Constitutional Convention

Home , Daniel Carroll, David Brearley, Hugh Williamson, John Francis Mercer, Luther Martin, Nathaniel Gorham

CORNELL MODEL UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE 2021

All rights reserved. This document or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the Cornell Model United Nations Conference (CMUNC) except when used for educational purposes.

Commercial reproduction or reference to this document requires the express written consent of the current Secretary-General of CMUNC. Further terms of use for commercial purposes will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

For more information on CMUNC, use the Contact Us page located at: cmunc.net

CMUNC 2021 Secretariat

Secretary-General Malvika Narayan

Director-General Bryan Weintraub

Chief of Staff James “Hamz” Piccirilli

Director of Events Alexandra Tsalikis

Director of Outreach Akosa Nwadiogbu

Director of Communications Annie Rogers

Director of Finance Daniel Bernstein

Director of Operations Andrew Landesman

Under-Secretary Generals Robyn Bardmesser Avery Bower John Clancy Mariana Goldlust

From Your Chair

Dear Delegates,

My name is Isaac Chasen, and I’m going to be your committee chair for the Constitutional Convention Specialized Committee!

A little about me: I’m a sophomore from New York City, studying Applied Economics and Management in the Dyson School here at Cornell. I’m a bit of a political junkie, and a massive New York sports fan. I also enjoy reading, running, and watching a lot of TV in my free time.

I’m super excited about chairing this committee for CMUNC 2021. There are so many different directions the committee can take, from discussing the size and scope of the federal government to individual liberties, to the structure of a national bank. I’m hoping for a robust, wide-ranging debate that will cover many of the topics you’ll read about in this background guide.

I also want to note the different format of this upcoming conference. While we cannot convene together in Ithaca, I will do my best to make this committee run as though we were in person. I hope you all will still participate in all aspects of the conference, and that we can still have great debates over Zoom. I will certainly do my best to make the weekend as fun as it possibly can be.

I can’t wait to meet you all in April. I think this committee has the potential for many exciting committee sessions. I’m looking forward to a great weekend of MUN, and I hope you are as well.

If you have any questions about the committee prior to the conference, please do not hesitate to reach out to me by email at [email protected].

Isaac Chasen Constitutional Convention Chair CMUNC 2021

History

The American Revolutionary War and The Articles of The Confederation In 1775, tensions between Great Britain and her American colonies over taxation boiled over into war. The resulting conflict lasted 8 years, pitting Britain against the newly formed American Republic (with extensive help from the French) (History). In the midst of the war, the Second Continental Congress convened to devise a framework for formal governance of the new nation (the First Continental Congress met prior to the commencement of hostilities, and resolved to boycott British commodities). The Second Continental Congress served to both provide a unified command for the Patriot war effort and give the fledgling American government legitimacy. To this end, the Articles of Confederation, a document signed by delegates from all 13 colonies, was adopted (History). The Articles established the United States as a confederacy of sovereign states, with a weak federal government; it was more a government of previously existing states instead of a government of individuals (Teaching American History).

Eventually, due to a combination of imperial overextension and a British inability to project adequate military power, the war ended in the colonies’ favor. However, the years following the British capitulation were chaotic. The lack of a strong federal government resulted in a total absence of a collective economic policy (History). States quarreled with one another over tariffs, and no laws prevented states from circulating their own currencies (Independence Hall). An economic downturn immediately following the war exacerbated these structural problems.

Shay’s Rebellion The state of Massachusetts, like many others, responded to the fiscal adversity it faced with very strict economic policies. Daniel Shay, a veteran of the Revolutionary War, perceived the government’s policies as economic terrorism. Shay rounded up a group of followers (Shaysites) to overthrow the state government (Independence Hall). Though the rebellion was suppressed, the need for a strong federal government was made abundantly clear.

Current Situation

The Second Continental Congress created the Articles of Confederation in 1776. With this document came a new continental government that came into action in the early 1780s (Teaching American History). The people were unhappy with the Articles and with a system governed by the wealthy and community leaders. Shay’s Rebellion, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The people were gaining power. To avoid an overthrow of the system, leading intellectual of the time such as Alexander Hamilton had the idea to hold the Constitutional Convention. Even though separate states had their own constitutions, Hamilton (and many others) believed it was necessary to have a stronger central government (Teaching American History).

Some delegates will want to revise the Articles of Confederation and maintain strong state powers, others will want an entirely new document that could potentially lead the country to be a world leader, others may come up with a creative compromise. You have been invited to this Convention to reconsider the status of the Articles, it is entirely up to you, your negotiation skills and your ability to compromise to determine what will happen with the system of governance in America.

Topics

The Size and Structure of the Government

Introduction Experience with the British government’s oppressive rule and the failure of the Articles of Confederation brought delegates to Philadelphia with very clear ideas on how they could best establish the size and structure of the government to create a successful long-term system.

Each delegate had different ideas with regards to each issue. The primary issues regarding power are surrounding who should have power, how much they should have, and how it should be distributed and checked. Another large issue was how to format a legislature in order to best represent the people. The issue of equal representation versus representation by population was one that was highly contested. Finally, the delegates had to determine how religion would factor into the new document

Some delegates hoped to come out of the convention with a document that answered all of these questions in the long-term while other delegates wanted to create a document that would be edited generationally. This meant establishing a flexible document that could adapt to the times and not defining any laws too closely. By settling these debates, the delegates aimed to create a nation that could best serve the people without being too oppressive or, on the other hand, insufficient.

The Debate Over Power A primary issue during the convention was how much power the government should have and therefore how large it should be. Some delegates pushed for a large body that would have more power over the states as a whole. This group, known as the Federalists, felt that the Articles of Confederation had left the states too divided.

Other delegates, as a group called the Anti-Federalists, advocated for a weaker central authority. They cited the tyrannical precedent of oppression set by Britain as reasoning for why a weaker central authority would best serve the nation. Some delegates wanted the states to have more power, other delegates elected for a stronger central body to hold more authority over the states (Lloyd)

Separation of Powers Regardless of their views on how much power the government should have, oppression by the British government had left all the delegates eager to establish a system of spreading that power to avoid one body gaining too much influence. This issue was also addressed in the Articles of Confederation; however, by leaving too much power with the states delegates found there was no unifying body to connect the states. While most delegates agreed that this should not be the case, the question of how to limit an executive’s power was very controversial. Their ideas included a diffusion of power and a system of election (“The Major Debates”).

A major concern, however, was that the power would be left to one person. One option for separating the powers stemmed from philosopher Montesquieu’s tripartite system (“Separation of Powers”). In his 1748 book, Montesquieu discussed the benefits of power distributed across legislative, executive, and judicial bodies. Some delegates believed that this, the most highly decentralized of the options proposed, would be the best for establishing a government.

Structure of the Legislature Perhaps one of the biggest questions was how to structure the legislative branch. The previous structure, established under the articles, was a unicameral body in which each state had one vote. One option was to continue this structure; states would be equally represented in one congress. Some delegates argued that this was misrepresentative of state population and instead pushed for a system in which larger and more populous states would have more votes. An additional issue within this debate was whether or not slaves should be counted in determining a population count.

The delegates also had to determine how they would elect delegates to their congressional body or bodies. Some delegates felt that it would be best for members to be elected by the people while others felt the state legislature should have that authority (“The Major Debates”).

Role of the Church The majority of the delegates received their income in the United States from secular occupations; many practiced law, were businessmen, served in public office, researched as scientists, worked at Universities, or was simply born into wealth. (“The Founding Fathers: A Brief Overview”). Although a few delegates had either studied theology or were ordained as ministers, almost all delegates advocated for a “Godless Constitution” (“The Rise of the Religious Right”). They

wanted for “religious freedom” and attempted to leave any form of religion outside of the convention. (“The Rise of the Religious Right”)

Questions Committee Must Answer How can the convention allocate power appropriately? What are the needs of the people that should be met and who should be in charge of ensuring they are? How should the government be structured? How should representation in Congress be determined? What role should religion play in the Constitution? How can the convention structure a government that will endure changes over time?

Institutions, (national bank, standing army, religious institutions, education) A central theme of the debate at the Continental Congress was the opposition between those who favored the rights of individual states and those who wanted a unified federal republic. Many delegates dislike the idea of a central government out of fear that it will take over the state’s ability to regulate its institutions.

Standing Army The immediate priority of the Continental Congress was to manage the colonies’ military response to Great Britain’s belligerent actions. Some delegates were in favor of making peace with Great Britain, by appealing directly to the King. Others sought to confront what they perceived as an occupational force through a shooting war. Furthermore, a commander had to be selected for any army that would be formed. This was important, not only for strategic reasons: due to the cultural divide between the North and South, the commander’s state of residence carried symbolic significance.

Furthermore, some delegates advocated a national army, a sum of individuals from each and every state that would form a large, organized army that could serve better in larger international conflicts. Some delegates saw a national army as an important tool to becoming a world leader. Other delegates opposed this idea strongly, believing that a national army would deprive states from having their own individual armies and would in the long run prove harmful for individual states. Each state would no longer have the ability to control its own militia or protect its own interests whenever needed. All states would be at the mercy of the national government (“Army Clause”).

Banks In the face of armed conflict, the Continental Congress sought a means of funding the war effort. One of the principal concerns here was of a federal nature: should the colonies produce their own currency, or should a national currency be created? And for that matter should a national bank be created? Some argued that a national currency would make the collection of nationwide taxes easier, but some delegates were against the continental government collecting taxes so the creation of a national currency would further an ideal they were against.

Furthermore, Congress debated on whether to borrow money from several domestic and international sources, including France. This measure would increase America’s debt and some feared this would mean dependence on other countries. Delegates with an isolationist type of international policy thus objected strongly to borrowing from other countries.

Additional Questions Committee Must Answer Should states remain in control of their state militias? Should a national army be established? Should a national currency be established? Should a national bank be established or should States control their own currency? Should the states maintain the right to determine the status of slavery in their own land?

Rights and Duties of the Citizens Prior to the American Revolution, the American colonists enjoyed some but not all of the liberties to which British citizens were entitled. This was one of the major reasons for the American Revolution, as the colonies felt that they were being deprived of the liberties that all human beings fundamentally deserve. Among these listed in the Declaration of Independence were the imposition of taxes without consent, the lack of representation within their own government, the lack of the right to trial by jury, and many others. After persevering many perceived injustices by the British government, the colonies finally revolted, establishing a new government for themselves under the Articles of Confederation. It soon became clear that these Articles were insufficient, however, and among the most contentious points of debate as the Constitutional Convention approached was how to ensure that American citizens retained their newfound rights in the future (Linder 2).

Rights and Duties under The Articles Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government had very limited powers, which also meant that it had virtually no power to violate the rights of the people. It could not collect taxes or regulate trade, and had no means by which to maintain a standing army (“The Major Debates at the Constitutional Convention”). 2). The presence of a standing army during peacetime and the levying of taxes by the British government were among the major grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence, so depriving the federal government of these powers meant that it had no ability to infringe upon these rights. However, in lacking these powers the federal government was unable to perform basic functions, so revision became a necessity (“The Major Debates at the Constitutional Convention.” 3). Despite increasing the power of the federal government, politicians of the era wanted to ensure that the federal government still could not violate the rights of American citizens, as that would be a return to the policies of the British government from which they had fought so hard to separate.

Precedence for Enumerated Rights The people of the United States had had prior experience with declarations of their rights. The English Magna Carta, created more than half a millennium before that time, was the attempt of the British to secure rights for its citizens (Schwartz 3), which did not succeed for the colonies in the eyes of much of the American people. The 1628 Petition of Right is the next primary documented enumeration of rights, drafted in response to the violations committed by Charles I (Schwartz 12). It was passed with great public support among the English people, and stayed in place despite an attempt from the House of Lords to nullify it (Schwartz 12). Both of these documents and others had profound effects on the ideas of those attending the Constitutional Convention. Even while under British rule, many of the colonies had much-appreciated charters that helped to ensure basic liberties. For example, the Massachusetts’ charter was regarded by colonists to be the basis of many of their fundamental liberties, and when it was removed in 1684 the colonists protested until a new charter, which guaranteed religious freedom among other things, was granted (Schwartz 30). The Massachusetts colony House of Representatives even impeached its royal judges for violating the liberties granted by the charter (Schwartz 31). The Charter of Maryland, the Pennsylvania Charter, and other colonial documents also in part helped to secure some of the rights of the colonists under British rule.

After the American Revolution, various state constitutions also guaranteed rights to the citizens. Almost all state constitutions began with a bill of rights, often modeled after Virginia’s, which enumerated rights such as popular sovereignty,

freedom of elections, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, freedom of press, and other liberties that were considered necessary (Country Studies 2). The Pennsylvania Constitution guaranteed that any tax-paying male could vote, a radical change as it abolished the need to own property as a requirement to vote ("State Constitutions" 3). No state constitution made voting a requirement for those that were able. It also had a clause requiring rotation in office, that no one person could serve more than a specific length of time as a representative (Country Studies 5). These state constitutions, especially that of Virginia, laid the groundwork for the thoughts and plans of many political thinkers attempting to revise the Articles. The four states that did not begin their Constitutions with a bill of rights, New Jersey, Georgia, New York, and South Carolina, included some protections within the body of their documents and often confirmed inalienable rights in the preface (Lloyd 7). New Jersey, for instance, appeals to “the nature of things” and America’s covenanting tradition, likely referencing documents such as the Declaration of Independence (Lloyd 10). These types of documents were less common, but no notable legislative problems arose as a result of these differences.

There were, however, different opinions among the politicians about how best to accomplish the goal of protecting citizen’s liberties. Notable figure James Madison believed that a list of rights was not necessary and that a system of checks and balances and division of powers was sufficient to protect the people from tyrants (Linder 1). He also believed in the words of Roger Sherman, “the State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution and, being in force, are sufficient” ("The Major Debates at the Constitutional Convention” 26). Many also believed in the concept of unwritten law, the assumption that all human beings were entitled to certain inalienable rights that did not need to be explicitly stated. Protected by these defenses, Madison initially believed, the rights of the US citizens would be adequately protected from usurpations by the federal government. Others still believed that an enumerated list of rights was a necessary safeguard for the protection of the liberties of US citizens. Without it, this group of people soon to be called the Anti-Federalists believed, the government would have the freedom to violate the rights of the citizens as they desired. Whatever the method, it was universally agreed that something must be done to protect the rights of US citizens.

Questions Committee Must Answer Should the revision of the Articles of Confederation include an enumerated list of rights? What ramifications might this decision have on the role of the federal government?

What can be considered a fundamental right, and what rights should be left reserved to the states to decide? Are there other ways to ensure the continued liberty of the American people other than an explicitly stated list of rights?

Delegates Prominent men in their communities, lawyer, businessmen, physicians, and planters, were invited to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Although young, with an average age of 42, these are all experienced men, leaders and influencers in their communities. The delegates will have to work together to come to an agreement despite the often times opposing views for the sake of their nation.

Connecticut Oliver Ellsworth Oliver Ellsworth was a businessman and patriot in favor of the Revolutionary War. He was against the restrictions Britain posed on American trade and businesses. Ellsworth, a member of the Continental Congress, was mostly interested in financial matters, commerce, and military concerns. This delegate favored a bicameral legislative system and wanted a reformed penal code that amongst other things was against the death penalty. (National Archives and Records Administration) William Samuel Johnson William S. Johnson graduated from Yale and became a lawyer. Johnson was active in civic duties as a prominent man in his community. During the Revolutionary War, it was not easy for him to choose who to side with as he had many ties with Britain and the Anglican Church. This delegate opposed the extremist Whig faction, and worked tirelessly to secure peace with Britain even after the war began (National Archives and Records Administration). Johnson was in favor of a strong central government that could protect the rights of smaller states. (Army Historical Ser) Roger Sherman Roger Sherman, a lawyer, a judge, and a businessman, was opposed to extremism against Britain but was in favor of the Revolutionary War. He believed high taxes could solve economic issues in America as opposed to continued borrowing or using paper money (National Archives and Records Administration).

Delaware Gunning Bedford, Jr. Gunning Bedford Jr. (not to be confused with Col. Gunning Bedford, his cousin and another political figure of the era) was the Attorney General of Delaware from 1784-1789 (Welling “A Biography of Gunning Bedford, Jr.” 3-4). Bedford was a well-

educated graduate of the College of New Jersey, which later became Princeton University, with a degree in law (Welling “A Biography of Gunning Bedford, Jr.” 2). He aggressively fought for the rights of small states, to the point of threatening divisive actions for the sake of protecting their rights (Welling “A Biography of Gunning Bedford, Jr.” 4). John Dickinson John Dickinson, often referred to as the “Penman of the Revolution”, was a wealthy and well educated lawyer born in Maryland (Welling “A Biography of John Dickinson (2)” 1). He served in multiple political roles, including the Pennsylvania Assembly, the Delaware military, and the Continental Congress, representing Delaware (Welling “A Biography of John Dickinson (2)” 8-9), while writing many influential documents that had a great impact on public opinion. He was a supporter of the rights of small states and opposed to a strong central government (Welling “A Biography of John Dickinson (2)” 10). George Read Read was a lawyer that grew up in Delaware and later became the crown attorney general for Delaware from 1763-1774 (Welling, “A Biography of George Read” 1-3). He signed the Declaration of Independence as a member of the Continental Congress, yet voted against independence, the only signer to do so (Welling, “A Biography of George Read” 3). He was a prominent supporter of the rights of small states and a strong executive power (Welling, “A Biography of George Read” 6).

Georgia Abraham Baldwin Baldwin was born in Connecticut and educated as a minister at Yale University before joining the Continental Army as a chaplain then moving on to study law (Welling, “A Biography of Abraham Baldwin” 1-2). He was a moderate, favoring compromise and unwilling to alienate his friends in Connecticut, initially supporting representation in the Senate based on property then by state (Welling, “A Biography of Abraham Baldwin” 4). William Few William Few was born in Maryland and received very little education during his childhood (Welling, “A Biography of William Few” 1). After he was forced to move to Georgia, he started practicing law and participating in politics, including multiple Georgia organizations and the Continental Congress (Welling, “A Biography of William Few” 3). He was a strong nationalist (Welling, “A Biography of William Few” 4). William Pierce Pierce was a businessman and politician, owning an import-export company and serving on both the Georgia House of Representatives and the Continental Congress (Welling, “A Biography of William Pierce” 2). He was a supporter of a

strong federal government and the bicameral system (Welling, “A Biography of William Pierce” 3).

Maryland Daniel Carroll Daniel Carroll hoped for the establishment of a strong central government to aide in intra- and international trade. He also feared a system in which state representatives were too loyal to their states. Carroll was a proponent of limited government, advocating for a president elected by the people rather than by Congress. (MacGregor and Wright, 152-53). Luther Martin Luther Martin, attorney general of Maryland, was a strong patriot. He supported a weak central government; he typically sided with the states. He was an advocate of equal representation in Congress regardless of state size. Luther also supported the establishment of a jury in the Supreme Court. (“The Founding Fathers: Maryland”). John Francis Mercer John Francis Mercer, one of the youngest men at the constitutional convention at just 28 (Berkin, Maryland), was strongly opposed to centralization, (Brown, 193- 96). Mercer feared that a large government would infringe upon the rights of citizens (Edmunds). Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Jenifer was a strong nationalist who, based on his business experience managing a large plantation, advocated for the central government’s ability to tax in order to create economic stability. He also supported a three-year term for the House of Representatives. (Macgregor and Wright 160-61).

Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry Gerry was a supporter of a central government. His primary focuses were on military and financial concerns. He pushed for more pay for troops and more equipment, earning himself a positive reputation within the military. He was known for his clever yet irritating political tactics. (Berkin, Maryland) Nathaniel Gorham Gorham advocated for a central government with enough power to regulate and support both interstate and international trade. He hoped for a shift in control of the military from scattered leaders to the government. He also supported longer terms for presidents and senators. (Macgregor and White, 155-156). Rufus King King’s exposure to city-life prior to the convention left him focused on commercial, financial, diplomatic, and military issues (MacGregor and Wright 97-

99). King was also a strong nationalist. (“The Founding Fathers: Massachusetts”). He had a reputation as a powerful orator, earned during the Confederation Congress. (Berkin, Massachusetts). Caleb Strong Strong was also a committed patriot and strong nationalist. (Berkin, Massachusetts). He advocated for a strong central government. Additionally, he was a proponent of equal representation in the Senate and proportional in the house (Welling). John Adams Although a committed patriot, John Adams was serving abroad immediately preceding the convention, working to strengthen United States foreign relations (United States National Park Service). However, his strong desire for a system of separation of powers and his support of people’s individual rights (“John Adams”) forced him to return home to participate in the convention.

New Hampshire Nicholas Gilman Conflicts in Massachusetts caused Gilman to identify a need to reform the Articles of Confederation (“Nicholas Gilman, New Hampshire”). Gilman was also a strong nationalist (Berkin, New Hampshire). John Langdon A long-time patriot, Langdon wanted to strengthen the national government. He was also dedicated to solve the conflict surrounding slavery. (“The Founding Fathers: New Hampshire”). New Jersey David Brearley David Brearley, a fervent opponent of British governance of the colonies, saw action during the Revolutionary War as a captain in a New Jersey-based militia. Upon the conclusion of hostilities, Brearley served as Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, a position he was holding during the Constitutional Convention (University of Groningen). One of Brearley’s most important cases, Holmes v. Walton, concluded with Brearley providing one of the first articulations of the concept of judicial review (University of Groningen). Jonathan Dayton A native of New Jersey, Dayton served as a captain in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War (National Archives). He was briefly a prisoner of war. Dayton considered himself a moderate Federalist. While he believed that defense of individual rights was important, he felt that national security concerns always trumped concerns about personal freedoms (University of Groningen). William Livingston

Livingston, a lawyer by trade, settled in New Jersey in 1770, where he enjoyed a great deal of influence among local American Whigs. Livingston served as a delegate to the Continental Congresss from 1774 to 1776, and was a brigadier general in the New Jersey Militia. From his experience as a soldier, Livingston decided that national defense would best be provided through strong state militias (United States Army). Livingston was a progressive, standing in strong opposition to the political elite of the time (United States Army). William Paterson A graduate of what is now Princeton, William Paterson was New Jersey’s first attorney general. Once war broke out, Paterson stood with the Patriots, accepting a military commission in 1777 (University of Groningen). Paterson, while a supporter of a strong federal government, was deeply concerned about what he perceived to be growing factionalism in American politics (William Paterson University).

New York Alexander Hamilton Hamilton was a prominent political figure in the United States and a leading supporter of a strong central government, wanting a much stronger federal government than others present at the Convention (PBS 4). He was well educated and studied on various systems of government, having grown up outside the United States with an informal education studying a variety of subjects (Welling, “A Biography of Alexander Hamilton” 3-4). John Lansing, Jr.* John Lansing Jr. was a lawyer born in Albany, NY who served in the New York Assembly and as mayor of Albany (Welling “A Biography of John Lansing Jr.” 1- 2). He believed that the Articles of Confederation needed amendment, but not to the extent of writing an entirely new document (Welling “A Biography of John Lansing Jr.” 3). He was diametrically opposed to a strong central government and wanted to avoid putting any large amount of power in the hands of one United States government (Welling “A Biography of John Lansing Jr.” 3). Robert Yates* Robert Yates, noted Anti-Federalist, was educated in law and served on the Albany Board of Alderman and the New York Supreme Court (Welling “A Biography of Robert Yates” 1). He was opposed to any powerful federal government and merely wanted to revise the Articles, not draft a new document, which he believed to be dangerous and unnecessary (Welling “A Biography of Robert Yates” 4). He was also largely opposed to a Judicial Branch, because a Supreme Court would eclipse the power of State Courts.

North Carolina

William Blount William Blount served in the North Carolina state militia during the Revolutionary War. Upon the conclusion of hostilities, Blount directed his attention westward, purchasing as much western land as possible (North Carolina History Project). Blount fervently believed that America’s future lay in the West (United States Army). Before the Constitutional Convention, Blount served in both the lower and upper houses of the North Carolina state legislature (North Carolina History Project). William Richardson Davie* William Davie, born in England, received a degree from Princeton in 1776. He served as a colonel in North Carolina during the American Revolution (North Carolina History Project). His skills as an orator were renowned. While serving in North Carolina’s legislature, Davie demonstrated strong support for a centralized government (University of Groningen). Hugh Williamson Hugh Williamson graduated with a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the University of Pennsylvania before eventually obtaining a medical degree from the Netherlands (North Carolina History Project). During the Revolution, Williamson offered his services as a military physician to the Continental Army, becoming surgeon general of the North Carolina militia. Though originally from Pennsylvania, Williamson eventually settled in North Carolina (University of Pennsylvania). This “rootlessness”, combined with the patriotic fervor of the Revolution, gave him a nationalistic outlook that was reflected in his political views.

Pennsylvania Thomas Fitzsimons Thomas Fitzsimons was a recognized businessman, and a Whig during the Revolutionary War. He gave ships and funds to the Revolutionary efforts. He was a strong nationalist, and ally to the Federalists. As a businessman he was interested in financial affairs and commerce matters and was in favor of a protective tariff to help a recovering american economy as well as a retirement of the national debt incurred in the war (National Archives and Records Administration). Benjamin Franklin Benjamin Franklin was mostly self-educated and strongly believed in self reliance and virtues of temperance, frugality, and industry, all of which helped him better himself. He provided much help to develop libraries, educational institutions and hospitals. He became a speaker for American rights during his time in Britain when hostilities began with the British and the Colonists. He participated in the Continental Congress and drafted the Declaration of Independence. He was an

early opposer of slavery and often spoke for the dissolution of said system (National Archives and Records Administration). Gouverneur Morris Governeur Morris (not related to Robert Morris) was born to a wealth family, prominent in public service. He was conservative, and feared the beginning of the Revolution. Many people surrounding him were loyalists, but he himself was in favor of the Whig. Morris was a supporter of Washington and Franklin, a strong nationalist and in favor of aristocratic rule (National Archives and Records Administration). Robert Morris Robert Morris, a banker, considered independence premature, but nonetheless did not oppose it. This delegate was specialized in financial affairs, and through his ammunition business, in military procurement. He worked for the Revolution even acquiring personal loans to finance the war effort. He was Superintendent of Finance under the Articles of Confederation, he cut government spending in military but continued to finance this himself, and made sure the states fulfilled their quotas. He was also in favor of the bank, which he partly funded personally. He was in favor of the Federalists (National Archives and Records Administration). James Wilson James Wilson was a lawyer, and an early Whig leader. He served in the Continental Congress, where he mostly contributed to military and Indian matters. He later identified with conservatism and aristocratic groups (National Archives and Records Administration). Wilson had extensive knowledge of political theory, was a legal philosopher, and was in favor of popularly elected executive and senate (Constitution Day).

South Carolina Pierce Butler Pierce Butler was born into an aristocratic family, his father serving the United Kingdom as an MP (University of Groningen). Initially a soldier in the British Army, Butler resigned his commission to run a plantation in South Carolina. Butler served in a South Carolinian militia during the American Revolution (University of Groningen). Unfortunately, Butler lost a large amount of his property during the war, though he was later appointed to a commission to settle a boundary dispute. Butler was an ardent nationalist (University of Groningen). Charles Cotesworth Pinckney After obtaining a degree from Oxford, Pinckney served as a brigadier general within a militia in South Carolina, siding with the Patriots in the Revolutionary War (University of Groningen). Pinckney was detained as a prisoner of war until

his release in 1782. He was in favor of a strong national government and a large federal army (Fields). Charles Pinckney Charles Pinckney was a native South Carolinian. Upon his father’s death in 1782, Pinckney inherited a plantation, along with several slaves. His wife was the daughter of a slave trader. Pinckney was elected to the Continental Congress in 1777. Though his father had reservations about the Revolution, Pinckney served in a state militia. Like his first cousin, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, he was held as a prisoner of war by the British. Pinckney was strongly nationalistic (Mathews) John Rutledge John Rutledge, a South Carolina native, pursued a law degree in Britain before returning home to a life of politics. During the tensions leading up to the American Revolution, Rutledge sought to preserve self-governance of the colonies while maintaining ties to Great Britain (University of Groningen). This moderation was evident in later years, including in his stance at the First Continental Congress (University of Groningen). Rutledge served an active role in his state’s politics, serving as both governor and a representative in the lower house of South Carolina’s state legislature. He was a vigorous advocate of southern interest (University of Groningen).

Virginia James Madison James Madison, graduate from Princeton, was an advocate of the patriot cause and a member of the Continental Congress. Madison strongly believed in the Lockean principles of property and individual rights. He was against of pure democracies because they create factions and was instead in favor of a filter scheme of representation, where the most capable men in the nation represent their communities interests. Madison firmly believed the Articles of Confederation were highly deficient, and he instead advocated for a strong federal government that could solve national problems (National Archives and Records Administration). Madison wanted an extensive republic with many different interests, and opinions that could check and balance each other (Teaching American History) with separation of powers between the branches of the government. George Mason George Mason was an influential man, very interested in law and politics. He framed Virginia’s Declaration of Rights which highly influenced the Declaration of independence, and as such was highly concerned with individual rights. He was in favor of the disestablishment of the church, and wanted a legislative branch to be less powerful, and fully elected by the public. Mason was highly against a

federal judicial system, that threatened to destroy state courts (National Archives and Records Administration). Edmund Randolph Edmund Randolph believed the Articles of Confederation were greatly flawed and he favored a revision, but not a new document. He was against a sole executive, and instead advocated a three-man council (National Archives and Records Administration). George Washington George Washington’s military experience helped him become a Whig leader. He was commander in chief of the Continental Army, time during which he denied proposals of a revolution that would make him king. Washington however, was unhappy with the Articles of Confederation and wanted a stronger central government that could provide stability and unity. Washington strongly believed in the separation of powers and each branch staying within its limits (National Archives and Records Administration). Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson was born into a wealthy family, and was a rigorous student. He was an ardent supported American Independence, and drafted the Declaration of Independence, which clearly shows his favor for natural rights. Jefferson was a big advocate of a virtuous agricultural society based around values of freedom, honesty, and frugality. This delegate had controversial views about slavery. He believed farmers were crucial for American society and they were dependent on slavery. Jefferson, as a republican, strongly believed in the supremacy of states. In 1787 Thomas Jefferson was acting as U.S. Minister to France but was so committed to his nation that he decided to come back for as long as the Convention needed him (Bio.com). Patrick Henry Patrick Henry was a radical opposer to British rule, and a key figure in the American Revolution. For Henry, only Colonists could decide on measures that would directly affect them, he strongly opposed tariffs and taxes by the British government as tyrannical measures. Henry was a firm believer in individual rights, and their importance as a basis for government, as well as the rights of states. As such, he opposed a strong central government that would threaten their rights, just like the crown had done (Bio.com). As a noted Anti-Federalist, Henry considered not going to the convention but decided last minute that he needed to fight for what he believed in.

Committee Procedure This committee will occur directly in the Constitutional Convention. As a specialized committee we will run in a continuous moderated debate during which the Dais will ask for points or motions for topics to discuss. Quorum will require one third of the delegates at our Convention. All delegates will be able to vote on matters that have to do with procedure, that is deciding motions, or setting topics. However when it is time to vote on written constitutional documents or the direct status of the Articles each state will have one vote as to give all states an equal say in the representation they wish to see in their government. This means that the delegates from each state must elect a leader of their delegation at the Second Session to deliver their vote whenever it is needed. The delegates of each state will vote by simple majority and the state leader will simply deliver the vote. Note that the State leader cannot decide on the vote alone, he can only deliver what was agreed upon by all members of the state. For an amendment to the Articles, a new document or a new subsection within any document to pass, we will need a two thirds state majority (8 states or more) for it to pass. The delegates can all speak as many times as they desire and we encourage active participation from all delegates. However it is key to remember that each state has one vote in substantive matters. On the Third Session, the delegates will be allowed to bring to the table proposed plans of what their coalition thinks should happen with the Articles of Confederation. After introducing all the proposed plans all the delegates can discuss and amend the proposed plan. All presented plans must be discussed. Coalitions for proposed plans need not be limited by state. By the end of the Convention it is your duty to present the people of the United States with the document that you, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention have crafted, whether it is an entirely new document, a redesigned or amended version of the Articles of Confederation.

Closing Remarks All of the delegates have an equally important role in this conference, they all bring a different set of skills, knowledge and expertise that we can use to revise the status of the Articles of Confederation. Many of you have very strong views on certain topics, and I want to see you bring them to the table, argue, and compromise as needed. It is entirely up to the delegates to decide how this weekend will end.

We have brought together the brightest minds and most accomplished men of this century to determine the future of this great nation. This weekend we make history.

Works Cited

"A Biography of William Richardson Davie 1756-1820." Biographies. University of Groningen, n.d. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.

"American Revolution History." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 26 Dec. 2014.

"Biographies." University of Groningen, n.d. Web. 24 Dec. 2014.

"Essay on William Paterson." William Paterson University. William Paterson University, n.d. Web. 26 Dec. 2014.

"Featured Exhibits." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 26 Dec. 2014.

"Hamilton and the U.S. Constitution." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 26 Dec. 2014.

"Independence and the Articles of Confederation." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 23 Dec. 2014.

"Introduction to the Constitutional Convention." Teaching American History. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2014. .

"James Wilson U.S. Founding Father." Constitution Day. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2014. .

"John Adams -- A Defence of the Constitutions of Government -- Reading Revolutions." John Adams -- A Defence of the Constitutions of Government -- Reading Revolutions. Reading Revolutions, n.d. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.

"Nicholas Gilman, New Hampshire." Nicholas Gilman | U.S. Founding Father | ConstitutionDay.com. ConstitutionDay.com, n.d. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.

"PENN BIOGRAPHIES." Hugh Williamson (1735-1819), University of Pennsylvania University Archives. University of Pennsylvania, n.d. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.

"State Constitutions." U.S. History Online Textbook. Independence Hall Association, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 Dec. 2014. .

"State Constitutions." United States History - State Constitutions. Country Studies US, 1 Jan. 2003. Web. 27 Dec. 2014.

"The Constitution of the United States: America's Founding Fathers." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 28 Dec. 2014. .

"The Founding Fathers:." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d: Maryland, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.

"The Major Debates at the Constitutional Convention." Bill of Rights in Action 25.2 (2009). Constitutional Rights Foundation. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Web. 26 Dec. 2014. .

"WILLIAM BLOUNT." United States Army Center of Military History. United States Army, n.d. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.

"WILLIAM LIVINGSTON." United States Army Center of Military History. United States Army, n.d. Web. 26 Dec. 2014.

Army Historical Ser. Web. 25 Dec. 2014. .

Army Historical Ser. Web. 27 Dec. 2014. .

Berkin, Carol. “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution”. Harcourt, 2002. Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire. National Constitution Center. Constitution Center. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.

Brown, Dorothy M. "John Francis Mercer: Two Election Broadsides, 1792." Maryland Historical Magazine 62 (1967): 193-96. Biographical Director of the United States Congress. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.

Edmunds, Jeffrey G. "John Francis Mercer of Stafford County: A Neglected Patriot: Captain of the 3rd Virginia; Anti-Federalist at the Constitutional Convention; Governor of Maryland, 1801-03." Library Point. Central Rappahannock Regional Library, n.d. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.

Fields, William and Hardy, David. "The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History," American Journal of Legal History (1991)

"Introduction to the Constitutional Convention | Teaching American History." Teaching American History. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Jan. 2015. .

Linder, Doug. "The Bill of Rights: Its History and Its Significance." Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. UMKC School of Law, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 26 Dec. 2014.

Lloyd, Gordon. "The State and Continental Origins of the U.S. Bill of Rights." Teaching American History. Ashbrook Center, 1 Jan. 2006. Web. 27 Dec. 2014.

MacGregor, Morris J. and Wright, Robert K., Jr. Nathaniel Gorham. Soldier- Statesmen of the Constitution. Washington D.C.: Center of Military History, 1987. 97-99, 152-153, 155-56, 160-61.

Mathews, Marty D. Forgotten Founder: The Life and Times of Charles Pinckney (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2004)

“Patrick Henry." Bio.com. A&E Television Networks, LLC, n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2014. .

Schwartz, Bernard. The Great Rights of Mankind: A History of the American Bill of Rights. Expanded Ed./1st Rowman & Littlefield ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Print.

"Thomas Jefferson." Bio.com. A&E Television Networks, LLC, n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2014. .

Toomey, Michael. "William Blount (1749-1800)." North Carolina History Project :. John Locke Foundation, n.d. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.

United States. National Park Service. "John Adams Biography." National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, n.d. Web. 25 Dec. 2014

Welling, George M. "A Biography of Caleb Strong 1745-1819." American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond. Humanities Computing, 2012. Web. 25 Dec. 2014.

Welling, George. "Biographies." American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond. University of Groningen, 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Dec. 2014.