[82]
Chapter 2:
- The convention of 1787 -- diversity of opinion -- Luther Martin's account of the three parties -- the question of representation -- Compromise effected -- Randolph's resolutions -- the word “national” condemned -- plan of Government framed -- difficulty with regard to ratification, and its solution -- provision for secession from the Union -- views of Gerry and Madison -- false Interpretations -- close of the convention.
When the convention met in Philadelphia in May, 1787, it soon became evident that the work before it would take a wider range and involve more radical changes in the “Federal Constitution” than had at first been contemplated. Under the Articles of Confederation the general government was obliged to rely upon the governments of the several states for the execution of its enactments. Except its own officers and employees, and in time of war the federal army and navy, it could exercise no control upon individual citizens. With regard to the states, no compulsory or coercive measures could be employed to enforce its authority, in case of opposition or indifference to its exercise. This last was a feature of the confederation which it was not desirable nor possible to change, and no objection was made to it; it was generally admitted, however, that some machinery should be devised to enable the general government to exercise its legitimate functions by means of a mandatory authority operating directly upon the individual citizens within the limits of its constitutional powers. The necessity for such provision was undisputed. Beyond the common ground of a recognition of this necessity, there was a wide diversity of opinion among the members of the Convention. Luther Martin, a delegate from Maryland, in an account of its proceedings afterward given to the legislature of that state, classifies these differences as constituting three parties in the convention, which he describes as follows:
One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one General Government over this extensive continent of a monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true that there was a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were, by myself and many others of the Convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment. . . . The second party was not for the abolition of the State governments nor for the