Why were some delegations opposed to having a presidential to lead the executive branch

Some delegations at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were opposed to having a single person, a president, lead the executive branch for several reasons:

1. Fear of Tyranny: One of the principal fears was the potential return to a system of governance akin to the monarchy from which the American colonists had recently declared independence. Many delegates were worried that a strong executive could become tyrannical and abuse power.

2. Concentration of Power: There was a concern that centralizing too much power in the hands of one individual could upset the balance of power that they wanted to establish between the different branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial).

3. Representation and Accountability: Some delegates believed that a single president would not adequately represent the diverse interests of the new nation. They thought that an executive committee or a plural executive might be more effective in representing the different states and would have a system of internal checks to avoid misuse of power.

4. Historical Precedent: The experience under the British monarchy led many to be skeptical of any form of concentrated executive power. As a result, the idea of collective leadership, such as that of the Roman Republic or the contemporary Swiss Confederation, was sometimes suggested as preferable.

Despite these concerns, the Convention ultimately agreed upon a single-president executive model with a system of checks and balances to address these fears, ensuring the president would be limited by the other branches of government.