William Blount arrived from North Carolina this morning and took his seat immediately after his credentials were produced and read.
The New Jersey plan having been rejected yesterday, the Convention now turned its attention to the report of the Committee of the Whole presented by Nathanial Gorham on June 13. The basis of the report was the Virginia Plan, as revised in numerous and often intense debates and votes since it was first proposed on May 29. With one brief exception, the remainder of today was devoted to a simple motion “to postpone.”
The session began when Oliver Ellsworth (Conn.) moved to alter the language of the first resolve which reads, “Resolved that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, judiciary and executive.” Seconded by Nathaniel Gorham, the motion removes “national” and replaces it with “the government of the United States.” This is not merely a technical change; it is a shrewd political move by Ellsworth. The phrase “government of the United States” is familiar to people. It underscores the notion that proposed changes emanating from the Convention will be amendments to the Articles. The concept of a national government would disturb the people. “It would be highly dangerous,” Ellsworth warned, “not to consider the Confederation of still subsisting.” The motion “was acquiesced in. nem. con,” wrote Madison. [nem. com. from nemine contradicente, without dissent.]
New York’s John Lansing quickly sprang to his feet. A zealous proponent of individual State sovereignty, Lansing moved the Committee of the Whole postpone consideration of the second resolve of the Committee’s report pertaining to the bicameral nature of the national legislature. Instead, he proposed “to take up the following, namely – Resolved that the powers of legislation be vested in the United States in Congress.” This was nothing less than a last-ditch effort to retain the Confederation Congress as the center of the new government.
Born in Albany, New York, in 1754, Lansing is among the youngest members of the Convention. By the age of twenty-one he had completed his legal studies and been admitted to the practice of law. In 1776 and 1777, he was the military secretary to General Philip Schuyler. Like Schuyler, Lansing is wealthy, the owner of a 40,000-acre estate known as Lansingburg in Schoharie County. As a six-term member of the New York Assembly and two terms as Speaker, member of the Confederation Congress, and Mayor of Albany, he is well-connected in New York politics and closely aligned with Governor George Clinton.
Lansing and his wife, Cornelia, have had ten children, five having died in infancy. William Pierce describes Lansing as “a man of good sense, plain in his manners, and sincere in his friendships.” However, he notices “a hesitation in his speech that will prevent his being an orator of any eminence. His legal knowledge, I am told, is not extensive, nor his education a good one.” Ironically, much of Lansing’s legal education was under the tutelage of Robert Yates, his mentor and fellow delegate from New York.
“The true question here,” Lansing began, “is whether the Convention would adhere to or depart from the foundation of the present Confederacy.” Revisiting arguments already presented more than once, he attempted once again to convince delegates that the Convention is exceeding its authority. Directly responding to James Wilson’s contention that any proposals coming from the Convention are merely recommendations, Lansing countered, “any act whatever of so respectable a body must have great effect, and if it does not succeed will be a source of great dissensions.”
Lansing expounded on the proposed veto of State legislation by the national government. “Is it conceivable,” he asked, “that there will be leisure for such a task?...Will members of the legislature be competent judges?” Will a gentleman from Georgia be competent to judge the laws of New Hampshire? Moreover, the proposed system is “too novel and complex. No man could foresee what its operation will be either with respect to the general government or to the State governments. One or other…must absorb the whole.”
George Mason was frustrated. He did not expect this point to be “reagitated.” But, “is it to be thought,” he began, “that the people of America, so watchful over their interests, so jealous of their liberties, will surrender both the sword and the purse to the same body, and not one chosen immediately by themselves?” Of course not! But in this instance, he said, “they do not part with power; they only transfer it from one set of immediate representatives to another set.” How, for instance, under Paterson’s plan, how are taxes to be collected? “Will the militia march from one State to another in order to collect the arrears of taxes” from delinquent States? “Will not the citizens of the invaded State assist one another till they rise as one man and shake off the Union altogether?” He would never agree to abolish the State governments or render them insignificant. They are necessary, but so too is the Union.
Luther Martin (Maryland) was up next, agreeing with Mason “as to the importance of State governments,” but “he would support them at the expense of the general government!” He sees no need for two branches of the legislature, but if it must be so, then simply organize the existing Confederation Congress in two. A national judiciary, he said, “would be viewed with a jealously inconsistent with its usefulness.” After an exceedingly long speech plowing well-trod ground, delegates were finding the repetition tedious. Pierce observed that Martin “possesses a good deal of information, but he has a very bad delivery, and so extremely prolix, that he never speaks without tiring the patience of all who hear him.”
Roger Sherman seconded Martin’s motion, agreeing that two branches are “necessary in the State legislatures,” but saw “no necessity for them in a confederacy of States.” Yet, after acknowledging the insufficiency of the current confederation, and noting that “the large States have not yet suffered from the equality of votes enjoyed by the small ones,” he said he “would agree to have two branches, and a proportional representation in one of them, provided each State had an equal voice in the other.” The motion to postpone failed.