was answered by several members, but particularly by Dr. Johnson, who observed, that the idea of destroying the state-governments having been over-ruled, the convention was to frame a government, not for the people of America, but for the political societies called states, which compose the union; and that they must, therefore, have a voice in the second branch, if it was meant to preserve their existence, the people composing already the first branch.
“Mr. Madison rose up against Dr. Johnson in defence of the Virginia plan, and supported the following dogmas; “that there is a gradation of power in all societies, from the lowest corporation to the highest sovereign; that the states never possessed the right of sovereignty; that they were only corporations having the power of making by-laws; that they ought to be still more under the control of the general government, at least as much as they were under the King and British government.
“Mr. Hamilton, without adopting the ideas of Mr. Madison, spoke against the motion of Mr. Lansing, which was lost, four states for and six against it.
“Judge Ellsworth then moved, as an amendment to the plan of Virginia, that in the second branch each state should have an equal vote: equality of votes being the principle on which all confederacies are formed.
“Mr. Madison refused to compromise, and exclaimed that the greatest danger for the general government would arise from the opposition of the northern interest of the continent to the southern interest: alluding to certain expressions of several members leaning towards a division of the union, if Mr. Madison’s plan was not modified.
“Dr. Franklin recommended a compromise on that subject, and made, in his usual way, the following comparison: “when a joiner wants to fit two boards, he takes off with his plane the uneven parts from each side, and thus they fit: let us do the same, said he, and as an expedient he proposed, that the Senate be elected by the states equally.” But Mr. Madison, considering, that by his plan the Senate was to be the greatest engine by which all the state-laws could be reversed and annulled, would consent to no arrangement that would deprive the large states of having in both branches a weight proportioned to their population.
“Mr. King recommended moderation, and was in sentiment with those who wished the preservation of the state-governments. The general government, in his opinion, could be constructed so as to effect that object. The new constitution must be considered as a commission under which the general government is to act, and as
