In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

19 Upshur on Majorities and Minorities Abel P. Upshur of Northampton replied to John R. Cooke in a speech extending over two days. It was a brilliant first statement of the conservative theory of state. In the opinion ofone who heard it:“It was as conclusive on the branch ofthe subject which it discussed as ever speech could be,and hermetically sealed a fountain which had been gushing for years.” Upshur, a forty-year-old judge of the general court, previously a member of the house of delegates, was actually less totally committed to the conservative cause than his words would suggest. He favored a taxpaying qualification for the suffrage and a p opularly elected governor, voting with the reformers on these issues. Years later, when secretary of state in President Tyler’s cabinet, Upshur was killed in an explosion aboard the warship Princeton. It is contended by our opponents, that the proper basis of representation in the General Assembly, is white population alone, because this principle results necessarily f rom the right which the major ity possess, to rule the minority. I have been forcibly struck with the fact,that in all the arguments upon this subject here and elsewhere, this right in a majority is assumed as a postulate. It has not yet been proved, nor have I even heard an attempt to prove it. It is for this proof that I was desirous to wait. Assuming this right as conceded, the whole scope of the argument has been to pr ove, that in the application of the right to the practical Government, we must of necessity, graduate political power according to white population alone. It may not perhaps, be more curious than profitable, to examine some what in detail, the grounds upon which this pretension rests. From Proceedings, pp. 66–71, 74–79. 276 The Virginia Convention There are two kinds of majority.There is a majority in interest, as well as a majority in number. If the fi rst be within the contemplation of gentlemen , there is an end of all discussion. It is precisely the principle for which we contend, and we shall be happy to unite with them in so regulating this matter, that those who hav e the greatest stake in the Gov ernment, shall have the greatest share of power in the administration of it. But this is not what gentlemen mean. They mean, for they distinctly say so, that a majority in number only, without regard to property, shall give the rule. It is the propriety of this rule, which I propose to examine. If there be, as our opponents assume, an original, a priori, inherent and indestructible right in a majority to control a minority, from what source permit me to inquire, is that r ight derived? If it exist at all, it must I apprehend , be found either in some positiv e compact or agr eement conferring it, or else in some or der of our natur e, independent of all compact, and consequently prior to all Gov ernment. If gentlemen c laim the right here as springing from positive compact, from what compact does it spring? Not certainly f rom that Constitution of Gov ernment which we are now revising; for the chief pur pose for which w e have been brought together, is to correct a supposed defect in the Constitution, in this very particular. Not certainly from any other Constitution or form of Gov ernment, for to none other are we at liberty to look,for any grant of power, or any principle which can bind us. The right then, is not conventional. Its source must be found beyond all civil society, prior to all social compact, and independent of its sanctions. We must look for it in the law of natur e; we have indeed been distinctly told, that it exists in “necessity and nature”; and upon that ground only,has it hitherto been claimed.I propose now to inquire whether the law of nature does indeed, confer this right or not. Let me not be misunderstood, Sir. I am not now inquiring whether, according to the form and natur e of our institutions, a major ity ought or ought not to rule.That inquiry will be made hereafter. At present, I propose only to prove that there is no original a priori principle in the law of nature, which gives to a majority a right to control a minority; and of course...

Share