# Who came up with the way the American government is organised? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 16, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550 "2004-10-16T14:46:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/1 "2004-10-16T14:46:56Z")
The US used to be a British colony, yet unlike lots of other ex colonies it doesn’t follow the British parliamentary model of goverment. Who came up with the US model of senate, congress etc. When was the design finalised (I realise that like all democracies still evolving)? i.e. how long after the Declaration of Independence did Americans have to wait to get a government that would be recognisable today? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/2 "2004-10-16T15:00:55Z")
> [@+MDI](#): > > The US used to be a British colony, yet unlike lots of other ex colonies it doesn’t follow the British parliamentary model of goverment. Who came up with the US model of senate, congress etc. > > When was the design finalised (I realise that like all democracies still evolving)? i.e. how long after the Declaration of Independence did Americans have to wait to get a government that would be recognisable today? The US struggled along under a government organized under the Articles of Confederation for something like 16 years after the end of the Revolution. By the late 1780’s it was decided to do something because the central government was too weak to enforce taxes, import duties or national laws in general and it hurt our internation credit and the conduct of trade. So a group was named to modify the Articles. Instead they wrote and entirely new constitution which was adopted in 1789 and that’s the form of government in use today. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/3 "2004-10-16T15:02:52Z")
How was the government under the Articles of Confederation organised? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/4 "2004-10-16T15:09:49Z")
> [@+MDI](#): > > How was the government under the Articles of Confederation organised? Someone who knows for sure will probably be along shortly. I’ve cited a copy of the Articles and there are a lot of on-line sources. Search Articles of Confederation. It was a relatively loose [confederation of relatively independent states.](http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html) ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Lao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dr.Lao](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Lao)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/5 "2004-10-16T15:12:52Z")
No one really came up with it. It was the result of compromise. The bicameral legislature recognizes the power of the states and the power of the majority ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/6 "2004-10-16T15:47:05Z")
It’s true that the current system was established with the Constitution and remains essentially unchanged. But it’s also true that the U.S. never at any time had a British-style parliament or prime minister. A Congress was already in place at the time of the Declaration of Independence. This Congress was a collection of representatives from each of the colonies, although they were appointed rather than citizen-elected. The idea of the colonies, or nascent states, being the core division is already a very different notion than the British division into boroughs or ridings. It’s this underlying reality of virtually autonomous separate areas coming together to build a system from the bottom up that creates the fundamental distinction to the British system, which was top-down in all ways that mattered. The Constitution codifies this, but is basically just a better and more workable political compromise from the Articles of Confederation or the earlier ad hoc Congresses than a qualitative change in government. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/7 "2004-10-16T16:48:19Z")
I think part of the answer as to why the US did not adopt the Westminster system is that it became independent before the Westminster system was adopted in Westminster. Back in the late 18th century, the English monarch really did govern, though he or she did have to get certain things through Parliament, like supply bills. It was in the 19th century that the monarch became a figurehead. The British changed that because the Prime Minister, owing his position to support from the electorate, had the moral and political authority that a hereditary monarch did not. On the other hand, the US had an elected monarch in the president, so the president retained and expanded on the powers of the British monarch (subject, again, to what he could get through Congress). The other thing is that the writers of the US Constitution were concerned about separation of powers between the three branches of government. This has never been much of an issue with the British constitution: the executive and the legislature are intertwined, with the Prime Minister at the head of both. (The British judiciary is more independent, though you still have the House of Lords as a body exercising both legislative and judicial functions). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/8 "2004-10-16T19:06:23Z")
No cite, but I once read that the U.S. Constitution was roughly modeled on the state constitution of New York. But that raises the question of why New York had a separation-of-powers system instead of a parliamentary system. Why none of the colonies ever developed parliamentary government, I cannot say – probably it was because there was an elected legislature and an appointed royal governor in every colony, and the idea of a colonial legislature putting up its own “prime minister” might have seemed like a treasonous challenge to the governor’s authority; and then, after independence, the states simply stuck with that model, but with an elected governor. Whatever actually inspired the separation-of-powers system, theoretical justification for it was found in the political writings of Baron Montesquieu. The _Federalist Papers_ cites Montesquieu and asserts that for the creator of the laws to also be their enforcer is "the very definition of “tyranny”. Which might have seemed plausible at the time, looking at Britain which was – then – effectively a tyranny, not of the king, but of the landed gentry that controlled Parliament. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/9 "2004-10-16T19:15:06Z")
You can find that discussion, by the way, in _The Federalist_ No. 51. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/10 "2004-10-16T20:26:11Z")
I believe the State of New York may have been influenced by the system employed by the Iroquois nation, a federation of 5 tribes mostly living in New York State, formed in the 1600s. Several of the founding fathers (Benjamin Franklin for one) were great observers of the Iroquois system. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/11 "2004-10-16T20:42:31Z")
The government of the United States was organized by the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and enacted in 1789. The primary basis of the United States government prior to this had been the States, which were organized into a loose national structure by the Articles of Confederation. Many Americans realized there was a need for a stronger national government if the country was going to be stable (or even survive). So the Constitution was designed as a compromise that would produce a strong enough national government to rule the country but weak enough so the states would retain some power. Inspirations for the Constitution came from a variety of sources including existing state constitutions, British law, classical forms of government, and political theories. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/12 "2004-10-16T23:35:08Z")
I am under the impression that the basic structure of the Constitution derives from [The Virginia Plan](http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/article_34.shtml). The delegation from Virginia arrived at the Constitutional Convention with this in hand and no other delegation had anything comparable. Well, you can’t fight something with nothing so the Virginia Plan was a point of departure and formed the basic framework which was modified as the Convention proceeded. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/13 "2004-10-17T03:49:03Z")
Ah, but between the Virginia plan (for representation of states in proportion to their population) and the New Jersey plan (equal representation for each state) came the wisdom of the Connecticut compromise, with one house each way. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/14 "2004-10-17T03:53:22Z")
As to the OP, the constitutional convention hammered out pretty much all of the outstanding issues (representation in government and taxation, role and power of branches of government, powers and limitations of government, the western borders of the states (large areas west of the original 13 colonies were claimed by more than one state), how to add new states, etc.) In some cases the compromises were such that all of the signatories and states would agree on the meanings. On the rest things were left worded such that all sides agreed on the words if not the meaning and interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/15 "2004-10-17T05:07:25Z")
It’s also somewhat important to know that while the shape of the government was mostly set out by the Constitution, certain aspects of it, most importantly judicial review, evolved over time and precedent. Judicial review is not in the Constitution - the precedent for it was established by _Marbury v. Madison_ in 1803. A perceptive foreigner might notice by that that the Supreme Court itself essentially decided what its role was supposed to be. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/16 "2004-10-18T02:19:09Z")
I found a site that gives the details on every plan the Convention considered – [http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop\_ccon.html:](http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html:) > [@](#): > > Madison and the Virginia Plan > > Virginian James Madison has been called the Father of the Constitution. He arrived in Philadelphia for the Convention almost two weeks early so that he could start thinking about what he wanted the Convention to accomplish. From his point of view, there were a few main problems with the Confederation. The states were under no obligation to pay their fair share of the national budget; they violated international treaties with abandon; they ran roughshod over the authority of the Congress; and they violated each other’s rights incessantly. > > Worse, however, was Madison’s view that the liberties of the minorities in the states were being violated, particularly in economic issues. He believed that the Confederation was giving too much emphasis to state sovereignty and not enough to a national focus on consistent and fair policy and the upholding of natural rights. > > Madison’s idea, certainly not an original one, but unique for the new United States, was to recreate the United States under an entirely different form of government - a republican model. In a republic, the people are the ultimate power, and the people transfer that power to representatives. As in the United States today, the people elect their representatives to govern. This was in contrast to the Confederation model of the time, when the states appointed members of Congress. His vision included separate authorities with separate responsibilities, allowing no one to control too much of the government; and a dominant national government, curbing the power of the states. > > From Madison’s thoughts, notes, and work, the delegates from Virginia all met prior to the start of the Convention. They hammered out the details of what became known as the Virginia Plan. Its main features: > > ## A bicameral legislature (two houses) Both house’s membership determined proportionately The lower house was elected by the people The upper house was elected by the lower house The legislature was very powerful An executive was planned, but would exist to ensure the will of the legislature was carried out, and was so chosen by the legislature Formation of a judiciary, with life-terms of service The executive and some of the national judiciary would have the power to veto legislation, subject to override National veto power over any state legislation The Virginia Plan was reported to the Convention by Edmund Randolph, Virginia’s governor, on May 29, 1787. > > Sherman and the Connecticut (Great) Compromise > > Most of the debate in the first few weeks concerned the revision of the Virginia Plan. The Plan “corrected” the inequality that the one state, one vote notion inflicted upon the large states (and those, like the Southern states, that hoped to be large soon). > > Most of the details could certainly be worked out. Issues like fugitive slaves, export taxes, and import taxes were minor, when compared to the really big issue facing the Convention: representation. > > Quite frankly, the small states would never agree to a purely representational form of government. They foresaw the annexation of small, ineffective states as the populations of the large states continued to grow and their influence waned. Some, like the Delaware delegation, were instructed to leave the Convention if equal suffrage in the legislature were compromised. Large states felt the equal suffrage system to be inherently unfair, and were going to do everything they could to abolish it. Today, a conflict between the big and small states seems odd. Conflicts between states are now generally regional and regardless of size. But at the Convention, size, or anticipated size, was one big dividing line. > > The feelings of the two sides were surprises to the others - Madison and the Big State faction thought the inequality of equal suffrage to be so patently unfair that the small states would naturally accede. The small states, used to the status quo, were surprised at how forceful the big states were about proportionality, seeing the that Congress had operated so long under the equal suffrage rule. > > The subject of suffrage in the houses of the legislature proposed in the prevailing Virginia Plan came to a debate on June 9, 1787. Threats to dissolve the Convention, and, indeed, the Union, flew from one side of the issue to the other. Fortunately, when the convention adjourned that day, it did so on a Saturday evening, allowing heads to cool and deals to be made that Sunday for presentation to the Convention on Monday. On June 11, Roger Sherman of Connecticut rose on the floor and proposed: > > “That the proportion of suffrage in the 1st. branch should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more.” > > Sherman was very well-liked and well-respected among the delegates, and spoke more in the Convention than everyone except Madison. In his time, he was a leader, respected by political friend and foe alike. His opinion carried weight. He had advanced an idea such as this as far back as 1776, when it was considered too radical to be taken seriously. This time, it not only was taken seriously, but Sherman’s voicing of his compromise may have saved the Convention from doom. > > ## At first, Sherman’s plan failed and was rejected. For several weeks, and through the debate on the New Jersey Plan, his idea lay dormant until June 27 and June 28, 1787, when Marylander Luther Martin rose to speak in favor of the Compromise - his speech, long, rambling, and generally disagreeable, seemed to sound the death knell for the idea. Representation in the lower House of Congress was firmly cemented. The small states were firm in the desire for equal suffrage in the Senate. The debates continued and the big states eventually deferred to the small ones: on July 16 and July 23, the Senate we know today was finally agreed to. > > Paterson and the New Jersey Plan > > New Jersian William Paterson had a passion for order. He wanted nothing more than to put an end to the rebellions and disorder that had arisen from the current state of the national government. He feared that smaller states like his own would be overtaken by the larger ones without specific protections. > > It is no wonder, then, that Paterson and many of his small-state colleagues could not stomach the Virginia Plan. In the current Confederation, each state was perfectly equal - all had one vote on all matters in Congress. In the Virginia Plan, everything was proportionate to population. New Jersey, New Hampshire, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, and even New York felt they had to fear any attempt by the large states of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts to take away equal suffrage. They also feared the Southern states, because of the general belief (historically proven wrong) that they would soon grow to Pennsylvanian-sized populations. > > After the Virginia plan was introduced, Paterson asked for an adjournment to contemplate the Plan. On June 14 and 15, 1787, a small-state caucus met to hammer out a response to the Virginia Plan. The New Jersey plan was more or less a rebuttal of the Virginia Plan. Its main features: > > The current Congress was maintained, but granted new powers. For example, the Congress could set taxes and force their collection > An executive, elected by Congress, was created - the Plan allowed for a multi-person executive > The executives served a single term and were subject to recall based on the request of state governors > A judiciary appointed by the executives, with life-terms of service > Laws set by the Congress took precedence over state law > The New Jersey Plan was more along the lines of what the delegates had been sent to do - draft amendments to the Confederation to ensure that it functioned properly. It expanded national power without totally scrapping the old system. More over, it protected the small states from the large ones by ensuring one state, one vote. > > ## Paterson reported the plan to the Convention on June 15, 1787. It was ultimately rejected, but gave the small states a rallying point from which to defend their firm beliefs. > > Hamilton and the British Plan > > For New Yorker Alexander Hamilton, neither the Virginia Plan nor the New Jersey Plan were enough. Hamilton was well-known and well-liked in upper society in the 1780’s. He married into the aristocracy and was one of George Washington’s advisors during the Revolutionary War. In politics, he was of the general opinion that the masses could not be trusted to select the leaders of the United States. > > Hamilton proposed a new government based on a model he and the other delegates knew well, perhaps all too well: that of the British monarchy and parliament. > > Hamilton advocated virtually doing away with state sovereignty, noting that as long as there was power to be had in the states, people would aspire to acquire that power, to the detriment of the nation as a whole. His plan featured: > > A bicameral legislature > The lower house, the Assembly, was elected by the people for three year terms > The upper house, the Senate, elected by electors chosen by the people, and with a life-term of service > An executive called the Governor, elected by electors and with a life-term of service > The Governor had an absolute veto over bills > A judiciary, with life-terms of service > State governors appointed by the national legislature > National veto power over any state legislation > Hamilton reported his plan to the Convention on June 18, 1787. > > Hamilton’s plan was well-received, it seems, with general agreement that it was well thought out and complete. However, no one supported it as a model for a new form of government. The system was too similar to that of Britain, under which the Americans had long-suffered. His plan went no further. > > ## Soon after his speech, Hamilton left the Convention, only to return later. Outvoted by his fellow New Yorkers at every turn, he grew frustrated. But when he did return, he sat on the influential Committee of Style, which presented the Convention with the Constitution in nearly the form we know today. Aside from his work on this committee, for which Gouvernour Morris’s work is more renowned, Hamilton had had very little effect the outcome. However, in the struggle for ratification, Hamilton became a champion of the new Constitution, and was one of the main contributors to the Federalist Papers. > > Pinckney - step-father of the Constitution? > If Madison is the Father of the Constitution, it could be argued that Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, is its Step-Father. Who is Pinckney? you may ask. He certainly is not one of the revered names of the 18th century. History shows us that Pinckney is not an American historical icon for a few reasons; one cause was himself, the other, James Madison. > > Pinckney’s beliefs about the people of the United States contrasted sharply with those of Hamilton. Where many of Hamilton’s beliefs seem foreign to us, many of Pinckney’s are in line with our contemporary values. Almost in total contrast to his kin in the South Carolinian aristocracy, Pinckney grew to hold beliefs that the people could be trusted to make important decisions on a national scale. > > There were a few problems with Pinckney, though. Though he would go on to be governor of South Carolina, and a member of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House (and was obviously well liked and trusted by the people of South Carolina), he was considered brash, arrogant, vain. He had all the characteristics that a person such as Madison would dislike. When Pinckney submitted his plan to the Convention, Madison’s notes on his speech are uncharacteristically brief. Pinckney ensured that copies of his proposed plan were published decades after the Convention, but after Pinckney’s death, Madison disparaged Pinckney’s version of events, tainting his name. Pinckney himself made things worse, when it was discovered that his version of events, purported to have been written at the time of the Convention, were actually written just before publication. It seemed as though Pinckney was taking credit for work not his own. > > Pinckney was saved, though, in the early 1900’s, when the papers of fellow delegate James Wilson were examined and found to contain notes from Pinckney’s Plan. Upon examination, it was clear that a great deal of what Pinckney proposed eventually appeared in some form or another in the final Constitution. Among his plan’s features: > > A bicameral legislature > The lower house, the House of Delegates, was elected by the people, with proportional representation > The upper house, the Senate, elected by the House of Delegates, four per state, with four year terms > An executive called the President, elected by the legislature > A Council of Revision consisting of the President and some or all of his Cabinet, with a veto over bills > National veto power over any state legislation > A judiciary was established > Pinckney reported his plan to the Convention on May 29, 1787. > > Little in Pinckney’s was truly original. Pinckney himself had submitted a smaller but similar plan to the Congress just a few months before the Annapolis Conference. But it is clear from the accounts of other members of the Convention that Pinckney’s plan was sent on to the Committee of Detail that drafted the first copies of the Constitution, and many of his ideas and phrases are included in what we read today. ---
**Author:** ![tygerbryght](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tygerbryght](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tygerbryght)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-came-up-with-the-way-the-american-government-is-organised/269550/17 "2004-10-18T12:18:17Z")
> [@Hello Again](#): > > I believe the State of New York may have been influenced by the system employed by the Iroquois nation, a federation of 5 tribes mostly living in New York State, formed in the 1600s. Several of the founding fathers (Benjamin Franklin for one) were great observers of the Iroquois system. There was considerable discussion of the roots of the constitution [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275102). It contains copious references - you might even call it a bibliography. 🆒