Log In Register

Source & Citation Info

title:“NY Ratification Convention Debates (June 20, 1788) - New York Independent Journal”
authors:Anonymous
date written:1788-6-25

permanent link
to this version:
https://consource.org/document/ny-ratification-convention-debates-1788-6-20-new-york-independent-journal/20130122080457/
last updated:Jan. 22, 2013, 8:04 a.m. UTC
retrieved:Oct. 18, 2019, 2:32 p.m. UTC

transcription
citation:
"NY Ratification Convention Debates (June 20, 1788) - New York Independent Journal." The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Vol. 22. Ed. John P. Kaminski. Madison: Wisconsin Historical Society Press, 2008. 1742. Print.

NY Ratification Convention Debates (June 20, 1788) - New York Independent Journal (June 25, 1788)

. . . (On Friday Mr. Lansing answered the chancellor with general remarks, in which he endeavoured to prove that the present confederation is not so totally inadequate to the purposes of our union, as had been represented; that these states are too extensive to be united under the same government, and that the proposed constitution is not calculated to secure the liberties of the people. Mr. Melancton Smith then moved that the committee should proceed to debate upon the constitution by paragraphs; and the first and second sections of the first article were read. The first section and the two first clauses of the second, passed without any objections. Mr. Smith objected to the third clause, which states the principles and proportion of representation in the proposed house of representatives.) After much declamation by way of general remarks, he attempted to prove that slaves should not be represented and that the whole representation is too small. Mr. Smith was answered by Mr. Hamilton, who, in a speech of an hour and a half, stated the reasons which governed the convention in apportioning the representation, proved clearly that the system is as little objectionable in this particular, as can be formed, and assured the committee that the southern states would not accede to any plan of representation which should not allow part of their slaves to be deemed persons.1 No reply was made to Mr. Hamilton's arguments on this clause.

Resource Metadata

Type

Date

1788-6-25

Authors

  • Unknown

Collections