Chapter 8 3. Crossing the river by feeling the stones

Whether the Philadelphia Conference has the right to set aside the Articles of Confederation and establish a separate constitution actually did not arouse any reaction on the day the conference started (May 30). It was not until nine days later that someone brought up the old story again, and the debate was fierce.This is very strange.Because in the eyes of us Chinese, if the name is not right, the words are not right.The Philadelphia Conference didn't even know whether its mission and authority were to amend the Articles of Confederation or to formulate the Federal Constitution. How could it hold a meeting?

There are several reasons for this. First of all, although some people have doubts about the nature and responsibilities of the conference, there is one thing that everyone does not doubt, that is, the current situation of the Confederacy is not good, the future of the Confederacy is in doubt, and the current state of near-anarchy can no longer continue .This requires a meeting and surgery on the "Articles of Confederation" and even the "Confederation System".The representatives had no objection to this.It's just that everyone still doesn't know how big this operation will be, and how far this meeting will go.Don’t say that the representatives are not clear about this point, even the sponsors of the meeting and the leaders of the plan, such as Madison and Randolph, are not very clear.Madison said at the meeting on May 31 that before he came to the meeting, he had a strong desire to advocate enumerating the necessary powers of the new government and the specific definitions of these powers, but he also doubted whether this approach would be practical. feasible.Now his wish remained, and his doubts only increased.Where his point of view will eventually lead, he himself can not tell.But one thing is certain, that is: as long as a new government framework can be built for the whole society, and as long as this government can provide security, freedom and happiness for the people, then, for any one of foundational significance, He won't back down.

This is roughly the position of the majority of representatives.Therefore, they tacitly decided not to argue for the time being, that is, not to argue about the nature and responsibilities of the meeting, but to hold the meeting first, take one step at a time, and cross the river by feeling the stones.If it is nothing more than amending the treaty in the end, that's the best; if it insists on making a constitution, let's talk about it.In any case, whether the constitution is enacted or the treaty is amended, a meeting must be held first.If you want to "rectify your name" from the very beginning, then nothing can be done.

Thinking about it now, the American people should really be thankful that their founding leaders were practical people, not nerds.Because these people not only did not insist on "must also rectify the name", but also adopted a series of pragmatic measures.For example, in order to improve efficiency, first discuss issues that everyone is interested in or that are likely to reach consensus.Enough discussion, let's vote.Mature votes one by one.If a consensus cannot be reached, it will be shelved and discussed later; once a consensus is reached, the vote will be archived and used as a prerequisite for the next discussion.That is to say, when you touch a rock, you step over it; when you encounter a reef, you go around it.First easy and then difficult, first seek common ground and then put aside differences, and move towards the predetermined goal step by step.

The benefits of doing this are obvious.First, it avoids falling apart because the disagreement is too great, or the problem is too difficult to proceed.For example, whether the meeting has the right to start anew is a difficult problem, and everyone will not speak, and hang it up first; when everyone has a consensus on the establishment of the highest government in the country, they will vote and make a decision first.In this way, as the meeting progresses, there will always be resolutions.These resolutions slowly accumulated to form the framework of the Constitution.When someone comes to object again, it is a done deal, and most people are unwilling to give up all their previous efforts.Even if you are dissatisfied, you agree to compromise so as not to fail.In this way, you can call him political wisdom, you can call it helpless, and even say that he is a "conspiracy" (some scholars do hold this view).But it doesn't matter in my opinion.The important thing is that they started the meeting and finally formulated the constitution.

There is no doubt that there is Madison's credit.James Madison, a Virginian, his ancestors were carpenters, his father was a landowner, he himself graduated from the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), and later taught himself law.He is short in stature (1.6 meters) and thin (47 kilograms). Although he has the rank of militia colonel, he has no combat ability and achievements.What God bestowed on him seems to be only extraordinary wisdom, which makes him adept at politics.In the history of the founding of the United States, there have been three major divisions, and Madison has always stood on the side of the winner.The first time was during the War of Independence, when the American nation faced life and death choices.The leaders of the United Colonies were one for war and one for peace.In the end, the main battle faction won, and the main peace faction faded out of the historical stage.Madison is the main combat faction.The second time was before and after the Constitutional Convention, when 13 states came to a crossroads.The leaders of the Confederacy were on the one hand for union and the other for partition.In the end, those who advocated unity win, those who advocated partition fade out of the political arena, and Madison advocates unity.The third time was when Washington was in power, the government split into a faction headed by Jefferson (later developed into a Democratic-Republican party) and a faction headed by Hamilton (Federalists), and Madison was Jefferson's close comrade-in-arms.As a result of the contest, Jefferson was elected the third president and was re-elected for 8 years.Madison successfully succeeded as Jefferson's Secretary of State and was re-elected for another 8 years, and then handed over to his own Secretary of State Monroe, who was also re-elected for 8 years.The Federalists faded out of politics, leaving only John Marshall alone on the Supreme Court, and Madison was on the "right" side every time, what a man!

In fact, although Madison was still young when he attended the Philadelphia meeting (at the age of 36, a Virginia congressman), his prestige was far from being compared with that of Washington and Franklin, but he was the core and soul of this gathering of heroes. Later historians even called it He is the "Father of the U.S. Constitution."This shows that Madison must have something special.According to Georgia Representative William Pierce's "Character Description of the Representative of the Constitutional Convention", we found that he has three major advantages: first, he combines the foresight of a statesman and the knowledge of a scholar; Third, he is persuasive and eloquent, especially good at persuading others.Therefore, "he was always in a leading position in the constitutional convention". "At any juncture of debate, always go ahead as the man with the best knowledge".

Pierce's statement is not an exaggeration, Madison is indeed at the helm of the Philadelphia conference.He knows when to set sail and when to stay out of the storm. On May 30, the meeting had just passed a resolution that "a national government composed of the highest legislative, executive and judicial departments should be established", and the representatives had serious differences over the number of seats in the national parliament.Madison proposed that the new National Assembly should no longer have one vote per state as stipulated in the Articles of Confederation.The proposal was seconded by Guvenau Morris, Pennsylvania's representative, and was strongly protested by George Reed, head of the Delaware delegation.Reed said the mission of the Delaware delegation was limited by the mandate of the state legislature.The Delaware Assembly's mandate says the delegation cannot agree to change the one-vote-per-state equal voting rule.This authorization was announced at the beginning of the meeting.If this change must be confirmed, the delegation will have to withdraw from the meeting and return to Delaware.

Of course not.Although Madison still insisted on his point of view and believed that this change would eventually be realized, he believed that the feelings of the delegates should be taken into account and the Delaware delegation should not be embarrassed as soon as the meeting opened.He suggested deferring discussion of that issue.The meeting agreed with his proposal to discuss instead whether the national parliament should be bicameral. The proposal passed smoothly the next day.This led to the second political resolution of the conference: "The national parliament shall consist of two chambers." In the following days, the conference also passed a series of resolutions, for example, that members of the first house of the national parliament, the House of Representatives, Elected by the people, members of the second house (that is, the Senate) are elected by the states, and the legislative power of the Confederation Assembly is transferred to the National Assembly. veto and so on.In addition, the meeting passed a resolution to establish a national chief executive.The chief executive controls the review of legislation and has the power to veto the legislation of the parliament, but both houses of parliament can veto the chief executive's veto with a 2/3 majority.These resolutions are very important.They are the result of the cooperation of the delegates.

It's a pity that the good times didn't last long. After only nine days of "honeymoon", the "stones" of the Madisons could no longer be touched.Because although the "sun" of the U.S. Constitution is rising little by little, the cloud of doubts hanging over its head is also accumulating little by little (we will elaborate on this later).Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Ellsworth Gerry of Massachusetts, Pierce Butler of South Carolina, and others made pointed comments following the near exit of the Delaware delegation.As a result, on June 9, some people made public criticisms, not only accusing the Philadelphia Conference of being suspected of "usurping power," but also proposing a new plan that would stand against the "Virginia Plan" that was the mainstream opinion of the meeting, shaking the meeting and having far-reaching influence.

This is indeed a figure who can rival Madison.He is shorter than Madison (less than 1.6 meters), and only a few years older than Madison (42 years old).His father sold tin crafts, and he himself was a graduate of the College of New Jersey, an alumnus of Madison, and as proficient in law as Madison.Pierce's "A Profile of the Delegate to the Constitutional Convention" says that he is "the kind of character whose power splashes over you and arouses your curiosity and astonishment."Back then, he was a humble, low-key person who didn't like to show his face.This determines his extraordinary style.Pierce said: "He is really good at choosing when and how to cut into the debate. He will never open his mouth until he has a grasp of the topic."However, once he stands out, "everyone can't help but praise."In other words, he is not the kind of person who shoots casually.But when it's time to do it, do it.What's more, he doesn't matter if he doesn't make a move, once he makes a move, his throat will be sealed with blood. This person is New Jersey Representative William Paterson.