History of the Origin, Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2: With Notices of Its Principle FramersCurtis, George Ticknor
History
History of the Origin, Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2: With Notices of Its Principle Framers
Curtis, George Ticknor
Constitutional history -- United States
Upon this rule of classification, the test of republicanism
was to be found in the views entertained by members upon the
question whether the State governments ought to be abolished.
Mr. Martin, indeed, went further, and considered those only
as _truly_ republican, who were in favor of a purely federal
system, and opposed to any plan of popular representation.
Now it is quite clear, that the abolition of the State
governments, so far as that subject was considered at all,
and in the sense in which it was at any time mentioned, did
not necessarily lead to _monarchy_ as a conclusion. The
reduction of the State governments to local corporations and
to the position of subordinate agents of the central
government, was considered by some as a necessary consequence
of a national representative government. This arose from the
circumstance that a union of federal and national
representation had nowhere been witnessed, and had not
therefore been considered. I have already suggested, in the
text, that, if the framers of the Constitution had gone on to
the adoption of a pure system of popular and proportional
representation in all the branches of the government, they
must inevitably have bestowed upon that government full
legislative power over all subjects; otherwise, they would
have left the States, possessed of the sovereign powers of a
distinct political organization, to contend with the national
government by adverse legislation. The subsequent expedient
of a direct and equal representation of the States in one
branch of the government has in reality, to a great degree,
disarmed State jealousy and opposition, by giving to the
States as political bodies an equal voice in the check
established by the branch in which they are represented.
So that to argue, that, because there were men who saw the
necessity for making a purely national or proportionate
system of popular representation consistent with the
situation in which it would place the country, they were
therefore in favor of a monarchical system, was to argue from
premises to a conclusion in no way connected. Had such a plan
been carried out, it could have been, and must have been,
purely republican in all its details; and it would have been
liable to the reproach of being _monarchical_ in no other
sense than any system which did not yield the point of a full
federal equality, for which Mr. Martin and his party
contended.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account