday, July 11, 1787: The Convention Today
The debates on this day centered on two regional jealousies: that between northern and southern states, and that between the original thirteen states and future states that would be created in America's western territories. The delegates appear to have all believed that the population of the south, which was at that time smaller, would eventually grow larger than that of the north. They similarly believed that new states might eventually have more people than the original thirteen. The trigger for these rivalries was Randolph's (VA) proposal from the previous day: that the United States Congress should conduct a periodic census and then reallocate representation accordingly.
As it stood, northern states would have a majority in Congress to start with, but the census requirement might eventually result in southern, or even future western, states having the majority. A related issue was how to count enslaved Africans in the census. Delegates from states with large enslaved populations wanted the enslaved to count as much as free people because this would increase the political power of their states. Other delegates wanted enslaved Africans to be counted at a three-fifths ratio. The final issue was whether wealth should be a factor in how many representatives a state received. Many believed that new western states would be less wealthy and that southern states would become wealthier than northern ones.
In the day's wide-ranging debates, G. Morris (PA) argued extensively against requiring a census that would give proportional representation to western states. He believed that people from rural areas, such as the current western territories, were less knowledgeable and that "if the western people get the power into their hands, they will ruin the Atlantic interests." Read (DE) agreed that Congress should not be "shackled" with a census, saying, "It would make the Constitution like religious creeds, embarrassing to those bound to conform to them, and more likely to produce dissatisfaction and schism, than harmony and union."
Mason (VA), Williamson (NC), Randolph, Gorham (MA), and Madison (VA) all argued for the census and mandatory reapportionment. They clamored against the injustice of denying equal representation to future citizens in the south and in what were currently pioneer territories. Sherman (CT) initially agreed with G. Morris against the census, but halfway through the day admitted that Mason and Randolph's arguments had persuaded him to their side.
Butler (SC) and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC), argued that enslaved people be fully counted in the census, since their labor created value just as much as the labor of freemen. Gerry (MA), Gorham, Mason, Williamson, G. Morris, and King (MA) preferred the three-fifths ratio, but not all for the same reasons:
Rutledge (SC) spoke up for basing representation on a periodic census that factored both wealth and population. He approvingly noted that including wealth as a consideration would reduce the number of representatives that western states would receive. Sherman, Mason, and Wilson agreed that basing representation on wealth was a bad idea, but for entirely different reasons:
The debates on this day centered on two regional jealousies: that between northern and southern states, and that between the original thirteen states and future states that would be created in America's western territories. The delegates appear to have all believed that the population of the south, which was at that time smaller, would eventually grow larger than that of the north. They similarly believed that new states might eventually have more people than the original thirteen. The trigger for these rivalries was Randolph's (VA) proposal from the previous day: that the United States Congress should conduct a periodic census and then reallocate representation accordingly.
As it stood, northern states would have a majority in Congress to start with, but the census requirement might eventually result in southern, or even future western, states having the majority. A related issue was how to count enslaved Africans in the census. Delegates from states with large enslaved populations wanted the enslaved to count as much as free people because this would increase the political power of their states. Other delegates wanted enslaved Africans to be counted at a three-fifths ratio. The final issue was whether wealth should be a factor in how many representatives a state received. Many believed that new western states would be less wealthy and that southern states would become wealthier than northern ones.
In the day's wide-ranging debates, G. Morris (PA) argued extensively against requiring a census that would give proportional representation to western states. He believed that people from rural areas, such as the current western territories, were less knowledgeable and that "if the western people get the power into their hands, they will ruin the Atlantic interests." Read (DE) agreed that Congress should not be "shackled" with a census, saying, "It would make the Constitution like religious creeds, embarrassing to those bound to conform to them, and more likely to produce dissatisfaction and schism, than harmony and union."
Mason (VA), Williamson (NC), Randolph, Gorham (MA), and Madison (VA) all argued for the census and mandatory reapportionment. They clamored against the injustice of denying equal representation to future citizens in the south and in what were currently pioneer territories. Sherman (CT) initially agreed with G. Morris against the census, but halfway through the day admitted that Mason and Randolph's arguments had persuaded him to their side.
Butler (SC) and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC), argued that enslaved people be fully counted in the census, since their labor created value just as much as the labor of freemen. Gerry (MA), Gorham, Mason, Williamson, G. Morris, and King (MA) preferred the three-fifths ratio, but not all for the same reasons:
- G. Morris thought that giving states more representation for their enslaved populations would encourage the slave trade, which he called an "injustice to ... human nature."
- King said he generally didn't like the proposal to require Congress to periodically reapportion representation after a census, but that he, as a northerner, especially despised it if this mandatory reapportionment were to also require equal representation for enslaved and free people.
- Mason admitted that a full accounting of the enslaved would favor his home state, but he still opposed it because he couldn't deny that it was "unjust."
Rutledge (SC) spoke up for basing representation on a periodic census that factored both wealth and population. He approvingly noted that including wealth as a consideration would reduce the number of representatives that western states would receive. Sherman, Mason, and Wilson agreed that basing representation on wealth was a bad idea, but for entirely different reasons:
- Sherman thought the number of people was the best possible approximate gauge of a state's wealth.
- Mason thought that letting Congress assign representation on the basis of wealth wasn't a specific enough rule and would open the door to abuses where Congress would arbitrarily favor or disfavor some states by inaccurately estimating their wealth.
- Wilson didn't want Congress bound by any sort of rule for reassigning representation, and he especially thought that a rule that included wealth as a factor would be the most unworkable.
- The Convention voted 7–3 (Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia in the minority) to not count Black and White Americans equally.
- Rutledge's proposal to "proportion the representation according to the principles of wealth and population" failed in a 5–5 vote (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia all in favor).
- A motion passed, 6–4 (Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia opposed), to have a census of free inhabitants.
- A motion failed, 4–6 (Connecticut, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia in support), to adopt the three-fifths ratio for Black Americans.
- The states represented in the Convention unanimously passed resolutions requiring a census every fifteen years, after which "the Legislature shall alter or augment the representation accordingly."
Synopsis
- Delegates considered three separate, but interrelated issues:
- Whether to require Congress to periodically administer a census and then reassign representation to the states based on the census results.
- Whether to count enslaved people in the census equally or at a three-fifths ratio.
- Whether to factor wealth as a consideration in how many representatives each state received.
- These questions exposed regional rivalries between north and south and between the current thirteen states and the hypothetical concerns of states that would be created in the future. Generally speaking:
- Southern delegates wanted enslaved Africans to be fully counted in the census, even though enslaved Africans were not citizens and had no legal rights.
- Delegates from wealthy states, or from states that they thought were becoming wealthier, often wanted wealth to be a factor in representation.
- Many delegates were concerned that future states created in the west would have unenlightened political leadership and wanted to give them little representation in Congress.
- The Convention held a series of votes to settle these questions but couldn't come to a final resolution on all of them.
Delegates Today
- William Paterson (NJ) noted in a letter to his wife that during this week of intense debate, Philadelphia was unbearably hot—"the warmest place I have been in."
Philadelphia Today
- On this hot partly cloudy day, the Mutual Assurance Company completed its survey and issued a policy on Benjamin Franklin's (PA) two new three-story rental houses on Market Street. Franklin "fireproofed" his houses by plastering the floors between the joists, under the steps and risers of the stairs, and the walls and ceilings. The insurance surveyor made special reference to the extensive plaster work in his report—clearly impressed with these extra fire suppression details.
Last updated: August 31, 2023