Chapter 15 2. Large and small states

Madison and the others should have expected this day. In fact, as early as June 2, Dickinson had warned them.On this day, Dickinson made two speeches emphasizing the need to retain the power of the state.He pointed out that the well-being of our nation requires the retention of considerable powers in the hands of the state governments.Because the existence of the state is the cornerstone of the country's long-term stability in the future.Without this cornerstone, if these states are forced to merge into one huge republic, then in the near future we may read its fate in the history of several small countries.There have been many republics in history.Often they prosper and prosper for a short period of time before dying.why?Because they are poorly constructed and cannot remain stable.There are many ways to keep the republic stable.Dividing the legislature into two chambers is one way, as is dividing the country into distinct states.Our country happens to be such a state.These distinct states can just be used to correct the ills of the ancient republic, but some people have to leave quickly.

Dickinson also foresaw that the distribution of seats in the national parliament would affect the relationship between large and small states, and it is likely that mutual concessions will be required in the end.Therefore, he hopes that when designing the future government, the existence of states will be fully respected, so that each state can maintain an equal voice in at least one of the two houses of the national parliament. This is actually the voice of many representatives.As early as May 31, Butler of South Carolina expressed concern that the current plan would take so much power from the states that it might destroy the balance of interests and security with the state governments. On June 6, Reed of Delaware cried out: Too many betrayals of the state government!A national government will soon swallow up the state governments.State governments will soon be reduced to offices that merely preside over senate elections.Even before the vote on June 11, Sherman and Aylsworth specifically reminded everyone that Little State would not agree to any other plan except for equality in the Second House.It's a pity that Madison, Wilson and Hamilton couldn't listen to them.They didn't give up until they reached the Yellow River, they refused to give in at all, and finally forced out a "New Jersey Plan" by Paterson.

The Paterson plan can be said to be in full confrontation with the Randolph plan.At the full committee meeting on June 16, Wilson made a comprehensive comparison of the differences between the two plans. There were as many as 13 differences, including whether the national parliament should be bicameral or single-chamber, whether the foundation of the country is civil rights or state rights, and whether the fine distribution is proportional or not. Equality, whether the chief executive is many or one, whether the lower courts are established or not, whether the ratification of the constitution is by the people or by the states.The Randolph plan advocated a bicameral national parliament, the Paterson plan advocated a single house; the Randolph plan advocated the distribution of seats in proportion to population or property, and the Paterson plan advocated one vote per state; the Randolph plan advocated the ratification of the constitution by the people, Pater The Sen program advocates ratification by the state assemblies; etc., etc.But the core plan is the fate of state power and the distribution of seats.As later (June 21) Connecticut Representative Johnson concluded, the Paterson plan was characterized by a well-intentioned effort to preserve the independence of the states, while the Randolph plan was accused of abolishing this independence. Tendency, although they do not state it.He therefore hoped that the conference would seriously consider whether it was possible to retain at least some sovereignty for the states, as the proponents of the New Jersey Plan demanded.

What Johnson said was exactly what Paterson and the others meant. On June 16, when Paterson explained the New Jersey plan, he emphasized that equal sovereignty was the foundation of the Confederacy.No one has the right to change.He also said that if the proportional distribution of seats is right, then why don't we vote proportionally when we meet here?Now that we recognize the fact of the Confederacy, we should adhere to the Articles of Confederation that each state has one vote.Some people (referring to Wilson) said that this was a concession made due to the circumstances at the time.Even so!Could it be that with such a reason, the giver can take back his gift at will?It seems that the only way is to throw all the states into a melting pot and see who will not!Of course, some will say that coercion is impractical.However, it is impractical to enforce one set of plans, so is it realistic to enforce another set of plans?

In fact, this is to put it bluntly.So Charles Pinckney of South Carolina argues that the whole issue has come to a showdown.As long as the small states are given equal voting rights, they will dispel their worries and work together to build a new national system. In fact, although the differences at the Philadelphia Conference manifested themselves as disputes over treaty amendment and constitutional law, between state power and civil rights, and between power centralization and decentralization, in the final analysis, they were disputes over seats.Just look at the camps of the two factions.The constitutionalists who argued that the convention should break through to authorize the constitution, the civil rightsists who believed that the foundation of rights belonged to the people, and the nationalists who advocated the establishment of a strong national supreme government were hardly Virginians (such as Madison, Randolph), Even the Pennsylvanians (like Wilson, Gouverneau Morris), likewise, the Revisionists who believed that conventions could only amend the Articles of Confederation, the Confederates who believed that the power base belonged to the states, and the Confederates who opposed centralization Most of them are from small states, either from Delaware (such as Bedford) or from New Jersey (such as Paterson).Therefore, the debate in the previous stage of the Philadelphia Conference can also be said to be a dispute between a large state and a small state.

It is the middle states that are more subtle. The middle states are mainly Maryland, New York, South Carolina and Connecticut.Judging from the previous debates, the most active representatives of these states, such as Luther Martin in Maryland, Lan Xin in New York, Butler in South Carolina, and Silman in Connecticut, all sided with the small states. Hamilton in New York is an exception. Hamilton is an influential figure in American history. He was only 32 years old when he participated in the Constitutional Convention.His mother was of half-English and French descent, and he himself was an illegitimate child.Hamilton lost his mother when he was young, and he went to a firm as an apprentice.The boss saw that he was superintelligent and ambitious, so he raised funds to support his studies. He studied at Barber College in New Jersey and King's College (the predecessor of Columbia University). In 1774, under the age of 20, Hamilton interrupted his studies to join the revolution, wrote some widely circulated pamphlets, and later became Washington's secretary, adjutant and close friend. In September 1786, Hamilton participated in the Annapolis Conference initiated by Madison, submitted a report at the meeting, pointed out that the Confederacy was in a period of crisis, and planned the constitutional convention together with Madison.Therefore, it is not surprising that Hamilton is on the side of Madison and the others.

At the committee of the whole on June 18, Hamilton made a five-hour speech, focusing on his constitution-making program and nation-building proposition, and proposed the nationalist view that the overall government must annex the states, which we have already seen It was mentioned in the third chapter of the third chapter.Hamilton said that he was not friendly to either plan, but he was even more opposed to the Paterson plan, because the Paterson plan was to safeguard the rights of the state.And in his opinion, as long as the state government exists, greed, ambition, interest, all these passions that dominate the majority of people and public institutions, will flow continuously into the stream of state government, and will not flow into the river of general government. inside.Once the princes from all walks of life exercise their local sovereignty, they will soon find a way to erode the overall power, and finally reduce the sovereignty of the country to only a facade.The only solution, therefore, is to centralize all sovereignty in a general government.As for equal voting rights, although the small states will definitely want it, the big states will never agree.Because it's not in line with human nature.A government built on bad foundations will one day fall.

This was Hamilton's reaction to Paterson's proposal.Of course Madison is not so youthful, but he is not ambiguous at all. On June 19, the day after Hamilton spoke, Madison also delivered a tirade in the Council of the Whole.He first expounded the legitimacy of constitution-making from the perspective of contract theory and international law, then proposed the criteria for examining whether a plan is appropriate, and then analyzed the New Jersey plan one by one.He asked: Can this plan prevent the states from violating international laws and foreign treaties?Can the States be prevented from encroaching upon the authority of the Union?Is it possible to prevent the states from violating each other's rights?Can the internal security of the states be guaranteed?Can good legislation and administration be ensured in the states?Can the alliance be guaranteed against foreign powers?His conclusion was no.Therefore, he hopes that Xiaobang will consider where this plan will lead them, and what the result will be if they are stubborn.Madison said there were only two possibilities.One is that each state remains independent, but many states form alliances.The result of the first choice is that the small state will always face the ambition and power of the large state.Under the protection of the overall government, everyone is thriving, everyone has equal interests, and there is no need to bully each other. Which is safer for a small state?Let's talk about the second option.Please also think about it, Xiaobang, when you form an alliance with a powerful neighbor, can you also expect each state to have an equal vote?Will the conditions given by these big states to small states be more lenient than the Randolph plan?Finally, Madison pointed out that the main problem now is the seat problem.Once this problem is solved, all other problems will be solved.

After Madison spoke, Massachusetts representative Rufus King asked a question: Should the next step be discussed according to Randolph's plan or Paterson's plan?After voting, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia voted in favor.The three states of New York, New Jersey, and Delaware opposed it, and Maryland was in favor of it and opposed it. The meeting believed that the Randolph plan was more preferable than the Paterson plan.The report resulting from the discussion of the Randolph Plan by the Committee of the Whole was then sent to each delegate and reported to the General Assembly.On the second day, June 20, the meeting entered the second stage according to Madison's vision, and began to discuss the "Report of the Committee of the Whole" in the form of a constitutional convention.

It should be said that this is not a small victory for Madison, Wilson, and Hamilton, but it is also a turning point for Xiaobang, because although their proposal was rejected, Xiaobang learned that without their support, Big Bang Bang can't do anything.Although Wilson threatened that the big states would form an alliance alone, in fact no one dared to do so.On the contrary, they kept persuading the small states, saying that the formation of alliances in twos and threes was actually not good for the small states. Wilson even issued a statement after the vote, saying that he held the opposite view to Hamilton and did not advocate the annexation of the state governments by the national government.The state governments must not only continue to exist, but live in harmony with the national government.Hamilton explained that he was misunderstood.He just said that states cannot exist as nations, not that states cannot exist.He also comforted the small state by saying that Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania are far apart and have different interests, so it is impossible to unite.What's more, the more complete the overall authority, the less likely the strong state will bully the weak state, so there is no need for small states to worry about it.What is this indicating?It shows that they still cannot do without the support of Xiaobang.

Therefore, Xiaobang decided to fight with reason.