James Madison / Edmund Randolph

Edmund Randolph

Of those against the writing and establishment of a constitution, Edmund Randolph was perhaps among the most prominent. As governor of the State of Virginia his position held considerable sway with many delegates. His reputation as an honest and trustworthy leader was respected by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike.

 "The States were divided into different interests,

not by their difference of size, but by other

circumstances; the most material of which resulted

partly from climate, but principally from the effects

of their having or not having slaves. These two

causes concurred in forming the great division of

interests in the United States. It did not lie between

the large and small States. It lay between

the Northern and Southern."

Edmund Randolph: You are about an impossible errand my friend. The pieces of the puzzle do not belong. It is a useless task to push them into place.

James Madison: Forgive me for not agreeing with you.  Just because we have not yet found the fit does not mean we should cease trying.

Randolph: The proof of my theory is that when you tug in one direction, the other side loses. Not terribly unlike a small blanket on your large bed, pulling it to your side to cover your cold legs is bound to leave your wife unhappily chilled.

Madison: Your metaphors are all askance; but I see your point.  When our enemy was the king,

we all pulled together here to reject that common foe, as we saw him. Now we must turn to our own matters and solve the differences that separate us as a nation. And it is a nation first that we must consider. My aim is to create and preserve the Union over the individual needs of a collection of states.

James Madison

Randolph: I know well what you seek to achieve, but consider this: under the monarchy, we grumbled and complained about how badly we were being treated but the will of the king prevailed, not because he was in the right but through the use of his strong army and navy. He dispatched his great power to prove he was right. Now with thirteen states pulling in diverse directions, we have become our own enemy. George Mason noted: “If the Convention had simply passed the Bill of Rights then, the pro-Constitution forces would have muted the greatest argument against the new government and opposition throughout the country would have been minor.”

Madison: Yes, when Mason suggested we read and debate the entire Constitution clause by clause, I was delighted because I was certain that I could defend my views and keep the discussion relevant. But you, Edmund are one of the most prominent Antis. You made no attempt to hide your opposition to the Constitution. You impressed all those you met with clarity of vision and a persuasive manner. From the first day, I hoped that your suggestions might make the Constitution a better document.

Randolph: I admitted on more than one occasion, that something was missing in our attempt to strengthen a united nation. We all agreed that some power must be taken from the states and given to a national government. Not a single delegate believed that this would be a simple task. States, especially the ones which bordered one another, often became jealous and got into rivalry for economic advantages. That is precisely why we have come to meet in Philadelphia. Sitting face to face we can surely try to understand one another and reach a consensus. 

Madison: You, who enjoy the richness of metaphors, please consider this. We face the unknown as in a thick forest. To survive, we must create a path forward. We cannot stop or even pause lest others who observe us will ponce upon us and destroy our fragile independence. Not only do we need unity of purpose but we need a means of financing our central government. Printing money during the war has put us into a severe dilemma. We need the means of taxing ourselves according to a sensible formula in order to pay our debts and provide for an army. Our situation is becoming every day more and more critical. No money comes into the federal treasury; no respect is paid to the federal authority; and people of reflection unanimously agree that the existing Confederation is tottering to its foundation. The general weakness of an inexperienced national government brings about other failings. One of the greatest is its effect on and management of money. Had Stephen Girard been put in charge of the Treasury at that time, our national finances might have shown significant profits rather than dismal deficits. Issuing millions of unsecured bills of credit undermines the true value of paper money. One might ask how the Confederation could attract investors or stimulate trade when it coffers were empty and had little hope of having the States contribute gratuitously.

Randolph: No risk of that. Gratuitously making contributions is not what we will ever do.

Madison: Congress could impose no taxes. Requisitions were made for financial support but were often ignored. At present, for example our Continental dollar is worth about five cents in hard currency. Adding to the confusion is the proliferation of all sorts of foreign money the value of which is confusing at best. Transactions are taking place in Spanish doubloons, Prussian carolines or Portuguese moidores.  Many individuals of weight, particularly in the eastern district, are suspected of leaning toward a monarchy. Other individuals predict a partition of the States into two or more confederacies. Yet those most earnest for a central government only sought to establish a stable rule in place of no rule at all; or, worse still, of the tyranny of an ignorant and vicious mob under the outraged name of democracy, into which there was danger of drifting.

Randolph: There were, doubtless, men of weight who thought and said that monarchy was better than anarchy. There were, doubtless, impatient men then who thought and said, as there are impatient men now who think and say, that the rule of a king is better than the rule of the people. But there is little doubt that the southern states will fight for their rights. You must accept the reality that almost half our nation derives its economic strength from slavery. We have agreed before that a man’s livelihood is sacred to him. When this livelihood is threatened we begin to hear talk of partition and maybe even of taking up arms. We must keep any divergent subjects of discussion from arising to impede our progress.

Madison: We are not speaking about men with little experience. Most of the delegates have served before. Eight have signed the Declaration of Independence; fifteen have assisted in developing their state constitutions. Many served as members of the Continental Congress during our war. They all know what is at stake.

Randolph: Yes, and they also know that they must return to their homes and try to defend their actions here. I continue to believe that a constitution lacking a bill of rights can ever be ratified.

I received a letter from Thomas Jefferson in France saying essentially the same thing.

Madison: I am not surprised. As a Republican Democrat, he has seldom supported initiatives proposed by the Federalists. Fortunately he is not here to express his views or our deliberations would be endless. And speaking of endless deliberations, I believe Patrick Henry has given a new meaning to the word.

Randolph: It was gratifying watching my colleagues George Mason and Patrick Henry walk arm in arm each morning to the New Academy Hall, greeting their fellow delegates, both friend and foe, with broad smiles and cordial salutations. This, in no way, diminished later in the day and early evenings, their fiery speeches or strong opposition to Federalist positions. And there you sat day after day counting heads, trying to determine who would vote for what. I admired your analysis of three categories of delegates. The first were those who wanted to replace the Articles completely. This was the radical faction of which you were its leader. The second were those delegates who desired to keep the Articles but with making needed changes. This was the moderate faction. And finally were the delegates who wanted no change at all in the Articles believing that the Articles were all we needed. This was the conservative faction.

Madison: Yes and of the fifty-five delegates in attendance, I calculated that nineteen would be against signing the Constitution. A challenge was clearly there for me. And significantly unaddressed but constantly present in our minds was the unresolved matter of the Mississippi.

During the earlier weeks of this session of Congress,
and, indeed, for some months before, events
had made so manifest this difference of interest,
coincident with the difference in latitude, that
there seemed little ground for hope that any good
would come out of a constitutional convention.
The old question of the navigation of the Mississippi
was again agitated. The South held her
right to that river to be of much more value than
anything she could gain by a closer union with the
North, and she was quite ready to go to war with
Spain in defense of it.

Randolph: Here again is a matter that separates us. The northern delegates are unconcerned with the turmoil we of the south face with trade on the Mississippi. Their main interest is to have a treaty with Spain to further good relations even it meant signing away certain ports on the river.

But to pacify the South it was proposed that the concession
to Spain should be for only five and twenty years.
If at the end of that period the navigation of the
Mississippi should be worth
contending for, the question could be reopened.
The South was, of course, rather exasperated than
pacified by such a proposition. The navigation of
the river had not only a certain value to them now,
but it was theirs by right, and that was reason
enough for not parting with it even for a limited
period. Concessions now would make the reassertion
of the right the more difficult by and by. If
it must be fought for, it would lessen the chance
of success to put off the fighting five and twenty
years. Indeed, it could not be put off, for war
was already begun in a small way. The Spaniards
had seized American boats on trading voyages down
the river, and the Americans had retaliated upon
some petty Spanish settlements. Spain, moreover,
seemed at first no more inclined to listen to compromise
than the South was.

Madison: I knew and said, the real danger was that the States would divide into two confederacies, and only by a new, wiser and stronger union could that calamity be averted. To gain the assent of most of the States to a convention was surmounting only the least of the difficulties.

Three weeks before the time of the meeting Madison wrote: "The nearer the crisis approaches, the more I tremble for the issue.