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 Madison did justice to the able and close reasoning of M^r E. but
must observe that it did not always accord with itself. On another
occasion, the large States were described by him as the Aristocratic
States, ready to oppress the small. Now the Small are the House of Lords
requiring a negative to defend them ag^{st} the more numerous Commons.
M^r E. had also erred in saying that no instance had existed in which
confederated States had not retained to themselves a perfect equality of
suffrage. Passing over the German system in which the K. of Prussia has
nine voices, he reminded M^r E. of the Lycian Confederacy, in which the
component members had votes proportioned to their importance, and which
Montesquieu recommends as the fittest model for that form of Government.
Had the fact been as stated by M^r E. it would have been of little avail
to him, or rather would have strengthened the arguments ag^{st} him; the
History & fate of the several confederacies modern as well as Antient,
demonstrating some radical vice in their structure. In reply to the
appeal of M^r E. to the faith plighted in the existing federal compact,
he remarked that the party claiming from others an adherence to a common
engagement ought at least to be guiltless itself of a violation. Of all
the States however Connecticut was perhaps least able to urge this plea.
Besides the various omissions to perform the stipulated acts from which
no State was free, the Legislature of that State had by a pretty recent
vote, _positively refused_ to pass a law for complying with the
Requisitions of Cong^s, and had transmitted a copy of the vote to
Cong^s. It was urged, he said, continually that an equality of votes in
the 2^d branch was not only necessary to secure the small, but would be
perfectly safe to the large ones whose majority in the 1^{st} branch was
an effectual bulwark. But notwithstanding this apparent defence, the
majority of States might still injure the majority of people. 1. they
could _obstruct_ the wishes and interests of the majority. 2. they could
_extort_ measures repugnant to the wishes & interest of the Majority. 3.
they could _impose_ measures adverse thereto; as the 2^d branch will
prob[~l]y exercise some great powers, in which the 1^{st} will not
participate. He admitted that every peculiar interest whether in any
class of Citizens, or any description of States, ought to be secured as
far as possible. Wherever there is danger of attack there ought to be
given a Constitutional power of defence. But he contended that the
States were divided into different interests not by their difference of
size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which resulted
partly from climate, but principally from the effects of their having or
not having slaves. These two causes concurred in forming the great
division of interests in the U. States. It did not lie between the large
& small States: It lay between the Northern & Southern. And if any
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