With the Virginia Plan and the Pinckney Plan having been proposed the day before on May 29, 1787, May 30th would mark when real work of the Convention begins. Though two proposals had been submitted the day prior, it would be the Virginia Plan that would end up setting most of the debate for the foreseeable future. The Convention would go into a Committee of the Whole to begin the day, and elected Nathaniel Gorham (Massachusetts)as the Chair. The Committee of the Whole is a committee of the entire Convention with fewer rules, and a smaller quorum,, this allows for open debate and proposing and voting on amendments to proposals, before the Convention proper votes of the final version of the proposal, and is method of conducting business still seen today in the House of Representatives3.
James Madison (Virginia) notes Roger Sherman of Connecticut takes his seat.
Three Branches of Government, and Confederacy vs. Supreme Power
The 15 propositions proposed by Edmund Randolph the day prior have been referred to the Committee to be taken up. Randolph moved and Gouverneur Morris (Pennsylvania) seconded, that the first Resolution of the Virginia Plan “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 & general welfare”, should be postponed to consider the following three proposals.
- 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, and general welfare.
- That no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient.
- That a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary.
[Note: Previous to May 30, 1787, only James Madison had notes on the Convention, starting this day James McHenry (Maryland) and Robert Yates (New York) also have notes which are also used in the detailing the sequence of events. When notes other than James Madison are used they will be referenced]
John Dickinson (Delaware)also proposes a similar draft resolution, with additional following resolutions,
- Resolved, 2—That to accomplish the Objects proposed by the Confederation, amore effective Government, consisting of a Legislative, Judiciary and Executive ought to be established
- Resolved 1—That the Confederation is so defective that it cannot accomplish the Objects proposed by it, namely "Common Defense security of Liberty and general Welfare."
This is among the first indications that will be seen that the Articles of Confederation may need to be abandoned due to their inadequacy. This indication was not lost on all, as criticism was immediately raised on the first two proposals, mainly the first. It was moved by Pierce Butler (South Carolina) and seconded by Edmund Randolph to pass the third proposal, and after some debate, not about the forming of three branches, but on the extent of the word “supreme”.
Charles Pinckney (South Carolina) observing the aspects of the Virginia Plan, and the days three proposals, asked Edmund Randolph if he meant to abolish State Governments altogether, to which Randolph replied in the negative, that his proposals were merely outlines of the system he had in mind, and that the powers for the new Government be granted supreme only when they clash with the States, the States should yield2. Charles Pinckney’s question sparked a debate among several of the delegates (Pierce Butler, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (South Carolina), Elbridge Gerry (Massachusetts), Robert Yates2) regarding the viability of the States in a system with a stronger Government as well as if the Convention was authorized to recommend such fundamental differences from the Articles of Confederation. Pierce Butler had not made up his mind on the subject of abolishing State Governments, he was open to the idea, but was inclined against giving all the power in one body. Robert Yates does not think merely a Federal Government will accomplish what is needed for the, “Common Defense, Security of Liberty and General Welfare”, and treaties will not accomplish this either, and seems inclined to support a Supreme Power.
Charles Pinckney had doubts if the Convention was authorized a discussion of a System founded on different principles from the federal Constitution, to which Elbridge Gerry had similar doubts, to form a government totally different, and whether Congress can pass it. He believes if they pass this resolution, the Convention will annihilate the Confederation.
This lead into another discussion about the extent of existing and required powers. Robert Morris (Pennsylvania), “explained the distinction between a federal and national, supreme, Government; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation. He contended that in all Communities there must be one supreme power, and one only”. He was explaining the difference between a Confederated Government of cooperation and a National Government which had compulsory authority to ensure its rules would be followed, or Supreme Power. He contends, “ We had better take a Supreme Government now, than a despot one in 20 years hence, for come he must1”. George Mason (Virginia), observed the Articles of Confederation was not, “providing for coercion & punishment against delinquent States,” and that such a Government was necessary as could directly operate on individuals, and would only punish those whose guilt required it. Roger Sherman, agreed with this power being needed, in particular in the raising of money which would involve many other powers. But Sherman also stated that jurisdiction should not be concurrent between the States and National Government, but was not in favor of making too great of inroads on the existing system. He feared to great of changes would not be ratified by the States. Rufus King (Massachusetts) also believes in a Government to be able to act upon the whole, but it seems Delaware seems to have the ability to only strengthen the Confederation.
George Read (Delaware) moved seconded Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to postpone the third proposition, in order to take up, “Resolved that in order to carry into execution the Design of the States in forming this Convention, and to accomplish the objects proposed by the Confederation a more effective Government consisting of a Legislative, Executive and Judiciary ought to be established”. The difference being between Randolph’s proposal and the proposal by Read, is Randolph’s three branches were Supreme, while Read’s maintained a Confederacy ,as previously noted by Morris a Confederacy is, “being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties” while Supreme, “having a compleat and compulsive operation” Reads motion to postpone failed to carry; Yea-4 (MA, CT, DE, SC) Nay-4 (NY, PA, VA, NC). [Note: It takes a majority of greater than half votes cast for a motion to carry].
This is an important sequence of debates, under the Articles of Confederation the States reigned as the Supreme Power, now the discussion was whether to cede Supreme Power from the States to a National Government, which may be able to compel the States to act in certain matters, instead of the National Government being compelled by the States.
On the question of the third proposal, to the Convention “That a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary.”, the motion carries Yea-6 (MA, PA, DE, VA, NC, SC), Nay-1 (CT) Divided 1 (NY). The motion being agreed to, the Convention has agreed that THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED, and they have SUPREME POWER.
The first and most important building blocks for a system of government has been now been established in a Three Branch form of Government, whose law will be Supreme to those of the States, thus signals the end of the Articles of Confederation. This is only the beginning, but this foundation will never be shifted (though debated) for the remainder of the Convention.
Proportional Representation debate delayed
Following this, Edmund Randolph proposes another motion.
That the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases
Due to the restrictions placed upon Delaware, after a short debate from James Madison concerning the essential need to have a proportional representation vice equal suffrage as under the Articles of Confederation and to save Delaware embarrassment he recommends the proposal to committee. George Read seconded the proposal, though observed no just construction of Delaware's requirements could justify their leaving the Convention. With the possibility that Delaware may need to leave the Convention due to the proposal, a vote is postponed and the motion referred to committee. The Convention then adjourns, until May 31, 1787. Delaware’s restriction will at times try the Convention, but may be a blessing in disguise, due to the way it will help force the eventual forming of the Senate.
1: Notes of James McHenry
2: Notes of Robert Yates
3: http://www.votesmart.org/resource_govt101_02.php
No comments :
Post a Comment