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 expressed his apprehensions that if the proper foundation of
Governm^t was destroyed, by substituting an equality in place of a
proportional Representation, no proper superstructure would be raised.
If the small States really wish for a Government armed with the powers
necessary to secure their liberties, and to enforce obedience on the
larger members as well as themselves he could not help thinking them
extremely mistaken in their means. He reminded them of the consequences
of laying the existing Confederation on improper principles. All the
principal parties to its compilation joined immediately in mutilating &
fettering the Governm^t in such a manner that it has disappointed every
hope placed in it. He appealed to the doctrine & arguments used by
themselves on a former occasion. It had been very properly observed by
(M^r Patterson) that Representation was an expedient by which the
meeting of the people themselves was rendered unnecessary; And that the
representatives ought therefore to bear a proportion to the votes which
their constituents if convened would respectively have. Was not this
remark as applicable to one branch of the Representation as to the
other? But it had been said that the Govern^t would in its operation be
partly federal, partly national; that altho' in the latter respect the
Representatives of the people ought to be in proportion to the people;
yet in the former it ought to be according to the number of States. If
there was any solidity in this distinction he was ready to abide by it,
if there was none it ought to be abandoned. In all cases where the Gen^l
Governm^t is to act on the people, let the people be represented and the
votes be proportional. In all cases where the Govern^t is to act on the
States as such in like manner as Cong^s now acts on them, let the States
be represented & the votes be equal. This was the true ground of
compromise if there was any ground at all. But he denied that there was
any ground. He called for a single instance in which the Gen^l Gov^t was
not to operate on the people individually. The practicability of making
laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as Political bodies, had
been exploded on all hands. He observed that the people of the large
States would in some way or other secure to themselves a weight
proportioned to the importance accruing from their superior numbers. If
they could not effect it by a proportional representation in the Gov^t
they would probably accede to no Gov^t which did not in a great measure
depend for its efficacy on their voluntary cooperation; in which case
they would indirectly secure their object. The existing confederacy
proved that where the Acts of the Gen^l Gov^t were to be executed by the
particular Gov^{ts} the latter had a weight in proportion to their
importance. No one would say that either in Cong^s or out of Cong^s.
Delaware had equal weight with Pennsylv^a. If the latter was to supply
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