Posted on 03/04/2019 1:54:54 AM PST by Jacquerie
“If we are to be considered as a nation, all State distinctions must be abolished; the whole must be thrown into a hotchpot and when an equal division is made, then there may be fairly an equality of representation.” – New Jersey delegate William Paterson.
Today’s squib reviews the last few days of the Federal Convention leading up to Alexander Hamilton’s June 18th speech. In Part V we’ll find that, considering the previous exchanges among delegates, Hamilton was far from alone in his disdain of the States. What he shared with them was the search for a governing design adequate to America’s needs, customs and traditions.
June 7th. John Dickinson (DE) and Roger Sherman (CN) proposed State legislative election of Senators. James Madison opposed because he still defended the 6th Resolution of the Virginia Plan which provided Congressional veto of state laws. Count on State-elected Senators’ reluctance to use this essential power.
June 8th. Taming the source of trouble under the Articles of Confederation (AoC), the States, was paramount. Recall the States often ignored Congress under the AoC as they routinely missed tax requisitions, refused to abide by the peace treaty with Great Britain, made commercial compacts among themselves, and took other measures detrimental to the better good of the Union.1
“We must take our choice of two things, “ Dickinson. “We must either subject the States to the danger of being injured by the national government, or the latter to the danger of being injured by that of the States.” The fate of the Union depended on either internal or external control of the states. If internal, meaning the states somehow control themselves, it meant saving the bulk of their sovereignty. If external, either through congressional veto of state laws or military force, wave goodbye to all state sovereignty.
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
This is praiseworthy?
ML/NJ
Hamilton was an abolitionist who favored a strong Federal government, especially one strong enough to put its own financial house in order.
Other Founders (i.e., SC's Pinckney & Rutledge) wanted a Federal government strong enough to protect slavery.
The great compromise of 1787 produced a Constitution which satisfied both.
Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.