Page View
Kaminski, John P.; Saladino, Gaspare J.; Moore, Timothy D. (Historian); Lannér-Cusin, Johanna E.; Schoenleber, Charles H.; Reid, Jonathan M.; Flamingo, Margaret R.; Fields, David P. (ed.) / Ratification of the Constitution by the states: Maryland (1)
11 (2015)
Introduction, pp. xxi-lvi
Page lii
INTRODUCTION Paterson's proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation (i.e., the New Jersey Plan), which had maintained the states' equal represen- tation in Congress. Martin may have even been involved in drafting the amendments. That fact is not clear. Paterson's plan was rejected; the Maryland delegation was divided on the proposal.74 Once the new plan of government began to take shape, Martin ex- pressed serious qualms about its lack of a bill of rights. He feared that citizens might easily fall prey to a government under which individual rights were not explicitly guarded, not even to the extent that they had been in some state constitutions. Martin's and Mercer's absence from the Convention before its conclusion reflected the men's growing dis- trust of a new system of government that, in their minds, was being empowered beyond expectation and need. Such a system might put the states' sovereignty at risk. Maryland's three other delegates did not share the scruples of Martin and Mercer, and, along with thirty-five fellow delegates from other states, signed their names to the Constitution on 17 September 1787, the date on which the Convention closed. In his role as Convention president, George Washington transmitted the Con- stitution to Congress, requesting that it be sent to the states for their consideration. The new Constitution would become effective among the ratifying states after nine had given their assent.75 Upon their return to Maryland, the state's delegates would be asked to give account of the Convention's proceedings. The General Assem- bly was scheduled to meet in early November 1787. Once in session, the House of Delegates wasted little time in calling on the men who attended at Philadelphia. On 23 November, the House requested that its five delegates appear on 29 November to give a report. Four of the five delegates certainly attended the House as requested. No record exists of Mercer's attendance, though Daniel Carroll noted that Mercer was in Annapolis while the Assembly was in session. The aftermath of the Philadelphia Convention revealed the delegates' decidedly different perspectives on what had taken place. Martin suggested that a strong monarchical faction had existed at the Convention. In Martin's esti- mation, that faction wanted to destroy the state governments in the interest of greater centralization. The delegates disagreed among themselves over the existence of such a faction and, if there was a faction, who might have been sympathetic with it. As he had been at the Convention, Martin would continue to be an outspoken critic of the Constitution at the state level. Martin's Genuine Information, a twelve- installment analysis and critique of the Convention and Constitution printed between December 1787 and February 1788 in the Baltimore Maryland Gazette, would give voice to his many anxieties about living ii
Copyright 2015 by the State Historical Society of Wisconsin.| For information on re-use see: http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/Copyright