3.8: Roger Sherman and George Mason: Self-Educated Sages of the Constitutional Convention

The first formal meeting to reassess the Articles of Confederation was held in Annapolis, Maryland in September 1786, at about the same time as Shays’ Rebellion.  Only five states bothered to send any delegates, and there was really only one thing that was accomplished: they decided to try again the following May in Philadelphia.  That one would enjoy better attendance, and produce a much different result: the U.S. Constitution.   Many famous names were counted as attendees, but we intend to focus on the name most closely associated with this deal...and one who favored change, but refused to sign the Constitution.  In this episode of History: Beyond the Textbook, we’ll learn about compromise and dissent at the Constitutional Convention through the lens of two men: Roger Sherman and George Mason, the self-educated Sages of the Philadelphia Convention.

Key People
Roger Sherman
George Mason
Alexander Hamilton
George Washington
Edmund Randolph

Key Events/Ideas
Philadelphia/Constitutional Convention
Annapolis Convention
Great Compromise
Mount Vernon Conference

The third season of History: Beyond the Textbook focuses on the stories of individuals who shaped "America's Crucial Years" of 1783-1790, and runs from October 8-December 24. Catch up on Season One, "America's Colonial Era," and Season Two, "America's Revolution," wherever you listen to your podcasts!

Feel free to contact us with feedback or questions by clicking the "Send Us a Text" link or email us at: hbttpodcast@gmail.com

Transcript

It was a convention designed to honestly assess the government as it operated under the Articles of Confederation.  It was attended by esteemed politicians such as John Dickinson, war veterans like Alexander Hamilton, and up-and-coming influencers like James Madison.  Not every state would send delegates to this convention, but those in attendance would agree that something needed to be done…sounds like the Constitutional Convention, right?  Well, not exactly.  This particular meeting took place in Annapolis, Maryland in September 1786, at about the same time as Shays’ Rebellion was taking place.  Only five states bothered to send any delegates, and there was really only one thing that was accomplished: they decided to try again the following May in Philadelphia.  That one would enjoy better attendance, and produce a much different result: the U.S. Constitution.  Now, it might sound a bit blase to base an episode on this convention, and by extension, the compromises that were agreed upon at said meeting, but bear in mind that we are attempting to focus on people and events that you may have learned about in school, and this episode will focus on the name most closely associated with this deal...and one who favored change, but refused to sign the Constitution.  In this episode of History: Beyond the Textbook, we’ll learn about compromise and dissent at the Constitutional Convention through the lens of two men: Roger Sherman and George Mason, the self-educated Sages of the Philadelphia Convention.

Act I: Annapolis
One of the many failings of the United States under the Articles of Confederation was its inability to regulate interstate commerce, meaning that states set their own rules and regulations with regard to trade with one another. James Madison even wrote to his friend Thomas Jefferson, in France at the time, about “the present anarchy of our commerce,”  Recognizing this shortcoming, the Confederation Congress allowed for a convention to be held in Annapolis, Maryland, in September 1786 to discuss what could be done about this problem, the meeting we referenced at the beginning of the show.  New York state appointed six delegates, of which Alexander Hamilton was one: only two of them ended up attending.  The fact that only five of the thirteen states bothered to send anyone to Annapolis was illustrative of the ineffectual nature of national government under the Articles of Confederation.  Those delegates who did attend agreed that the problems with the United States went way beyond simple problems with interstate commerce: the entire framework of the Articles of Confederation needed to be completely revised.  Note the phrase revised, not “replaced.”  Alexander Hamilton ended up writing the appeal to the states, known as the “Annapolis Address,” reasoning that an additional convention was needed to overhaul the problems that had been brewing for some time, and which we addressed in multiple episodes this season.  In May 1787, the Philadelphia Convention would open, and whichever delegates each state selected would try to solve these problems to forge a stronger nation.

Act II: Cobbler Made Good
Roger Sherman is arguably best known for his role in orchestrating the “Great Compromise,” also known as the “Connecticut Compromise” since that was his home state; this was the deal that gave us the makeup of Congress as we know it today.  We’ll begin with Sherman’s background because it made him a bit more unlikely of a candidate to attend the convention in Philadelphia.

Roger Sherman came from a background that was much more modest than most of his political contemporaries: one of the older delegates, the 66-year old Sherman spent his early years learning how to become a cobbler, like his father before him.  Also unlike many of his contemporaries in Philadelphia, Sherman really had little formal education to speak of beyond primary schooling: the phrase “school of life” best describes the early educational experiences of Roger Sherman, yet almost all biographies of the man indicate that he was a voracious reader.  Sherman’s father died when the former was in his early 20’s, and this prompted a family move to the Connecticut town of New Milford, about 50 miles west of the current capital of Hartford.  The next two decades saw Roger Sherman become something of a Renaissance man that would give the illustrious Benjamin Franklin a run for his money: he opened up a cobbler shop with his brother that slowly morphed into a type of general store and would take up land surveying.  Upon the purchase of said land, Sherman would try his hand at farming, and slowly become one of the most respected and prominent residents of New Milford, even using his prior experiences to become a county surveyor.  Despite his lack of college education, he self-studied the law and passed the bar exam in 1754, the same year that George Washington helped set off the French and Indian War.  His stellar reputation would lead to his appointment, at different times, as a judge of varying levels, and his skills as a juror were unmatched.  It’s little wonder that Roger Sherman would be selected to serve as a representative to the First Continental Congress in 1774.  

Roger Sherman’s public, and thereby, political, career leading up to the Philadelphia Convention reads like a history teacher’s list of critical events in American history.  He held strong Patriot leanings, and would claim in response to the first of the Intolerable Acts that “no laws bind the people but such as they consent to be Governed by.”  It’s not quite “no taxation without representation,” but it certainly is a clear indicator of the direction he believed his government should take.  He served in the First Continental Congress and signed onto the agreed-upon economic boycott of British goods; as a shopkeeper, he was fully aware of the costs of this move.  The following year, he returned as part of the Second Continental Congress and was appointed to serve on the Committee of Five: you know, the one that emerged with the Declaration of Independence.  John Adams counted him as one of his good friends and would describe Sherman as “one of the most sensible men in the world.”  In addition to this important task, he also served on the committee that John Dickinson headed…the one that emerged with the Articles of Confederation.  Roger Sherman was always there, usually providing valuable input at the most crucial of times, but he has usually been relegated to the sidelines in traditional narratives.  Part of the explanation for his omission may be hidden in his perceived lack of refinement: this was an era of the impeccably articulate politician who usually made long-winded speeches referencing the Greeks and the Romans.  Apparently, this wasn’t Sherman’s style: John Adams, with whom he would serve on the Board of War, claimed that even his manner of speaking left something to be desired and that “...the motion of his hands…is stiffness and awkwardness itself.”  Hardly praise from his good friend, but this didn’t matter: Sherman was renowned for his judgment and work ethic, so upon the end of his service in the Congress at war’s end, he returned home to Connecticut…for now.

Act III: The Reclusive Planter
I actually remember the first time I ever heard of George Mason: it was my Senior year of high school, and the choir was on a Spring Break trip to Disney World.  This was at the same time as March Madness, and there was a true Cinderella team that made the Final Four that year:  eleventh-seeded George Mason University shocked the college basketball world by upsetting #1-ranked UConn, which meant that for an entire week, America asked itself, “Who on Earth is George Mason?”  Again, I was a Senior in high school, so I wasn’t much focused on the historical answer, so we’ll use this act to make up for that oversight.

George Mason of Gunston Hall…it’s hard to find a reference to the man that doesn’t acknowledge the place.  Gunston Hall is the massive 5,000-plus acre plantation where Mason would spend the vast majority of his life…seriously, the majority of his life, save for his forays into public service and visits to his nearby close friend, George Washington.  The plantation was located on what was eventually called Mason’s Neck between the Occoquan and Potomac Rivers, contained the second largest number of enslaved individuals in the county in which it was located (second only to Washington’s Mount Vernon), and allowed Mason to live the life as true landed gentry, albeit on his own terms.  He was the fourth generation of Masons in Virginia, and was actually the fourth George Mason, who resided in Eastern Virginia: the Masons were so well-established that they were among the most prominent in the colony, sharing company with stalwarts such as the Randolphs, Lees, and Dandridges (Martha Washington’s family).  As opposed to the reputation of his political contemporaries, Mason preferred to spend his time alone in Gunston Hall and take advantage of the ample library he had at his disposal, similar to Roger Sherman.  Also similar to Sherman, he spent a good portion of his life involved in legal affairs since large landowners generally were responsible for such matters in his home of Fairfax County.  He served on the bench for most of his adult life, and even conducted research on colonial charters on behalf of Rufus Putnam’s Ohio Company, of which Mason served as treasurer for a quarter-century.  He is often described as something of a loner and a very private man, choosing his books and intimate conversations with select guests instead of attending public functions.  Even in his home setting, when he was conducting any type of work, such as research for legal or historical purposes, it was understood within Gunston Hall that Mason would be “absented as it were from his Family sometimes for weeks altogether,” going so far as to oppose interruption for any purpose.  

As to the reasons why he would occasionally venture away from his beloved Gunston Hall, they absolutely merit significant attention.  As a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1774, he became aware of Parliament’s Intolerable Acts and is believed to have played a role in composing the resolution that formally opposed these laws.  Shortly thereafter, at the request of Washington, Mason wrote the Fairfax Resolves that attempted to counter Parliament’s assertion of her complete authority over the American colonies.  When George Washington left to attend the Second Continental Congress with Roger Sherman, Mason reluctantly left Gunston Hall and his nine children to take his place as delegate to the third Virginia Convention: it was here that he served on the Committee of Safety and wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights.  Last season, we covered the influence that Thomas Paine’s Common Sense had on the final Declaration of Independence, but Mason’s pen enjoyed just as much influence on that document.  Included in Virginia’s version were clearly defined rights that citizens would enjoy, such as the right to a speedy public trial in their locality.  As each state began to write their own constitutions, they would draw heavily on Mason’s work in including the inclusion of rights at the state level, perhaps foreshadowing Mason’s displeasure with the seemingly national Constitution.

We don’t mean to minimize what Mason did for the rest of the war, but we’ll simply acknowledge that he served predominantly at the state level when it came to politics, despite the wishes of Washington and others that he would serve nationally with the Continental Congress.  Once the Peace of Paris was made official, Mason returned to Gunston Hall, but two years later he participated in what became known as the “Mount Vernon Conference.”  The purpose of the meeting was to resolve a dispute between Maryland and Virginia over trade, fishing, and navigation on the Potomac River, that body of water which would someday flow through the federal capital…and that Washington felt held the key to western settlement.  George Mason joined his lifelong friend with four Marylanders and agreed that the Potomac would serve as a highway which residents of both states would enjoy…Mason went further in recommending that a conference such as this should be held annually.  There were other specifics, but the fact remains that individuals from two states took it upon themselves to resolve an issue without the consent of the Confederation Congress…something that was explicitly forbidden by the Articles of Confederation.  It’s yet another example of why the men in Philadelphia would advocate for a complete change in the current national government, with Mason starting out as a proponent of said change and finding a legitimate reason to journey away from Gunston Hall.

Act IV: Much Ado About Congress
So here we are: Philadelphia, May 1787.  Granted, this act will place the emphasis on our two principal characters and the resulting debates about what Congress would look like, but the discussions that occurred during this summer will come up through the rest of this season.

I know what you’re thinking, “Really, Congress?  You’re going to spend time talking about Congress?”  Indeed, we are, because this was the issue that the delegates to Philadelphia cared the most about.  The major grievances that the Americans colonists had with England were mainly leveled at Parliament, and the phrase “no taxation without representation” was also predominantly aimed at England’s legislative body, so this was the part of the government that mattered the most to these men.  The real work began on the third day when Virginia delegate Edmund Randloph, who would not sign the final document, declared that the Articles of Confederation should be scrapped in favor of a wholly new constitution.  As the most prepared and well-read delegate, James Madison arrived with a comprehensive plan of what the nation should look like, and his fellow Virginians, including George Mason, all arrived in time to present their vision to the rest of the convention.

In one of George Mason’s many letters to his son, he claimed that the Virginia delegation met every day for about 2-3 hours so they could collaborate on this vision.  The so-called Virginia Plan initially called for two houses in one Congress, which makes sense to us today, but proportional representation in both houses.  Translation: each state would receive a specific number of representatives based on their state’s population.  This was not only unacceptable to small states like Sherman’s Connecticut, who feared domination from the large states, but also from states with large numbers of enslaved individuals: given the legal status of these people as property, how would they be counted when it came to state population?  The quick answer is the unfortunate Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted three-fifths of the enslaved populace towards the entire state population.  We’ll go into more detail on this unfortunate compromise towards the end of this season, but with the “population” question out of the way, it was time to settle the long-winded debate on Congress.  This issue would stretch well into the summer and would be countered by what was called the “New Jersey Plan” that called for one branch of Congress with each state receiving one vote: equal representation was the norm with the Articles of Confederation, so why not continue this precedent?  Textbooks point to the “Connecticut Compromise,” or the “Great Compromise,” as breaking this deadlock.  Why is this the case?

For starters, Roger Sherman took the lead on the committee that was responsible for solving this issue, and he was from Connecticut, so that clues us into the naming of the solution.  And even though the experienced Sherman was in favor of a more nationalistic bent to the new government, he was still a small-state man who did not wish to see the interests of his constituents dominated by New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.  Physical awkwardness aside, as a respected legal mind, people listened when he spoke.  And speak he did: only three men including James Madison, were recorded as speaking more times to the convention than the former cobbler.  He sought a way to balance the competing interests of the states, but he also made it clear that his delegation would leave if proportional representation was the only way that Congressional delegates would be distributed.  The committee’s representative from Vigrinia was George Mason, and he was starting to doubt the direction that the debates were going as he was a true believer in state power.  A version of the compromise, voted on in mid-July, had originally been proposed by Sherman in the opening weeks of the convention, and the agreement was as follows: one house of congress would be representative based on population, the House of Representatives.  The other would provide for equal representation regardless of population, today’s Senate.  Representatives to the House would serve two-year terms and enjoy direct election via the people, while Senators would serve six-year terms and enjoy the appointment via state legislatures.  Appropriations bills, or bills dealing with spending, had to start in the House of Representatives, and population would be determined partially using the Three-Fifths Compromise.  The interests of small states, large states, slave states, and non-slave states were supposedly balanced…and Sherman took the lead with a supporting role from Mason.

So what became of these two?  Roger Sherman, as we know, would be forever remembered as the broker of the Great Compromise with his contributions to the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation going mostly unnoticed.  He would end his respected public career as a Representative to the first Congress, and then as a Senator, dying in his sleep in 1793.  As for Greorge Mason, he was one of three delegates to Philadelphia who refused to sign the final document, along with fellow Virginian Edmund Randolph and curmudgeonly Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry.  His biggest issue: slavery.  He spoke out multiple times aginst slavery most passionately railing aginst the inclusion of a clause that allowed the trans-Atlantic slave trade to continue for at least another 20 years.  This might seem odd given that his Gunston Hall held hundreds in bondage, but he referred to the rampant human trafficking, or “infamous traffic,” as a “disgraceful trade.”  His attitude certainly represents one of the largest paradoxes of the founding generation with regard to America’s “Original Sin,” but he was dead-set against the Constitution.  He’ll factor into our next story about ratifying the Constitution, but his opposition to this, along with his refusal to sign the Constitution, severed his long-standing friendship with Washington.  He died one year before Sherman did, and his passing was noted only by his close friends, whereas Sherman received national coverage.  George Mason and Roger Sherman may not be covered in as much glory as their contemporaries, but their lives personify the perseverance and “can-do” attitude that characterizes the American spirit.

Next week, we’ll conclude our three-episode arc on “transition” during the Crucial Years by highlighting two individuals who spoke out against the Constitution.  In our next episode of History: Beyond the Textbook, we look at Mercy Otis Warren and Patrick Henry: Anti-Federalist Antagonists of Constitutional Ratification.