POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

What we are not talking about already elsewhere
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Genuine Information III

by Luther Martin

January 04, 1788

Mr. MARTIN’S Information to the House of Assembly, continued.

It was urged, that upon this system, the Pennsylvanian or inhabitant of a large State, was of as much consequence as the inhabitant of Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, or any other State.

That his consequence was to be decided by his situation in his own State; that if he was there as free, if, he had as great share in the forming of his own government, and in the making and executing its laws, as the inhabitants of those other States, then was he equally important and of equal consequence.

Suppose a confederation of States had never been adopted, but every State had remained absolutely in its independent situation, no person could, with propriety, say that the citizen of the large State was not as important as the citizen of the smaller, the confederation of the States cannot alter the case.

It was said that in all transactions between State and State, the freedom, independence, importance and consequence, even the individuality of each citizen of the different States, might with propriety be said to be swallowed up, or concentrated in the independence, the freedom and the individuality of the State of which they are citizens.

That the Thirteen States are thirteen distinct political individual existences as to each other; that the federal government is or ought to be a government over these thirteen political individual existences, which form the members of that government — and that as the largest State is only a single individual of this government, it ought to have only one vote — the smallest State also being one individual member of this government, ought also to have one vote.

To those who urged that the States having equal suffrage, was contrary to the feelings of the human heart, it was answered, that it was admitted to be contrary to the feelings of pride and ambition; but those were feelings which ought not to be gratified at the expence of freedom.

It was urged, that the position that great States would have great objects in view, in which they would not suffer the less States to thwart them, was one of the strongest reasons why inequality of representation ought not to be admitted.

If those great objects were not inconsistent with the interest of the less States, they would readily concur in them, but if they were inconsistent with the interest of a majority of the States composing the government, in that case two or three States ought not to have it in their power to aggrandize themselves at the expence of all the rest.

To those who alledged that equality of suffrage in our federal government, was the poisonous source from which all our misfortunes flowed, it was answered, that the allegation was not founded in fact.

That equality of suffrage had never been complained of by the States as a defect in our federal system.

That among the eminent writers, foreigners and others, who had treated of the defects of our confederation, and proposed alterations, none had proposed an alteration in this part of the system.

And members of the convention both in and out of Congress, who advocated the equality of suffrage, called upon their opponents both in and out of Congress, and challenged them to produce one single instance where a bad measure had been adopted, or a good measure had failed of adoption in consequence of the States having an equal vote; on the contrary, they urged, that all our evils flowed from the want of power in the federal head, and that let the right of suffrage in the States be altered in any manner whatever, if no greater powers were given to the government, the same inconveniences would continue.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Genuine Information III

by Luther Martin

January 04, 1788

Mr. MARTIN’S Information to the House of Assembly, continued.

It was denied that the equality of suffrage was originally agreed to on principles of necessity or expediency, on the contrary, that it was adopted on the principles of the rights of men and the rights of States which were then well known, and which then influenced our conduct although now they seem to be forgotten.

For this the journals of Congress were appealed to; it was from them shewn, that when the committee of Congress reported to that body the articles of confederation, the very first article which became the subject of discussion, was that respecting the equality of suffrage.

That Virginia proposed divers modes of suffrage, all on the principle of inequality, which were almost unanimously rejected.

That on the question for adopting the article, it passed, Virginia being the only State which voted in the negative.

That after the articles of confederation were submitted to the States by them to be ratified, almost every State proposed certain amendments, which they instructed their delegates to endeavour to obtain before ratification, and that among all the amendments proposed, not one State, not even Virginia, proposed an amendment of that article, securing the equality of suffrage — the most convincing proof it was agreed to and adopted, not from necessity, but upon a full conviction, that according to the principles of free governments, the States had a right to that equality of suffrage.

But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shewn — when driven from the pretence that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity, the representatives of the large States persisted in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage.

In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms the most strong and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed.

That we would risque every possible consequence/

That from anarchy and confusion order might arise.

That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under the pretence of forming a government for free States.


That we never would submit tamely and servilely to a present certain evil in dread of a future, which might be imaginary.

That we were sensible the eyes of our country and of the world were upon us.

That we would not labour under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country and the world at large to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them — and to the same tribunal we would submit who ought to be answerable for all the consequences which might arise to the union from the convention breaking up without proposing any system to their constituents.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Genuine Information III

by Luther Martin

January 04, 1788

Mr. MARTIN’S Information to the House of Assembly, continued.

During this debate we were threatened that if we did not agree to the system proposed, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged.

In answer, we called upon them to shew what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed — was it from a foreign enemy?


Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear.

Was there any ambitious State or States, who in violation of every sacred obligation was preparing to inslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others?

Or was there any such ambitious individual?

We did not apprehend it to be the case.

But suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary that we should sacredly guard against a system which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government — in fine, Sir, all these threats were treated with contempt, and they were told that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention — that when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.

At length, Sir, after every argument had been exhausted by the advocates of equality of representation, the question was called, when a majority decided in favour of the inequality — Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North—Carolina, South—Carolina and Georgia voting for it.

Connecticut, New—York, Jersey, Delaware against it.

Maryland divided.

It may be thought surprising, Sir, that Georgia, a State now small and comparatively trifling in the union, should advocate this system of unequal representation, giving up her present equality in the federal government, and sinking herself almost to total insignificance in the scale; but, Sir, it must be considered that Georgia has the most extensive territory in the union, being larger than the whole island of Great—Britain, and thirty times as large as Connecticut.

This system being designed to preserve to the States their whole territory unbroken, and to prevent the erection of new States within the territory of any of them — Georgia looked forward when her population, being increased in some measure proportioned to her territory, she should rise in the scale and give law to the other States, and hence we found the delegation of Georgia warmly advocating the proposition of giving the States unequal representation.

Next day the question came on with respect to the inequality of representation in the second branch, but little debate took place; the subject had been exhausted on the former question.

On the votes being taken, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North—Carolina and South—Carolina voted for the inequality.

Connecticut, New—York, Jersey, Delaware and Maryland were in the negative.

Georgia had only two representatives on the floor, one of whom (not I believe because he was against the measure, but from a conviction that we would go home, and thereby dissolve the convention before we would give up the question) voted also in the negative, by which that State was divided.

Thus, Sir, on this great and important part of the system, the convention being equally divided, five States for the measure, five against, and one divided, there was a total stand, and we did not seem very likely to proceed any further.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Genuine Information III

by Luther Martin

January 04, 1788

Mr. MARTIN’S Information to the House of Assembly, continued.

At length it was proposed, that a select committee should be ballotted for, composed of a member from each State, which committee should endeavour to devise some mode of conciliation or compromise; I had the honor to be on that committee; we met and discussed the subject of difference; the one side insisted on the inequality of suffrage in both branches, the other insisted on the equality in both; each party was tenacious of their sentiments, when it was found that nothing could induce us to yield the inequality in both branches; they at length proposed by way of compromise, if we would accede to their wishes as to the first branch, they would agree to the equal representation in the second branch.

To this it was answered, that there was no merit in the proposal; it was only consenting, after they had struggled, to put both their feet on our necks, to take one of them off, provided we would consent to let them keep the other on, when they knew at the same time, that they could not put one foot on our necks, unless we would consent to it, and that by being permitted to keep on that one foot, they should afterwards be able to place the other foot on whenever they pleased.

They were also called on to inform us what security they could give us should we agree to this compromise, that they would abide by the plan of government formed upon it, any longer than it suited their interest, or they found it expedient.

The States have a right to an equality of representation.

This is secured to us by our present articles of confederation, we are in possession of this privilege.

It is now to be torn from us.

What security can you give us, that, when you get the power the proposed system will give you, when you have men and money, that you will not force from the States that equality of suffrage in the second branch, which you now deny to be their right, and only give up from absolute necessity?

Will you tell us we ought to trust you because you now enter into a solemn compact with us?

This you have done before, and now treat it with the utmost contempt.

Will you now make an appeal to the Supreme Being, and call on him to guarantee your observance of the compact?

The same you have formerly done for your observance of the articles of confederation, which you are now violating in the most wanton manner!

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Genuine Information III

by Luther Martin

January 04, 1788

Mr. MARTIN’S Information to the House of Assembly, continued.

"The same reasons which you now urge for destroying our present federal government, may be urged for abolishing the system which you now propose to adopt; and as the method prescribed by the articles of confederation is now totally disregarded by you, as little regard may be shewn by you to the rules prescribed for the amendment of the new system, whenever having obtained power by the government, you shall hereafter be pleased either to discard it entirely, or so to alter it as to give yourselves all that superiority which you have now contended for, and to obtain which you have shewn yourselves disposed to hazard the union.”

Such, Sir, was the language used on that occasion, and they were told that as we could not possibly have a greater tie on them for their observance of the new system than we had for their observance of the articles of confederation, which had proved totally insufficient, it would be wrong and imprudent to confide in them.


It was further observed, that the inequality of the representation would be daily increasing.

That many of the States whose territory was confined and whose population was at this time large in proportion to their territory would probably twenty, thirty, or forty years hence, have no more representatives than at the introduction of the government, whereas the States having extensive territory, where lands are to be procured cheap, would be daily encreasing in the number of their inhabitants not only from propagation but from the emigration of the inhabitants of the other States, and would have soon double, or perhaps treble the number of representatives that they are to have at first, and thereby enormously encrease their influence in the national councils.

However, the majority of the select committee at length agreed to a series of propositions by way of compromise, part of which related to the representation in the first branch nearly as the system is now published.

And part of them to the second branch securing in that equal representation, and reported them as a compromise upon the express terms that they were wholly to be adopted or wholly to be rejected; upon this compromise, a great number of the members so far engaged themselves, that if the system was progressed upon agreeable to the terms of the compromise, they would lend it their names, by signing it, and would not actively oppose it, if their States should appear inclined to adopt it.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Genuine Information III

by Luther Martin

January 04, 1788

Mr. MARTIN’S Information to the House of Assembly, concluded ...

Some, however, in which number was myself, who joined in the report and agreed to proceed upon those principles and see what kind of a system would ultimately be formed upon it, yet reserved to themselves in the most explicit manner the right of finally giving a solemn dissent to the system, if it was thought by them inconsistent with the freedom and happiness of their country.

This, Sir, will account why the members of the convention so generally signed their names to the system; not because they thought it a proper one — not because they thoroughly approved, or were unanimous for it; but because they thought it better than the system attempted to be forced upon them.

This, report of the select committee was after long dissension adopted by a majority of the convention, and the system was proceeded in accordingly.

I believe near a fortnight, perhaps more, was spent in the discussion of this business, during which, we were on the verge of dissolution, scarce held together by the strength of an hair, though the public papers were announcing our extreme unanimity.

Mr. Speaker, I think it my duty to observe, that during this struggle to prevent the large States from having all power in their hands, which had nearly terminated in a dissolution of the convention, it did not appear to me that either of those illustrious characters the Honorable Mr. Washington, or the President of the State of Pennsylvania, were disposed to favour the claims of the smaller States against the undue superiority attempted by the large States; on the contrary, the Honourable President of Pennsylvania was a member of the committee of compromise, and there advocated the right of the large States to an inequality in both branches and only ultimately conceded it in the second branch on the principle of conciliation, when it was found that no other terms would be accepted.

This, Sir, I think it my duty to mention, for the consideration of those who endeavour to prop up a dangerous and defective system by great names; soon after this period, the Honourable Mr. Yates and Mr. Lansing of New—York left us.

They had uniformly opposed the system, and I believe, despairing of getting a proper one brought forward, or of rendering any real service, they returned no more.

The propositions reported by the committee of the whole house, having been fully discussed by the convention, and with many alterations having been agreed to by a majority, a committee of five, were appointed to detail the system according to the principles contained in what had been agreed to by that majority.

This was likely to require some time, and the convention adjourned for eight or ten days.

Before the adjournment, I moved for liberty to be given to the different members to take correct copies of the propositions, to which the convention had then agreed, in order that during the recess of the convention, we might have an opportunity of considering them, and if it should be thought that any alterations or amendments were necessary, that we might be prepared against the convention met to bring them forward for discussion.

But, Sir, the same spirit which caused our doors to be shut — our proceedings to be kept secret — our journals to be locked up — and every avenue, as far as possible, to be shut to public information, prevailed also in this case, and the proposal so reasonable and necessary was rejected by a majority of the convention, thereby precluding even the members themselves, from the necessary means of information and deliberation on the important business in which they were engaged.’

(To be continued. )

* On this question, Mr. Martin was the only delegate for Maryland present, which circumstance secured the State a negative. Immediately after the question had been taken, and the president had declared the votes, Mr. Jenifer came into the Convention, when Mr. King, from Massachusetts, valuing himself on Mr. Jenifer to divide the State of Maryland on this question, as he had on the former, requested of the president that the question might be put again — however the motion was too extraordinary in its nature to meet with success!
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Elbridge Gerry: Defense of Conduct in Constitutional Convention

January 05, 1788

Mr. Russell.

You are desired to inform the publick from good authority, That Mr. GERRY, by giving his dissent to the proposed constitution, could have no motive for preserving an office, for he holds none under the United States, or any of them; that he has not, as has been asserted, exchanged continental for State securities: and if he had, it would have been for his interest to have supported the new system, because thereby the States are restrained from impairing the obligation of contracts, and by a transfer of such securities, they may be recovered in the new federal court.

That he never heard in the Convention a motion made, much less did he make any for “the redemption of the old continental money,” but that he proposed, the publick debt should be made neither better or worse by the new system, but stand precisely on the same ground as it now does by the articles of confederation — that had there been such a motion, he was not interested in it, as he did not then, neither does he now own the value of ten pounds in old continental money; that he never was called on for his reasons for not signing, but stated them fully in the progress of the business:

1 His objections are principally contained in his letter to the legislature:

2 — that he believes his colleagues men of too much honour to assert what is not truth, that his reasons in the convention “were totally different from those which he has published.”

That his only motive for dissenting from the new constitution, was a firm persuasion that it would endanger the liberties of America: that if the people are of a different opinion, they have a right to adopt it; but he was not authorised to an act which appeared to him a surrender of their liberties: that as a representative of a free State, he thought he was bound in honour, to vote according to his idea of her true interest, and that he should do the same in similar circumstances.

Cambridge, Jan. 3, 1788.
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Letter to Governor Edmund Randolph

by George Washington

January 07, 1788

Dear Sir:

The letter, which you did me the honor of writing to me on the 27th Ulto. with the enclosure, came duly to hand.

I receive them as a fresh instance of your friendship and attention.

For both I thank you.

The diversity of Sentiments upon the important matter which has been submitted to the People, was as much expected as it is regretted, by me.

The various passions and motives, by which men are influenced are concomitants of fallibility, engrafted into our nature for the purposes of unerring wisdom; but had I entertained a latent hope (at the time you moved to have the Constitution submitted to a second Convention) that a more perfect form would be agreed to, in a word that any Constitution would be adopted under the impressions and instructions of the members, the publications, which have taken place since would have eradicated every form of it.

How do the sentiments of the influential characters in this State who are opposed to the Constitution, and have favoured the public with their opinions, quadrate with each other?

Are they not at variance on some of the most important points?

If the opponents in the same State cannot agree in their principles what prospect is there of a coalescence with the advocates of the measure when the different views, and jarring interests of so wide and extended an Empire are to be brought forward and combated?

To my Judgment, it is more clear than ever, that an attempt to amend the Constitution which is submitted, would be productive of more heat and greater confusion than can well be conceived.

There are some things in the new form, I will readily acknowledge, wch. never did, and I am persuaded never will, obtain my cordial approbation; but I then did conceive, and do now most firmly believe, that, in the aggregate, it is the best Constitution that can be obtained at this Epocha, and that this, or a dissolution of the Union awaits our choice, and are the only alternatives before us.

Thus believing, I had not, nor have I now any hesitation in deciding on which to learn.

I pray your forgiveness for the expression of these sentiments.

In acknowledging the receipt of your Letter on this subject, it was hardly to be avoided, although I am well disposed to let the matter rest entirely on its own merits, and mens' minds to their own workings.

With very great esteem &c.
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Federal Farmer X

by Richard Henry Lee

January 07, 1788

Dear sir,

It is said that our people have a high sense of freedom, possess power, property, and the strong arm; meaning, I presume, that the body of the people can take care of themselves, and awe their rulers; and, therefore, particular provision in the constitution for their security may not be essential.

When I come to examine these observations, they appear to me too triffling and loose to deserve a serious answer.

To palliate for the smallness of the representation, it is observed, that the state governments in which the people are fully represented, necessarily form a part of the system.

This idea ought to be fully examined.

We ought to enquire if the convention have made the proper use of these essential parts; the state governments then we are told will stand between the arbitrary exercise of power and the people: true they may, but armless and helpless, perhaps, with the privilege of making a noise when hurt — this is no more than individuals may do.

Does the constitution provide a single check for a single measure, by which the state governments can constitutionally and regularly check the arbitrary measures of congress?

Congress may raise immediately fifty thousand men, and twenty millions of dollars in taxes, build a navy, model the militia, &c. and all this constitutionally.

Congress may arm on every point, and the state governments can do no more than an individual, by petition to congress, suggest their measures are alarming and not right.

I conceive the position to be undeniable, that the federal government will be principally in the hands of the natural aristocracy, and the state governments principally in the hands of the democracy, the representatives of the body of the people.

These representatives in Great-Britain hold the purse, and have a negative upon all laws.

We must yield to circumstances, and depart something from this plan, and strike out a new medium, so as to give efficacy to the whole system, supply the wants of the union, and leave the several states, or the people assembled in the state legislatures, the means of defence.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA

Post by thelivyjr »

Federal Farmer X, continued ...

by Richard Henry Lee

January 07, 1788

It has been often mentioned, that the objects of congress will be few and national, and require a small representation; that the objects of each state will be many and local, and require a numerous representation.

This circumstance has not the weight of a feather in my mind.

It is certainly unadvisable to lodge in 65 representatives, and 26 senators, unlimited power to establish systems of taxation, armies, navies, model the militia, and to do every thing that may essentially tend soon to change, totally, the affairs of the community; and to assemble 1500 state representatives, and 160 senators, to make fence laws, and laws to regulate the descent and conveyance of property, the administration of justice between man and man, to appoint militia officers, &c.

It is not merely the quantity of information I contend for.

Two taxing powers may be inconvenient; but the point is, congress, like the senate of Rome, will have taxing powers, and the people no check — when the power is abused, the people may complain and grow angry, so may the state governments; they may remonstrate and counteract, by passing laws to prohibit the collection of congressional taxes; but these will be acts of the people, acts of sovereign power, the dernier resort unknown to the constitution; acts operating in terrorum, acts of resistence, and not the exercise of any constitutional power to stop or check a measure before matured: a check properly is the stopping, by one branch in the same legislature, a measure proposed by the other in it.

In fact the constitution provides for the states no check, properly speaking, upon the measures of congress — Congress can immediately enlist soldiers, and apply to the pockets of the people.

These few considerations bring us to the very strong distinction between the plan that operates on federal principles, and the plan that operates on consolidated principles.

A plan may be federal or not as to its organization; each state may retain its vote or not; the sovereignty of the state may be represented, or the people of it.

A plan may be federal or not as to its operations — federal when it requires men and monies of the states, and the states as such make the laws for raising the men and monies.

Not federal, when it leaves the states governments out of the question, and operates immediately upon the persons and property of the citizens.

The first is the case with the confederation, the second with the new plan: in the first the state governments may be a check, in the last none at all.

This distinction I shall pursue further hereafter, under the head before mentioned, of amendments as to internal taxes.

And here I shall pursue a species of checks which writers have not often noticed.

TO BE CONTINUED ...
Post Reply