The Pros And Cons Of The Philadelphia Convention

738 Words 3 Pages
The Government that was created after the Revolutionary war was too weak to mend the conflicts that were arising from the States; the Government was operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Philadelphia Convention agreed to help correct some of the holes in the Articles that had long since been determined even before the war. The Philadelphia Convention was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from May 14th to September 17th in the year of 1787. Even though the Convention was actually proposed to revise the articles, James Madison, residing from Virginia, and Alexander Hamilton, from New York, had something entirely different in mind. Madison and Hamilton did not intend on revising the Articles but rather creating a new Government rather than fixing the one that was already agreed upon. George Washington, Virginia, was elected as president of the convention. The Founding Fathers, known as the 55 delegates who originally drafted the constitution were in attendance. George Mason, residing from Virginia, proposed the addition of the Bill of Rights on September 12th, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts agreed and made the motion official. Unfortunately at first this motion was defeated after a brief discussion. Following the Philadelphia …show more content…
After revisions and much discussion the final version was approved on September 25, 1789. The Bill of Rights had little impact on the judicial system during its first one hundred fifty years. The Supreme Court spent much of the 19th century focused on issues related to the balances of power. However in the twentieth century, the provisions were applied to the states during a process known as incorporation. The National Archives and the New York Library both have displayed copies of the Bill of Rights. In 1941 President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared December 15th to be Bill of Rights

Related Documents