Between May 29, when Gov. Randolph introduced a set of fifteen resolves known as the Virginia Plan, and June 9, when William Paterson moved the Committee resume discussion of representation in the national legislature, the initiative has been in the hands of Virginia and its ally, Pennsylvania. In fact, the Virginia Plan has been the only alternative to the Articles of Confederation - and goes far beyond amending them.
Its proposal for a national legislature, executive, and judiciary has been accepted. So, too, have been a bicameral legislature, a method for choosing the executive, authority of the national government to veto acts of the State legislatures, a ratification process, and other provisions of the Plan, although with many amendments.
No issue has consumed more time or patience than that of representation in the national government. The leading men of the small States, Dickinson and Read of Delaware, Patterson of New Jersey, and Butler of South Carolina, are vehement in their opposition to proportional representation. Neither size of population nor amount of contributions to the national government should determine the mode of representation, they insist. Paterson stated it clearly, asserting “there is no more reason that a great individual State contributing much should have more votes than a small one contributing littler than a rich individual citizen should have more votes than an indigent one.” A confederacy, he said, “supposes sovereignty in the members composing it, and sovereignty supposes equality.”
Arguments advanced by the large States that “the citizens of Pennsylvania are equal to those in New Jersey” and their votes in the national legislature should be equal are having no effect on the delegates from the small States. Unless agreement or a compromise can be found on this issue, the union cannot survive.
The stand-off between the large and small States is not simply one of local pride and prestige or even of philosophical notions of equality. It is the manifestation of interests that vary widely throughout the thirteen States and cut deeply. Pierce Butler considers the interests of the north and south to be “as different as the interests of Russia and Turkey.”
Just two years ago, in September 1785, Thomas Jefferson shared a similar but more exacting sentiment in a letter to his good friend, the Marquis de Chastellux who had recently toured Virginia. Jefferson offered “his idea of the characters of the several States.” In the north, he said, “they are cool, sober, laborious, persevering, jealous of their own liberties and those of others, interested, chicaning, superstitious and critical in their religion.” Southerners, he posited, are “fiery, voluptuary, indolent, unsteady, zealous for their own liberties but trampling on those of others, generous, candid and without attachment or pretentions to any religion but that of the heart.” The one trait they share, he concluded, is being “independent.” William Pierce even recorded differences in dialects and speech, referring in his “character sketches” to Roger Sherman’s “strange New England cant.”
North and south is but one division. Commercial interests are another and cut across the obvious north – south divide. Charles Pinckney summarized these differences in his identification of “five distinct commercial interests” in the United States: “1. The fisheries and West India trade which belongs to the New England States; 2) the interest of New York lay in a free trade; 3) wheat and flour the staples of the two Middle States (New Jersey and Pennsylvania); 4) tobacco the staple of Maryland and Virginia and partly of North Carolina; and 5) rice and indigo, the staples of South Carolina and Georgia.” What do northern fishermen know about growing rice and tobacco? What does Massachusetts know about an economic structure based on slavery?
Slavery is a markedly serious threat to unity. For some, it is a moral evil and affront to God and humanity. For others, it is an economic necessity. Slavery is as indispensable to the slave States as is proportional representation to the small States. Competing claims to the western lands beyond the Appalachian mountains and navigation rights on the Mississippi River fuel distrust of Virginia, which exercises tacit jurisdiction over them. Connecticut, lacking a natural port, relies on Manhattan and Boston to export agricultural products and import needed goods. Imposts levied on those goods arriving in its ports affect Connecticut and other States, increasing costs. Rules and regulations imposed by New York and Pennsylvania regarding trade, fees, special discounts, imports and exports benefit their citizens, but often at the expense of those of Delaware and New Jersey.
Madison has been caught off guard by the insurgence of the small States. In his Convention notes, he warns that Paterson’s efforts “begin now to produce serious anxiety for the result of the Convention.” Maintaining equality in the national legislature, he fears, will be no improvement in the Articles. Rejection of the Virginia Plan, or a version of it, will most assuredly result in paralysis on the national level and ruination of the union.
Yesterday, Nathaniel Gorman reported on the resolutions approved by the Committee during its consideration of the Virginia Plan. Immediately, delegates rushed to the secretary’s table to make their own copies of the report to study them overnight and confer with their colleagues. This morning, however, Paterson announced “it was the wish of several delegations, particularly that of New Jersey, that further time might be allowed them to contemplate the plan reported from the Committee of the Whole” and hoped to have by tomorrow a “materially different plan” for consideration. In a spirit of comity, the motion was made by Gov. Randolph, seconded by Patterson, and approved. The Convention adjourned and members repaired to the inns and taverns to plan their strategies for tomorrow.