I cannot see the force of the reasoning in attempting to detach the state governments from the general government. In that case, without a standing army, you cannot support the general government but on the pillars of the state governments. Are the larger states more energetic than the smaller? Massachusetts cannot support a government at the distance of one hundred miles from her capital without an army; and how long Virginia and Pennsylvania will support their governments it is difficult to say. Shall we proceed like unskilful workmen, and make use of timber which is too weak to build a first-rate ship? We know that the people of the states are strongly attached to their own constitutions. If you hold up a system of general government, destructive of their constitutional rights, they will oppose it. Some are of opinion that, if we cannot form a general government so as to destroy state governments, we ought at least to balance the one against the other. On the contrary, the only chance we have to support a general government is, to draft it on the- state governments. I want to proceed on this ground, as the safest, and I believe no other plan is practicable. In this way, and in this way only, can we rely on the confidence and support of the people.
Mr. JOHNSON. The state governments must be preserved; but this motion leaves them at the will and pleasure of the general government.
Mr. MADISON. I find great differences of opinion, in this Convention, on the clause now under consideration. Let us postpone it, in order to take up the 8th resolve, that we may previously determine the mode of representation.
Mr. MASON. All agree that a more efficient government is necessary. It is equally necessary to preserve the state governments, as they ought to have the means of self-defence. On the motion of Mr. Wilson, the only means they ought to have would be destroyed.
The question was put for postponing, in order to take into consideration the 8th resolve, and lost—7 noes, 4 ayes.
Question on the 1st clause in the 4th resolve—9 states for, 2 against it.
The age of the senators (thirty years) agreed to.
Mr. GORHAM proposed that the senators be classed, and to remain tour years in office: otherwise great inconveniences may arise, if a dissolution should take place at once.
