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
8. He begged them to consider the situation in which they would remain
in case their pertinacious adherence to an inadmissible plan, should
prevent the adoption of any plan. The contemplation of such an event was
painful; but it would be prudent to submit to the task of examining it
at a distance, that the means of escaping it might be the more readily
embraced. Let the Union of the States be dissolved, and one of two
consequences must happen. Either the States must remain individually
independent & sovereign; or two or more Confederacies must be formed
among them. In the first event would the small States be more secure
ag^{st} the ambition & power of their larger neighbours, than they would
be under a General Government pervading with equal energy every part of
the Empire, and having an equal interest in protecting every part
ag^{st} every other part? In the second, can the smaller expect that
their larger neighbours would confederate with them on the principle of
the present Confederacy, which gives to each member, an equal suffrage;
or that they would exact less severe concessions from the smaller
States, than are proposed in the scheme of M^r Randolph?
The great difficulty lies in the affair of Representation; and if this
could be adjusted, all others would be surmountable. It was admitted by
both the gentlemen from N. Jersey, (M^r Brearly and M^r Patterson) that
it would not be _just to allow Virg^a_ which was 16 times as large as
Delaware an equal vote only. Their language was that it would not be
_safe for Delaware_ to allow Virg^a 16 times as many votes. The
expedient proposed by them was that all the States should be thrown into
one mass and a new partition be made into 13 equal parts. Would such a
scheme be practicable? The dissimilarities existing in the rules of
property, as well as in the manners, habits and prejudices of the
different States, amounted to a prohibition of the attempt. It had been
found impossible for the power of one of the most absolute princes in
Europe (K. of France) directed by the wisdom of one of the most
enlightened and patriotic Ministers (M^r Neckar) that any age has
produced, to equalize in some points only the different usages &
regulations of the different provinces. But admitting a general
amalgamation and repartition of the States to be practicable, and the
danger apprehended by the smaller States from a proportional
representation to be real; would not a particular and voluntary
coalition of these with their neighbours, be less inconvenient to the
whole community, and equally effectual for their own safety. If N.
Jersey or Delaware conceived that an advantage would accrue to them from
an equalization of the States, in which case they would necessarily form
a junction with their neighbours, why might not this end be attained by
leaving them at liberty by the Constitution to form such a junction
whenever they pleased? And why should they wish to obtrude a like
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