Talk:Constitutional Convention (United States)/Archive 1

Archive 1

FOEDERAL

The article begins "The Philadelphia Convention (also known as the Constitutional Convention, the Federal Convention, or in the newspapers of the time the "Foederal Convention" or merely the "Grand Convention at Philadelphia")..." This clearly needs revision, but I don't know what the papers of the time called it. Jonathunder 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The papers of the time refered to it as either the "Grand Convention" (or the "Grand Convention at Philidelphia") or the "Foederal Convention." In the book that is understood to be the possibly the best account on the events of the Convention "Miracle at Philadelphia" by Catherine Drinker Bowen says on the last paragraph on page 4:

"[...] Neither to the delegates nor the country at large was this meeting known as a constitutional Convention. How could it be? The title came later. The notion of a new 'constitution' would have scared away two-thirds of the members. Newspapers announce a Grand Convention at Philadelphia, or spike of the "Foederal Convention," always with the nice inclusion of the classical diphthong. [...]" -Demosthenes- 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Why do people keep changing "Foederal" to "Federal"? It was quite the common term in the 1700's. http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_53.htm http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch6s13.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch8s30.html

Each person who vandalizes the page like this should get a warning, merely a subst:test, or we might have to lock the page down.

• This is just an archaic spelling/typeface for "Federal". It isn't a separate word. Putting it in the opening is just confusing to the reader. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

---

It's a part of history. -Demosthenes- 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote

Can anyone tell me the origin of the quote from William Findley? An accurate attributation would be very helpful, as i'm keen to track it down. I think it was William Findley- I'm not sure.

Republican bias

Historial context, paragraph 3:

"In the ratification debate, Federalists exaggerated the desperate need for a new government."

Unsubstantiated claim. Seems to be skewed in favor of Republicans. William Findley was a "strong supporter of Thomas Jefferson," throwing his observations of Federalist motives into the biases of the day. Who is Louis Otto? How much weight can a visiting Frenchman's cursory inspection of the national economy have?

The paragraph preceding "Historical context" raises three reasons for the Philadelphia Convention - economic (revenue) and military (Shay's Rebellion, inability to cope with blockades). The paragraph in question unsubstantially places Federalist exaggerations in the economic field only. The Republicans were far more anti-military than the Federalists, and that, if anything, caused them to excessively downplay the crisis facing the Articles of Confederation. If we're going to talk partisan exaggeration, let's be fair. No less a party authority than Thomas Jefferson endorsed Shay's Rebellion ("I like a little rebellion now and then").

I think the paragraph in question should be deleted altogether. --Troznov 06:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, there is little mention of the Small State Plan, or New Jersey Plan. --mercruz 07:13, 23 October 2007 (PST)

Elijah Hodges

Who is Elijah Hodges? The same IP has added that name at least twice, but he's not in the standard list of delegates. Is this a vandal, or is Mr. Hodges attested? --Chaifilius 04:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Page completely re-done

I have replaced the old page with a page I have been working on for a while in my sand-box. The new page has citations and all relevant information from the old page. Corvus coronoides _talk 17:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Assessment

This is my assessment of the (current revision) article. Below the assessment are some tips that will help the page even further.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Further examination of my findings:

• All images were suitable and were captioned appropriately.Y
• No evidence of original research; in fact, it read professionaly!Y
• There were only a few grammar, spelling and reference position mistakes. But that's easily rectified.Y
• References that were provided were reliable, used appropriately (i.e. after the punctuation) and were used in the correct places, when used to cite. Y
• Manual of style compliant.Y
• The article is focused and addresses a broad range of information without going into unnecessary detail.Y

Considering all this, and the extraordinary efforts by all those involved, I am willing to pass this article. Well done! Best, Rt. 18:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Video Program?

Around the 1987 Bicentenial, The Learning Channel ran a 2 hour documentary about the convention. I can't find any info about this program online. Does anyone have some info on it? CFLeon (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A More Perfect Union (film). This may not be the exact film you're looking for (it's a docu-drama, really), but it's an excellent and highly underrated film, 1989. I'm adding it in the "See Also" section.  White Whirlwind  咨  09:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection

This page has been vandalized repeatedly by unregistered users. This article needs protection (and I need this for political research). Maildiver (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia v. Constitutional

In History classes across the nation, this convention is almost always known as the constitutional convention. I had actually never heard it called the Philadelphia Convention until now. Should the name be changed to reflect more common knowledge? User:DrStrangelove64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrStrangelove64 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am being ignored. --DrStrangelove64 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your initial edit only provided half of the text - you didn't provide any evidence of reliable sources supporting your suggestion. Very likely, other people are waiting for the rest of your comment. Tedickey (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that you are 100% right, if wikipedia was only U.S. web site. If you actually click on constitutional convention, you might begin to notice that there have been several nations who have also had conventions. So the problem is, which country gets to lay claim to the actual label? I know that the term "Philadelphia Convention" is just about never used, but do you have a suggestion of your own? I would suggest "Constitutional Convention (United States)". That way at least, the more common term is in the heading.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks, I prefer your suggestion over mine (best to keep in mind that I am not the only one on the site) We'll see if it catches on or not.--DrStrangelove64 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move to "Constitutional Convention (United States)"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Philadelphia Convention → Constitutional Convention (United States) — Per a discussion on the talk page.Relisted. Could the proposers please give a better reason to move than "I've never heard of it". Fences&Windows 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Jojhutton (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support; I've never heard it called the "Philadelphia Convention". Powers ^T 18:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support; I agree completely, never called it the "Philadelphia Convention". --DrStrangelove64 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, "Constitutional Convention" is the common name for the convention in the United States. Every textbook in the US uses the term, including The United States Encyclopedia of History".--Jojhutton (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: "Constitutional Convention" is the most common and most descriptive term. Wood's recent "Empire of Liberty" and Middlekauff's latest revision of "The Glorious Cause" both use "Constitutional Convention" in their indexes. I'm not sure what the case is for continuing to refer to it as the "Philadelphia Convention" -- although I agree that the argument "I never heard it called that" is rather lame. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The index may tell one story. The prose, however, tells quite another. Here is a random sample of the text of the book by Wood:
    • "To be sure, these defects did make possible the calling of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 to amend the Articles." — pp. 57
    • "Many members of the Congress were quite distinguised. Twenty of them had attended the Philadelphia Convention, […]". — pp. 15
    • "To be sure, these defects did make possible the calling of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 to amend the Articles." — pp. 57
    • "Nevertheless, he [Washington] had reluctantly agreed to attend the Philadelphia Convention and had been elected its president." — pp. 73
    • "This partnership led from the stymied efforts to add to the powers of the Confederation in the early 1780s to the Annapolis Convention in 1786 to the Philadelhia Convention in 1787, […]" — pp. 90
  • Even Middlekauf uses Philadelphia Convention on occasion, by the way:
    • "The Congress in the 1780s and the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 would also do more — […]" — pp. 572
  • Uncle G (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you continue to cite books, where Philadelphia Convention is used. You are wasting your own valuable time, as I will concede 100 fold, that the term is used in scholarly research by brilliant people across the globe. I'm not going to get into a "citation war". You just can't show that it is the most common term used in terms of anything, this only shows that it IS used. please show that it is the most common term used.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Uncle G does seem to miss the point of indexing. Isn't it to aid the reader and isn't it logical that the most common name would be used? Aren't we supposed to be looking for the morst common name in rder to aid the reader? Let's remember that like many events (i.e. World War I, the Seven Years War, the American Revolution) the Convention was called one thing by contemporaries and another thing by subsequent generations and historians. It obviously was not called the Constitutional Convention in 1787 since its stated purpose was not to write a new constitution but to amend the Articles of Confederation. Today, since both names are used, it makes sense to use the most common and the most descriptive. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion will close on August 3--DrStrangelove64 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Relisted. Fences&Windows 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Although there was no opposition, after eleven days listed, to this proposal, and it was listed in accordance with wikipedia policy and guidelines, there appeared to be an admin who was not convinced that we knew what we were doing and that the consensus was wrong. So we must now play the "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" game with citations.

• First is from the official United States Archives [1], which clearly uses the term "Constitutional Convention".
• Here is an official government document from America.gov [2], also clearly stating Constitutional Convention.
• And this from the Library of Congress [3]. Also says Constitutional Convention.
• Finally, a search at Search.USA.Gov, resulted in 23,200 hits for "Constitutional Convention" (In parentheses) , while a search of "Philadelphia Convention" (in parenteses), resulted in only 1780 hits. Thats a 13 to 1 margin. And while this clearly shows that "Philadelphia Convention" has been used, and I was always willing to concede that point, it also points out that the common term in the United States is "Constitutional Convention".--Jojhutton (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Counting Google hits is not research, and there are plenty of resources explaining how Google comes up with this hit count to show that those counts are utterly meaningless. Uncle G (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Those were not google hits. Please read again.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't enact this in good conscience, because two people saying that they've never heard this name really doesn't for me, overrule the fact that there are umpteen history books and constitutional law books that use this name. There are pages and pages of them to be found with a simple Google Books search. I'm going to pick six at random:

• "The Philadelphia Convention" — section title on page 179 of ISBN 9780547166292
• "This chapter also employs several game-theoretic models to explain the strategic calculations of the three largest states (Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania) prior to their committment to attend the 1787 Philadelphia Convention" — ISBN 9780521808484 pp. 36
• "During the summer of 1787 the Philadelphia convention met and framed a new Constitution." — ISBN 9780874133097 pp. 28
• "The Philadelphia Convention" — section title on page 188 of ISBN 9780495566342
• "As every schoolchild knows, the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 conducted its proceedings under a secrecy rule, […]" — ISBN 9780837703589 pp. 25 (There are two more occurrences of the name in a footnote on that same page.)
• "The delegates rejected attempts by monarchists and nationalists in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 to create a national (rather than a federal) government." — ISBN 9781596985056 pp. 15 (This is in a chapter whose very title is "FEDERALISM VS. NATIONALISM AT THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION". Capitalization as in the original.)

And add this:

• Ernest M. Lander, Jr (July 1956). "The South Carolinians at the Philadelphia Convention, 1787". The South Carolina Historical Magazine. 57 (3). South Carolina Historical Society: 134–155.

I can only suggest to anyone who has "never heard this name" that xe pick up and read the history and law books on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. Your comments are appreciated.

Which do you believe is the more common term "Philadelphia Convention" or "Constitutional Convention"? As I have no doubt that "Philadelphia Convention" is used on many occasions, but law books rarely use common terms to desrcibe anything, now do they?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been invited to weigh in on this discussion. As far as I recall, when I was in law school we always referred to this event as the Constitutional Convention. I don't know whether that is the best name from an historical perspective, but it is correct in my experience. I'd go ahead with the move. bd2412 T 01:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Uncle G, thanks for finding those sources. I'd like to point out that the third one is not "Philadelphia Convention"; the capital is important in this case. I think the other main difference is that those sources have already established their context before using the phrase. Take, for instance, the last in your list; it is a book titled "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution". So in that case, using the phrase "Constitutional Convention" is redundant, as we already know that we're talking about things having to do with the Constitution. We, however, are a general encyclopedia, and our titles come without context. Because of this, I believe we are best off looking at what other general encyclopedias use as their titles. World Encyclopedia, Britannica, Columbia -- all three title their article "Constitutional Convention". Powers ^T 01:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support the move to "Constitutional Convention (United States)". Both names are good, and both are used and understood by educated people in the United States. I think. "Constitutional Convention (United States)" is a little better in my opinion as it is more formally correct (there have been, I suppose, many conventions in Philadelphia -- Shriner's Conventions, etc. etc.) and more universally understood. Herostratus (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move -- The title "Constitutional Convention (United States)" is rather vaguely abstract and not really appropriate to refer to one single specific historical event, since the U.S. Constitution allows additional federal constitutional conventions to be held, and probably at least a hundred state constitutional conventions have been held. Not sure about the capitalization, either... AnonMoos (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if there ever is another, then the article name can be retooled then, but until that happens, there has only been one convention in th eUnited States, and that is supported by numerous textbooks and internet links.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's nice -- unfortunately, the title "Constitutional Convention (United States)" sounds like it's about a general concept, rather than one specific historical event. Furthermore, there have been probably at least a hundred constitutional conventions held at the level of the individual states, and the title does not clearly exclude them. AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So your choice is to keep the current title as is? "Philadelphia Convention" sounds like a convention center.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

See Constitutional Convention (Philippines) for an example of what Anonmoos means. And I'm not sure I see where "Philadelphia Convention" sounds like a convention center. They're two different things with similar names, just like... oh, anything. Take a physics education vs. physical education. Best, Corvus coronoides _talk 23:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's good enough for other encyclopedias, including Britannica, it ought to be good enough for us. Powers ^T 11:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Job, way to site precedent.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support the move, upon further consideration of my experience with the question. bd2412 T 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm Sorry I asked. DrStrangelove64 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Constitutional Convention (United States) is correct. I've taught this topic at both high school and college levels, as well as having been on textbook review committees and such. It is virtually always referred to as the "Constitutional Convention" in textbooks. In the time, there may have been multiple terms used, such as to distinguish it from Annapolis, etc., but once it has been established as a historic event, this is how is it most commonly known. FWIW, like other people here, it's also the way it was presented to me at law school -- and as a history undergrad. But more to the point, a search of the Library of Congress web site (their search engine returns a lot of irrelevant links so a raw count is tough) uses "Constitutional Convention" for the 1787 event far more than "Philadelphia Convention." I'd say the LOC is one of the most reliable sources on this topic, eh? Should one wants some assistance on the site, note here and here, here, here, and here, just to pull in a few examples. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever the current title sounds like, the proposed title is anything but unambiguous as Anonmoos says. The title should have "1787" in it somewhere. Must try harder: oppose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All three of these encyclopedias seem to have no problem with "Constitutional Convention" as the title of their articles. World Encyclopedia, Britannica, Columbia.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And all three of those encyclopedias have a fraction of the coverage we do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of that matters, but you're entitled to your opinion as you see it. Good day.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, misinformed. Dr. Strangelove (talk)

• Change to Support following comments by Fuhghettaboutit below. Corvus coronoides _talk 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Oppose: I haven't edited in a long time and I've forgotten a lot about wikipolicy, so please correct me if I'm missing something. I made substantial edits to this article a while back preceding its GAN, and I never thought anything about the title because my history textbook used the term 'Philadelphia Convention.' I personally don't see a reason to change the title of the article; per WP:NAME the title seems to be most precise and concise. For me, it's recognizable and easy to find, but I can see that others will disagree. What I don't see is why a redirect from the proposed move won't solve all these problems.Corvus coronoides _talk 16:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the name of the history text book in which you used so that we can verify its contents please? I collect text books on United States History, and all mine use the term Constitutional Convention. This is a term supported by authors such as Joseph J. Ellis in his Pulitzer Prize winning book Founding Brothers, David McCullough in his Pulitzer Prize winning book John Adams, and Richard Brookhiser in his book Alexander Hamilton, American. It seems that it was common enough for these well known authors, and it attributed to two Pulitzer prizes. And thats just a few books that I own.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

[Liberty, Equality, and Power], although I can't tell you which edition, except that my edition had a reddish cover. This was two years ago. I'm not saying the proposed change isn't common; it's just my opinion that the current title is more concisely precise, and a re-direct from the proposed change would resolve all issues regarding being recognizable and easy to find. Best, Corvus coronoides _talk 16:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ill check it out, and get back to you.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And so it does [4]. Although it may have been an aesthetic choice by the author. As text books tend to be collaborations, its tough to tell which author used the term. Other Text books, tend to lean toward constitutional Convention, as any google books search will show.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no doubt that a good many people, including other textbooks, refer to it as the Constitutional convention, but you've not addressed my points regarding precision and conciseness per WP:NAME. I'm not convinced that Constitutional convention is significantly preferred to Philadelphia convention, but since you've provided so many sources let's just assume it is for now. Even so, most people searching "constitutional convention" will still be redirected to the disambiguation page, and it'll be just as easy for them to locate "Philadelphia convention" from there as it will be to locate "Constitutional convention (United States)" from there. In the unlikely event that someone searches "Constitutional convention (United States)", a redirect will take care of them in a jiffy. So essentially I don't see where Constitutional convention (United States) meets the stated standards of being precise, concise, recognizable, and easy-to-find better than Philadelphia convention does, which is why I respectfully oppose moving the page. Best, Corvus coronoides _talk 19:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Most people, in my opinion, would search "Constitutional Convention", but lucky enough, wikipedia has a search completer (or whatever its called), that gives additional options. So if someone typed in "Constitutional Convention" only, they would see, in the drop down box, a choice for "Constitutionl Convention (United States), as well as others. Most search engines do this now as well. Its just about standard. On the other hand, on a normal internet search engine, "Philadelphia Convention", I found several references to the Philadelphia Convention Center, which is about 360 degrees from what I was looking for. The only "Philadelphia Convention" references I could find that were what I wanted were, this site and severel mirror sites, that duplicate wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is what comes up for me for the Google search completer for Constitutional convention. For Wikipedia, that drop down box would still appear if that page were created as a redirect, I believe. Even if that were not the case, I still believe that "Philadelphia Convention" is the most concise and precise way to specify the subject of the article, and that creating a redirect from Constitutional Convention (United States) will resolve any concerns about being recognizable and easy to find. I'm just going by WP:Name here. I also believe that what is most relevant here is ease of finding the article. I don't see how moving the article would make it any easier to find than if a redirect were created, and since I think all things are equal on that end, the conciseness and precision of "Philadelphia Convention" mean that I lean that way. Again, I'm not convinced that "Constitutional convention" is more common, but that may simply be because I've had it referred to as the Philadelphia convention in my more recent history courses. However, I don't think the fact that "Philadelphia Convention" may also refer to the "Philadelphia Convention Center" demonstrates that "Philadelphia Convention" is less common. Still the most respectful oppose, Corvus coronoides _talk 22:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The United States has never had any other "Constitutional" Convention, and I would respectfully suggest that the nation's own name for the event, with appropriate parenthetical disambiguation (United States), be used. No need for dates, place or anything else. Conversely, many states have also had state constitutional conventions, and those do appropriately have dates placed after them. "Philadelphia Convention" downplays the event in American history, as if there was something out there of equal importance to the nation. There was not. There were previous "Conventions," (Annapolis, etc.) but none created a Constitution. That's the point. Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't think "Philadelphia Convention" downplays the importance of the event in US history, particularly not when the text of the article states that it was one of the most significant events in the history of the United States. Additionally, article titles are meant to specify what the subject of the article is, not signify the importance of its subject. I'd also just like to add that I looked into the other articles related to Constitutional conventions, and there really isn't a consistent standard, so unfortunately we can't go to other articles for precedent. I still do not think it has been demonstrated that "Constitutional convention" is our nation's own name for the event any more so than the "Philadelphia convention". I believe the current title of the article also places the convention appropriately within its historical context as a reminder that the Philadelphia convention, was indeed, one of several attempts to create a working US government, but I don't think that's how titles should be decided. Going by WP:NAME alone, I think the main debate centers around whether or not "Constitutional convention" is common enough that other qualities (being precise, concise, recognizable, and easy to find) should be superseded. In my view, that hasn't been proven. I've seen a lot of references to places where Constitutional convention is listed, but it cannot be proven that Philadelphia convention isn't also used, perhaps even in those same books. I would expect both terms to be used when discussing the subject at length, but unfortunately I don't have access to a plethora of textbooks to check for myself. When it can't be proven that the proposed change is more common than the current title, I still respectfully oppose on the grounds that the current title is more precise and concise. Best, Corvus coronoides _talk 23:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that the current title is all that precise, since many conventions have been held there, including an upcoming Pharmaceutical Convention.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Constitutional Convention is overwhelmingly the common name. I'm not sure why searches have been provided showing that Philadelphia Convention is used, when what is the common name between the two is the issue. The idea that index searches are not meaningful is not well founded. We must be careful to construct our searches so we avoid false positives and misleading results; that the subject is not likely to have a skew because of search engine bombing and so on. Web searches are often poor, and we must take into consideration the purpose of a search. For notability purposes, a sheer number has far less utility than it does here because notability demands that we analyze the results, e.g., is it substantive treatment or just passing mention? By contrast, index searches are very good indicators as to commonality of use of one title or expression over another when both are used for the same thing. Let's remove most false positives by using the date of the convention opening with the two titles.

• A Google Books search of <"May 25, 1787" "philadelphia convention"> vs. <"May 25, 1787" "constitutional convention"> results in 126 to 1,020;
• Google News (archive) search of the same: 7 to 88;
• The New York Times: 1 to 11;
• Old Fulton New York Postcards (13,000,000 digitized NY newspaper articles) 2 to 25 (urls unavailable, you have to do a search yourself, choose boolean option and search <"May 25, 1787" and "NAME convention">);
• Newspaperarchive.com (subscription only—over one billion newspaper articles) 388 to 7,189 (because of search limitation exact phrase was coupled only with 1787);
• Lexis: (limited to New York federal and state cases, because of my subscription; search was of "1787 w/s (within sentence) the phrase in quotes): 10 to 56.

As can be seen, the general result is that Constitutional Convention across all sources appears about 10 times as common as Philadelphia Convention.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, you convinced me. Guess I had weird teachers/textbooks. Vote changed above. Best, Corvus coronoides _talk 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, everyones different. Its completly understandable that you would have that view, if that is how you learned it. I noticed above that a few of the users who oppose this move, hail from Britain, so that leads me to believe that the common name there is Philadelphia Convention, but as this is an article about an American subject, the American common name should be used.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Constitutional Convention (United States)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I take umbrage with the last sentence of the Hamilton Plan passage, where it states at the end, "The plan was well received as a well-thought-out plan, but it was given very little consideration because it resembled the British system too closely.[3]" In fact, after Hamilton aired his plan, it was met with stunned silence by the delegates, and never discussed. It was so monarchist in its bent, that the delegates probably could not believe their ears. In Chernow's book on Hamilton, he lists Hamilton's speech at the convention as one of his three biggest political blunders. I submit to delete "The plan was well received as a well-thought-out plan, but (I)t..." Leebeck33 (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Lee Beck

Last edited at 14:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Changing to Shortened Footnotes references style

I realize that Wikipedia's general guideline is to conform to the existing style of a page when adding or editing footnotes (WP:CIT). And I don't mean to step on any toes. However, this particular article, with its numerous citations, is based on just a handful of books and webpages, and in the case of each citation, the specific pages of interest within the books have been noted. The large number of different pages cited makes it quite a chore to add new citations using the previous reference format style, since each citation requires that the book's identifying information be written out yet again. (It also makes reading the text in the editing screen more tedious, since you have to skim over all of that identifying information that is needlessly being repeated.) To address these problems, I have changed the reference style used to the shortened footnote with bibliography style ([[Templahgf8 Sfnp]], Help:Shortened footnotes).

Using the sfnp citing method (for those who are not familiar with it):

If you are adding a new citation to a work that is already included in the bibliography, say page 141 of Beeman's book, the new citation can be entered as

{{sfnp|Beeman|2009|p=141}}

If you are adding a new citation to a book that is not yet in the bibliography (say page 265 of Your Favorite Book, by John Q. Public, published by Old Publishing House in New York in 1999), you can add the book to the biblio section toward the bottom of the page:

*{{cite book | last=Public | first=John Q. | title=Your Favorite Book | year=1999 | publisher=Old Publishing House | location=New York |ref=harv}}

AND add the citation inline where you want it in the text

According to my favorite author, the most recent occurrence of a similar event was at the turn of the century.{{sfnp|Public|1999|p=265}}

Dezastru (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

John Dickinson on the delayed slave trade ban

The photograph in the "Slavery" section of delegate John Dickinson has been captioned "John Dickinson, Delaware abolitionist, moved to allow Congress to regulate the international slave trade in 20 years" without attribution. That caption seems to imply that Dickinson was the individual who originally came up with the proposal. But while it's very clear that Dickinson was an abolitionist who argued forcefully against slavery during the Convention, I have been unable to find sources saying that he alone was responsible for making the proposal on the delayed slave trade ban. But from what I've been able to find thus far, it seems that the proposal was worked out in committee (a committee of which Dickinson was a member) and then presented to the whole Convention by the committee's chair, William Livingston, when the chair delivered the committee's report. Going by Madison's notes of the Convention, it doesn't seem that there is a record that credits any specific individual for the origination of the idea within the committee.

So I am changing the caption to instead read, "Quaker John Dickinson argued forcefully against slavery during the Convention. Once Delaware's largest slaveholder, he had freed all of his slaves by 1787." Dezastru (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Section on "The Early Debate" needs to be cleaned up

In quickly double-checking the sources cited in the section on "The Early Debate," I've found that the page numbers seem to be off for several of the cites. For example, several sentences discussing the Three-Fifths Compromise are sourced to page 119 of Beeman's Plain Honest Men, but I do not see that subject being discussed with any detail on page 119 of the copy I have (2009 hardback, 978-1-4000-6570-7). Certainly, the sentence "as such, the ratio had been floating around for several years with wide acceptance" has no support in the content on page 119. Similarly, I see no discussion of "most delegates didn't question the intelligence of the voters, rather what concerned them was the slowness by which information spread in the late 18th century" on page 122 of Beeman.

Likewise, citations of "Plain Honest Men" on the topic of Hamilton's plan are seemingly wrong. Page 137 has no mention of Hamilton's hidden motive. I think there were a few other citations that didn't match page numbers either.209.23.204.13 (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Would any editors mind taking a careful look at this section and cleaning it up? Dezastru (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A cursory Web search turned up a somewhat credible cite for a previous 3/5 proposal in the Articles Congress. I found nothing I'm inclined to accept for the idea "floating around" which would perhaps mean its use or proposed use in State constitutions or other political contexts. I condensed it away even though the metaphor pleased me. If my approach to this part seems agreeable to other editors, the other questions might also be so handled. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

no no

The USA has a fine tradition of states occasionally having reps meet wholely outside the federal oversight and making law, with 2/3 majority, that over-rule congress.

Articles of the Confederation are (a first) product of their constitutional power.

See also: Article V, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Fedralist papers.

wiki has made it appear as if congress replaced the need and it is in the past

Absolutely not USA has active issues to consider for ratification over Congress's head as I write. Unusual and often takes seven years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.202.186 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The Convention

(I am new to doing this, apologize in advance.) This section has a troublesome passage I don't know how to fix:

"Outside the Convention in Philadelphia, there was a national convening of the Society of the Cincinnati. Washington was said to be embarrassed."

Said by whom? What was he embarrassed about? I would try to fix it but this is a "Good Page" and I don't want to mess things up. Matts2 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks, this is indeed a problem. My understanding is, the Cincinnati were aggrieved, hoping to get better treatment than the Congess had given them. What they were to do, they didn't know but some fearful Republicans suspected something like a military coup to establish a military aristocracy. Anyway Washington, presumably the one leader whom they would follow into whatever, snubbed them. This didn't keep them from becoming firm Federalists. However, I don't remember where I got any of this, so unless someone does better research we shall have to delete the second sentence. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitutional Convention (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crf-usa.org/lessons/slavery_const.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitutional Convention (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118090302/http://www.constitutioncenter.org/ to http://www.constitutioncenter.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The goal of keeping the union from separation

Does this article adequately articulate how important it was to all parties to keep the 13 colonies together? The culture of the convention seems to be quite clear about this and every one of the many compromises made among the delegates points to this worry of separation. The delegates spoke repeatedly about this fear of meddling Kings in several different contexts:

Alexander Hamilton - "Foreign powers also will not be idle spectators. They will interpose, the confusion will increase, and a dissolution of the Union ensue." June 18th

James Madison - "Will it secure the Union against the influence of foreign powers over its members." June 19th

Elbridge Gerry - "The Convention ought to be extremely cautious in what they hold out to the people. Whatever plan may be proposed will be espoused with warmth by many out of respect to the quarter it proceeds from as well as from an approbation of the plan itself. And if the plan should be of such a nature as to rouse a violent opposition, it is easy to foresee that discord & confusion will ensue, and it is even possible that we may become a prey to foreign powers." June 26th

Gunning Bedford - "We have been told with a dictatorial air that this is the last moment for a fair trial in favor of a good Government. It will be the last indeed if the propositions reported from the Committee go forth to the people. He was under no apprehensions. The Large States dare not dissolve the Confederation. If they do the small ones will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice." June 30th

Rufus King - "It was not he who with a vehemence unprecedented in that House, had declared himself ready to turn his hopes from our common Country, and court the protection of some foreign hand. This too was the language of the Honorable member himself. He was grieved that such a thought had entered into his heart. He was more grieved that such an expression had dropped from his lips. The gentleman could only excuse it to himself on the score of passion. For himself whatever might be his distress, he would never court relief from a foreign power." June 30th

Gouverneur Morris - He was not apprehensive that the people of the small States would obstinately refuse to accede to a Govt. founded on just principles, and promising them substantial protection. He could not suspect that Delaware would brave the consequences of seeking her fortunes apart from the other States, rather than submit to such a Govt. much less could he suspect that she would pursue the rash policy of courting foreign support, which the warmth of one of her representatives [Mr. Bedford] had suggested, or if she should that any foreign nation would be so rash as to hearken to the overture. July 5th

George Mason - Col. Mason approved the idea. It had the sanction of experience in the instance of Congress and some of the Executives of the States. It rendered the Executive as effectually independent, as an ineligibility after his first election, and opened the way at the same time for the advantage of his future services. He preferred on the whole the election by the Natl Legislature: Though candor obliged him to admit, that there was great danger of foreign influence, as had been suggested. This was the most serious objection with him that had been urged. July 25th

Gouverneur Morris - As to those philosophical gentlemen, those Citizens of the World as they called themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any other. These attachments are the wholesome prejudices which uphold all Governments. Admit a Frenchman into your Senate, and he will study to increase the commerce of France: an Englishman, he will feel an equal bias in favor of that of England. It has been said that The Legislatures will not chuse foreigners, at least improper ones. There was no knowing what Legislatures would do. Some appointments made by them, proved that every thing ought to be apprehended from the cabals practised on such occasions. He mentioned the case of a foreigner who left this State in disgrace, and worked himself into an appointment from another to Congress. August 9th

It is clear that the Founders had not forgotten how difficult it was to secede from Britain, and they did not want to replay that episode again in any of the ways it could take its course. The Connecticut Compromise, 3/5ths compromise, and many other compromises happened because it would only take 1 of 13 colonies to become a proxy of one of the European Monarchs to restart the process all over again. The delegates had to come up with something, perhaps anything, that enough parties would agree to to keep the union together while moving away from what some believed were the failed Articles of Confederation. Progressingamerica (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Film props

I've posed the question at Talk:A More Perfect Union (film) if the actual Syng inkstand and the presiding officials chair were used as props in the film, which was filmed in Independence Hall. Anybody have data about this? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Erroneous premise: Sentence Two

I've never done this before, but I had to speak out. I don't know the procedure for correcting any article, let alone one that claims the special status of "Good History" like this one.

The very first paragraph of this article contains a gross misstatement about the reason for the Philadelphia Convention and uses it as a premise going forward. But as a simple editorial suggestion to the contrary will likely be dismissed out of hand by those who think they know better, I must make the following argument. Thank you for your patience.

The second sentence of this article as of November 20, 2018, states:

"Although the Convention was intended to revise the league of states and first system of government under the Articles of Confederation, the intention from the outset of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison of Virginia and Alexander Hamilton of New York, was to create a new government rather than fix the existing one." Note that there is no citation for this incorrect statement.

However, if there were one, it would probably mistakenly point to the following Resolution by the Continental Congress on February 21, 1787 (Note the first ten words):

"Resolved that IN THE OPINION OF CONGRESS IT IS EXPEDIENT that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union" (emphasis added).

What Congress issued with this resolution was a non-binding opinion only, not a summons for the States to meet. Those who say otherwise will be unable to explain where in the Articles of Confederation the Continental Congress was empowered to call a convention between the States or identify another occasion when the Continental Congress acted outside its authority without a national uproar. They will also be unable to explain how it's possible that, if Congress called it on February 21, EIGHT STATES had already passed resolutions and various pieces of legislation to attend and be represented there BEFORE THAT DATE (except Massachusetts, which resolved the next day to attend, before the resolution of Congress reached Boston). The first seven were Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Georgia. It is true that Massachusetts subsequently repealed and replaced its earlier legislation to reflect the opinion of Congress, but that doesn't change the fact that it too acted independently of Congress beforehand. Dates and citations of the resolutions and commissioners' instructions, which are not necessarily the same thing in all States, are transcribed below.

The bottom line is, Congress could not and DID NOT issue the call to the Philadelphia Convention.

Furthermore, an author absolutely MAY NOT claim to know the "intentions" of historical or contemporary figures without evidence. In order to claim that "the intention from the outset of many of its proponents... was to create a new government rather than fix the existing one," one must review the delegate instructions (properly called "commissions"). Upon doing so, it may be argued that one or more of those from a small minority of States "might" have overstepped their authority... but it MAY NOT be stated definitively that the delegates (or "commissioners") at large DID SO. The majority of them did NOT exceed their authority when they drafted the Constitution, especially including James Madison. Again, refer below to the commissions by each State.

Those who've only conducted cursory research on this question might think they find support for this claim in Madison's words in Federalist 40 - despite the whole of that paper making the contrary point - but that too would be an unsupportable assumption. The tenth paragraph of Federalist 40 states, "In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission." The careless researcher says, "See? Madison admitted it!"

But he did no such thing. Note Madison's use of the passive voice. 21st-century readers assume this to mean the speaker "confesses" to the act being "admitted." There are several problems with this interpretation.

One: there is another definition of the verb "to admit," and we still use it today, much more infrequently. Tickets for admission to theatrical productions and other events often include the words, "Admit One." Does the phrase "worth the price of admission" mean "worth the price of confession?" Madison used this word in its other sense: that "In one particular it is (introduced into the national dialog) that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission."

Two: if not himself, then who did the "admitting?" The answer to this is elsewhere in the tenth paragraph. Remember, the whole purpose of the Federalist Papers was to counter the charges published in what is now known as the Antifederalist Papers. It is they to whom Madison refers when he says, "It is worthy of remark that this objection, though the most plausible, has been the least urged in the publications which have swarmed against the convention... As this objection... has been in a manner waived by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation."

Three: it must be recognized that if Madison had meant, "In one particular I confess that we have departed from the tenor of our commission," then everything else that he wrote in that paper and elsewhere on the subject is riddled with self-contradiction and makes no sense. Madison was not given to writing in a way that makes no sense. However, if he meant as I suggest, "The papers which have swarmed against the convention have submitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission," then the logic of the entire paper is iron-clad.

Not to mention that the premise suggested by the offending statements contradicts the "Historical Context" section, which is more but not entirely correct. The delegates to the Annapolis Convention did RECOMMEND to their several States that a convention should be called, because they knew they lacked the authority to do it themselves. They sent a copy of their report, including this recommendation, to Congress and the other capitals only "from motives of respect."

So what should this article say, instead of what it says now?

Paragraph One

"The Constitutional Convention[1]:31 (KNOWN AT THE TIME AS the Philadelphia Convention..." with the rest of the sentence intact.

Delete sentence two and Paragraph Two in their entirety. Paragraph Two again claims to know the delegates' "intentions" and presumes to say that they "would not have agreed to participate otherwise." This is a ridiculously unknowable contention, uncited and unciteable.

"Historical Context" Section ("Context" should be capitalized, yes?)

Paragraph Five: "In September 1786, at the Annapolis Convention, delegates from five states RECOMMENDED THAT THEIR STATES CALL a Constitutional Convention in order to discuss possible improvements to the Articles of Confederation." Add citation link to the text of the Annapolis Report.

"The Convention" Section

Delete Paragraphs Three and Four as irrelevant to the article - or find a way to make them relevant. They describe events beyond the Convention, for reasons unexplained. Their presence supports nothing in the overall paper.

"James Madison's Blueprint" Section

Remove the split infinitive in the first sentence. Change to, "While waiting for the Convention TO BEGIN FORMALLY,..."

Paragraph Two

Delete the second and third sentences: "Most importantly, they agreed that the Convention should go beyond its mandate merely to amend the Articles of Confederation, and instead should produce a new constitution outright. While some delegates thought this illegal, the Articles of Confederation were closer to a treaty between sovereign states than they were to a national constitution, so the genuine legal problems were limited.[6]:64" Although I have yet to obtain a copy of the cited work by Beeman to evaluate his scholarship, the actual calls to convention by New Jersey and Virginia, the resolutions which authorized most States to attend, and the instructions issued to most delegates DID NOT MANDATE the mere amendment of the Articles of Confederation, regardless. Madison's Notes of the Convention from May 30 paint a very different picture of the discussion of the convention's scope of authority from that imagined by the author of the article and by Beeman if his work merits its citation. According to Madison, TWO AND ONLY TWO delegates - Pinckney and Gerry - "expressed a doubt." Nothing more. Therefore the statements are unsupportable at worst and highly controversial at best. At the very least, the author cannot claim to know what "some delegates thought" unless they can cite the delegates expressing that thought.

"Framers of the Constitution" Section

Paragraph Six, final sentence

Truncate to "Many of the states' older and more experienced leaders may have simply been too busy with the local affairs of their states to attend the Convention.[6]:65"

What is lost if the article is edited in this fashion? Nothing, except the repeated, unsubstantiated, and false accusation that the Framers illegally exceeded their authority - which leads to a charge that "Therefore the Constitution itself is illegal and void." There can be no other conclusion and no other reason to perpetuate this myth. This is the invariable pattern of evolution of such charges.

ADDENDUM: State Commissions and Resolutions to Attend All Delegate instructions unless otherwise noted come from . Only the relevant instructions of each Act are transcribed in the interest of brevity.

Virginia, 23 November 1786

“BE it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, That seven Commissioners be appointed by joint ballot of both Houses of Assembly, who, or any three of them, are hereby authorized as Deputies from this Commonwealth, to meet such Deputies as may be appointed and authorised by other States, to assemble in Convention at Philadelphia, as above recommended, and to join with them in devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and in reporting such an Act for that purpose, to the United States in Congress, as, when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, will effectually provide for the same.”

New Jersey, 24 November 1786

“Resolved,That the Honorable David Brearley, William C. Houston, William Paterson and John Neilson, esquires, commissioners appointed on the part of this state, or any three of them, be, and they hereby are authorized and empowered to meet such commissioners as have been or may be appointed by the other states in the Union at the city of Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the second Monday in May next, for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the Union as to trade and other important objects, and of devising such further provisions as shall appear necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies thereof.”

Pennsylvania, 30 December 1786

“Be it enacted, and it is hereby enacted by the Representatives of the Freemen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met, and by the authority of the same, That Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Jared Ingersoll, Thomas Fitzsimons, James Wilson and Governeur Morris, Esquires, are hereby appointed deputies from this state to meet in the convention of the deputies of the respective states of North-America, to be held at the city of Philadelphia, on the second day of the month of May next. And the said... Esquires... are hereby constituted and appointed deputies... with powers to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorised by the other states to assemble... and to join with them in devising, deliberating on, and discussing all such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the foederal constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and in reporting such act or acts for that purpose, to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the same.”

North Carolina, 6 January 1787

“Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of the state of North-Carolina, and by the authority of the same, That five Commissioners be appointed by joint ballot of both Houses of Assembly, who, or any three of them, are hereby authorised as Deputies from this state, to meet at Philadelphia on the first day of May next, then and there to meet and confer with such Deputies as may be appointed by the other states for similar purposes, and with them to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remove the defects of our foederal union, and to procure the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect, and that they report such an act to the General Assembly of this state, as when agreed to by them, will effectually provide for the same.”

New Hampshire, 17 January 1787 (resolution to attend)

“Resolved, That any two of the delegates of this state to the Congress of the United States, be, and hereby are appointed and authorized as deputies from this state to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorized by other states in the Union, to assemble in convention at Philadelphia on the second day of May next, and to join with them in devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions as to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union, and in reporting such an act to the United States in Congress, as when agreed to by them and duly confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the same; but in case of the death of any of said deputies, or their declining their appointments, the executive is hereby authorized to supply such vacancies, and the president is requested to transmit forthwith a copy of this resolve to the United States in Congress, and to the executive of each of the states in the Union.

The foregoing resolve was returned from the Senate for the following amendment: “that the said delegates shall proceed to join the convention aforesaid in case Congress shall signify to them that they approve of the said convention as advantageous to the Union, and not an infringement of the powers granted to Congress by the Confederation.” Which amendment was read and concurred.”

Delaware, 3 February 1787

“BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the General Assembly of Delaware, That George Read, Gunning Bedford, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, and Jacob Broom, Esquires, are hereby appointed Deputies from this State to meet in the Convention of the Deputies of other States, to be held at the City of Philadelphia on the Second Day of May next. And the said George Read, Gunning Bedford, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, and Jacob Broom, Esquires, or any Three of them, are hereby constituted and appointed Deputies from this State, with Powers to meet such Deputies as may be appointed and authorized by the other States to assemble in the said Convention at the City aforesaid, and to join with them in devising, deliberating on, and discussing, such Alterations and further Provisions, as may be necessary to render the Foederal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union; and in reporting such Act or Acts for that Purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, may effectually provide for the same: So always and provided, that such Alterations, or further Provisions... do not extend to that Part of the Fifth Article of the Confederation of the said States... which declares, that in determining Questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one Vote. ”

Georgia, 10 February 1787

“Be it ordained by the Representatives of the Freemen of the State of Georgia, in General Assembly met, and by the authority of the same, That William Few, Abraham Baldwin, William Pierce, George Walton, William Houstoun, and Nathaniel Pendleton, Esquires, be, and they are hereby appointed commissioners, who, or any two or more of them, are hereby authorised as deputies from this state to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorised by other states, to assemble in convention at Philadelphia, and to join with them in devising and discussing all such alterations and farther provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union, and in reporting such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the same.”

Massachusetts, 22 February 1787 (repealed 7 March 1787 and replaced with transcription below)

“Resolved that five Commissioners be appointed, by the General Assembly, who, or any three of whom, are hereby empowered, to meet such Commissioners, as are or may be appointed by the Legislatures of the other States in the Union, at Philadelphia, on the second day of may next, & with them to consider the trade & commerce of the United States; & how far an uniform system in their commercial intercourse & regulation, may be necessary for their common interest & permanent harmony;

And also to consider, how far it may be necessary to alter any of the articles of the present Confederation, so as to render the Constitution of the federal Government, more adequate to the exigencies of the Union; & what further powers may be necessary to be vested in Congress for the common welfare & security, & with them to form a report for that purpose;–Such alterations & additions as may be made, to be however consistent with the true republican spirit & genius of the present articles of Confederation.

Provided, that the said Commissioners on the part of this Commonwealth, are hereby particularly instructed, by no means to interfere with the fifth of the articles of the Confederation, which provides, ‘for the annual election of Delegates in Congress, with a power reserved to each State, to recall its Delegates or any of them, within the Year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the Year–And which also provides, that no person shall be capable of being a Delegate, for more than three years in any term of six years, or being a Delegate, shall be capable of holding any Office under the United States, for which he, or any other for his benefit, receives any salary, fees, or emolument of any kind.’” This resolution, passed before the Congressional notice arrived in Boston, makes Massachusetts the eighth State to have acted affirmatively without the presumed “call” of Congress.

New York, 26-28 February 1787

“Resolved... That three delegates be appointed on the part of this state, to meet such delegates as may be appointed on the part of the other states respectively, on the second Monday in May next at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and to the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall... render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union; and that in case of such concurrence the two houses of the legislature will on Tuesday next, proceed to nominate and appoint the said delegates in like manner as is directed by the constitution of this state, for nominating and appointing delegates to Congress.”

Massachusetts, 7-9 March 1787

“Whereas the Legislature... did... elect the honorable... Delegates, or any three of them to attend and represent this Commonwealth at the aforesaid Convention, for the sole & express purpose mentioned in the aforerecited resolve of Congress -- Resolved that his excellency the Governour be, & he hereby is requested to grant to the said [esquires] a commission agreeably to said resolution of Congress… And it is further Resolved, that the Said Delegates... are hereby instructed not to accede to any alterations or additions... which may appear to them, not to consist with the true republican Spirit and Genius of the Said Confederation: and particularly that they by no means interfere with the fifth of the Said Articles which provides, ‘for the annual election of Delegates in Congress, with a power reserved to each State to recall its Delegates, or any of them within the Year & to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year -- And which also provides, that no person shall be capable of being a Delegate for more than three years in any term of six years, or being a Delegate shall be capable of holding any Office under the United States for which he or any other for his benefit, receives any salary, fees, or emolument of any kind.’”

South Carolina, 8 March 1787

“Be it enacted... THAT five commissioners be forthwith appointed... who or any three or more of them... shall be and are hereby authorised as deputies from this state, to meet such deputies or commissioners as may be appointed and authorised by other of the united states, to assemble in convention at the city of Philadelphia in the month of May next after passing this act... and to join with such deputies or commissioners... in devising and discussing all such alterations, clauses, articles and provisions as may be thought necessary to render the foederal constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the confederated states, and... in reporting such an act to the united states in congress assembled, as when approved and agreed to by them, and duly ratified and confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the exigencies of the union.”

Connecticut, 17 May 1787

“Be it enacted... That the Hon’ble William S. Johnson, Roger Sherman & Oliver Ellsworth Esqrs be... appointed Delegates to attend the [said] Convention, and are requested to proceed to the City of Philadelphia for that Purpose, without Delay, and the said Delegates, and in Case of Sickness or Accident, such one or more of them, as shall actually attend the said Convention, is and are hereby authorized and impowered to represent this State therein, & to confer with such Delegates appointed by the several States, for the Purposes mentioned in the [said] Act of Congress... to discuss upon such Alterations and Provisions, agreeable to the general Principles of Republican Government, as they shall think proper, to render the foederal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of Government, and the Preservation of the Union; and they are further directed, pursuant to the said Act of Congress, to report such Alterations and Provisions, as may be agreed to, by a Majority of the united States represented in Convention, to the Congress of the United States, and to the General Assembly of this State.”

Maryland, 26 May 1787

“Be it enacted, by the general assembly of Maryland, That the honourable James McHenry, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll, John Francis Mercer, and Luther Martin, Esquires, be appointed and authorised, on behalf of this state, to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorised by any other of the United States to assemble in convention at Philadelphia, for the purpose of revising the federal system, and to join with them in considering such alterations, and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union, and in reporting such an act for that purpose to the United States in congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the same; and the said deputies, or such of them as shall attend the said convention, shall have full power to represent this state for the purposes aforesaid; and the said deputies are hereby directed to report the proceedings of the said convention, and any act agreed to therein, to the next session of the general assembly of this state.”

New Hampshire, 27 June 1787

“Be it therefore enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in general court convened, that John Langdon, John Pickering, Nicholas Gilman, and Benjamin West Esqrs be, and hereby are, appointed Commissioners; they, or any two of them, are hereby authorized, and impowered, as Deputies from this State to meet at Philadelphia said Convention, or any other place to which the said Convention may be adjourned; for the purposes aforesaid, there to confer with such deputies, as are, or may be appointed by the other States for similar purposes; and with them to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remedy the defects of our federal union; and to procure, and secure, the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect, and to report such an act, to the United States in Congress, as when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, will effectually provide for the same.”

J D Antkowiak (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Framers capitalized?

Why is Framers capitalized? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Most likely because in context it is referring to proper individuals (so, a collection of proper nouns). It is not without precedent nor is it incorrect to do so in specific context, to capitalize words that under most circumstances would not be. Also, they are "the" Framers, not just an arbitrary collection of framers. I hope that makes sense. Hard for me to articulate. Jersey John (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, I agree with Jersey John. "The Framers" is the common name for this specific group of people, so it is a proper noun when referring to the delegates at the Convention. Ltwin (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing Information

Im new here but...the term "Federal Convention" should not auto-direct to "Constitutional Convention." A Federal Convention is one called and convened by an Act of Congress; and there have been several. Just to substantiate this, a Federal Convention was called each time a new state was admitted to the union under Article IV of the Constitution. This has occurred 31 times. The Reconstruction Acts also called for a Federal Convention for each of the rebel states. The important thing here is each and every one of them were constituted by elected delegates.

I'll make a page on this once I figure out how. Assembly314 (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you got pointing out that ‘Federal Convention' should not redirect to this article. There have been multiple federal conventions worldwide. I have retargeted the redirect to Federal Convention (disambiguation). Drdpw (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)