(Beginning below, Mr. Hamilton would speak for nearly six hours. His plan was not presented as a motion to the committee, but as a reflection of his ideas of good government. No delegate stood up during his speech to either denounce or praise it. It was an odd interlude, considering the Randolph Plan debate was postponed to receive the Patterson/NJ Plan and now Mr. Hamilton came up with another plan, admittedly not for submission, but a radical departure from recent discussion. One of my references surmise the possibility that Hamilton intended to make the Randolph Plan appear benign and the Patterson/NJ Plan appear impossible. Neither the Hamilton nor Patterson/NJ Plans had a real chance. The latter was more of what had already failed, and the former resembled too much of what had been fought against in the Revolutionary War.)
Alexander Hamilton (NY) had said little until today. He was at odds with other members from NY. (The dispute would soon result in the absence of a voting NY delegation. For a while, the convention would be down to nine States.) Neither the Randolph or NJ Plans met with his approval. Leaving sovereignty in the states could not answer the purpose. He discussed variations of the term “federal;” thought doubts on the scope allowed the convention were too subtle, and agreed with Randolph that they must do what they deem essential to the happiness of the country. It was no time to sacrifice means to an end.
Mr. Hamilton compared the problems in both plans and suggested changes.
A government must be supported by its constituent parts. That did not exist under the Articles. The states constantly pursued interests adverse to the whole. Requisitions were ignored. Rather than show a willingness to part with power, they retrieved powers delegated to the Confederation. Powerful demagogues were more resistant to a change in government than the people. The people support state government because it is the source of law, judicial protections. Coercion of laws or a coercion of force were the choices. Coercion by force meant war and dissolution of the Union. Because “passions” and “avarice, ambition, interest” were powerful in the states, they would tend to overwhelm the general government in a confederacy. History backed up his points in the examples of the Amphyctionic Council, Phocian War, German Confederacy, and Swiss Cantons which more than once made war with one another.
The only way to correct the evils was with complete sovereignty in the general government. Yes, the impost in the Patterson Plan would supply some revenue, but not enough. Requisitions from the states proved unworkable. States will pay on the basis of whether they agree or not with laws passed by Congress. One delinquent state would encourage others. To use land values as the basis of requisitions was to invite more trouble. Non commercial, non trading states would also be at a disadvantage if the basis of taxation is by proportional population. Less unequal are taxes on exports and excises.
Equality of state suffrage would become destructive. There were doubts as to whether or not troops and ships could be kept under the current and proposed Articles of Mr. Patterson. Hamilton did not believe so.
Hamilton prophesized the states or the general government would eventually swallow up one or the other.
Two sovereignties could not coexist in Congress. It would be against the tenets of good government to vest such powers in a single body. The Patterson Plan would eventuate in either bad government or no government at all.
Hamilton broached the notion of doing away with state governments, yet denied it was a proposal to be considered by the convention. States were irrelevant to commerce, revenue, or agriculture. Certainly, there must still be incorporated towns and distinct courts of justice. He foresaw difficulty getting distant representatives from the far corners of a large republic to the center. Small Congressional salaries would only attract petty demagogues. The Senate was a starting point for those intent on eventual government offices. He doubted a republican government could be established over such a great extent, but knew it would be unwise to propose any other form.
A single house government was demonstrably inadequate. The people would eventually appreciate the benefits of “public strength with individual security” inherent in the British system. Hamilton viewed government as a contest between factions, owners and employees, debtors and creditors, etc. Each should have the means to protect their interests. Lack of such balance led to paper money, installment laws. The House of Lords served to check these inclinations from the Commons or Crown alike. A temporary Senate will not answer. Even with a seven year term, they will be subject to the democratic spirit. He asked New England delegates if recent experience did not verify this.
An effective executive could not be established on republican principles. Can there be good government without an executive? The King of England was indistinguishable from the nation, so wealthy he was beyond corruption, and was sufficiently independent yet controlled. Republics were more liable to foreign corruption.
Hamilton wished to go as far as republican principles would allow. Give lifetime appointments to Senators and Executives. But would this be republican? Yes, if the people or their representatives make the elections or appointments. A seven year Executive would make “creatures,” I take to be officers and perhaps men of private station beholding to him. There would be temptations to prolong his term beyond seven years. An executive for life would have no need to expand his powers or enrich others. A monarch for life would be safer than one for seven years. Roman Emperors and the executives of Poland and Germany were all elected by select groups. The American Union could devise safeguards to prevent tumults associated with elected executives.
Hamilton offered ideas, not as an alternative to Randolph’s or Patterson’s Plans, but as a means to inform members of his thoughts. He did not think either the R or P plan would be ratified by the people.
With the Union dissolving or already dissolved and the people moving toward democracy, the time would come when the people would favor his principles.
(The notes of Robert Yates (NY), Rufus King (MA), Alexander Hamilton (NY) this day can be viewed Here)
Adjourned.
Constitutional Convention Ping!
The people feared all government but their local government, whose oppressions they felt they had a reasonably good chance to restrain. Reflecting that fear, the delegates from the several states (colonies) saw danger behind every proposal because . . . well, because there was danger behind every proposal (if men were angels – James Madison; but men are not angels).
Any government of men is fraught with danger. And there are no others. The main task of the Delegates was to erect as many obstacles to the abuses of government as could be devised against the natural ambition and avarice of men (and women). The records of the Convention demonstrate this. In the end an imperfect document emerged. No document is proof against the evil designs of men. The Delegates knew this and left the future defense of their document to those who came behind.
The Delegates succeeded in producing a wonderful document. We have failed in our task of its defense.
Thanks for the ping.