Centralization: A Few Final Remarks

The issue of centralization consisted of a number of sub-issues.  Would the central government have power over individuals, or only over states?  What would its exact powers be?  Would representation be by population or by states?  Would federal law simply be supreme, or would there be a congressional veto of state laws?  Who would control the western lands, the central government, or the states?  Could the large states be divided into smaller states?

These were the big issues addressed early on.  Later, more detailed issues arose.  Under the Articles of Confederation, states were forbidden from keeping regular troops (i.e., full time professional soldiers), but had full control over their militias (reserves).  The ban on states keeping regular troops continued, but what authority would the central government have over state militias?  Would it be authorized to intervene in case of a rebellion against state government?  And finally, there was the issue of how the Constitution would be ratified, by state legislatures, or by special conventions.  Ratification by state legislatures would suggest that the new government was still chartered by the states.  Ratification by special conventions would mark it as a people's government.  And then there was the question of how many states would have to ratify for the new Constitution to be effective.

The delegates had a wide spectrum of views on centralization, but might be divided into several sub-groups.

Extreme nationalists.  These were the ones who wanted to abolish separate states altogether or at least reduce them to administrative departments of a unitary system.  There were only two of these, George Read (Delaware) and Alexander Hamilton (New York).

Moderate nationalists.  These can be roughly classified as the ones who supported the Virginia Plan, opposed equality in the Senate, and favored ratification by conventions instead of state legislatures.  They generally belonged to the large states of Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania (with the exception of Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina).  These delegates were generally the most active, important, and creative members of the Convention.

Moderates.  Like moderate nationalists, moderates favored the Virginia plan over the New Jersey Plan.  and opposed equality in the Senate, but they favored less power for the central government than moderate nationalists and wanted to preserve more sovereignty for the states.  In particular, they indignantly opposed federal veto of state laws.  Most favored having the national legislature paid by the state governments, which would obviously increase state influence over their representatives.  While moderate nationalists tended to see a stronger central government as positive and creative, moderates saw both promise and threat in it. Moderates included Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and numerous delegates from the South.

Compromisers.  This is, in many ways, the critical group, the ones who supported the Virginia Plan but favored giving each state equal representation in the Senate.  If the moderate nationalists were the most creative members of the Convention, the compromisers were the most statesmanlike.  The moderate nationalists made the original proposal that became the Constitution; the compromisers saved the Convention from breaking down and made its success possible.  Overall, compromisers varied greatly in the amount of centralization they favored, ranging from ones who were reluctant to accept the Virginia Plan to ones who were reluctant to accept equality in the Senate.  But it was in their willing to make compromises on what they wanted that they made success possible.  Benjamin Franklin was of this group.  Its members drew heavily from Delaware and Connecticut.

Moderate advocates of state sovereignty.  These were the advocates of the New Jersey Plan, who initially resisted the Virginia Plan even if given equal representation in the Senate, but dropped all resistance and supported the Constitution when the Great Compromise was reached.  They tended to be from small states, particularly Delaware and New Jersey.  Yet when the Constitution was finally proposed, Delaware and New Jersey were among the first to ratify, and with the least controversy.

Extreme advocates of state sovereignty.  These were the few irreconcilables who held out to the last for a mere strengthening of the Articles of Confederation and never agreed to the Constitution.  One (Luther Martin) was from Maryland and two from New York.

Next up:  I will describe the delegates one by one.

The Constitutional Convention and Centralization: A Chronology

In high school civics class, I was taught that the most divisive issue at the Constitutional Convention was between large states, that wanted representation to be proportionate to population, and the small states that wanted all states to have an equal number of representatives.  The issue was finally resolved with the Great Compromise -- proportional representation in the House; equal representation in the Senate and from then on all quickly resolved.

This account is not exactly false, but it is incomplete.  As discussed in my previous post, initially the large states backed the more centralized Virginia Plan and small states, fearing that the new government would be dominated by large states, supported the less centralized New Jersey Plan. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina was dismissive of their stated concerns for state sovereignty, saying, "Give N. Jersey an equal vote, and she will dismiss her scruples, and concur in the Natil. system."  So it turned out to be.  Connecticut switched votes to support the Virginia Plan in late June, and from then on the controversy was over whether representation would be by population or by states.  The Great Compromise was first proposed by John Dickinson of Delaware about a week into the Convention.  No one paid much attention at the time, but he does deserve credit for being the first to make the suggestion.  Representation by population was adopted on June 29, about ten days after adopting the Virginia Plan, and remained uncontroversial from then on.  But the issue of representation in the Senate remained bitterly contested, threatening to derail the entire convention, with large states holding out for some alternative to full equality of states in the Senate, and small states refusing to budge.

The break finally came on July 16, when Edmund Randolph proposed that the Convention "adjourn."  William Paterson took this to mean ending the Convention altogether and confessing to failure.  Randolph then backed off, assuring him that he meant only to adjourn for the day to discuss matters off the record.  Meeting in private, it became clear that the small states believed they had made all the concessions that could be made and that they would not yield on this point as well.  The large states then backed down, and the Great Compromise was unofficially reached.  The next day, the delegates changed the subject to allow heated tempers to cool.  A week later, Gouveneur Morris of Pennsylvania and Rufus King of Massachusetts, both large state delegates who had opposed equal representation in the Senate, jointly proposed that each state have an equal number of Senators, but that they vote individually.  (Under the Articles of Confederation, voting had been by states).  Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut endorsed voting individually, and the spirit of amity covered all.  The Great Compromise had been reached.  Small state resistance to a strong central government ended, and small state representatives became the leading supporters of a strong federal government.  Debate continued for another two months -- partly on what specific powers the central government should have, and especially over how to choose a President.  But the Convention was never again in serious danger of failing altogether.