U.S. Constitution: Foundation & Evolution (Including the Biographies of the Founding Fathers). Madison James
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 (Mr. 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 arrangement on all the States, when it was, to say the least, extremely difficult, would be obnoxious to many of the States, and when neither the inconveniency, nor the benefit of the expedient to themselves, would be lessened by confining it to themselves. — The prospect of many new States to the Westward was another consideration of importance. If they should come into the Union at all, they would come when they contained but few inhabitants. If they should be entitled to vote according to their proportions of inhabitants, all would be right & safe. Let them have an equal vote, and a more objectionable minority than ever might give law to the whole.2
On a question for postponing generally the 1st proposition of Mr. Patterson's plan, it was agreed to: N. Y. & N. J. only being no.
On the question moved by Mr. King whether the Commitee should rise & Mr. Randolph's proposition be reported without alteration, which was in fact a question whether Mr. R's should be adhered to as preferable to those of Mr. Patterson;
Massachusetts ay. Connecticut ay. N. Y. no. N. J. no. Pennsylvania ay. Del. no. Maryland divd. Virginia ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
Copy of the Resolutions of Mr. R. as altered in Committee and reported to the House.
(Of Mr. Randolph's plan as reported from the Committee) — the 1. propos: "that a National Government ought to be established consisting &c." being taken up in the House.
Mr. Wilson observed that by a National Government he did not mean one that would swallow up the State Governments as seemed to be wished by some gentlemen. He was tenacious of the idea of preserving the latter. He thought, contrary to the opinion of (Col. Hamilton) that they might not only subsist but subsist on friendly terms with the former. They were absolutely necessary for certain purposes which the former could not reach. All large Governments must be subdivided into lesser jurisdictions. As Examples he mentioned Persia, Rome, and particularly the divisions & subdivisions of England by Alfred.
Col. Hamilton coincided with the proposition as it stood in the Report. He had not been understood yesterday. By an abolition of the States, he meant that no boundary could be drawn between the National & State Legislatures; that the former must therefore have indefinite authority. If it were limited at all, the rivalship of the States would gradually subvert it. Even as Corporations the extent of some of them as Virginia Massachusetts &c. would be formidable. As States, he thought they ought to be abolished. But he admitted the necessity of leaving in them, subordinate jurisdictions. The examples of Persia & the Roman Empire, cited by (Mr. Wilson) were he thought in favor of his doctrine: the great powers delegated to the Satraps & proconsuls having frequently produced revolts, and schemes of independence.
Mr. King wished as every thing depended on this proposition, that no objections might be improperly indulged against the phraseology of it. He conceived that the import of the term "States" "Sovereignty" "national" "federal," had been often used & applied in the discussions inaccurately & delusively. The States were not "Sovereigns" in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty, they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances nor treaties. Considering them as political Beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign Sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such Sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war. On the other side, if the Union of the States comprises the idea of a confederation, it comprises that also of consolidation. A Union of the States is a Union of the men composing them, from whence a national character results to the whole. Congress can act alone without the States — they can act & their acts will be binding against the Instructions of the States. If they declare war: war is de jure declared — captures made in pursuance of it are lawful — no Acts of the States can vary the situation, or prevent the judicial consequences. If the States therefore retained some portion of their sovereignty, they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it. If they formed a confederacy in some respects — they formed a Nation in others. The Convention could clearly deliberate on & propose any alterations that Congress could have done under the federal articles, and Could not Congress propose by virtue of the last article, a change in any article whatever; and as well that relating to the equality of suffrage, as any other. He made these remarks to obviate some scruples which had been expressed. He doubted much the practicability of annihilating the States; but thought that much of their power ought to be taken from them.3
Mr. Martin.4 said he considered that the separation from G. B. placed the 13 States in a state of Nature towards each other; that they would have remained in that state till this time, but for the confederation; that they entered into the Confederation on the footing of equality; that they met now to amend it on the same footing; and that he could never accede to a plan that would introduce an inequality and lay 10 States at the mercy of Virginia Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
Mr. Wilson, could not admit the doctrine that when the Colonies became independent of G. Britain, they became independent also of each other. He read the declaration of Independence, observing thereon that the United Colonies were declared to be free & independent States; and inferring that they were independent, not individually but Unitedly and that they were confederated as they were independent, States.
Col. Hamilton assented to the doctrine of Mr. Wilson. He denied the doctrine that the States were thrown into a State of Nature. He was not yet prepared to admit the doctrine that the Confederacy, could be dissolved by partial infractions of it. He admitted that the States met now on an equal footing but could see no inference from that against concerting a change of the system in this particular. He took this occasion of observing for the purpose of appeasing the fears of the small States, that two circumstances would render them secure under a National Government in which they might lose the equality of rank they now held: one was the local situation of the 3 largest States Virginia Massachusetts & Pennsylvania. They were separated from each other by distance of place, and equally so, by all the peculiarities which distinguish the interests of one State from those of another. No combination therefore could be dreaded. In the second place, as there was a gradation in the States from Virginia the largest down to Delaware the smallest, it would always happen that ambitious combinations among a few States might & would be counteracted by defensive combinations of greater extent among the rest. No combination has been seen among the large Counties merely as such, against lesser Counties. The more close the Union of the States, and the more compleat the authority of the whole: the less opportunity will be allowed to the stronger States to injure the weaker.
Adjourned.
1 This was the last session of the Convention in Committee of the Whole.