Madison’s Opponents and Constitutional Design
19
Sherman’s leading role among Madison’s opponents becomes clearer in comparison to role of
prominent delegates such as Delaware’s John Dickinson, Maryland’s Luther Martin and New Jersey’s
William Paterson. Dickinson, a more renowned national figure than Sherman, could not participate
during important stretches of the Convention because of his health (Hutson 1983). Like Sherman,
Dickinson also strongly supported equality of state votes in the Senate, but he also was much more
supportive of Madison’s expansive vision of national authority. Dickinson explicitly agreed with
Madison more often than he disagreed with him. While he agreed with Madison on ten occasions,
including the defeated national veto of state laws, he disagreed with Madison on only seven occasions,
and of these disagreements, the final outcome reflected his position only four times (Sherman agreed in
two instances, and took no position in the other two).
2
Maryland’s querulous Attorney General, Luther
Martin, arrived two weeks late and left two weeks early. While Martin defended state prerogatives more
stridently than any other delegate, he proved strikingly ineffective in translating this antagonism into
concrete results. Martin took positions on forty-three items acted on by the delegates, but only four of
these positions successfully translated into a substantive provision in the final Constitution. Moreover,
only two of these four “wins” for Martin’s position constituted “losses” for Madison’s: the defeat of the
national veto of state laws, and the defeat of an executive veto exercised in conjunction with other
national officers (although a majority of Martin’s Maryland colleagues voted for it). A third Martin win
was significant but uncontroversial. Immediately after the defeat of the national veto, Martin made the
motion that injected the New Jersey Plan’s supremacy clause into the Constitution. No delegate dissented
(RFC July 17, II: 27-9; RFC July 21, II: 76-80).
American politics textbooks often give New Jersey’s William Paterson the premiere role as an
opponent of the Virginia Plan, and like Madison himself, these texts use the terms “New Jersey Plan” and
“Paterson Plan” interchangeably (RFC June 19, I: 315; Cummings and Wise, 2001: 41; see also
Dougherty, 2001: 147-8). But Paterson was neither the sole author of New Jersey’s proposal nor a
particularly effective opponent of the Madison coalition. The New Jersey Plan resulted from the
collaboration of those excluded from Madison’s expected coalition: the delegations from Connecticut,
Convention