The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 1 — John Shaqi
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
The propositions of M^r Randolph which had been referred to the
Co[~m]ittee being taken up. He moved on the suggestion of M^r G. Morris,
that the first of his propositions to wit "Resolved that the articles of
Confederation ought to be so corrected & enlarged, as to accomplish the
objects proposed by their institution; namely, common defence, security
of liberty, and general welfare,--should be postponed, in order to
consider the 3 following:
1. that a union of the States merely federal will not accomplish
the objects proposed by the articles of Confederation, namely
common defence, security of liberty, & gen^l welfare.
2. that no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the
States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient.
3. that a _national_ Government ought to be established
consisting of a _supreme_ Legislative, Executive & Judiciary.
The motion for postponing was seconded by M^r Gov^r Morris and
unanimously agreed to.
Some verbal criticisms were raised ag^{st} the first proposition, and it
was agreed on motion of M^r Butler seconded by M^r Randolph, to pass on
to the third, which underwent a discussion, less however on its general
merits than on the force and extent of the particular terms _national &
supreme_.
M^r Charles Pinkney wished to know of M^r Randolph, whether he meant to
abolish the State Govern^{ts} altogether. M^r R. replied that he meant
by these general propositions merely to introduce the particular ones
which explained the outlines of the system he had in view.
M^r Butler said he had not made up his mind on the subject, and was open
to the light which discussion might throw on it. After some general
observations he concluded with saying that he had opposed the grant of
powers to Cong^s heretofore, because the whole power was vested in one
body. The proposed distribution of the powers into different bodies
changed the case, and would induce him to go great lengths.
Gen^l Pinkney[35] expressed a doubt whether the act of Cong^s
reco[~m]ending the Convention, or the Commissions of the Deputies to it,
could authorize a discussion of a system founded on different principles
from the federal Constitution.
[35] "M^r Ch^s Cotesworth Pinckney is a Gentleman of Family and
fortune in his own State. He has received the advantage of a
liberal education, and possesses a very extensive degree of
legal knowledge. When warm in a debate he sometimes speaks
well,--but he is generally considered an indifferent Orator.
Mr. Pinckney was an Officer of high rank in the American
Army, and served with great reputation through the War. He
is now about 40 years of age."--Pierce's Notes, _Am. Hist.
Rev._, iii., 333.
M^r Gerry[36] seemed to entertain the same doubt.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account