The developidea of amendment ment of the by a con In both instances unanimous consent could not be obtained, and the proposals were defeated because of the votes of single states. In 1785 acts were passed by ten states giving Congress the power of regulating commerce for thirteen years, but these were so contradictory that nothing could be accomplished. In 1786, in urging the acceptance of the revenue amendment of 1783, Congress declared that the crisis had come and that it was impossible to preserve and maintain the faith of the federal government by the temporary requisitions of the states.1 As has been shown, in 1780 Hamilton suggested the plan of calling a convention for the framing of a new constitution, and in 1782 the assembly of New York recommended such action. In 1784 certain members of Congress discussed the advisability vention of such a plan, but no formal action was taken. In 1785 the Massachusetts General Court passed a resolution calling upon Congress to call a convention, but her delegates refused to present these resolutions to Congress. In this same year, however, the plan for a convention received unexpected assistance. Virginia and Maryland were attempting to settle their dispute concerning the navigation of the Potomac. All the states were invited to send delegates to attend a convention at Annapolis Annapolis to consider the question of duties and commerce in general. At 1786 this convention delegates from only five states were present, but among them was Hamilton, who reverted to his plan for a revision of the Articles and succeeded in persuading the convention to pass a resolution asking the states to send delegates to a convention to be held at Philadelphia "to consider the Articles of Confederation and propose such changes therein as might render them adequate to the exigencies of the Union." This resolution was sent to the state legislatures and by them transmitted to Congress. In February, 1787, Congress assented to the plan and issued a call for a convention "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the government and the preservation of the. Union." 1 G. T. Curtis, Constitutional History of the United States, Vol. I, p. 232. convention, All the states except Rhode Island responded. In all, sixtytwo delegates were appointed in various ways from the twelve states. Most of these delegations, however, were strictly bound by their instructions to the consideration of amendments. It may well be doubted whether the response would have been so general had it been imagined that an entirely new constitution was to be the result of the deliberations of the convention. CHAPTER III MAKING THE CONSTITUTION While the delegates were assembling at Philadelphia the leaders in the movement for a new constitution came to an understanding as to the method of procedure. The formal organization was completed on May 25, and four days later Randolph, the ablest speaker of the Virginia delegation, presented a plan prepared by Madison in the form of fifteen resolutions. These resolutions, the so-called Virginia plan, formed the basis of the deliberation of the convention and the foundation of the new constitution. They provided not for a mere amendment to the Articles but for the framing of a new system under the guise, later abandoned, of enlarging the powers of Congress. THE VIRGINIA PLAN executive (3) Congress proportional of two Houses According to this plan there should be a single national (1) Single executive who, with a "convenient number" of the national judiciary, should exercise a veto upon the acts of Congress. The national judiciary was to be established to try cases of (2) National judiciary (1) piracies, (2) cases in which foreigners might be interested, (3) cases with respect to the collection of the national revenue or the national peace and harmony, (4) cases of impeachment. Congress was to consist of two Houses, proportional to the quota of contributions or to the numbers of free inhabitants of the states, the lower branch of which should be elected by the people of the states and the upper house by the lower from those nominated by the state legislatures. This body was to exercise all the powers of Congress under the Confederation and also could legislate in "all cases in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation" by the states. It also had power to negative the laws of the states which were contrary to the articles of either to population or contributions The convention decides on a new constitution Opposition to proportional representa tion Opposition to the Virginia plan: (1) State sovereignty union and "to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof." 1 Shortly after this plan was presented Randolph offered three brief resolutions embodying the fundamentals of his plan. These declared that a mere federal union would not accomplish the object of the Confederation, that no treaties among the states as individual sovereignties would be sufficient, and that a national government ought to be established consisting of a supreme legislature, executive, and judiciary. After a brief debate these were agreed to, Connecticut voting No and New York being divided on the third. The convention had apparently come to the conclusion that no mere amendment would be sufficient. The delegates from the large states and the national element were in control and had pushed their case rapidly. Yet, although the convention had overwhelmingly decided for what seemed a new form of government, the discussion of the details revealed the existence of groups holding very diverse opinions which prolonged the debates and produced compromises not only in details but in some of the more fundamental features. The discussion over representation first revealed the existence of these parties most clearly. Should the new national legislature continue the practice of the Confederation and recognize the principle of state sovereignty by giving to each state an equal representation? Or should wealth or population or a combination of both be considered, and representatives be apportioned according to one or both of these standards? It was the old discussion which had faced the First Continental Congress at its first session, and it clearly revealed the existence of at least three lines of opposition to the Virginia plan. The most fundamental ground of opposition was that a federation, not a national government, was desired. Once admit the desirability of a national and not a federal system and much of the opposition to proportional representation vanished. As has been seen, even during the Revolution the states were loath to surrender their powers to the Continental Congress, and 1 Elliot's Debates, Vol. I, 143–145. of Articles, needed after peace was declared ignored or refused its requests. Active state sovereignty saw no room for a strong national government. A treaty or a federation best satisfied these states. Hence arose logically the second line of opposition that the Articles of (3) Revision Confederation were correct in principle but needed amend- not new ment. The experience of the past years had shown this; and Constitution, the opponents of the Virginia plan were ready to make concessions and to give to Congress many additional powers, but the principles of the Confederation must remain unaltered. Whatever different motives moved these parties, the division was best seen in the grouping of the large states on the side (3) Large of the Virginia plan for a national government and of the smaller ones in opposition. The reason was obvious. If the smaller states allowed the larger ones their true proportional representation, they would be outvoted. They feared oppression; their pride suffered, for as sovereign states they felt themselves the equals of the others. Whatever motives were operative the debate turned into a struggle between the large and small states over the questions of representation. THE NEW JERSEY PLAN versus small states chamber, On June 15 Paterson of New Jersey laid before the con- (1) Single vention a scheme known as the New Jersey plan, embodying each state the principles of the opponents of the plan for strong national one vote government.1 It was merely a revision and enlargement of the Articles of Confederation. The idea of a confederation was retained, and each state had a single vote in Congress which still consisted of a single chamber. A plural executive was to be (2) Plural elected by Congress to enforce the acts of Congress and to appoint the federal officers not otherwise provided for. Additional powers were given to Congress so that it could raise taxes by levying duties upon imports, regulate commerce and to tax imtrade, both foreign and domestic, and make requisitions which ports and if not paid within a specified time could be collected as Con- trade gress might direct. A federal judiciary was to be created 1 Elliot's Debates, Vol. I, pp. 175-177. executive (3) Congress given power regulate |