Sunday, December 29, 2013

Extreme State Sovereignty: The New York Delegation

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, even after the Great Compromise was reached.  There were only three of these; Robert Yates and John Lansing of New York and Luther Martin of Maryland.[1]  Why were these three so irreconcilable?  Maryland and New York were both on the large end of the medium sized states, and both had major ports, which meant they stood to lose a source of revenue under a more centralized system.  Upstate New York, in particular, was able to keep land taxes low by taxing foreign trade from Connecticut and New Jersey that went through New York City and was reluctant to give up the privilege.  Maryland, on the other hand, had no claims to western land and wanted Virginia and other states with such claims to give them up.  During the ratification debates, there was little controversy in Maryland, and its convention ratified the Constitution 63-11.  (Martin strongly opposed it).  In New York, on the other hand, the Constitution was hotly controversial, and the state convention ended up ratifying only when it became clear that ten other states had ratified already and that New York was in danger of being left out of the United States altogether.  Indeed, the Federalist Papers were written in an attempt to sway New Yorkers in favor of the Constitution when it was a hotly contested issue.

Of these three, little needs to be said about Robert Yates.  He does not appear to have participated in debate at all, but he voted together with Lansing and against Hamilton (also of New York), and he walked out of the Convention at the same time as Lansing.

John Lansing (New York):  New York’s delegation participated in the Convention up through July 10, 1787 and was absent the next day, never to return.  Hamilton had already left after June 29, despairing of building strong enough government.  Lansing and Yates together consistently voted for state sovereignty and against the Virginia Plan.  By July 10, 1787, it was apparent that the Virginia Plan would be adopted and that representation would be by population in the lower house.  The debate by then was solely over equality in the Senate.  It was at this point that Lansing and Yates walked out, convinced that their influence was at an end.  They never came back.  Hamilton returned August 13 and took part in the debates, but New York remained without a vote because a single delegate was not allowed to represent an entire state.  Hamilton was the only representative from New York to sign the Constitution. 

John Lansing probably played a role in drafting the New Jersey Plan and, not too surprisingly, he supported it when it was introduced.  The Virginia Plan, he argued destroys the sovereignty of the states and absorbs all power except for “little local matters,” whereas the New Jersey Plan preserves state sovereignty and laws.  He also argued that the Convention did not have authority to propose an entire new system of government, and the people and states would never agree to it, especially to giving the general government a veto over all state laws.  Even after the Virginia Plan was adopted, Lansing made a last-ditch motion to vest all powers in “Congress,” i.e., the old Continental Congress, making much the same arguments as before.  He particularly objected to the federal veto of state laws, saying that it would burden Congress with an unbearable amount of work and involve people in the veto who had no knowledge of conditions in the states whose laws the were vetoing.  Not too surprisingly, he wanted to keep equal representation by states, since states would never voluntarily part with their sovereignty and saw little use in even sending the issue of representation to committee (the committee that proposed the Great Compromise).  Not long afterward, he returned to New York, and his participation was at an end.



[1] John Francis Mercer of Maryland might also fit into this category.  He was a member of the Convention who opposed the Constitution during ratification debates and favored state sovereignty, but he arrived late and left early and therefore did not have much chance to make his opinion known on the subject.

No comments:

Post a Comment