Disagreement Built the Constitution

Published on LinkedIn: February 19, 2026

The Founders did not agree with one another nearly as much as we like to imagine.

The Constitution was born out of constant disagreement.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates argued relentlessly about the structure of the new government. James Madison believed in a strong national government, but one carefully restrained through separation of powers and representation. Alexander Hamilton favored an even stronger executive, with long terms and centralized authority modeled in part on the British system.

Small states and large states clashed over representation. Some delegates feared legislative dominance more than executive power. Others worried about creating anything that resembled monarchy. They disagreed about whether Congress or the people should elect the President, how long officials should serve, and even whether the entire project would succeed.

But beneath those disagreements, the Framers were united on something deeper: core principles drawn from the long history of failed republics.

They agreed that concentrated power is dangerous. They agreed that ambition must be checked by ambition. And they agreed that liberty depends on dividing authority among branches that can restrain one another.

That shared understanding is why they created separation of powers, checks and balances, and a constitutional structure designed to slow the abuse of power.

The Constitution was not a consensus on details. It was a unity of purpose around first principles.

The Founders didn’t agree on everything. But they agreed on what mattered most.