The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 1Madison, James
History
The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 1
Madison, James
Constitutional law -- United States; Constitutions -- United States; United States. Constitution
M^r Patterson, said as he had on a former occasion given his sentiments
on the plan proposed by M^r R. he would now avoiding repetition as much
as possible give his reasons in favor of that proposed by himself. He
preferred it because it accorded 1. with the powers of the Convention, 2
with the sentiments of the people. If the confederacy was radically
wrong, let us return to our States, and obtain larger powers, not assume
them ourselves. I came here not to speak my own sentiments, but the
sentiments of those who sent me. Our object is not such a Governm^t as
may be best in itself, but such a one as our Constituents have
authorized us to prepare, and as they will approve. If we argue the
matter on the supposition that no Confederacy at present exists, it can
not be denied that all the States stand on the footing of equal
sovereignty. All therefore must concur before any can be bound. If a
proportional representation be right, why do we not vote so here? If we
argue on the fact that a federal compact actually exists, and consult
the articles of it we still find an equal Sovereignty to be the basis of
it. He reads the 5^{th} art: of Confederation giving each State a
vote--& the 13^{th} declaring that no alteration shall be made without
unanimous consent. This is the nature of all treaties. What is
unanimously done, must be unanimously undone. It was observed (by M^r
Wilson) that the larger State gave up the point, not because it was
right, but because the circumstances of the moment urged the concession.
Be it so. Are they for that reason at liberty to take it back. Can the
donor resume his gift without the consent of the donee. This doctrine
may be convenient, but it is a doctrine that will sacrifice the lesser
States. The larger States acceded readily to the confederacy. It was the
small ones that came in reluctantly and slowly. N. Jersey & Maryland
were the two last, the former objecting to the want of power in Congress
over trade: both of them to the want of power to appropriate the vacant
territory to the benefit of the whole.--If the sovereignty of the States
is to be maintained, the Representatives must be drawn immediately from
the States, not from the people: and we have no power to vary the idea
of equal sovereignty. The only expedient that will cure the difficulty,
is that of throwing the States into Hotchpot. To say that this is
impracticable, will not make it so. Let it be tried, and we shall see
whether the Citizens of Mass^{ts} Pen^a & V^a accede to it. It will be
objected that Coercion will be impracticable. But will it be more so in
one plan than the other? Its efficacy will depend on the quantum of
power collected, not on its being drawn from the States, or from the
individuals; and according to his plan it may be exerted on individuals
as well as according that of M^r R. A distinct executive & Judiciary
also were equally provided by his plan. It is urged that two branches in
the Legislature are necessary.
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