The Debates in the
Federal Convention of 1787
JUNE 19th. IN
The substitute offered yesterday by Mr. Dickenson being rejected by a vote
now taken on it; Con. N. Y. N. J. Del. ay. 2
Mas. Pa. V. N. C. S. C. Geo. no. 3 Mayd.
Mr. PATTERSON's plan was again at large
before the Committee.
Mr. MADISON. Much stress had
4 been laid by some gentlemen on the want
of power in the Convention to propose any other than a federal plan. To
what had been answered by others, he would only add, that neither of the
characteristics attached to a federal plan would support this objection.
One characteristic, was that in a federal Government, the power was
exercised not on the people individually; 5
but on the people
collectively, on the States. Yet in some instances as in
piracies, captures &c. the existing Confederacy, and in many instances, the
amendments to it proposed by Mr. Patterson, must operate immediately on
individuals. The other characteristic was that a federal Govt. derived
its appointments not immediately from the people, but from the States which they
respectively composed. Here too were facts on the other side. In two of the
States, Connect. and Rh. Island, the delegates to Congs. were chosen, not by the
Legislatures, but by the people at large; and the plan of Mr. P. intended no
change in this particular.
It had been alledged [by Mr. Patterson], that the Confederation having been
formed by unanimous consent, could be dissolved by unanimous Consent only. Does
this doctrine result from the nature of compacts? does it arise from any
particular stipulation in the articles of Confederation? If we consider the
federal union as analogous to the fundamental compact by which individuals
compose one Society, and which must in its theoretic origin at least, have been
the unanimous act of the component members, it can not be said that no
dissolution of the compact can be effected without unanimous consent. A breach
of the fundamental principles of the compact by a part of the Society would
certainly absolve the other part from their obligations to it. If the breach of
any article by any of the parties, does not set the others at
liberty, it is because, the contrary is implied in the compact itself,
and particularly by that law of it, which gives an indifinite authority to the
majority to bind the whole in all cases. This latter circumstance shews that we
are not to consider the federal Union as analogous to the social compact of
individuals: for if it were so, a Majority would have a right to bind the rest,
and even to form a new Constitution for the whole, which the Gentn. from N.
Jersey would be among the last to admit. If we consider the federal Union as
analogous not to the social compacts among individual men: but to the
conventions among individual States. What is the doctrine resulting from these
conventions? Clearly, according to the Expositors of the law of Nations, that a
breach of any one article, by any one party, leaves all the other parties at
liberty, to consider the whole convention as dissolved, unless they choose
rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach. In some treaties
indeed it is expressly stipulated that a violation of particular articles shall
not have this consequence, and even that particular articles shall remain in
force during war, which in general is 6
understood to dissolve all subsisting Treaties. But are there any exceptions of
this sort to the Articles of confederation? So far from it that there is not
even an express stipulation that force shall be used to compell an offending
member of the Union to discharge its duty. He observed that the violations of
the federal articles had been numerous & notorious. Among the most notorious
was an act of N. Jersey herself; by which she expressly refused to
comply with a constitutional requisition of Congs. and yielded no farther to the
expostulations of their deputies, than barely to rescind her vote of refusal
without passing any positive act of compliance. He did not wish to draw any
rigid inferences from these observations. He thought it proper however that the
true nature of the existing confederacy should be investigated, and he was not
anxious to strengthen the foundations on which it now stands. Proceeding to the
consideration of Mr. Patterson's plan, he stated the object of a proper plan to
be twofold. 1. 7 to preserve the Union. 2.
7 to provide a Governmt. that will remedy
the evils felt by the States both in their united and individual capacities.
Examine Mr. P.s plan, & say whether it promises satisfaction in these
1. Will it prevent those violations of the law of nations & of Treaties
which if not prevented must involve us in the calamities of foreign wars? The
tendency of the States to these violations has been manifested in sundry
instances. The files of Congs. contain complaints already, from almost every
nation with which treaties have been formed. Hitherto indulgence has been shewn
to us. This can not be the permanent disposition of foreign nations. A rupture
with other powers is among the greatest of national calamities. It ought
therefore to be effectually provided that no part of a nation shall have it in
its power to bring them on the whole. The existing Confederacy does not
sufficiently provide against this evil. The proposed amendment to it does not
supply the omission. It leaves the will of the States as uncontrouled as ever.
2. Will it prevent encroachments on the federal authority? A tendency to
such encroachments has been sufficiently exemplified, among ourselves, as well
8 in every other confederated republic
antient and Modern. By the federal articles, transactions with the Indians
appertain to Congs. Yet in several instances, the States have entered into
treaties & wars with them. In like manner no two or more States can form
among themselves any treaties &c. without the consent of Congs. Yet Virga. &
Maryd. in one instance — Pena. & N. Jersey in another, have entered
into compacts, without previous application or subsequent apology. No State
again can of right raise troops in time of peace without the like consent. Of
all cases of the league, this seems to require the most scrupulous observance.
Has not Massts, notwithstanding, the most powerful member of the Union, already
raised a body of troops? Is she not now augmenting them, without having even
deigned to apprise Congs. of Her intention? In fine — Have we not seen the
public land dealt out to Cont. to bribe her acquiescence in the decree
constitutionally awarded agst. her claim on the territory of Pena.? for no other
possible motive can account for the policy of Congs. in that measure? — If
we recur to the examples of other confederacies, we shall find in all of them
the same tendency of the parts to encroach on the authority of the whole. He
then reviewed the Amphyctionic & Achaean confederacies among the antients,
and the Helvetic, Germanic & Belgic among the moderns, tracing their analogy
to the U. States — in the constitution and extent of their federal
authorities — in the tendency of the particular members to usurp on these
authorities; and to bring confusion & ruin on the whole. — He observed
that the plan of Mr. Pat-son besides omitting a controul over the States as a
general defence of the federal prerogatives was particularly defective in two of
its provisions. 1.
9 Its ratification was not to be by the
people at large, but by the legislatures. It could not therefore render
the Acts of Congs. in pursuance of their powers, even legally paramount
to the Acts of the States. 2. 10 It gave
to the federal Tribunal an appellate jurisdiction only — even in the
criminal cases enumerated, The necessity of any such provision supposed a danger
of undue acquittals 11 in the State
tribunals. Of what avail cd.
12 an appellate tribunal be, after an
acquittal? Besides in most if not all of the States, the Executives have by
their respective Constitutions the right of pardg. How could this be
taken from them by a legislative 13
3. Will it prevent trespasses of the States on each other? Of the e enough
has been already seen. He instanced Acts of Virga. & Maryland which give
14 a preference to their own Citizens in
cases where the Citizens of other States are entitled to equality of privileges
by the Articles of Confederation. He considered the emissions of paper money &
other kindred measures as also aggressions. The States relatively to one an
other being each of them either Debtor or Creditor; The creditor States must
suffer unjustly from every emission by the debtor States. We have seen
retaliating acts on this subject which threatened danger not to the harmony
only, but the tranquility of the Union. The plan of Mr. Paterson, not giving
even a negative on the acts of the States, left them as much at liberty as ever
to execute their unrighteous projects agst. each other.
4. Will it secure the internal tranquility of the States themselves? The
insurrections in Massts. admonished all the States of the danger to which they
were exposed. Yet the plan of Mr. P. contained no provisions for supplying the
defect of the Confederation on this point. According to the Republican theory
indeed, Right & power being both vested in the majority, are held to be
synonimous. According to fact & experience, a minority may in an appeal to
force be an overmatch for the majority. 1. 15
If the minority happen to include all such as possess the skill & habits of
military life, with such as possess the great pecuniary resources, one third may
conquer the remaining two thirds. 2. 16
one third of those who participate in the choice of rulers may be rendered a
majority by the accession of those whose poverty disqualifies them from a
suffrage, & who for obvious reasons may
17 be more ready to join the standard of
sedition than that of the 18 established
Government. 3. 19 where slavery exists,
the Republican Theory becomes still more fallacious.
5. Will it secure a good internal legislation & administration to the
particular States? In developing the evils which vitiate the political system of
the U.S. it is proper to take into view those which prevail within the States
individually as well as those which affect them collectively: Since the former
indirectly affect the whole; and there is great reason to believe that the
pressure of them had a full share in the motives which produced the present
Convention. Under this head he enumerated and animadverted on 1. 20
the multiplicity of the laws passed by the several States. 2. 20
the mutability of their laws. 3. 20 the
injustice of them. 4. 21 the impotence of
them: observing that Mr. Patterson's plan contained no remedy for this dreadful
class of evils, and could not therefore be received as an adequate provision for
the exigences of the Community.
6. Will it secure the Union agst. the influence of foreign powers over its
members. He pretended not to say that any such influence had yet been tried: but
it was naturally to be expected that occasions would produce it. As lessons
which claimed particular attention, he cited the intrigues practised among the
Amphyctionic Confederates first by the Kings of Persia, and afterwards fatally
by Philip of Macedon: among the Achaeans, first by Macedon & afterwards no
less fatally by Rome: among the Swiss by Austria, France & the lesser
neighbouring powers: among the members of the Germanic Body by France, England,
Spain & Russia — : and in the Belgic Republic, by all the great
neighbouring powers. The plan of Mr. Patterson, not giving to the general
Councils any negative on the will of the particular States, left the door open
for the like pernicious machinations among ourselves.
7. He begged the smaller States which were most attached to Mr. Pattersons
plan to consider the situation in which it would leave them. In the first place
they would continue to bear the whole expence of maintaining their Delegates in
Congress. It ought not to be said that if they were willing to bear this burden,
no others had a right to complain. As far as it led the small States to forbear
keeping up a representation, by which the public business was delayed, it was
evidently a matter of common concern. An examination of the minutes of Congress
would satisfy every one that the public business had been frequently delayed by
this cause; and that the States most frequently unrepresented in Congs. were not
the larger States. He reminded the convention of another consequence of leaving
on a small State the burden of maintaining a Representation in Congs. During a
considerable period of the War, one of the Representatives of Delaware, in whom
alone before the signing of the Confederation the entire vote of that State and
after that event one half of its vote, frequently resided, was a Citizen &
Resident of Pena. and held an office in his own State incompatible with an
appointment from it to Conga. During another period, the same State was
represented by three delegates two of whom were citizens of Penna. and the third
a Citizen of New Jersey. These expedients must have been intended to avoid the
burden of supporting delegates from their own State. But whatever might have
been ye. cause, was not in effect the vote of one State doubled, and the
influence of another increased by it? In the 2d. place The coercion, on which
the efficacy of the plan depends, can never be exerted but on themselves. The
larger States will be impregnable, the smaller only can feel the vengeance of
it. He illustrated the position by the history of the Amphyctionic Confederates:
and the ban of the German Empire. It was the cobweb wch. could entangle the
weak, but would be the sport of the strong.
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 agst. 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 agst.
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 Mr. 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 [Mr. Brearly and Mr. Patterson] that it would not be
just to allow Virga. 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 Virga. 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
22 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 necessaryly 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,
23 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 shd. 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
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 Committee should rise &
Mr. Randolphs propositions be re-reported without alteration, which was in fact
a question whether Mr. R's should be adhered to as preferable to those of Mr.
Massts. ay. Cont ay. N. Y. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. divd. Va. ay.
N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. 24
Insert here from Printed Journal p. 13 25
copy of the Resolns. of Mr. R. as altered in the Come. and reported to the House
[State of the resolutions submitted to the consideration of the House by the
honorable Mr. Randolph, as altered, amended, and agreed to, in a Committee of
the whole House.
1. Resolved that it is the opinion of this Committee that a national
government ought to be established consisting of a Supreme Legislative,
Judiciary, and Executive.
2. Resolved. that the national Legislature ought to consist of Two Branches.
3. Resolved that the members of the first branch of the national Legislature
ought to be elected by the People of the several States for the term of Three
years. to receive fixed stipends, by which they may be compensated for the
devotion of their time to public service to be paid out of the National
Treasury. to be ineligible to any Office established by a particular State or
under the authority of the United-States (except those peculiarly belonging to
the functions of the first branch) during the term of service, and under the
national government for the space of one year after it's expiration.
4. Resolved. that the members of the second Branch of the national
Legislature ought to be chosen by the individual Legislatures. to be of the age
of thirty years at least. to hold their offices for a term sufficient to ensure
their independency, namely seven years. to receive fixed stipends, by which they
may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service — to be
paid out of the National Treasury to be ineligible to any office established by
a particular State, or under the authority of the United States (except those
peculiarly belonging to the functions of the second branch) during the term of
service, and under the national government, for the space of one year after it's
5. Resolved that each branch ought to possess the right of originating acts.
6. Resolved. that the national Legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy
the legislative rights vested in Congress by the confederation — and
moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent:
or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise
of individual legislation. to negative all laws passed by the several States
contravening, in the opinion of the national Legislature, the articles of union,
or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the union.
7. Resolved. that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national
Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of
confederation: but according to some equitable ratio of representation —
namely, in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and
inhabitants of every age, sex, and condition including those bound to servitude
for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in
the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes in each State.
8. Resolved. that the right of suffrage in the second branch of the national
Legislature ought to be according to the rule established for the first.
9. Resolved. that a national Executive be instituted to consist of a single
person. to be chosen by the National Legislature. for the term of seven years.
with power to carry into execution the national Laws, to appoint to Offices in
cases not otherwise provided for to be ineligible a second time, and to be
removable on impeachment and conviction of mal practice or neglect of duty. to
receive a fixed stipend, by which he may be compensated for the devotion of his
time to public service to be paid out of the national Treasury.
10. Resolved. that the national executive shall have a right to negative any
legislative act: which shall not be afterwards passed unless by two third parts
of each branch of the national Legislature.
11. Resolved. that a national Judiciary be established to consist of One
Supreme Tribunal. The Judges of which to be appointed by the second Branch of
the National Legislature. to hold their offices during good behaviour to
receive, punctually, at stated times, a fixed compensation for their services:
in which no encrease or diminution shall be made so as to affect the persons
actually in office at the time of such encrease or diminution.
12. Resolved. That the national Legislature be empowered to appoint inferior
13. Resolved. that the jurisdiction of the national Judiciary shall extend
to cases which respect the collection of the national revenue: impeachments of
any national officers: and questions which involve the national peace and
14. Resolved. that provision ought to be made for the admission of States,
lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a
voluntary junction of government and territory, or otherwise, with the consent
of a number of voices in the national Legislature less than the whole.
15. Resolved. that provision ought to be made for the continuance of
Congress and their authorities until a given day after the reform of the
articles of Union shall be adopted; and for the completion of all their
16. Resolved that a republican constitution, and its existing laws, ought to
be guaranteed to each State by the United States.
17. Resolved. that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the
articles of Union, whensoever it shall seem necessary.
18. Resolved. that the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary powers within
the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of Union.
19. Resolved. that the amendments which shall be offered to the
confederation by the Convention, ought at a proper time or times, after the
approbation of Congress to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of
representatives, recommended by the several Legislatures, to be expressly chosen
by the People to consider and decide thereon.
(Of 27 Mr. Randolph's plan as
reported from the Committee) 28. the 1.
propos: "that a Natl. Govt. ought to be established consisting &c."
being taken up in the House.
Mr. WILSON observed that by a Natl.
Govt. he did not mean one that would swallow up the State Govts. 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 Va. Massts. &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 agst. the
phraseology of it. He conceived that the import of the terms "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 comprizes the
idea of a confederation, it comprizes 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. Congs. can act alone without the States —
they can act & their acts will be binding agst. 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 Congs. could have done under ye. federal
articles, and could not Congs. 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. Mr. MARTIN, 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
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 Va. Massts. and
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,
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 Govt. in which they might lose the
equality of rank they now held: one was the local situation of the 3 largest
States Virga. Masts. & Pa. 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 Va.
the largest down to Delaware the smallest, it would always happen that ambitious
combinations among a few States might & wd. be counteracted by defensive
combinations of greater extent among the rest. No combination has been seen
among 30 large Counties merely as such,
agst. 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
31 the stronger States to injure the
1. The word "The" is here
inserted in the transcript.
2. The figure "4" is here
inserted in the transcript.
3. The figure "6" is here
inserted in the transcript.
4. The word "has" is substituted
in the transcript for "had."
5. The transcript italicizes the word "individually."
6. The words "in general is" are
transposed to read "is in general" in the transcript.
7. The figures "1" and "2"
are changed to "first" and "secondly" in the transcript.
8. The word "as" is here
inserted in the transcript.
9. The figure "1" is changed to "In
the first place" in the transcript.
10. The figure "2" is changed
to "and in the second place" in the transcript.
11. The transcript uses the word "acquittals"
in the singular.
12. The word "would" is
substituted in the transcript for "cd."
13. The word "legislative" is
not italicized in the transcript.
14. The word "gave" is
substituted in the transcript for "give."
15. The figure "1" is changed
to "in the first place" in the transcript.
16. The figure "2" is changed
to "in the second place" in the transcript.
17. The word "must" is
substituted in the transcript for "may".
18. The word "the" is omitted
in the transcript.
19. The figure "3" is changed
to "and in the third place."
20. The figures "1," "2"
and "3" are changed to "first," "secondly," and "thirdly"
in the transcript.
21. The figure "4" is changed
to "and fourthly" in the transcript.
22. The word "the" is crossed
out in the transcript.
23. The word "inconveniency" is
changed to "inconvenience" in the transcript.
24. In the transcript the vote reads: "Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
aye — 7; New York, New Jersey, Delaware, no — 3; Maryland divided."
25. Found at page 134 instead of page 13,
and here printed from the original manuscript deposited in the Department of
State by President Washington.
26. Madison's direction concerning Mr.
Randolph's Resolutions and the Resolutions themselves are omitted in the
27. The word "of" is omitted in
28. The words "June 13 being before
the house" are here inserted in the transcript.
29. The words "in the House"
are omitted in the transcript.
30. The word "the" is here
inserted in the transcript.
31. The word "to" is here
inserted in the transcript.