Opinion: This Constitution Month, remember the miracle at Philadelphia

All quotations are from “Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787″ by Catherine Drinker Bowen.

When 55 delegates from 12 states gathered in Philadelphia in May 1787 to meet at the Convention, they did not come to write a constitution.

The states sent their delegations to Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation,” which had governed the new nation’s affairs for the previous six years. These Articles sufficed to hold the country together during the war for independence but were wholly inadequate in peacetime and needed fixing.

The Convention opened with the election of 55-year-old George Washington as presiding officer, and deliberations began. Very quickly, the delegates concluded the Articles of Confederation were simply beyond repair. They decided to ignore the instructions from their states. Instead of trying to fix the Articles, they began the process of writing a constitution.

The task would bedevil them for more than four months. There were many competing interests to reconcile. So divided were they that “(t)here was an ever-present danger that the Convention might dissolve and the entire project be abandoned.”

The states were riven with jealousies, parochial interests and contests for power. A host of intractable issues loomed, chief among them: What form would the new government take — a pure democracy, a limited monarchy or a republic? How strong should the national government be? What should be each state’s proportional representation in the new government? The country was broke; how would the new government raise money? The latter issue was such a practical reality that when Washington later traveled to New York to assume the presidency, he had to borrow money to pay his expenses.

The delegates had no model to follow. No government by elected representatives had ever before been attempted on such a large scale, “with a union comprising three and half million people, thirteen states (and) a territory that reached, potentially, across a continent.”

Disagreement about how much power to give the new national government nearly sank the Convention. Should states retain total power to regulate themselves, or should they cede power to a national government? Washington referred to this as a “monster” that might utterly defeat the Convention, leaving the country to drift into anarchy, confusion and the dictates of “some aspiring demagogue,” to use Washington’s words.

“We are on the verge of dissolution,” wrote Luther Martin of Maryland as deliberations bogged down, “scarce held together by the strength of a hair.” The day after he wrote this, two of New York’s three delegates abandoned the Convention, never to return. Day after day, the success of the American experiment in self-government hung in a precarious balance. So divided were the delegates that in retrospect it is hard to imagine why the Convention did not indeed disband and the members return to their estates, farms, law practices and businesses.

Even as parochial demands for state sovereignty finally gave way to grudging acceptance of a strong national government, debate about states’ representation in the new Congress took center stage. That debate dominated the Convention for more than a month and seemed irresolvable.

If anything, Washington’s outlook became even darker as time went on. He wrote, “(Our councils) are now, if possible, in a worse train than ever; (there is) but little ground on which the hope of a good establishment can be formed. In a word, I almost despair of seeing a favorable issue to the proceedings of the Convention, and do therefore repent having had any agency in the business.”

As consensus continued to elude the Convention, one delegate had to remind the members that “something must be done or we shall disappoint not only America but the whole world.”

One wonders how all of the obstacles were overcome. No historian can fully account for what happened to turn things around that summer in Philadelphia.

Certainly, delegates’ patience and persistence were a factor. As disenchanted delegates continued to peel off and drift away, one stalwart delegate observed that those of us who remain “are resolved to Continue whilst there is any Prospect of being able to serve the State & Union.”

The majority of the framers of the constitution carried on in this spirit, as if their lives depended on reaching their goal of a “more perfect union.” Their dedication inspires us. James Madison of Virginia, the chief architect of the new government, wrote that their momentous work came after “not less than five, and for a large part of the time Six, and sometimes 7 hours sitting every day (except) Sundays ... for more than four months.”

Requiting the courage, fortitude and sacrifices of upwards of 24,000 American dead and over 6,000 wounded during the Revolutionary War surely helped to keep the delegates at work.

And we must never forget, especially given the tenor of our times, that the success of the experiment in Philadelphia depended on the fact that this was “a group of reasonable men, strong enough to yield.” One observer noted, “The spirit of compromise reigned in grace and glory ... One sees them change their minds, fight against pride, and when the moment comes, admit their error.”

Surely, they sensed they had been summoned to greatness, and it gave them courage to persist even in the darkest hours. As British historian G. M. Trevelyan said of George Washington — and this applies to many of his colleagues — he “had learned the inmost secret of the brave, who train themselves to contemplate in mind the worst that can happen ... but in action resign themselves never.”

The Constitution was adopted and signed by the Convention delegates on September 17, 1787. Its founding principles have now stood the test of time for 237 years and served as a model for many countries searching for a stable foundation for the pursuit of liberty, justice and prosperity.

The Constitution also literally saved the fledgling United States of America. As he returned to Mount Vernon after the Convention adjourned, Washington wrote in a letter: “I sincerely believe [the Constitution] is the best that could be obtained at this time ... it appears to me that the political concerns of this country are in a manner suspended by a thread ... and, if nothing had been agreed on by the Convention, anarchy would soon have ensued.”

What happened at Philadelphia that summer has been called a miracle. Bestselling American author and historian Catherine Drinker Bowen titled her book, which I have quoted liberally, “Miracle at Philadelphia,” though she admits she was not the one who first said it. George Washington called it a “miracle,” as did James Madison.

Only God could have known that 1787 was, as Mrs. Bowen wrote, “the one moment, the one stroke of the ... clock when [the American experiment] had a chance to succeed. Five years earlier and the states would not have been ready ... five years later and the French Revolution would have ... (dampened enthusiasm for the Constitution).”

After the Federal Convention ended, a lady of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” His response was reportedly, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Franklin knew that a republic works best when the people actively participate. Let’s do our part to keep our republic.

Brent Ward is an attorney residing and practicing law in Salt Lake City.