John Rutlidge (SC) reflected the political nature of the convention in stating that NH was quite aware of the meeting, and sarcastically asked if RI should be urged as well. In a slap to the small state position, he hoped that important points would be settled before either state delegation arrived.
Rufus King (MA) expected NH in any day. He had corresponded with the state directly.
James Wilson (PA) thought a letter to NH may violate the rule of convention secrecy. It may spread “great alarm.”
Mr. Brearly’s motion was defeated 5-2.
(This was a rough start to a tough day. Good thing it was Saturday, with time to cool off tomorrow.)
Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN)’s motion to limit each state to one vote in the Senate was resumed.
James Wilson (PA) was perplexed at the motion, given the proportional representation agreed to for the House of Representatives. In a rebuke to the small state threat of dissolution, Mr. Wilson responded in kind. After so many shared dangers, comity and final victory in the revolution, it would be a shame to fail to come to an agreement. Still, he would not change his mind as to proportional representation in the Senate. If the small states wished to go, if a minority refused to join the majority, so be it.
Why should ¾ of the states renounce the unalienable rights of man in favor of the artificial constructs of states?
(It was here that Mr. Wilson changed the tack of the large state argument. Instead of appeal to raw political, small state v. large state balance, he drew from a noteworthy clause of our Declaration of Independence.)
Just because the House of Reps was to be proportionally based was no reason for Mr. Ellsworth to assume it countered opposition to equal representation in the Senate. Though limited to one house of Congress, it would still allow the minority to rule. Why were they forming a government; for men or imaginary things called states? A government based on equal state suffrage must fail. It would result in dissolution and end in petty, rival states.
How could a government based on proportional representation, on the people, result in monarchy? Part of the definition of tyranny is minority rule. It would be true that a majority of states in the Senate could not carry a law against the people in the House. But that ignored a basic problem.
Bad governments are either too weak or too strong. One does too little, the other too much. Failure through weakness or destruction through oppression. The delegates met in convention to correct failure in the first instance.
If the states are given equal Senate suffrage, the country will be doomed again to weak, ineffective government. (Well, this would be proven wrong; popular election of Senators would be partly responsible for the oppression we endure today. What Mr. Wilson’s comments reflected was widespread disgust with the Confederated States.)
Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) disagreed in that the few would prevent their destruction by the many. This was repetitive of what has been said so many times before. He compared his vision of the Senate to that of the House of Lords, which often served to check the wild encroachments of the House of Commons. The proposed plan was to invite oppression. The Articles of Confederation only needed repair, not demolition. (Note this respectful reference to the British Parliamentary system, and from a Small State supporter of the Articles.)
He then said something contrary to fact, “No salutary measure has been lost for want of a majority of the States.” (A few years prior, two of the three major problems of the Articles, lack of steady revenue, and no commerce power, went uncorrected due to a minority of State opposition.)
Mr. Ellsworth saw the House as protecting the interests of the large states. The mere possibility of their combination against the smaller states made equal suffrage in the Senate necessary. He offered as an example of possible abuse, the establishment of say, three free ports, Boston, Philly, and someplace (Norfolk, Alexandria?) on the Chesapeake and no others. Don’t forget the Articles which were still in force, and reminded the delegates that his state was of middle rank.
James Madison (VA) pointed out what he believed to be inconsistencies in Mr. Ellsworth’s statements. Among them was that CN had demonstrated the habit of not only not obeying Congress, but went so far as to pass a positive law by which it refused to pay taxes levied by Congress. (His barb was probably regarded as just short of an insult.) This was precisely the sort of State actions the Constitution would correct. It boiled down to the majority of states possibly injuring the majority of the people, extorting laws opposed by the majority and exercising some great powers above the representatives of the people.
He acknowledged that every class of citizen and the states should have the means of defense. The current population of the three largest states should not be the distinction; it should be slave and non slave states and northern and southern states. Mr. Madison predicted the future clash. He proposed a numerical ratio involving citizens and slaves that gave advantage to the northern states in one house and the southern states in the other.
(Mr. Madison had dealt with sectionalism in the Confederate Congress. This was not new to him, so why wait to use it now? Perhaps he sensed the tide turning in favor of equality of Senate suffrage. Through sectional appeal, he offered another twist, another call to consider not just the tally of Small v. Large, but North v. Southern Senators.)
Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) snapped to Mr. Madison that CN supported federalism, gave up great sums of money and men in the revolutionary war, and fielded more men than VA in the war. If she did not send tax money, it was due to inability and not more so than other states.
Roger Sherman (CN) attempted to soothe tempers and denied the Articles of Confederation were faulty. The fault lay with the States. The only thing lacking was power to enforce Congressional resolutions.
William Davy (NC) thought proportional representation impractical, as it would start with 90 members, and only grow from there and would not possess the qualities expected. He would prefer the amendment, one vote per state in the Senate. He did not see why the government could not operate on both individuals and states.
James Wilson (PA) offered a weak compromise. Let the smallest states have one Senator each and the larger ones appoint a Senator per 100,000 people. It would greatly reduce the size of the Senate, yet guarantee small state representation.
Dr. Benjamin Franklin (PA) once again tried to cool things off. He asked each side to compromise and suggested an equal number of Senators from each state. (It was here he made his famous comparison to taking a little off each piece of wood to achieve a good joint.) Another suggestion would evolve into the “advise and consent” duty of the Senate. Ever the money-man, Mr. Franklin thought suffrage in votes involving money should be by the amount each state contributed to the Treasury. (It was apparently difficult to imagine significant amounts of revenue raised outside of tax requisitions as per the Articles of Confederation.) Mr. Franklin had his written ideas placed on the President’s table for consideration.
(Despite Mr. Franklin’s attempt, the delegates continued to not play together very well.)
Rufus King (MA) was not conciliatory. He saw equality of Senate suffrage as another Confederate Congress that would stymie national legislation for petty local reasons. Since the small states refused to budge, the Convention was, in actuality, finished. He did not see how equal State suffrage secured our individual rights, and referred to State sovereignty as a “phantom.” Like so many others, he saw the Convention as their last opportunity to secure liberty and happiness. How could the Small States reject a blessing of government based on the legitimate representation of the people over Utopian ideals and attachments? “Vicious,” he described the plan of equal suffrage and would not support it.
Jonathan Dayton (NJ) vehemently disagreed with Mr. King.( I’m surprised there wasn’t a duel or two before the end of summer.) His opponents could not prove the present problems were caused by an equal suffrage Congress. The proposed Constitution to him was an “amphibious monster” that would never be ratified by the people.
Alexander Martin (NC) would not budge off an equitable ratio of representation in the Senate.
James Madison (VA) revealed his deep disgust with the Confederation Congress based on equal state suffrage. He would accept a compromise based on Mr. Wilson’s idea
(Too late, Mr. Madison. Small State delegates were ready to bolt.)
Gunning Bedford (DE) did not see how there was a middle ground between consolidation and confederacy. The votes of the delegates reflected the avarice of mankind; the large States sought to dominate. They thought they had right on their side. He summed up the relative power positions of some of the states; what they were then and what they hoped to be. The so called rotten boroughs protected the rights of their people. An inequality of power would result from an inequality of votes. Count on it. The convention must design a system the people will approve.
He made a plea for one more chance to enhance the powers of Congress under the Articles of Confederation. The states will approve an impost and enhanced tax collection powers. (Well, RI did not show up to the convention and torpedoed the impost IIRC in 1783. Why would it vote for one now?) There was no chance in his opinion for the Constitution as it was forming up, to ever be approved by the people. He accused Mr. King of possessing a dictatorial air. He threatened the large states, saying that the small would ally with a foreign power if the large states dissolved the Confederacy. Dissolution could be avoided by enhancing the powers of the confederate Congress.
(Mr. Bedford so much as hinted at civil war.)
Gunning Bedford (DE), according to Robert Yates (NY), told the large state delegates, (looking directly at them and not the President), “I do not, gentlemen, trust you.”
Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) saw the states as necessary under the plan.
Rufus King (MA) rebuked Mr. Bedford and thought the Constitution could secure the safety of the states. Constitutions were to legislatures as laws were to individuals. Individual rights were secured in state constitutions and state’s rights could be secured in the national constitution. The Scots were guaranteed certain rights in union with England. He answered Mr. Bedford’s “dictatorial” comment with notice that it was not he who suggested courting protection from a foreign land.
Adjourned, without a vote on Equality of State Suffrage in the Senate.
Constitutional Convention Ping!
Thanks for posting this. It is very interesting to read about the actual daily goings on at the convention. We know this was later resolved by agreeing that the state legislatures would appoint/elect two representatives from each state to be in the Senate. That still kept the people in charge, though indirectly.