Posted on 04/16/2011 4:30:48 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Two hundred and twenty four years ago today, and one month before the Philadelphia Convention, aka the Constitutional Convention was to commence, James Madison responded to a letter from George Washington.
He offered his thoughts on a new plan of government, the Virginia Plan. It would emerge largely intact almost five months later as The Constitution of the United States of America.
To George Washington
New York, April 16 1787
Dear Sir,
I have been honoured with your letter of the 31 of March, and find with much pleasure that your views of the reform which ought to be pursued by the Convention, give a sanction to those which I have entertained. Temporising applications will dishonor the Councils which propose them, and may foment the internal malignity of the disease, at the same time that they produce an ostensible palliation of it. Radical attempts, although unsuccessful, will at least justify the authors of them.
Having been lately led to revolve the subject which is to undergo the discussion of the Convention, and formed in my mind some outlines of a new system, I take the liberty of submitting them without apology, to your eye.
Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty; and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.
I would propose as the ground-work that a change be made in the principle of representation. According to the present form of the Union in which the intervention of the States is in all great cases necessary to effectuate the measures of Congress, an equality of suffrage, does not destroy the inequality of importance, in the several members. No one will deny that Virginia and Massts. have more weight and influence both within & without Congress than Delaware or Rho. Island. Under a system which would operate in many essential points without the intervention of the State legislatures, the case would be materially altered. A vote in the national Councils from Delaware, would then have the same effect and value as one from the largest State in the Union. I am ready to believe that such a change would not be attended with much difficulty. A majority of the States, and those of greatest influence, will regard it as favorable to them. To the Northern States it will be recommended by their present populousness; to the Southern by their expected advantage in this respect. The lesser States must in every event yield to the predominant will. But the consideration which particularly urges a change in the representation is that it will obviate the principal objections of the larger States to the necessary concessions of power.
I would propose next that in addition to the present federal powers, the national Government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports & imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, &c &c.
Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions. Without this defensive power, every positive power that can be given on paper will be evaded & defeated. The States will continue to invade the national jurisdiction, to violate treaties and the law of nations & to harrass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest. Another happy effect of this prerogative would be its controul on the internal vicisitudes of State policy; and the aggressions of interested majorities on the rights of minorities and of individuals. The great desideratum which has not yet been found for Republican Governments, seems to be some disinterested & dispassionate umpire in disputes between different passions & interests in the State. The majority who alone have the right of decision, have frequently an interest real or supposed in abusing it. In Monarchies the sovereign is more neutral to the interests and views of different parties; but unfortunately he too often forms interests of his own repugnant to those of the whole. Might not the national prerogative here suggested be found sufficiently disinterested for the decision of local questions of policy, whilst it would itself be sufficiently restrained from the pursuit of interests adverse to those of the whole Society? There has not been any moment since the peace at which the representatives of the union would have given an assent to paper money or any other measure of a kindred nature.
The national supremacy ought also to be extended as I conceive to the Judiciary departments. If those who are to expound & apply the laws, are connected by their interests & their oaths with the particular States wholly, and not with the Union, the participation of the Union in the making of the laws may be possibly rendered unavailing. It seems at least necessary that the oaths of the Judges should include a fidelity to the general as well as local constitution, and that an appeal should lie to some national tribunals in all cases to which foreigners or inhabitants of other States may be parties. The admiralty jurisdiction seems to fall entirely within the purview of the national Government.
The national supremacy in the Executive departments is liable to some difficulty, unless the officers administering them could be made appointable by the supreme Government. The Militia ought certainly to be placed in some form or other under the authority which is entrusted with the general protection and defence.
A Government composed of such extensive powers should be well organized and balanced. The Legislative department might be divided into two branches; one of them chosen every years by the people at large, or by the legislatures; the other to consist of fewer members, to hold their places for a longer term, and to go out in such a rotation as always to leave in office a large majority of old members. Perhaps the negative on the laws might be most conveniently exercised by this branch. As a further check, a council of revision including the great ministerial officers might be superadded.
A national Executive must also be provided. I have scarcely ventured as yet to form my own opinion either of the manner in which it ought to be constituted or of the authorities with which it ought to be cloathed.
An article should be inserted expressly guarantying the tranquillity of the States against internal as well as external dangers.
In like manner the right of coercion should be expressly declared. With the resources of Commerce in hand, the national administration might always find means of exerting it either by sea or land; But the difficulty & awkwardness of operating by force on the collective will of a State, render it particularly desirable that the necessity of it might be precluded. Perhaps the negative on the laws might create such a mutuality of dependence between the General and particular authorities, as to answer this purpose. Or perhaps some defined objects of taxation might be submitted along with commerce, to the general authority.
To give a new System its proper validity and energy, a ratification must be obtained from the people, and not merely from the ordinary authority of the Legislatures. This will be the more essential as inroads on the existing Constitutions of the States will be unavoidable.
The inclosed address to the States on the subject of the Treaty of peace has been agreed to by Congress, & forwarded to the several Executives. We foresee the irritation which it will excite in many of our Countrymen; but could not withhold our approbation of the measure. Both, the resolutions and the address, passed without a dissenting voice.
Congress continue to be thin, and of course do little business of importance. The settlement of the public accounts, the disposition of the public lands, and arrangements with Spain, are subjects which claim their particular attention. As a step towards the first, the treasury board are charged with the task of reporting a plan by which the final decision on the claims of the States will be handed over from Congress to a select set of men bound by the oaths, and cloathed with the powers, of Chancellors. As to the Second article, Congress have it themselves under consideration. Between 6 & 700 thousand acres have been surveyed and are ready for sale. The mode of sale however will probably be a source of different opinions; as will the mode of disposing of the unsurveyed residue. The Eastern gentlemen remain attached to the scheme of townships. Many others are equally strenuous for indiscriminate locations. The States which have lands of their own for sale, are suspected of not being hearty in bringing the federal lands to market. The business with Spain is becoming extremely delicate, and the information from the Western settlements truly alarming.
A motion was made some days ago for an adjournment of Congress for a short period, and an appointment of Philada. for their reassembling. The excentricity of this place as well with regard to E. and West as to N. & South has I find been for a considerable time a thorn in the minds of many of the Southern members. Suspicion too has charged some important votes on the weight thrown by the present position of Congress into the Eastern Scale, and predicts that the Eastern members will never concur in any substantial provision or movement for a proper permanent seat for the national Government whilst they remain so much gratified in its temporary residence. These seem to have been the operative motives with those on one side who were not locally interested in the removal. On the other side the motives are obvious. Those of real weight were drawn from the apparent caprice with which Congress might be reproached, and particularly from the peculiarity of the existing moment. I own that I think so much regard due to these considerations, that notwithstanding the powerful ones on the other side, I should have assented with great repugnance to the motion, and would even have voted against it if any probability had existed that by waiting for a proper time, a proper measure might not be lost for a very long time. The plan which I shd. have judged most eligible would have been to fix on the removal whenever a vote could be obtained but so as that it should not take effect until the commencement of the ensuing federal year. And if an immediate removal had been resolved on, I had intended to propose such a change in the plan. No final question was taken in the case. Some preliminary questions shewed that six States were in favor of the motion. Rho. Island the 7th. was at first on the same side, and Mr. Varnum one of her delegates continues so. His colleague was overcome by the solicitations of his Eastern breathren. As neither Maryland nor South Carolina were on the floor, it seems pretty evident that N. York has a very precarious tenure of the advantages derived from the abode of Congress.
We understand that the discontents in Massts which lately produced an appeal to the sword, are now producing a trial of strength in the field of electioneering. The Governor will be displaced. The Senate is said to be already of a popular complexion, and it is expected the other branch will be still more so. Paper money it is surmised will be the engine to be played off agst. creditors both public and private. As the event of the Elections however is not yet decided, this information must be too much blended with conjecture to be regarded as matter of certainty.
I do not learn that the proposed act relating to Vermont has yet gone through all the stages of legislation here; nor can I say whether it will finally pass or not. In truth, it having not been a subject of conversation for some time, I am unable to say what has been done or is likely to be done with it. With the sincerest affection & the highest esteem I have the honor to be Dear Sir Your devoted Servt.
Madison sought a government with powers commensurate with its objects.
The people, not the states must form the basis of the new government.
Confer to this government the powers given to Congress in the Articles of Confederation, plus regulatory powers over commerce and taxation of exports and imports.
Veto power over all state legislation. (Under the Articles, states could render the laws of Congress null)
Thirteen Judiciaries and Legislatures superior to Congress was no way to promote republican freedom.
Popular government would be limited to the first House of the Legislature. Too much democracy is deadly. The executive should be appointed.
Neither Madison nor any other Framer posited a popularly elected Legislature as we have had for almost 100 years.
Several ideas, including multiple executives were floated at the Convention before a single President emerged.
The likes of Shays’ and possible slave rebellions must be addressed.
Either the general government must have a veto over state laws, or troops must be authorized to collect taxes from the states.
The people are sovereign. Let their representatives decide the issue.
Under the Articles, the states could and did ignore Treaty terms.
After Shays Rebellion, Madison expected MA to go off the deep end of democracy. The Convention could not happen soon enough.
Constitution ping!
Amen, save
Would that we had people as wise and good as at our beginnings.
... and 200 years later they instead elevated white trash bootleggers to some quasi-aristocracy and I'm still not quite sure they're over it yet.
West Virginia has the same problem, but at least their "aristocracy" has some legitimate historical basis.
A great source of info documents from 500 BC to 1800. Many of the links are dead but most can be found with a little further searching.
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/primarysources.html
Agree. I shudder at the thought of another Constitutional Convention. It was moment in time never to be repeated. It may have been the last time a committee turned out a great product.
If the Framers were here today and we were sitting in a room with them, they would ask us only one question.
“130 years from today there will be a leader of a nation and he will say the following: “”all leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party, a party filled with enemies of the people, are hereby to be considered outlaws, and are to be arrested immediately and brought before the revolutionary court.””
Do you know why we put the Second Amendment in the Constitution?
That leader was V.I. Lenin. Sounds like what the Democrats have been saying about the Tea Party.
Geeez...we’re sunk. The Constitutional Convention is EXACLTY the remedy we need and it’s, oddly enough actually in the Constitution (Article 5). Please don’t tell me you believe the R’s are going to ride in on their white horses and “save the day!” Remember Medicare Part D...where exactly is the Article 1. Section 8. authority for that.
Bring on the Constitutional Convention and don’t reply about the mystical “runaway” convention. That’s what’s kept us from actually having one for nearly a generation.
Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty; and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.
Referring to the states as "subordinately useful" shows the kind of disdain for the state governments that we usually ascribe only to Hamilton.
Great post!
ML/NJ
Posting drunk?
Nope...don’t drink!
The States will continue to invade the national jurisdiction, to violate treaties and the law of nations & to harrass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest.
So let me get this straight Mr Madison:
IF the central government denies protection, which you hereby declare is its responsibility, of any subject State from invasion across the national border, then that State is "spiteful" and "mistaken" in defending its "views of interest?"
This thought sounds to me like a totally subjective reaction to the issues and events of the moment (various dissension among the colonies), hardly infinite wisdom for all time.
Our forefathers were admirable men, but hardly all-knowing.
Johnny Suntrade
Madison’s view,like Hamilton’s, was that states could be subordinately useful. You couldn’t get rid of them outright, but at least you could subjugate them in a way that was politically expedient. He says so right in this letter. In fact, that’s what “federalism” is—a national government with the phony pretense of a confederacy.
Nonsense. Lincoln preserved what the Constitution created. Washington marched troops into PA (personally rode with them, as did Hamilton) to put down a little rebellion against a whiskey tax. They’d have subjugated the rebel states just as Lincoln did.
As for protection . . . what you are talking about?
His ideas, like those of other Founders/Framers, continued to evolve over the decades since before the revolution. His proposals were far from spur of the moment.
No one walked out of the convention with the document he expected at the beginning.
Any attribution of "all knowing" is your construct, not theirs nor mine.
Jacquerie
“subordinately useful”
-
That seems such an insulting phrase.
Hamilton and Madison both apparently had a shared desire to build a massive powerful federal government; the state’s be damned.
Yeah, Madison was one of the grownups who saved the US from dissolution.
At one end of the spectrum was William Patterson and Alexander Hamilton was at the other. The end product was, as Madison hoped, in the middle.
If you think the states were universally admired at the time, you are mistaken. They violated property rights, instituted paper money, imposed tariffs on each other, and ensured we would be in a constant state of cold war with Britain in the west. The states were so ill regarded, the Convention came fairly close to acing out the states altogether from the legislature. It was only the threat of a walkout from small states that brought state appointed Senators. Under the Articles, the states were only second to the framework of the Articles as problems that had to be corrected.
Hamilton, Madison, and so many others worked together to ratify the Constitution.
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.