When the Convention convened this morning as the Committee of the Whole, there were no comments about the epic monologue delivered so forcefully yesterday by Alexander Hamilton. It was as though it had never happened. However, it was not without effect. It will likely brand Hamilton as a “monarchist” for many years, a legacy not worthy of him but useful to his enemies. Its immediate impact may have been on the fate of the Virginia Plan by making it appear much more reasonable by comparison.
This morning, James Madison was the first to take the floor. Unlike William Paterson and his band of small States men who had, of necessity, hastily crafted the New Jersey plan as an alternative to the Virginia Plan, Madison had been studying and preparing for months. He had fine-tuned his arguments and cultivated support from many quarters.
Madison is thirty-six years old, about five-feet-five in height and often described as “frail.” He “cannot be called an orator,” observed William Pierce, but “he is a most agreeable, eloquent and convincing speaker.” Noting that Madison “has long been in public life,” Pierce added, he “blends together the profound politician with the scholar…What is very remarkable, every person seems to acknowledge his greatness.”
Pierce especially admires Madison’s “spirit of industry” and he “always comes forward the best-informed man of any point in debate. Of the affairs of the United States, he perhaps has the most correct knowledge of any man in the Union.” As a member of the Congress, Pierce continued, Madison “was always thought one of the ablest Members that ever sat in that Council.” These extraordinary strengths were on display today as Madison delivered one of his finest speeches, methodically tearing down the New Jersey Plan piece by piece.
Madison began by refuting Paterson’s assertion that unanimous consent is required to dissolve the current confederation simply because unanimous consent was the rule that formed it. “Does this doctrine result from the nature of compacts?” he asked. “Does it arise from any particular stipulation in the Articles?” Throughout the day, Madison effectively used this technique of asking questions, then methodically answering them, one by one.
Regarding the task before us, Madison declared, “the stated object of a proper plan is two-fold.” These are to “preserve the union and to provide a government that will remedy the evils felt by the States, both in their united and individual capacities. Examine Mr. Patterson’s plan and say whether it promises satisfaction in these respects.”
“Will it prevent those violations of the law of nations and treaties, which, if not prevented, must involve us in the calamities of foreign wars?” he asked. He pointed to numerous instances in which States have violated or made individual agreements with Indian tribes and foreign nations. “The files of Congress contain complaints already from almost every nation with which treaties have been formed,” he said. “A rupture with other powers is among the greatest of all national calamities.” The existing Confederation does not “provide against this evil.” Paterson’s plan leaves the will of the States as uncontrolled as ever.
“Will it prevent encroachments on the federal authority?” The current Articles assign to Congress transactions with Indian tribes, yet “in several instances, the States have entered into treaties and wars with them – Virginia and Maryland in one instance; Pennsylvania and New Jersey in another.” No State is to raise troops in time of peace without consent by Congress, yet “has not Massachusetts…already raised a body of troops…without having even deigned to apprise Congress of her intentions?” On this, Paterson’s plan is deficient because 1) it requires ratification by the State legislatures, not the people; and 2) it gives to the federal judiciary appellate jurisdiction only. The States retain supremacy under his plan.
“Will it prevent trespasses of the States on each other?” Madison cited “acts of Virginia and Maryland which give preference to their own citizens in cases where the citizens of other States are entitled to equality of privileges by the Articles of Confederation.” Emission of paper money and retaliatory acts by States provide other examples of “subjects which threaten danger to the harmony [and] tranquility of the union. “Of trespasses of the States on each other, enough has already been said,” he added, but Paterson’s plan, “not giving even a negative on the acts of the States, leaves them as much at liberty as even to execute their unrighteous projects against each other.”
“Will it secure the internal tranquility of the States themselves?” What about the recent insurrection in Massachusetts? “The plan of Mr. Paterson contains no provision for supplying the defect of the Confederation on this point.” Madison was relentless. Will the New Jersey plan “secure a good internal legislation and administration to the particular States? Will it secure the Union against the influence of foreign powers over its members?”
What about the expenses small States will continue to bear supporting its members of Congress under the present system? During the Revolutionary War, one of Delaware’s representatives in the Continental Congress resided in and was a citizen of Pennsylvania. At another time, “the same State was represented by three delegates, two of whom were citizens of Pennsylvania, and the third a citizen of New Jersey.” This “must have been intended,” he supposed, “to avoid the burden of supporting delegates from their own State.”
“The great difficulty,” Madison concluded, “lies in the affair of representation, and if this could be adjusted, all others would be surmountable.” At this point, James Wilson clarified one of his own previous statements. “By a national government,” he said, “he did not mean one that would swallow up the State governments…They are absolutely necessary for certain purposes which the former could not reach.” Then, Luther Martin weighed in. He “could never accede to a plan that would introduce an equality and lay the States at the mercy of Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.”
The day was long spent when a vote was taken as to whether Randolph’s or Paterson’s plan should be preferred. By 7 – 3 – 1, the New Jersey Plan was defeated (New York, New Jersey, and Delaware voting “nay,” Maryland divided). Division still runs deep, but no one is abandoning the search for compromise. There is much work yet to be done.