Chapter 18 1. The person who untied the bell is not the one who tied it

The establishment of an "11-member committee" consisting of one representative from each state marked a new stage in the Philadelphia meeting, which was compromise, concession and compromise. This is also the wish of many delegates.In fact, when nationalists such as Madison (Virginia), Wilson (Pennsylvania), Hamilton (New York), Rufus King (Massachusetts) and Luther Martin (Maryland), Lanxin ( New York), Paterson (New Jersey), Bedford (Delaware) and other state rights activists representing the interests of small states were arguing, many representatives who stood on the sidelines expressed their worries and dissatisfaction. People's attitudes and positions have even undergone subtle changes.

The first to express dissatisfaction was Randolph of Virginia. On June 16, the committee of the whole group discussed the two plans of Virginia and New Jersey. Lan Xin and Paterson joined forces to attack. Charles Pinckney believed that the whole issue had been shown off, and the atmosphere at the meeting was very tense.At this time, Randolph did not defend his plan, but said that the first thing to do was that the situation was urgent, and the fate of the republic could not wait.If we fail to come up with a solution, we have betrayed the people's entrustment.In this time of existential danger, we must rise up and draw up a constitution, before we miss the last opportunity for a national government!

Randolph, of course, criticized Paterson's proclivity for force.This is also Mason's opinion.At the June 20 meeting, Mason said Mr. Paterson himself admitted that his plan would not be implemented without force because taxes would not be collected.That is the most unnatural and uncomfortable thing to do.To punish non-payment of taxes with death is an outrage that even despotism dares not use.But compared to using the army to collect taxes, it is still benevolent.Use the army to collect taxes, and the bayonet makes no difference between the guilty and the innocent.However, as Virginia's representative, Mason also expressed that although he desired a national government, he would never agree to abolish the states or reduce them to insignificance.He pointed out that since the Constituent Assembly has so many heroes, it will not be able to produce a government full of problems.

If, on June 20, Mason was basically opposed to confederacy, then on June 25 he made it clear that he supported the election of the second house of the National Assembly by the state assemblies (please refer to the third chapter of Chapter Four of this book). Section), it seems meaningful.In fact, the attitudes of many representatives are intriguing.For example, Georgia Representative Pierce said in his speech on June 29 that the equal voting rights established when the Confederacy was established are the source of difficulties in handling public affairs at present.The boundaries between states must be sacrificed for the common good.As for himself, though from a small state, he considered himself a citizen of the Confederacy.

If Pierce's attitude wasn't surprising as a Georgian, Reed's was.Reed, who was the head of the Delaware delegation, began the meeting by saying that his delegation was bound by the state's mandate and could not agree to change the equal voting rule.But on June 29 he said he was not selfish enough not to want a general government.He also said that in order to have a general government, all the states must be integrated into one.Most incredible of all, he even agreed to Hamilton's plan. Gerry's attitude is also interesting. On June 8, Gerry had said that the National Assembly would treat the states as slaves if they had the right to vote on their legislation.Such an idea cannot be agreed to.Yet on June 29, Gerry went after Pierce and said we were never separate states, were not, and are not.Advocates of state and state power cling to their concept of sovereignty like drunkenness.He believes that the current Confederacy is in crisis.The fate of the country will be decided by the Constituent Assembly.So he lamented: Come here, we are like brothers, we belong to one family together.It seems that we should bring with us the negotiating spirit of statesmen beforehand.

Also speaking on June 29 was Gorham of Massachusetts.He hoped that Xiaobang would not only focus on opposition all the time, but should think about who made the biggest concession.The breakup of the alliance is not good for everyone, especially for small states, because the weak need the protection of the law and the government more.Come to think of it, what would happen to Delaware without the Union?What about New Jersey?New Jersey was originally formed by the union of East Jersey and West Jersey. If it splits, what will happen?Nothing, it seems, is more subjective than the dangers that states contemplate.It is evident that union is necessary to the happiness of the states, and their union requires a strong general government.As long as everyone is willing to stay here and agree on something suitable to recommend to the people, I, Gorham, will stay with me to the end.

These statements actually represent a tendency to seek a compromise and reconciliation.But the big state and the small state are not giving in to each other.The task of mediation has historically fallen on the shoulders of the middle states, the most important of which is Connecticut. The Connecticut delegation consisted of three representatives, Oliver Ellsworth, Roger Sherman, and William Samuel Johnson.We have already talked about the situation of Sherman, and here we only talk about Aylesworth and Johnson.Ellsworth was the youngest member of the Connecticut delegation, attending the meeting at 42 (Johnson was 60 and Sherman was 64).He served for six consecutive years as Connecticut's representative to the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation, and later served as a justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court.Pierce's constitutional convention representative's personality describes him as a man of great statesmanship with a broad mind, fluent and eloquent speech, a clear and deep understanding of things, and a single-minded focus on his responsibilities.

Aylsworth's performance in Philadelphia can be divided into two parts.The previous paragraph was mainly about listening, and it was only on June 20 that I began to actively speak.But this gentleman is already a blockbuster if he doesn't say anything.On the first day of the second phase of the meeting, he proposed a motion to change the title of "whole government" National Government in the constitutional plan to "Government of the United States".As we mentioned in Chapter III, Section 3, this motion was unanimously agreed without a vote.It meant a tacit compromise between nationalists and nationalists: Madison and the others no longer insisted on a unitary nation-state, and Paterson and the others also agreed to establish a general government.Both parties actually had this intention in private, but they couldn't find a statement that everyone could accept.Aylsworth's motion gave them a statement that each of them felt that they could advance and retreat, a statement that everyone had nothing to say.Because their country was originally called the United States.As for what kind of government the United States will implement, it depends on the respective capabilities of the two factions.However, with this statement, it may be very difficult to implement a centralized system.So, by June 20, most people basically accepted the compromise intention.This is to Aylesworth's credit.

With this successful start, the subsequent mediation will be a matter of course. On June 29, Aylsworth formally proposed his mediation proposal.We must remember that June 29 was an important day for the Constitutional Convention.On the first day, Franklin suggested a prayer, asking God to bless him.On this day, Gorham, Reed, Pierce, and Gerry spoke one after another. Anxiety and uneasiness shrouded the meeting. A compromise and reconciliation has become the desire of the people.At this time, Aylesworth proposed a compromise plan, which can be said to be just the right time. Ellsworth said that since the distribution of seats in the First House of the Federal Assembly had decided not to follow the rules of the Articles of Confederation, the distribution of seats in the Second House should be the same as in the Articles of Confederation.Because we are part country and part alliance.The first court implements a proportional system, which is in line with the principle of the state and protects a large state; the second court implements an equal system, which is in line with the principle of alliance and protects a small state.On such a middle ground, a compromise can be achieved.If a compromise cannot be achieved, then our meeting will not only be in vain, but worse than in vain.Certainly, with the exception of Massachusetts, there is not a single state in the East that does not regard the states as equal political societies.None would agree to the exclusion of the state's equal voice in both houses of parliament, and none would be willing to part with their precious rights.You know, nature has endowed even the smallest insect with the ability to defend itself, let alone Bang?The right to self-defense is the lifeblood of Xiaobang.Once someone tries to deprive them of this right, America will be cut in half.Moreover, the cut off place is probably somewhere in this part.

This is extremely politically farsighted.Because the Civil War officially started in 1861.And, ironically, the so-called severed place is nowhere else but in Virginia represented by Madison and Randolph. Aylsworth's plan came to be known as the "Connecticut Compromise."This is quite accurate.For it was the representatives of Connecticut who proposed and expounded the plan.Ellsworth was the narrator, Sherman presented it to the committee, and Johnson was the leader.Johnson proposed the idea on the same day, June 29, but spoke earlier than Aylesworth.Johnson, who graduated from Yale University and received a master's degree from Yale University and an honorary master's degree from Harvard University, was the first president of Columbia College. His father was the first president of King's College, the predecessor of Columbia University.Perhaps it is precisely because of this kind of family education and academic qualifications that Johnson often sees problems to the point, penetrating into three points, and extremely thorough. On June 29, Johnson was the first to speak.Gentlemen, he said, differed in their positions, and the debate would never end.On the one hand you see states as constituencies of the people, on the other you see states as political societies.It should be said that both ideas are reasonable.Instead of pitting these two sides against each other, then, they should be combined—two houses of Parliament, one representing the people and one representing the states.

This is wonderful!Since "one state, each expressed", why not "one parliament, two representatives"?Moreover, the next day, that is, June 30, Aylesworth also specifically stated that their opinions were partial or biased, because the state (Connecticut) he represented was neither big nor small, and it happened to be in the middle. It's a pity that Madison and the others refused to accept it.Instead of accepting it, he said that Connecticut was the least qualified to raise the issue because Connecticut was actually lackluster in keeping the Oath of Confederation.This statement immediately aroused the protest of Aylesworth and Sherman.Ellsworth said that our state has always supported the Confederacy with all its heart, no matter what others may say.A look up the military rosters shows that Connecticut soldiers far outnumbered Virginians who fought in the Revolutionary War.Sherman said that whenever Madison wanted to prove that the Articles of Confederation were flawed, he condemned the states for their faults.It's okay to talk like this! This made many delegates uneasy.If even the opinions of the mediator cannot be tolerated, how can the meeting continue?