 |
| Roger Sherman |
Roger Sherman appears to have originally favored a mere strengthening of
the Articles of Confederation. His first comment was that the Continental Congress needed more power, but
making too great inroads in the system would just lead to rejection. He regarded the general
government’s only objects to be foreign and military affairs, foreign trade and
resolving internal disputes, with all other matters in the hands of the states. The day after the Virginia Plan had been adopted, Sherman seconded a motion to
vest all federal powers in “Congress,” i.e., the old Continental Congress. He ideally favored a unicameral legislature
and saw no need to add “another” branch elected by the people to Congress; such
a branch would merely get in the way. He saw no reason for the election of
representatives by the people unless states were to be abolished
altogether. States must participate in
the central government to preserve harmony between them.
Yet Sherman
was apparently the second delegate after Dickinson to propose the Great
Compromise. On June 11, 1787, he proposed that suffrage in the first branch be according to the number of free
inhabitants and each state have one vote in the second house. Everything depended on the equal vote in the
second house, or the small states would never agree to the system. Again, even as he argued for
keeping the old Continental Congress, Sherman also proposed the Great Compromise
as an alternative. Although he did not
believe that the large states had been harmed by the equality of voting by
states under the Articles, he would agree to proportionality in one house and
voting by states in the other “[i]f the difficulty on the subject of
representation could not be got over.” Once the Great Compromise was suggested,
Sherman became one of its strongest advocates.
He compared giving more votes to large states in proportion to their
population to giving a rich man more votes in proportion to his greater stake
in society; there would be no protection for the lesser members. He also argued that giving
each state an equal voice in the Senate would give government more “vigor”
because small states were more vigorous than large ones. Equality in the Senate would require all
measures passed to have the support of a majority of the states as well as of
the people. He further suggested that giving states equal representation in the Senate was necessary
to ensure the survival of states, although he was willing to have voting in the
Senate be by individuals instead of by states.
Like
Ellsworth, Sherman was generally skeptical of the power of the federal government
even after the Great Compromise was adopted.
He proposed to give the national legislature authority to make laws “in
all cases which may concern the common interests of the Union” but not to
interfere in states’ internal affairs, and particularly not be able to tax
individuals directly, preferred whenever possible to try
federal cases in state courts, distrusted federal authority
over bankruptcy, and opposed federal authority to cut canals on the grounds that to do so would
tax to whole to benefit only a local area. On the other hand, he disagreed with Morris,
Pinckney and King who said that it was not necessary for the national legislature
to meet every year; he believed there would be business enough to require
“frequent” meetings. This may have been driven more by Sherman's distrust of the executive than anything else. He opposed a federal veto of state laws,
saying that a state law contrary to federal law would necessarily be invalid
and that the courts’ authority to strike down such laws was sufficient.
He maintained that states could not be dismembered without their consent. With regard to state
militias, he would allow the federal government to establish a uniform rule for
all state militias, but leave the actual training and discipline to the states, saying that just as states retained concurrent tax power,
they should have concurrent power of military defense and law enforcement. And he strongly opposed federal appointment of generals with the sarcastic remark that, “[I]f
the people should be so far asleep as to allow the most influential officer of
the militia to be appointed by the Gen’l Government, every man of discernment would rouse them by sounding the alarm to
them.”
When the
issue of ratification was first discussed, Sherman favored ratification by
state legislature instead of conventions, an indication that he saw the new
system as based on states rather than individuals. He favored requiring unanimous ratification
by all the states, as a continuation of the old system. When the Convention refused to require
unanimity, he proposed requiring the consent of ten states. Alternately, he was willing to
agree to ratification by nine states (the number eventually agreed on), if the
old Continental Congress first approved the new Constitution. He believed that amendments to the
Constitution should require the approval of “the several state,” i.e.,
apparently, unanimous consent of the states. When the Convention decided on approval by
three-fourths of the states instead, he proposed a qualification that no state
could be affected in its internal police or deprived of equality in the Senate.*
 |
| William Samuel Johnson |
William Samuel Johnson played a much smaller role in the Convention than either Ellsworth or
Sherman, but he deserves to be mentioned anyhow because he brilliantly
expressed the spirit of the Connecticut Compromise. As the Virginia and New Jersey plans were
being debated, he said that supporters of the New Jersey Plan feared that the
Virginia Plan would destroy states altogether.
Since Wilson and the Virginians denied that this was their intention,
“If this could be shewn in such a manner as to satisfy the patron of the N.
Jersey propositions, many of their objections would no doubt be removed.” After the Virginia Plan was adopted, Johnson argued for equality in the Senate, saying:
On the whole he
thought that as in some respects the States are to be considered in their
political capacity, and in others a district of individual citizens, the two
ideas embraced on different sides, instead of being opposed, ought to be
combined; that in one branch the people, ought to be represented;
in the other the States.
*"Internal police" is an 18th century expression, probably best "translated" as internal policy. This provision was not adopted, but the guarantee of equal representation in the Senate was adopted, and remains the only unamendable portion of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment