Elbridge Gerry (MA) would accept the clause. It was better to accommodate the small states than have them discontented in the new union.
Roger Sherman (CN) accepted the clause too. Almost all of the delegates wished to form a general government. There will be more vigor in the Congress with an equal state franchise in the Senate. In national decisions it would serve well to have not only a majority of the people, but a majority of the states agree as well. If they are not given fair representation there will be resistance to national directives.
James Wilson (PA) did not think accommodation with representatives rather than the constituents promoted what was right.
The motion, "Shall the clause allowing each State one vote in the 2d. branch, stand as part of the Report" passed 6-3-2. (Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, aye-6; Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, no-3; Massachusetts, Georgia, divided.)
(Two states changed their stance on equal state suffrage in the Senate from the 2 July vote. MA went from “no” to “divided” and NC reversed “no” to “yes.” The tide had turned in favor of the small and north/eastern states. There is a back-story to the voting changes involving the Confederate Congress, Land Speculation, Slavery and Taxes which I hope to address soon in a separate vanity.)
Elbridge Gerry (MA) brought up an excellent point. Define the powers of the general government before deciding suffrage in the second branch.
James Madison (VA) saw the opposite to be the case. It was improper to define powers before knowing what level of participation the states would have. His feared if states had as much influence in the new system as in the old, the new government would be deprived of necessary powers and the new would be as impotent as the old.
William Patterson (NJ) incredibly, if I read him correctly, would vote against the committee report because it prevented the Senate from amending money bills. (Patterson led the small state charge early in the convention. Large state delegates disagreed on the practical advantage of restricting money bills to the House of Reps)
Governeur Morris (PA) (Was nothing if not persistent) The House of Reps would protect the people, as the Senate would the states; what about the interests of the whole, of the nation? (Recall that Mr. Morris advocated a Senate of life term aristocrats on the British House of Lords model) A Senate with equal state suffrage would render the Congress as impotent as the Confederation Congress. The only purpose of the Senate could be to check the people from injuring the states.
To Mr. Morris, the single reason states were afforded equal representation in the Confederate Congress was the difficulty of the times. They extorted this from the large states. Their people were afforded greater rights than others. Why should that mistake be repeated?
(Should anyone doubt the level of frustration Mr. Morris and others had with the states under the Articles?)
Mr. Morris: What if all the Charters & Constitutions of the States were thrown into the fire, and all their demagogues into the ocean. What would it be to the happiness of America?
(Today we see the states as possibly the last bulwark prior to revolution against a tyrannical national government. It is important to not impose this view upon the Framer’s era)
Roger Sherman (CN) and Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the report from the grand Committee until the special Committee report which passed in the affirmative by 6-5.
Constitutional Convention Ping!
A very good read. T’anks. I especially agree with your editorial note on Morris— What is all the charters and constitutions of the States.... I agree today it is the States that (sometimes) provide (some protection ) against a tyranical national Govt. My observation of Colorado is too often the Centenial State is beat down by the very tyrants we ought resist.