Pros And Cons Of Compromise
U2Q3T6
In Federalist Papers 2 and 3 Publius asserted that “nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government.” Publius recognized that the basic nature of government, consistent with Locke’s natural rights philosophy, is compromise; regardless of how “it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.” Publius saw benefits to the delegates creating compromises that “would conduce more to the interest of the people” since the many delegates, “being convened from different parts of the country...brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information.” Each delegate, coming to the convention, “carried into it their accumulated knowledge …show more content…
Delegates with the strongest opposition to slavery, Martin, Mason, Dickenson, and Randolph, held that it was “inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution.” Dickenson believed any compromise allowing “the importation of slaves… [to] be authorized to the States by the Constitution” would jeopardize the “honor and safety” of the country. These delegates felt so strongly on the topic that they were unwilling to compromise, and would “sooner risk the constitution” than agree to permit slavery or let it go untaxed. Of those four men only one signed the Constitution, clearly demonstrating their reluctance to compromise. Those advocating states’ rights in regards to slavery held an equally unmovable position, and believed that “we [the delegates] had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to Slaves,” that right should be reserved to the states. A few of these delegates felt that in time “they will themselves cease to import slaves,” but the federal government had no power “to force anything down, not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.” They saw the attempts to control or abolish the slave trade as infringing on states’ rights; therefore, they would not agree to a compromise for fear of setting the precedent for an officious federal
In Federalist Papers 2 and 3 Publius asserted that “nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government.” Publius recognized that the basic nature of government, consistent with Locke’s natural rights philosophy, is compromise; regardless of how “it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.” Publius saw benefits to the delegates creating compromises that “would conduce more to the interest of the people” since the many delegates, “being convened from different parts of the country...brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information.” Each delegate, coming to the convention, “carried into it their accumulated knowledge …show more content…
Delegates with the strongest opposition to slavery, Martin, Mason, Dickenson, and Randolph, held that it was “inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution.” Dickenson believed any compromise allowing “the importation of slaves… [to] be authorized to the States by the Constitution” would jeopardize the “honor and safety” of the country. These delegates felt so strongly on the topic that they were unwilling to compromise, and would “sooner risk the constitution” than agree to permit slavery or let it go untaxed. Of those four men only one signed the Constitution, clearly demonstrating their reluctance to compromise. Those advocating states’ rights in regards to slavery held an equally unmovable position, and believed that “we [the delegates] had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to Slaves,” that right should be reserved to the states. A few of these delegates felt that in time “they will themselves cease to import slaves,” but the federal government had no power “to force anything down, not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.” They saw the attempts to control or abolish the slave trade as infringing on states’ rights; therefore, they would not agree to a compromise for fear of setting the precedent for an officious federal