Posted on 06/09/2011 2:42:41 AM PDT by Jacquerie
(The Randolph/Virginia Plan largely sailed through the first two weeks, to the consternation of the Small States. The Large State coalition was, VA, PA, MA, GA, SC, NC. These six had a working majority because RI and NH were absent. As Freeper Repeal The 17th pointed out a couple days ago, GA had low population as per the first Census, but it was assumed the Southern State populations would rapidly grow as they expanded to the West and would overtake, population wise, the Northeastern States. This coalition however, was fragile. PA and MA had little in common, economically, socially with the three Southern States aside from size. We know of course how the issue ended, the Small States got their equality in the Senate. But at the time, before the Large States compromised, it was an issue that threatened to destroy the Convention.)
Luther Martin (MD) took his seat. (Mr. Martin was an eccentric lawyer, statewide politician and well known supporter of State sovereignty. One of my references wondered if his appearance prompted the start of the Small State pushback.)
Still in Committee of the Whole. Elbridge Gerry (MA) proposed state governor election of the Executive, according to the proportion of votes used to elect Senators. He predicted too much intrigue and lack of independence if Congress elected the Executive. Governors could be counted on to elect the fittest of men.
(So in Gerry’s mind, one house was elected directly by the people, one house by the state legislatures, and the Executive was to be elected by state governors. Once again we see the balancing act of democrat v. federal representation. Either the people or the states in some capacity will elect/appoint the members of two branches. Which will it be?)
Governor Edmund Randolph (VA) disagreed on every point. Small states wouldn’t stand a chance of seeing their men elected. Governors would not be familiar with men outside their states. As a creature of the states, the Executive would not forcefully defend the country against state encroachments.
Mr. Gerry’s motion to have governors elect the Executive was defeated, 10-0-1.
(It was a good thing I wasn’t there, I think the idea had more merit than the vote indicated.)
(Next, the Small State counterattack.)
William Patterson (NJ) moved and David Brearly (NJ) seconded a motion to reconsider suffrage in Congress.
David Brearly (NJ) reminded the convention of the contentious nature of equal representation in Congress as eventually agreed to under the Articles of Confederation. It was essential to small state survival. Using a population ratio instead appeared fair, but was actually unjust. If proportional representation was used, the three large states, VA, MA, PA would “carry every thing before them.” In order to have any weight at all, the small states would have to select one of the large states as an ally. This disagreement between large and small states was so fundamental, that he offered a tongue in check solution; take out a map, erase state boundaries and redraw the states into equal parts.
William Patterson (NJ) regarded proportional representation as a mortal assault on the existence of small states. He refuted the power of the convention to discuss any alterations outside the limits of the Articles. State commissions under which they acted never considered a national government as opposed to a federal one. The people were not ready for anything other than the federal scheme. He drew a distinction between confederacies and nations. If we wished to become a nation, the states must be abolished.
He went on to compare large/small state suffrage to rich man/poor man suffrage. Do wealthy individuals have more votes? Patterson did not agree that a national government operating on individuals must depend on representatives drawn from the people. The present arrangement of the people selecting their state representatives who select members to Congress need only be amended. Better define the “orbits” of the states and provide for coercion to force state compliance with Congress.
Let the large states confederate among themselves if necessary; they cannot compel small states to join them. He would rather submit to a monarch, or a despot. If the plan as proposed is approved by the convention, he would fight it at home with every thing in his power.
James Wilson (PA) spoke of a dissolved confederacy. As for equal state representation under the Articles, it was only the emergency of the times that produced it. Equal numbers of people should have equal representation. Were the citizens of PA not equal in rights to those of NJ? In NJ it was impossible to talk of government on any other basis. Erasure of state lines for a new partition is desirable but would never happen.
Hugh Williamson (NC) noted that proportional representation was the general rule in the States.
(Mr. Patterson realized the question was about to be put, and the Small States would lose. If they lost, it was likely DE and probably NJ, NY would have left the Convention, leaving eight States. Instead, he motioned for postponement of the question, which passed. It can be said with little exaggeration, that Mr. Patterson saved the US on June 9th, 1787.)
Adjourned.
(The next day, June 10th was Sunday. No Convention. It is thought that Roger Sherman (CN) and some Small State delegates met to discuss a compromise, a proportionally based House and equal State representation in the Senate.)
Constitutional Convention Ping!
thanks!
Might be interesting to compare notes...Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York, and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention.
SATURDAY, JUNE 9TH, 1787.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Motion by Mr. Gerry to reconsider the appointment of the national executive.
That the national executive be appointed by the State executives.
He supposed that in the national legislature there will be a great number of bad men of various descriptions-these will make a wrong appointment. Besides, an executive thus appointed, will have his partiality in favor of those who appointed him-that this will not be the case by the effect of his motion, and the executive will by this means be independent of the national legislature, but the appointment by the State executives ought to be made by votes in proportion to their weight in the scale of the representation.
Mr. Randolph opposes the motion. The power vested by it is dangerous- confidence will be wanting-the large States will be masters of the election-an executive ought to have great experience, integrity, and activity. The executives of the States cannot know the persons properly qualified as possessing these. An executive thus appointed will court the officers of his appointment, and will relax him in the duties of commander of the militia-Your single executive is already invested with negativing laws of the State. Will he duly exercise the power? Is there no danger in the combinations of States to appoint such an executive as may be too favorable to local State governments? Add to this the expense and difficulty of bringing the executives to one place to exercise their powers. Can you suppose they will ever cordially raise the great oak, when they must sit as shrubs under its shade?
Carried against the motion, 10 noes, and Delaware divided.
On motion of Mr. Patterson, the consideration of the 2d resolve was taken up, which is as follows: Resolved, therefore, that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be apportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of inhabitants, as the one or other rule may seem best in different cases.
Judge BREARLY. -The present question is an important one. On the principle that each State in the Union was sovereign, congress, in the articles of confederation, determined that each State in the public councils had one vote. If the States still remain sovereign, the form of the present resolve is founded on principles of injustice. He then stated the comparative weight of each State-the number of votes 90. Georgia would be 1, Virginia 16, and so of the rest. This vote must defeat itself, or end in despotism. If we must have a national government, what is the remedy? Lay the map of the confederation on the table, and extinguish the present boundary lines of the respective State jurisdictions, and make a new division so that each State is equal-then a government on the present system will be just.
Mr. Patterson opposed the resolve. Let us consider with what powers are we sent here? (moved to have the credentials of Massachusetts read, which was done.) By this and the other credentials we see, that the basis of our present authority is founded on a revision of the articles of the present confederation, and to alter or amend them in such parts where they may appear defective. Can we on this ground form a national government? I fancy not. - Our commissions give a complexion to the business; and can we suppose that when we exceed the bounds of our duty, the people will approve our proceedings?
We are met here as the deputies of 13 independent, sovereign States, for federal purposes. Can we consolidate their sovereignty and form one nation, and annihilate the sovereignties of our States who have sent us here for other purposes?
What, pray, is intended by a proportional representation? Is property to be considered as part of it? Is a man, for example, possessing a property of 4000 to have 40 votes to one possessing only 100? This has been asserted on a former occasion. If State distinctions are still to be held up, shall I submit the welfare of the State of New Jersey, with 5 votes in the national council, opposed to Virginia who has 16 votes? Suppose, as it was in agitation before the war, that America had been represented in the British parliament, and had sent 200 members; what would this number avail against 600? We would have been as much enslaved in that case as when unrepresented; and what is worse, without the prospect of redress. But it is said that this national government is to act on individuals and not on States; and cannot a federal government be so framed as to operate in the same way? It surely may. I therefore declare, that I will never consent to the present system, and I shall make all the interest against it in the State which I represent that I can. Myself or my State will never submit to tyranny or despotism.
Upon the whole, every sovereign State, according to a confederation, must have an equal vote, or there is an end to liberty. As long, therefore, as State distinctions are held up, this rule must invariably apply; and if a consolidated national government must take place, then State distinctions must cease, or the States must be equalized.
Mr. Wilson was in favor of the resolve. He observed that a majority, nay, even a minority of the States, have a right to confederate with each other, and the rest may do as they please. He considered numbers as the best criterion to determine representation. Every citizen of one State possesses the same rights with the citizen of another. Let us see how this rule will apply to the present question. Pennsylvania, from its numbers, has a right to 12 votes, when on the same principle New Jersey is entitled to 5 votes. Shall New Jersey have the same right or influence in the councils of the nation with Pennsylvania? I say no. It is unjust-I never will confederate on this plan. The gentleman from New Jersey is candid in declaring his opinion-I commend him for it-I am equally so. I say again, I never will confederate on his principles. If no State will part with any of its sovereignty, it is in vain to talk of a national government. The State who has five times the number of inhabitants ought, nay must have the same proportion of weight in the representation. If there was a probability of equalizing the States, he would be for it. But we have no such power. If, however, we depart from the principles of representation in proportion to numbers, we will lose the object of our meeting.
The question postponed for farther consideration.
Adjourned to to-morrow morning.
“A national government ought to be able to support itself without the aid or interference of the State governments, ...therefore it was necessary to have full sovereignty. Even with corporate rights the States will be dangerous to the national government, and ought to be extinguished, new modified, or reduced to a smaller scale.”
Alexander Hamilton
Great stuff! Thanks again...
A convention is about all it would take to obliterate what is left of our constitution.
Alexander Hamilton is a perfect example of why natural born citizens are required for the presidency. (So is Obumster)
I review the available notes of all delegates. When they have something to add to Madison, I include it. Yates had nothing to add; his notes mirrored Madison’s today. To post his notes or others for the mere sake of doing so is just so much spam.
As for a Constitutional Convention, replace Madison, Wilson, Sherman with Sheila Jackson Lee, Bawney Fwank, Pelosi . . . too hideous to imagine.
LOL. You’re funny. I’m going to post Yates notes on your threads. I think it will be an interesting addition.
And by the way, with as little action as your posts are getting, a little added info should be welcome. If nothing else, you can use the bump. As it is, they are the proverbial tree in the forest that no one hears.
Okay, it will save me the time of reading him.
Off topic, slightly. Your tagline “antifederalists were right” brought to mind my discussion with my 13 year old daughter. Helping her with U.S. history homework and the discussion of Federalists and AntiFederalists.
It seems that the teacher, and many of the modern-day references equate the Federalists with Republicans, and the anti-Federalists with Democrats. At the time I can perhaps see that (if there were Dems and Pubs around!).
But today - I see the conservatives being the anti-feds, and the dems as the Feds and gave example and references to my daughter. My daughter agreed and tried to explain that in class to no avail. I told her not to worry about it. The dems view themselves as the champion of the free man, the worker, bringing equal rights to the small guy, etc. so they have their mind set on the “little guy”. However, they use the Big Guy (Big Government) to accomplish their goals - which to me makes them Federalists.
Or am I the one that is confused?
You appear to care deeply about getting attention. Has it been a life long affliction?
But in terms of modern day, it makes no sense. Think about it, the Constitutional Convention was held in secret. The Federalists exceeded their authority in order to massively expand the power of the central government, and claimed that it must be passed or else catastrophe awaited. Who does that remind you of?
Meanwhile, the antifeds wanted to keep the states in control, did not want to exceed their authority, and distrusted the centralizing impulses of the Federalists. Who does that sound like?
But nowadays, basically, there are no antifederalists. The conservative movement is predominantly federalist in nature. It exalts the Constitution, which is a Federalist creation.
The closest thing to antifeds would be fringe libertarians, old South rebels, etc, but even they aren't really there. They want to believe that the Constitution, properly applied, supports their views. It doesn't.
The Constitution leads inevitably to where we are today. It is a centralizing document. It is about the consolidation of power. Look at the Hamilton and Madison quotes on my profile page for an inkling of what I mean.
But that's me. I'm extreme. The Federalists are too liberal for me. I would like to see the US go back to confederation, but I know that won't happen. We're stuck with big government. In short, I believe that the framers screwed the pooch.
Not at all. I just like getting antifederalist information into the discussion, since it is so woefully underrepresented in conservative discussion. This is a perfect place to add that voice.
Go to my profile page, click the link to Brutus' essays and just read the first one for an overview, and it'll blow your mind. The antifeds are treated as a sideshow or villians, and the Framers are the supposed geniuses, but that's just because they won the political battle. Check it out and see who makes more sense--Publius or Brutus. One promised a rose garden, the other hit the nail on the head.
Why were proceedings kept secret?
Why did the Convention propose to replace the Articles of Confederation?
Why has it taken so long for us to stand at the abyss of tyranny? If the Constitution is responsible, why so long?
If you like the Confederacy, you must love the United Nations.
Because the Federalists didn't want word to get out what they were up to until they had their ducks in a row.
Why did the Convention propose to replace the Articles of Confederation?
The "convention" did no such thing. Many protested that it was exceeding their authority. Some walked out because of it. The Federalists arriived with a variety of centralizing plans already drafted, because this was their opportunity to centralize the colonies into one consolidated government.
Why has it taken so long for us to stand at the abyss of tyranny? If the Constitution is responsible, why so long?
The southern states would argue it only took a short time. War broke out by 1861, but the hostilities, all a result of consolidation, were already brewing by the 1820s, just 30 years or so after ratification.
If you like the Confederacy, you must love the United Nations.
No, I'm not an internationalist. Far from it. Confederacies should be small, and republics even smaller. Just think, many thought the original 13 colonies were too big for one republic! A ratio of 30,000/1 representation was thought insufficient! Now it's 500,000/1!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.