Moderate Nationalists: George Mason of Virginia

To the extent George Mason is remembered today, he is usually thought of as supporting state sovereignty because he ultimately opposed the Constitution and acted as an Anti-Federalist in the ratification debate.  However, during the Constitutional Convention, he comes across very much as a moderate nationalist.

Since the Virginians had discussed the Virginia Plan before the Convention began, Mason presumably had at least some role in preparing it.  He argued, "very cogently" that the federal government must have authority over individuals instead of just states, and for a revealing reason.  It would be unjust to punish states collectively, while authority over individuals would allow punishment of the guilty only.  He opposed the New Jersey plan for its lack of ordinary enforcement powers that left no alternative except military force:

The most jarring elements of Nature; fire & water themselves are not more incompatible that (sic) such a mixture of civil liberty and military execution. Will the militia march from one State to another, in order to collect the arrears of taxes from the delinquent members of the Republic? Will they maintain an army for this purpose? Will not the Citizens of the invaded State assist one another till they rise as one Man, and shake off the Union altogether. Rebellion is the only case, in which the military force of the State can be properly exerted agst. its Citizens. In one point of view he was struck with horror at the prospect of recurring to this expedient. To punish the non-payment of taxes with death, was a severity not yet adopted by despotism itself: yet this unexampled cruelty would be mercy compared to a military collection of revenue, in which the bayonet could make no discrimination between the innocent and the guilty.

To arguments that the people had hitherto resisted any increase in federal powers, he replied that what the people were resisting was not a stronger central government, but one under the present Continental Congress, which had no separation of executive and legislative powers, and a unicameral legislature not directly chosen by the people.  Increased centralization did not reduce the people's power; it merely transferred it from one set of agents to another.

He was skeptical of a federal veto of state laws, but not absolutely opposed.  He pointed out that the Congressional veto would mean that Congress would be constantly sitting to review state laws, while no state road or bridge could be built until Congress approved it.  Yet he said that he was not condemning the veto outright, but simply raising possible objections to it.

Mason was also the leading advocate of federal power to regulate the militia, so long as states could appoint the officers.  His reasoning was two-fold -- he wanted to avoid standing armies as much as possible, but he did not believe states would maintain their militias well enough to avoid the need for standing armies.  Fearing  that complete federal authority over militia discipline would be unpopular, he later partially backed down and proposed federal power over a tenth of the militia at a time.  He also believed the federal government must have authority to suppress rebellions against states because such rebellions might ultimately subvert the general government.  He favored giving Congress power to establish federal courts, cut canals but not charter corporations, and pass sumptuary laws, i.e., laws limiting excesses in conspicuous consumption.  (No one else took his call for sumptuary laws very seriously).

There were only a few signs at the Convention that Mason would ultimately see the Constitution as dangerously encroaching on the states.  He favored election of Senators by state legislatures, saying that states needed to be able to defend themselves against federal encroachments.  In this he differed from Madison, who thought that the only danger was state encroachments on federal power.  He also believed that states should be allowed to lay embargoes and tax imports in order to encourage domestic industry.  He served on the committee that proposed the Great Compromise and reluctantly agreed, on the condition that the House would have sole authority to enact money bills.

Yet Mason ultimately turned against the Constitution, saying that he would sooner chop off his right hand than sign it to such a defective document.  He did not specifically itemize his reasons at the Convention, but said he feared it would lead to either monarchy or aristocracy.  During the debate on the ratification Mason made his reasons for objecting to it public.  Most of these objections were to the structure of the federal government, rather than the extent of its powers.  However, he did mention fears that the federal judiciary would absorb the state judiciaries.  He also feared the "Necessary and Proper Clause" would allow Congress to grant monopolies, create new crimes, inflict severe and unusual punishments, and extent its powers so as to encroach on the states.  He ultimately feared that the Constitution would lead to a "total consolidation" that threatened to destroy the states.