TeachingAmericanHistory.org Homepage
Register Online About Us Search Site
Seminars & Institutes
Historical Documents Library
Audio Lectures & Discussions
Constitutional Convention
     
Home > Ratification of the Constitution > Elliot's Debates > Volume 5 > Debates in the Congress of the Confederation, from November 4, 1782, to June 21, 1783; and from February 19 to April 25, 1787.

Wednesday, February 12.

The declaration of Congress as to general funds, passed on January the 29th, appears on the Journals; and Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole, in order to consider the funds to be adopted and recommended to the states.

On motion of Mr. MIFFLIN, the impost of five per cent was taken into consideration. As it seemed to be the general opinion that some variations from the form in which it had been first recommended would be necessary for reconciling the objecting states to it, it was proposed that the sense of the committee should be taken on that head. The following questions were accordingly propounded:—

Question 1. Is it expedient to alter the impost as recommended on the—day of—, 1781?

Mr. LEE said the states, particularly Virginia, would never concur in the measure unless the term of years were limited, the collection left to the states, and the appropriation annually laid before them.

Mr. WOLCOTT thought the revenue ought to be commensurate, in point of time as well as amount, to the debt; that there was no danger in trusting Congress, considering the responsible mode of its appointment; and that to alter the plan would be a mere condescension to the prejudices of the states.

Mr. GORHAM favored the alteration for the same reason as Mr. Lee. He said private letters informed him that the opposition to the impost law was gaining ground in Massachusetts, and the repeal of Virginia would be very likely to give that opposition the ascendence. He said, our measures must be accommodated to the sentiments of the states, whether just or unreasonable.

Mr. HAMILTON dissented from the particular alterations suggested, but did not mean to negative the question.

Mr. BLAND was for conforming to the ideas of the states as fax as would, in any manner, consist with the object.

On the question, the affirmative was unanimous, excepting the voice of Mr. WOLCOTT.

Question 2. Shall the term of duration be limited to twenty-five years?

Mr. MERCER professed a decided opposition to the principle of general revenue; observed that the liberties of England had been preserved by a separation of the purse from the sword; that, until the debts should be liquidated and apportioned, he would never assent, in Congress or elsewhere, to the scheme of the impost.

Mr. BLAND proposed an alternative of twenty-five years, or until the requisitions of Congress, according to the Articles of Confederation, shall be found adequate. On this proposition the votes were, of New Hampshire, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York, no; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, no; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, divided; South Carolina, ay: so the proposition was not agreed to.

On the main question for twenty-five years, it was voted in the affirmative.

Question 3. Shall the appointment of collectors be left to the states, they to be amenable to, and under the control of Congress?—Ay; several states, as New York and Pennsylvania, dissenting.


 

         
Master of American History and Government:
Free Saturday Seminars for Teachers:
Free Summer Institutes for Teachers:
Historical Documents Library:
Online Audio Lectures and Discussions:
Special Exhibits:
Teaching American History Grants:


Search Site
Search Document Library

 
Printer-Friendly Version
Verizon Foundation
Support for teachingamericanhistory.org is provided by the Verizon Foundation.
A Project of the
Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University
401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805
(419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)
info@TeachingAmericanHistory.org

© 2006 Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs