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; but it was
generally admitted 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.
Pages:
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178