This paper continues to address the objections raised against the Constitutional Convention. Madison refers back to lawmakers of ancient history to consider how unusual the American experiment is, and how different to periods in the past. On the whole, ancient constitutions like Athens, Sparta and Rome had working constitutions imposed by lawmakers: Theseus, Draco, Solon, Lycurgus and Romulus, for example. In the case of Athens, Madison finds it remarkable that citizens so wary of threats to their liberty would not have demanded more say in the process, except that they may have realised the potential for
discord and disunion.
Madison’s line of argument in this paper tends towards an assertion that the current Confederation of States poses more of a threat and is far more unregulated than would be possible under the proposed new Constitution. In the case of the War of Independence, he argues that it was difficult to get agreement from some states for years, and agreement was only achieved with the imminent threat of the British army. Madison uses the metaphor of a patient who is prescribed a treatment which is readily agreed upon by several eminent physicians, only to be warned against the course of treatment by several other people, none of whom can agree on a better treatment. They represents the critics of the Constitution. Madison reasons the best course for his patient:
would he not act prudently in trying the experiment unanimously recommended by the latter [doctors], rather than be hearkening to those who could neither deny the necessity of a speedy remedy, nor agree in proposing one?
To illustrate the problem, Madison chronicles a long list of objections made against the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention, which are objections, on the whole, to the approach taken rather than the specifics, with its critics often disagreeing with one another and offering contradictory solutions, if any. Having outlined the many issues that critics cannot agree upon, he then asks rhetorically whether a better plan could be expected from these groups if a second Constitutional Convention were held.
Madison finishes by outlining some of the problems with the current Articles of Confederation, and reasons that a rational approach would be to accept a better arrangement, the new proposed Constitution, even if it maintains some flaws, than remain with the old the old arrangement, the Articles of Confederation. He states,
No man would refuse to give brass for silver of gold, because the latter had some alloy in it.. Madison argues that Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, was too powerful. Some of the problems he identifies with the Articles of Confederation include that:
Finally, Madison speculates about the problems of the future with the Western Frontier, a source of great wealth, opening up. The current Congress had the power to create new States, temporary governments and proscribe the conditions under which those States were to enter the Confederacy. This was a huge amount of power without Federal oversight. Madison ends by asking whether it would not be more reasonable for those critics of the Constitutional Convention to be turning their criticisms against the current Congress and the Articles of Confederation, rather than the new Constitution, which would go some way to ameliorate the dangers of the current system.
8 January 2019
Revised and updated 9 May 2022