The United States of America, part 1 (1783-1830) | Page 5

charters extended interminably into the land,
were resisted by New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Maryland, whose western boundaries were distinctly
defined. New York put forth a claim for the Ohio valley, based on an
Indian treaty. It lay athwart the claims of some of the other States.
Virginia's assertion that the "South Sea" mentioned in her charter as her
western limits entitled her to the land as far west as the Pacific, if
British authority should ever extend so far, was declared preposterous
by delegates from other States who looked upon the land between the
Alleghanies and the Mississippi as a valuable common asset, if the war
should terminate favourably to their cause.
"Every gentleman," said Wilson, of Pennsylvania, in debate, "has heard

much of the claims to the South Sea. They are extravagant. The grants
were made upon mistake. They were ignorant of geography. They
thought the South Sea within one hundred miles of the Atlantic Ocean.
It was not conceived they extended three thousand miles. Lord Camden
considers the claims to the South Sea as what can never be reduced to
practice. Pennsylvania has no right to interfere in these claims, but she
has a right to say that she will not confederate unless those claims were
cut off."
On the other hand, Virginia and the States having these western claims
had sufficient influence in the Congress to strike out every proposed
clause attempting to restrict the western limits; but they could not
prevent the regulation of trade with the Indians not inhabiting a State
being handed over to the proposed Confederation. This was the initial
step in national regulation of western affairs.
Since the Congress in this new form was to be the sole visible agency
of the National Government, possessing the legislative, the executive,
and even such judicial powers as the Confederation possessed,
representation in it had to be most carefully considered. The committee
had provided that in determining questions the present method should
be continued which allowed each State to have one vote; and in vain
did the advocates of representation according to population plead
against it. Franklin pointed to the effects of unequal representation in
England and begged that the new Government might be started aright.
"Let the smaller colonies give equal money and men," said he, "and
then have an equal vote." His fellow-delegate from Pennsylvania, Dr.
Rush, added the voice of prophecy when he declared that the States
ought to represent the whole people; and that each State retaining one
vote would tend to keep up colonial distinctions.
"We are now a new nation," said he. "Our trade, language, customs,
manners, don't differ more than they do in Great Britain. The more a
man aims at serving America, the more he serves his colony. We have
been too free with the word independence; we are dependent on each
other, not independent States. I would not have it understood that I am
pleading the cause of Pennsylvania. When I entered that door I
considered myself a citizen of America."
Truly here was the voice of unionism crying in the wilderness of
individualism. It is the sentiment of a century later.

The advocates of equal State representation had the advantage of
precedent and of present practice. The large States had won in retaining
their claims to the western lands. It was now the turn of the small States.
In the final vote on representation, the four large States of Virginia,
Massachusetts, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, containing over one-half
the entire population of the thirteen States, were outvoted by the five
small States of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware,
and Georgia. The State and not individual voting was to continue in
Congress. The medium-sized States of Connecticut, New York, and the
two Carolinas, showed a "disinterested coolness" in the matter. Few
took so gloomy a view of such an arrangement as did John Adams, who
predicted that within ten years the Articles would be found as weak as a
rope of sand in holding the people together.
Being one of the chief causes of the Revolution, the power of direct
taxation was a very sensitive point. To avoid this, the pernicious system
of assessing quotas on the several States was continued. It was derived
from the colonial custom, and might be expected to produce as little
revenue and as much discord as it had done in those days. The Articles
as adopted by the Congress were an improvement upon any effort of
the kind previously attempted; but the results likely to follow the
withdrawal of the pressure of war and the return of decentralising peace
might easily be predicted.
Having at length been agreed to in the Congress, the Articles were sent
to the several State Legislatures to be accepted or rejected. Although