These were the advocates of the New
Jersey Plan, who originally resisted the Virginia Plan even if given equality
in the Senate, but dropped all resistance and supported the Constitution once
the Great Compromise was reached. On the
whole, they played a less distinguished role than the moderates or
compromisers.
William Paterson of New Jersey introduced the New Jersey Plan and was by for the most important member of this
group. Even before introducing the New
Jersey Plan, he led a strong counter-attack against the Virginia Plan,
particularly in establishing a government over individuals instead of states
and representing states by population.
The Convention, he said, was merely authorized to strengthen the
Articles of Confederation, not to establish a whole new government, and even if
they had the authority, the people would never accept it. There was no need for a national government
(over individuals), merely a confederacy (of states). “A confederacy supposes sovereignty in the
members composing it & sovereignty supposed equality.” He considered making representation proportional
to population to be as unjust as giving a rich man greater votes in proportion
to his greater stake in society. Such a
system would give the rich total domination and be unsafe for others; likewise,
giving proportional representation to states would give all power to the three
large states and be unsafe for the other states. He also opposed having representatives elected
by the people instead of state legislatures as unduly weakening the influence
of states. All that was needed, he said,
was “to mark the orbits of the States with due precision, and provide for the
use of coertion (sic.), which was the great point.” He concluded with a challenge – let large
states withdraw from the United States if
they chose, the small states would never agree to a plan that threatened
to swallow them up. “He had rather
submit to a monarch, to a depot, than to such a fate. He would not only oppose the plan here but on
his return home to every thing in his power to defeat it there.”
The New Jersey Plan was drawn up in
a caucus of delegates from the states of Connecticut, New York (except for
Hamilton, of course), New Jersey and Delaware, together with Luther Martin of
Maryland, but it was William Paterson who introduced the plan
and was most strongly associated with it.
Again, he argued that the Convention lacked authority to establish a new
government and that the people would never agree to it. He described the Articles of Confederation as
a “treaty” among equal sovereigns, and in order to maintain their sovereignty,
states must each have an equal vote and their representatives must be chosen by
state legislatures instead of by the people.
He added that even if it was unjust for large states to agree to giving
each state an equal vote, it had been done and could not be taken back. The large states joined the confederacy
eagerly; resistance came from the small states of New Jersey and Maryland. Nor did he agree with the Virginians that his
plan of allowing coercion would harm small states; there was no reason why
coercion should be used against states instead of individuals. Paterson served on the
committee that proposed the Great Compromise, but did not agree with large
state representatives that some other concession should be made in exchange for
equality in the Senate; agreeing to proportional representation in the House
was a considerable concession, and he would opposed the Compromise as giving
too much by small states.
On July 16, 1787, the date of the final deadlock and breakthrough, when
Edmund Randolph proposed adjournment, Paterson agreed and proposed that they break
up the Convention and go home to their constituents. When Randolph said he only meant adjournment
for the day, Paterson agreed, “as an opportunity seemed to be wished by the
larger States to deliberate further on conciliatory expedients.”
Like other small state
representatives, Paterson was more of a nationalist than large state
representatives on one issue – the breakup of large states. He proposed that if we were to become a
single nation, the states must be thrown into the “hotchpot” and redivided to
make them equal and challenged Virginia, Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania to see if they would agree to it. This was probably more an attempt to
discourage large states from seeking greater centralization by warning them of
the consequences that a serious proposal.
Gunning Bedford (Delaware): Gunning Bedford’s role was much smaller than
Paterson’s, but he made a few remarks worth noting. He spoke against a Congressional veto of
state laws, fearing that it would be dominated by large states. Besides, the veto would swamp Congress with
state laws to consider, create undue delay in states, and subject their laws to
people who knew nothing about the local conditions under which laws were made. He argued that
there was no middle ground between complete consolidation and a mere
confederation of states. The large
states hoped to dominate the system and the Deep Southern states supported them
because they hoped to become large. He
went on to make a very rash remark, “The Large States dare not dissolve the
Confederation. If they do, the small
ones will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take
them by the hand and do them justice.” Having made this threat, he then hastened to
assure everyone that he was not threatening, but the damage had been done. Rufus King, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris all roundly condemned the remark (sometimes in terms hot enough that some of their passion comes through Madison's otherwise rather sterile notes) and Paterson dissociated himself from it,
although he said that Gouverneur Morris’ comments about the sword and gallows
also deserved to be condemned. Bedford apologized saying this was merely a prediction, not a threat, and was partly
provoked by Morris’ comments about the sword uniting and Gorham suggesting that
small states allow themselves to be annexed by large ones. Once the Great Compromise was reached, Bedford largely dropped his opposition to a stronger central government, going so far as to propose to give Congress power
No comments:
Post a Comment