Committee of the Whole. Patterson Plan continued.
James Madison (VA) pointed out that Mr. Patterson’s plan had elements outside of the strict federalism some believed were required in any recommendation by the convention. (What followed was probably Madison’s best speech of the Convention)
As for unanimous consent to dissolve that which had been created by unanimous consent, that logic did not hold when applied to treaties, or “compacts between states.” The states regularly ignored specific clauses in the Articles. It was an existing compact in name only. NJ went so far as to specifically via law, deny a tax requisition from Congress. He thought an examination of the nature of confederacies would be helpful, for it would show them to be poor foundations to build upon.
A proper plan would: 1. Preserve the Union. 2. Remedy the evils both felt and caused by the states.
(Mr. Madison was a member of Congress 1781-1783. According to him, the Patterson Plan did nothing to prevent the states from upsetting treaties with foreign powers. Calamities would result.)
States would continue to assume powers assigned to Congress under the Articles. States had no authority to make treaties with Indian tribes or enter into compacts on their own, yet VA/MD and PA/NJ did so. MA has raised troops. What happened was endemic to confederacies; the parts will encroach on the whole.
Next, there followed a review of ancient and modern confederacies. All kept to form; confusion and ruin were brought on by members. Inadequate control over members was a serious defect in the Patterson Plan.
Another was that ratification of Patterson’s Plan would be by state legislatures, whereas the state legislatures were elected by the people. In this regard, the Acts of the states were legally paramount to those of Congress.
The Judiciary had only appellate jurisdiction, even in criminal cases. He thought undue acquittals in state courts necessitated this provision. Yet was it realistic that an acquitted man would face another trial, this time at the federal level? Besides, in most states, the governor has the power to pardon.
What of equal rights among citizens of the several states? Article IV of the Articles entitled citizens of one state to equal enjoyment of other state’s “privileges and immunities.” Despite this, VA and MD gave preference to their citizens over citizens of other states. Paper money was another transgression. It could lead to conflict between the states. (Is there any wonder why the convention considered Congressional veto over state laws?)
Would the Patterson Plan secure peace within the states? Shays’ Rebellion? I do not sufficiently follow Madison’s subsequent treatment of republics. If I understand, in his theory of republican government, the majority in all situations have legitimate, unquestionable powers and rights over the minority. Yet, experience has proven otherwise.
Mr. Madison thought a well designed national government would promote better State Laws, as opposed to the Articles.
Madison then implied foreign machinations with individual states. Further outside influence was expected.
He accused the small states in general of occasionally not providing salary for their members of Congress, which resulted in non-attendance and occasional lack of quorums to conduct business. In one situation, a delegate ostensibly from DE was actually a citizen and office holder in PA. Later on, DE was represented by another citizen of PA and two from NJ.
Armed force will never be implemented against larger states, but possibly only on the smaller.
Consider the consequences of refusing to consider a plan outside of the Articles. Perhaps dissolution of the union and formation of smaller, two or more member state confederacies. Would small states be welcomed on an equal basis with larger neighbors? Madison played hardball here.
Once the problem of representation was reconciled, solutions to other issues would fall into place. Mr. Brearly and Mr. Patterson of NJ allowed it unjust to give VA and DE one vote each. They also found it dangerous to give VA 16 times as many votes as DE. Their solution was to toss the states into one mass and divide into thirteen equal parts. Madison goes on at length as to why this idea would not work.
(C. D Bowen in Miracle at Philadelphia described Madison’s speech as “shredding the NJ plan.” “Would the New Jersey Plan prevent the states from trespassing upon each other, as debtor states had done by issuing paper money in retaliation against creditor states? Would it prevent internal state turmoils such as MA had experienced in Shays’s Rebellion? Would it protect the Union against the influence of foreign powers? Had the small states considered the expense of the NJ Plan, by which each state must pay its entire delegation to Congress? Could a nation survive under a compact which did not bind the whole? Had the small states stopped to think where they would be if their stubborn adherence to the NJ Plan prevented any plan? The small states would be worse off.)
The first proposition of Mr. Patterson’s plan, “1. Resd. that the articles of Confederation ought to be so revised, corrected & enlarged, as to render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government, & the preservation of the Union,” was postponed with NJ and NY in dissent.
Randolph’s Plan as amended was re-reported 7-3-1. This act was interpreted as negating further debate on the Patterson Plan. The big three plus CN and the deep Southern States held firm. The no votes were NY, NJ, DE. MD was divided.
(Mr. Madison’s speech had the intended effect. Further consideration of adjustments to the Articles was not going to happen. Again I ask, could history have been different if the Small States submitted a plan to improve the Articles at the opening of the Convention rather than three weeks later as a hasty alternative? It appears that by mid June, the possibility of a national government was not so shocking.)
[The nineteen resolutions of the amended Randolph Plan followed]
(In summary, the government would consist of a Supreme Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary. Two Branch Legislature. Three year terms for Congressmen, elected by the people. State Legislatures to elect Senators for seven year terms. Restrictions on post legislative employment. Each house may originate acts. Congressional power as under the Articles plus all situations in which the individual state may be incompetent or disrupt the harmony of the union. Congress may negative all State Laws. Representation in both houses to be by a rule of proportional representation. A single Executive, who may veto bills subject to a 2/3 override. One Supreme Tribunal appointed by the Senate. Congress may establish inferior courts. Jurisdiction over tax issues, officers of the US and questions involving national peace and harmony. New States. Smooth transition between the existing and new governments. Republican State governments. Constitutional amendments. Oaths of allegiance. Representatives of the people to ratify in each State.)
James Wilson (PA) refused to accede to destruction of the states as proposed by Mr. Hamilton. On the contrary he thought them necessary.
Alexander Hamilton (NY) so much as said he had been misunderstood. By abolition of the states, he meant supremacy of the general government over the states. (Okay, so he meant elimination of the states in all but name.) If the national government did not have supremacy, the States would eventually overwhelm it.
Rufus King (MA) thought the terms "States, Sovereignty, national, federal," had been loosely and inaccurately used. He detailed why the states were not sovereign. The term, ”Union” could mean a confederation or consolidation. A Union of the States is a union of the men of the states. Congress can declare war without permission from the states. Much power should be removed from the states.
Luther Martin (MD) succinctly summarized the situation. Upon separation from Great Britain, the states were thrown into a state of nature. [I like the Lochean allusion] The states entered the Confederation on an equal footing; it would be amended on an equal footing, all remaining ten states would never lay at the mercy of VA, MA, PA.
James Wilson (PA) did not accept Mr. Martin’s state of nature comment. He referred to the Declaration of Independence.
Alexander Hamilton (NY) Did not buy the argument that violations of the Articles dissolved the Confederacy. Yes, the states met now on an equal footing, but that did not prevent a change in the system of representation. He did not think the smaller states needed to fear proportional representation because of the distance separating the large states and their distinct interests from one another. “No combination could be dreaded.”
(While somewhat conciliatory after defeating the Patterson/NJ Plan, the Large/Southern State coalition built further on the foundation of proportional representation. It was of course, to no avail. As long as proportional representation was in the resolves, the Small States had to defend the Confederacy of equal representation.)
Long post today. If nothing else, check out the 19 Resolves.
Our Constitution is taking form.