Gorham expresses "that much greater powers are necessary to be given" to the national government. How does the September 12 Report from the Committee of Style address these concerns by expanding congressional power? Does the report propose that these powers should be explicitly stated in the new constitution, or does it allow for implied powers?
Nathaniel Gorham (1738–1796) served in the Massachusetts provincial congress, on the Massachusetts Board of War, in the Continental Congress, and in both houses of the Massachusetts legislature. Gorham’s extensive experience led to his selection as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, during which he was an active participant and chairman of the Committee of the Whole. Following the convention, Gorham served as a delegate to the Massachusetts ratifying convention in support of the new Constitution.
Theophilus Parsons (1750–1813) was a Massachusetts lawyer who helped draft the state‘s 1780 constitution and was influential in its ultimate ratification. After a proposed state constitution was rejected by voters in 1778, a group of Essex County towns gathered to evaluate and analyze the document. Parsons summarized the meeting in the Essex Result. This document expressed concerns about centralized power and advocated for the separation of powers to prevent tyranny, ultimately influencing the drafting of Massachusetts’ next constitution, which was approved in 1780. Parsons later served as Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court from 1806–1813.
Gorham wrote to Parsons during the Constitutional Convention to discuss issues facing Massachusetts, using them to highlight the broader weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and the need for revision, if not a new constitution. Gorham focused on Congresses’ 1786 requisition to raise funds for interest on debt and to fund the government. He emphasized the financial burden this placed on Massachusetts and criticized the unbalanced support and participation by other states. Gorham argued it was “vain” to think Massachusetts alone could resolve the nation’s financial problems and stressed the need for unity and collective responsibility among all states to make a difference. Gorham’s example underscored Congress’ lack of authority and effectiveness under the Articles of Confederation, a central concern driving the need for a stronger national government. He also provided insight into the convention proceedings, revealing disagreements over representation between large and small states, and the delegates’ unanimous support for establishing three branches of government.
Through his correspondence with Parsons, Gorham highlighted the existing government’s flaws and pointed to the critical debates and compromises that would ultimately lead to a more unified and balanced framework for the United States.
Dr. dear Sir:
It was with singular pleasure I saw your name in the list of Representatives[1]. I hope all the measures of your body will be dictated by the principles of honor and justice. Among the various subjects which will come before you, the requisition of Congress of the last year will undoubtedly be one. I hope you will excuse me for just suggesting to you, that I think it will be burdening the people to no essential purpose to comply with that requisition any further than applies to the cash part of it;–not that I have any doubt of the justice and duty of paying the domestic debt; but it is in vain for Massachusetts alone to expect to support the public credit; for six or seven States have absolutely refused to comply with the one of the year before the last, and, of those who have complied in appearance, very few will make any effectual payments; and I presume there will not be any that will comply with the one that is now to be considered by you, excepting the cash part of it, and with that numbers will comply. In short, the present Federal Government seems near its exit; and whether we shall in the Convention be able to agree upon mending it, or forming and recommending a new one, is not certain. All agree, however, that much greater powers are necessary to be given, under some form or other. But the large States think the representation ought to be more in proportion to the magnitude of the States, and consequently more like a national government, while the smaller ones are for adhering to the present mode. We have hitherto considered the subject with great calmness and temper; and there are numbers of very able men in this body who all appear thoroughly alarmed with the present prospect. I do not know that I am at liberty to write anything on this subject. I shall therefore only observe further, that all agree the legislative and executive ought to be separate, and that there should be a national judiciary.
I beg you not to mention having heard anything from me on the subject, except to your brother, to whom I should have written, but I am quite overcome with the heat of the weather. Please to make my compliments to him and to Mrs. Parsons, your brother William, & c. Please to remind your brother Ebenezer about my son John, and believe me to be
Yours, very respectively,
N. Gorham.
Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.
![Finley, A. (1829) Pennsylvania. Philada. [Map] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/98688548/.](/content/uploads/2024/02/Map-of-PA--273x190.jpg)
