Welcome back to my school essays! I hope you enjoy today’s debate topic and without further ado, let’s begin!
Introduction
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a gathering of delegates from the 13 states in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation, which were the nation’s first constitution. However, this debate topic argues that the convention was an illegal coup d’etat. To understand this perspective, we will examine the context of the convention, the reasons for its occurrence, and the arguments for and against it being an illegal coup d’etat.
It was a historic event in the United States that led to the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America. However, there are some who argue that the Convention was an illegal coup d’etat. In this essay, we will explore both sides of this debate and try to understand why this argument is being made.
To begin with, it is important to understand what a coup d’etat is. A coup d’etat is a sudden, often violent, overthrow of a government. It is usually carried out by a small group of people who want to seize power. In this context, the argument being made is that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a coup d’etat because the delegates who attended it had no legal authority to do so.
Those who argue that the Convention was a coup d’etat point out that it was called to revise the Articles of Confederation, which was the governing document of the United States at the time. The Articles of Confederation could only be amended with the unanimous consent of all thirteen states. However, the Convention went beyond its mandate and drafted a new Constitution, which required the approval of only nine out of thirteen states to be ratified. This, they argue, was a violation of the Articles of Confederation and therefore illegal.
Another point that is often made by those who argue that the Convention was a coup d’etat is that the delegates who attended it were not authorized to do so by their respective states. The Articles of Confederation required that any amendments to the document be approved by the state legislatures. However, the delegates to the Convention were appointed by the state governments, not the state legislatures. Therefore, they argue, the delegates had no legal authority to participate in the Convention.
However, there are also those who argue that the Convention was not a coup d’etat. They point out that the Articles of Confederation were not working and that something needed to be done to address the problems facing the United States at the time. The Articles had several weaknesses, including a lack of a strong central government, an inability to regulate trade between the states, and no power to tax. These weaknesses were causing serious problems for the country, including economic instability and threats to national security.
Furthermore, those who argue that the Convention was not a coup d’etat point out that the delegates to the Convention were not trying to seize power for themselves. They were trying to create a new system of government that would better serve the interests of the people. The delegates were not acting in their own self-interest, but rather in the interest of the country as a whole.
Therefore, the debate over whether the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was an illegal coup d’etat is a complex one. While there are valid arguments on both sides, it is difficult to say definitively which side is correct. What is clear, however, is that the Constitution of the United States of America has stood the test of time and has been an important guiding document for the country for over two centuries.
——————————————————————————————————————————
Here are some additional details and information about the debate surrounding the Constitutional Convention of 1787:
One argument that is often made by those who claim that the Convention was a coup d’etat is that the delegates exceeded their authority by completely scrapping the Articles of Confederation and drafting a new constitution. They argue that the delegates were only supposed to make minor amendments to the Articles, not create an entirely new system of government.
However, supporters of the Convention point out that the delegates were authorized to make changes to the Articles of Confederation as they saw fit. The states had sent their delegates to the Convention with the understanding that they would do whatever was necessary to create a better system of government. While the delegates did end up drafting an entirely new constitution, they did so within the bounds of their authority.
Another argument made by opponents of the Convention is that the delegates were not representative of the people, since they were not directly elected by the citizens. Instead, they were appointed by state governments, many of which were controlled by elites who were not necessarily in touch with the concerns of ordinary citizens.
However, supporters of the Convention point out that the delegates were all prominent individuals who were well-respected in their communities. Many of them had been involved in the Revolutionary War and were known for their patriotism and dedication to the cause of American independence. While it is true that the delegates were not directly elected by the people, they were still accountable to their constituents and were expected to act in the best interests of the country.
One of the most significant debates at the Constitutional Convention was the question of representation in the federal government. Small states were concerned that they would be dominated by larger states, while larger states wanted proportional representation based on population. The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, was ultimately reached, which created a bicameral legislature with one house based on proportional representation (the House of Representatives) and one house with equal representation for each state (the Senate).
Opponents of the Convention argue that the delegates were not authorized to make such sweeping changes to the government, and that the resulting Constitution represented a departure from the principles of the American Revolution. They argue that the Revolution was fought to establish individual rights and liberties, while the new Constitution established a powerful central government that could potentially infringe on those rights.
Additionally, supporters of the Constitution argue that the new system of government was necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of all citizens. They point out that the Constitution includes a Bill of Rights, which guarantees fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. They also argue that the new system of government was designed to be flexible and adaptable, with mechanisms for amending the Constitution as needed.
Another argument made by opponents of the Convention is that the resulting Constitution enshrined the institution of slavery, which was fundamentally at odds with the principles of equality and liberty that were supposed to underlie the new government. They argue that the Constitution included compromises such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation in Congress, and the Fugitive Slave Clause, which required that runaway slaves be returned to their owners.
However, supporters of the Constitution argue that the delegates were forced to make compromises in order to create a government that could be accepted by all thirteen states. They also point out that the Constitution included provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause, which could potentially be used to limit the power of slave states and eventually lead to the abolition of slavery.
Opponents of the Convention also argue that the Constitution was a product of a small, elite group of men who were primarily interested in protecting their own interests. They point out that the delegates were wealthy and powerful individuals who were not necessarily representative of the broader population.
However, supporters of the Convention argue that the delegates were motivated by a genuine desire to create a better system of government for all citizens. They note that many of the delegates were committed to democratic principles and had a deep understanding of the challenges facing the country.
Ultimately, the debate over the Constitutional Convention of 1787 is complex and multifaceted, with valid arguments on both sides. However, it is difficult to argue that the resulting Constitution was an illegal coup d’etat. The delegates to the Convention were authorized to make changes to the government, and the resulting Constitution was ratified by the people through state conventions. While the Constitution was not perfect, it represented an important step forward for American democracy and has served as a model for democratic governments around the world
——————————————————————————————————————————
Background
The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, serving as the governing document of the United States. However, it soon became clear that the Articles had several weaknesses, including a weak central government, lack of a strong executive branch, and difficulties in raising revenue. As problems mounted, it was clear that the Articles needed revision.
In 1787, a convention was called to address these issues. While the initial goal was to revise the Articles, the convention eventually led to the drafting and adoption of a new constitution, which established a stronger central government and a system of checks and balances.
——————————————————————————————————————————
Arguments for the Convention being an Illegal Coup d’Etat:
~ Exceeding the original mandate: The convention was called to revise the Articles of Confederation, not to replace them with a new constitution. Some argue that the delegates overstepped their authority by drafting a completely new document, effectively disregarding their original mandate.
~ Lack of representation: Some critics argue that the convention was not representative of the American people. Delegates were primarily wealthy, white, and male, leading to concerns that the interests of ordinary citizens and minority groups were not adequately represented.
~ Bypassing the amendment process: The Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent from all 13 states for any amendments. However, the new constitution was adopted with only nine of the 13 states needed for ratification. Critics argue that this bypassed the legal amendment process outlined in the Articles.
~ Secrecy and lack of transparency: The convention was conducted in secret, with no official record of the proceedings. This has led to suspicions that the delegates were conspiring to overthrow the existing government, and the lack of transparency could be seen as evidence of an illegal coup.
——————————————————————————————————————————
Arguments against the Convention being an Illegal Coup d’Etat:
~ Necessity for change: The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were well known, and it was clear that significant changes were needed to create a more functional and efficient government. The delegates at the convention were attempting to address these issues and create a stronger, more unified nation.
~ Popular ratification: The new constitution was not imposed on the states; rather, it was submitted to the states for ratification. The fact that nine states chose to ratify the document suggests that it had popular support and was not simply the result of an elite-driven coup.
~ Legal process: While the convention may have exceeded its original mandate, the delegates followed a legal process for creating and ratifying the new constitution. The document was drafted, debated, and submitted to the states for ratification, allowing for a democratic process to unfold.
~ The alternative: If the convention had not taken place, the United States would have continued to struggle under the Articles of Confederation. The potential for a collapse of the government and chaos was very real, and the convention can be seen as an attempt to prevent such an outcome.
——————————————————————————————————————————
*Necessity for change an Argument against Convention being an Illegal Coup d’Etat*
One of the arguments made by supporters of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 is that the changes made to the government were necessary in order to address the problems facing the country at the time. Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government was too weak to enforce its laws and regulations, which led to economic chaos and social unrest. The new Constitution created a strong central government that could regulate commerce, provide for national defense, and ensure that the rights of all citizens were protected.
Before the Constitution was drafted, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which were created in 1777 during the Revolutionary War. The Articles of Confederation created a weak central government that had limited power to tax, regulate commerce, or enforce laws. The states were largely independent and had their own governments, with their own laws and regulations.
However, the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation soon became apparent. The government was unable to regulate trade between the states, which led to economic instability and unfair competition. The central government was also unable to raise an army or provide for national defense, which left the country vulnerable to external threats.
In addition, the government was unable to address the growing unrest and rebellion that was occurring throughout the country. Farmers in Massachusetts had revolted in 1786, and there were fears that similar uprisings could occur in other states. There was a growing sense that the country was on the brink of chaos and that something needed to be done to address the problems facing the nation.
——————————————————————————————————————————
*Exceeding the original mandate an Argument for Convention being an Illegal Coup d’Etat*
One of the arguments made by opponents of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 is that the delegates exceeded their original mandate and created a new Constitution without the legal authority to do so. The original purpose of the Convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation, which was the governing document of the United States at the time. The Articles could only be amended with the unanimous consent of all thirteen states. However, the Convention went beyond its mandate and drafted a new Constitution, which required the approval of only nine out of thirteen states to be ratified.
Opponents of the Convention argue that this was a violation of the Articles of Confederation and therefore illegal. They point out that the delegates were only authorized to make minor amendments to the Articles, not to create an entirely new system of government. The Constitution created a powerful central government that could potentially infringe on the rights of individual states, which was not the original intent of the Convention.
However, supporters of the Convention argue that the changes made to the government were necessary in order to address the problems facing the country at the time. The Articles of Confederation were not working, and something needed to be done to create a stronger, more effective system of government. The delegates were authorized to make changes to the Articles as they saw fit, and the resulting Constitution was ratified by the people through state conventions.
In addition, supporters of the Convention argue that the new Constitution was designed to be flexible and adaptable, with mechanisms for amending the Constitution as needed. The delegates understood that the government would need to change over time in order to address the needs of the country, and they created a system that could evolve as necessary.
——————————————————————————————————————————
*States of Philadelphia and it’s role in the Illegal Coup d’Etat*
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 took place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was attended by delegates from all thirteen states. However, the role of the states in the Convention is a matter of some debate, particularly in relation to the question of whether the Convention was an illegal coup d’etat.
Opponents of the Convention argue that the delegates were not authorized by the states to create a new Constitution, and that the resulting document represented a departure from the principles of the American Revolution. They argue that the Revolution was fought to establish individual rights and liberties, while the new Constitution established a powerful central government that could potentially infringe on those rights.
However, supporters of the Convention argue that the states were deeply involved in the process of creating the new Constitution. The delegates were appointed by state governments and were accountable to their respective states. In addition, the Constitution was ratified by the states through state conventions, which were composed of delegates elected by the people. This meant that the people of each state had a direct say in the creation of the new government.
The role of the states in the Convention was particularly relevant to the question of whether the Convention was an illegal coup d’etat. Opponents of the Convention argue that the delegates exceeded their authority by drafting a new Constitution without the unanimous consent of all thirteen states. However, supporters of the Convention point out that the delegates were authorized to make changes to the government as they saw fit, and that the resulting Constitution was ratified by the people through state conventions.
In addition, the role of the states was significant in the debates over representation in the federal government. Small states were concerned that they would be dominated by larger states, while larger states wanted proportional representation based on population. The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, was ultimately reached, which created a bicameral legislature with one house based on proportional representation (the House of Representatives) and one house with equal representation for each state (the Senate).
The states also played a significant role in the debates over slavery at the Convention. The issue of slavery was a contentious one, with some delegates arguing that it should be abolished and others arguing that it should be protected. The resulting Constitution included several compromises related to slavery, including the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation in Congress, and the Fugitive Slave Clause, which required that runaway slaves be returned to their owners.
——————————————————————————————————————————
*Was the outcome of The Constitutional Convention of 1787 a positive one or a negative one?*
There is considerable debate over whether the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a positive or a negative thing. However, it is generally agreed that the resulting Constitution has had a profound impact on American history and has served as a model for democratic governments around the world.
One of the main arguments in favor of the Constitutional Convention is that it was necessary in order to address the problems facing the country at the time. Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government was too weak to enforce its laws and regulations, which led to economic chaos and social unrest. The new Constitution created a strong central government that could regulate commerce, provide for national defense, and ensure that the rights of all citizens were protected.
Another argument in favor of the Constitutional Convention is that it established a framework for democratic government that has endured for over two centuries. The Constitution created a system of checks and balances, with separate branches of government that were designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. It also included a Bill of Rights, which guaranteed fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press.
In addition, the Constitutional Convention established the principles of federalism, which divided power between the central government and the individual states. This has allowed for a great deal of experimentation and innovation at the state level, while still providing for a strong, effective central government that can address national issues.
However, there are also valid criticisms of the Constitutional Convention and the resulting Constitution. One of the main criticisms is that the Constitution enshrined the institution of slavery, which was fundamentally at odds with the principles of equality and liberty that were supposed to underlie the new government. The Constitution included compromises such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation in Congress, and the Fugitive Slave Clause, which required that runaway slaves be returned to their owners.
Another criticism of the Constitutional Convention is that the resulting government was undemocratic, since it created a federal system with a strong central government that could override the decisions of state governments. This undermined the principle of states’ rights and represented a departure from the ideals of the American Revolution.
Despite these criticisms, it is difficult to argue that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a negative thing. The resulting Constitution has endured for over two centuries and has provided the framework for one of the most stable and successful democracies in the world. While there were valid criticisms of the Convention and the resulting Constitution, it is clear that they represented an important moment in the evolution of American democracy and a testament to the enduring power of the Constitution.
——————————————————————————————————————————
*What started The Constitutional Convention of 1787 and by whom?*
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was started by a group of influential leaders who were concerned about the state of the government under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles had been drafted in 1777 during the Revolutionary War and established a weak central government that had limited power to tax, regulate commerce, or enforce laws. The states were largely independent and had their own governments, with their own laws and regulations.
By the mid-1780s, it had become clear that the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were causing serious problems for the country. The government was unable to regulate trade between the states, which led to economic instability and unfair competition. The central government was also unable to raise an army or provide for national defense, which left the country vulnerable to external threats.
In addition, the government was unable to address the growing unrest and rebellion that was occurring throughout the country. Farmers in Massachusetts had revolted in 1786, and there were fears that similar uprisings could occur in other states. There was a growing sense that the country was on the brink of chaos and that something needed to be done to address the problems facing the nation.
In response to these concerns, a group of influential leaders began to call for a Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation. Among these leaders were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington. These men were among the most influential and respected figures in the country at the time and had a deep understanding of the challenges facing the government.
Madison in particular was instrumental in the planning and organization of the Convention. He had long been concerned about the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and had written extensively about the need for a stronger, more effective government. In 1786, he had drafted a proposal for a new government that included a strong central government with the power to regulate commerce, levy taxes, and raise an army. This proposal served as the basis for the discussions at the Convention.
The Convention was originally scheduled to take place in May 1787, but was delayed due to a lack of attendance by the states. Eventually, enough states agreed to send delegates, and the Convention began on May 25, 1787. The delegates who attended the Convention were some of the most respected and influential figures in the country, including Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson.
The Convention was not without its challenges, however. The delegates were tasked with revising the Articles of Confederation, but quickly realized that they needed to create an entirely new system of government in order to address the problems facing the country. This was a controversial move, as it was not clear that the delegates had the legal authority to create a new Constitution without the unanimous consent of all thirteen states.
Despite these challenges, the Convention ultimately succeeded in creating a new Constitution that established a strong, effective system of government. The Constitution was ratified by the people through state conventions, and has served as the basis for American democracy for over two centuries.
Therefore, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was started by a group of influential leaders who were concerned about the state of the government under the Articles of Confederation. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington were among the most influential figures in this group, and were instrumental in the planning and organization of the Convention. While the Convention was not without its challenges, it ultimately succeeded in creating a new Constitution that has endured for over two centuries and has served as a model for democratic governments around the world.
——————————————————————————————————————————
*Historically, what was one of the best arguments during The Constitutional Convention of 1787*
Madison argued that the Articles of Confederation were too weak to effectively govern the country, and that a stronger central government was needed to address the challenges facing the nation. He argued that a strong central government could regulate commerce, levy taxes, and provide for national defense, and that it was essential to protecting individual rights and freedoms.
Madison’s argument was well-written and explained because it was based on a thorough understanding of the challenges facing the country, and was supported by a wealth of evidence and historical precedent. He drew on the experiences of other nations, such as ancient Greece and Rome, to illustrate the importance of a strong central government. He also used his knowledge of political philosophy and theory to craft a persuasive argument for federalism and checks and balances.
——————————————————————————————————————————
*Where did it all go wrong during The Constitutional Convention of 1787*
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a crucial event in American history, as it led to the creation of the United States Constitution, which established the framework for the American government that still exists today. However, the Convention was not without its flaws and disagreements, and there were several key moments where things went wrong.
One of the main sources of conflict during the Convention was the question of representation in the federal government. Small states were concerned that they would be dominated by larger states, while larger states wanted proportional representation based on population. The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, was ultimately reached, which created a bicameral legislature with one house based on proportional representation (the House of Representatives) and one house with equal representation for each state (the Senate).
However, the compromise did not fully satisfy either side, and the question of representation continued to be a contentious issue throughout the Convention. Some delegates felt that the government should be based on the principle of one person, one vote, while others believed that each state should have an equal say in the government. This tension between the principles of democracy and federalism would continue to be a source of conflict throughout American history.
Another source of conflict during the Convention was the question of slavery. While some delegates, such as Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, were opposed to slavery, others were staunch defenders of the institution. The resulting Constitution included several compromises related to slavery, including the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation in Congress, and the Fugitive Slave Clause, which required that runaway slaves be returned to their owners.
The compromises related to slavery were a clear indication of the moral and political tensions that existed within the Convention. The fact that the Constitution allowed for the continuation of slavery would continue to be a source of conflict and division throughout American history, ultimately leading to the Civil War.
In addition, there were several other key moments where things went wrong during the Convention. One of these moments was the question of the length of the presidential term. Some delegates believed that the president should serve for life, while others believed that the term should be limited to a few years. Eventually, a compromise was reached that established a four-year term with the possibility of re-election.
Another moment of conflict was the debate over the powers of the federal government. Some delegates believed that the federal government should have broad powers to regulate commerce and levy taxes, while others believed that these powers should be reserved for the states. The resulting Constitution established a federal system of government that shared powers between the central government and the states, but the question of the balance of power between the two would continue to be a contentious issue throughout American history.
Despite these moments of conflict, the Constitutional Convention ultimately succeeded in creating a new Constitution that established a strong, effective system of government. The resulting Constitution was ratified by the people through state conventions, and has served as the basis for American democracy for over two centuries.
In conclusion, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was not without its flaws and disagreements, and there were several key moments where things went wrong. The question of representation in the federal government, the issue of slavery, and debates over the length of the presidential term and the powers of the federal government were all sources of conflict during the Convention. However, the resulting Constitution established a framework for American democracy that has endured for over two centuries, and has served as a model for democratic governments around the world. While the Convention was not perfect, it was a crucial moment in American history that established the principles of federalism, democracy, and individual rights that continue to shape the American government today.
——————————————————————————————————————————
*What was the result of The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was an illegal coup d’etat*
The claim that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was an illegal coup d’etat is a controversial one. Those who make this argument believe that the delegates to the Convention exceeded their authority by drafting a new Constitution without the unanimous consent of all thirteen states. They argue that the resulting document represented a departure from the principles of the American Revolution, and that it created a powerful central government that could potentially infringe on individual rights and freedoms.
However, it is important to note that the Constitution was ultimately ratified by the people through state conventions. This means that the people of each state had a direct say in the creation of the new government, and that the resulting Constitution represented the will of the people.
In addition, the Constitution established a framework for American democracy that has endured for over two centuries. It created a strong, effective system of government that could regulate commerce, provide for national defense, and protect individual rights and freedoms. The Constitution also established the principles of federalism and checks and balances, which have served as a model for democratic governments around the world.
Thank you for reading this essay! I hope you enjoyed reading it or learned something new! I’ll be posting more soon so stay tuned! If you haven’t done so yet, feel free to check out:
Anastasia's Blog 