subject

. . . [A] great portion of that time which ought to have been devoted calmly and impartially to consider what alterations in our federal government would be most likely to procure and preserve the happiness of the Union was employed in a violent struggle on the one side to obtain all power and dominion in their own hands, and on the other to prevent it; and that the aggrandizement of particular states, and particular individuals, appears to have been much more the subject sought after than the welfare of our country . . . . When I took my seat in the Convention, I found them attempting to bring forward a system which, I was sure, never had entered into the contemplation of those I had the honor to represent, and which, upon the fullest consideration, I considered not only injurious to the interest and rights of this state but also incompatible with the political happiness and freedom of the states in general. From that time until my business compelled me to leave the Convention, I gave it every possible opposition, in every stage of its progression. I opposed the system there with the same explicit frankness with which I have here given you a history of our proceedings, an account of my own conduct, which in a particular manner I consider you as having a right to know. While there, I endeavored to act as became a free man and the delegate of a free state. Should my conduct obtain the approbation [act of approval] of those who appointed me, I will not deny it would afford me satisfaction; but to me that approbation was at most no more than a secondary consideration—my first was to deserve it. Left to myself to act according to the best of my discretion, my conduct should have been the same had I been even sure your censure would have been my only reward, since I hold it sacredly my duty to dash the cup of poison, if possible, from the hand of a state or an individual, however anxious the one or the other might be to swallow it . . . .

THE QUESTION: Why, according to Luther Martin, did he walk out of the Constitutional Convention?

ansver
Answers: 1

Other questions on the subject: Social Studies

image
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 03:40, Talber1
Look at the historical context sheet. how might settlers’ attitudes towards native americans have changed from the 1630s to the 1650s? how might settlers’ attitudes toward the land have changed from the 1630s to the 1650s? explain you answer. (4 points)
Answers: 2
image
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 04:00, paper
How did the romanov dynasty increase russia's power? need many details, you!
Answers: 3
image
Social Studies, 23.06.2019 04:40, pastmarion
Perculiarity of globalization for the global economy
Answers: 3
image
Social Studies, 23.06.2019 06:30, bernadetteindre6650
Mark the four statements that are true. 1. the democrats blamed the republicans for the stock market crash of 1929. 2. the democrats won the presidency in the 1990's but lost control of the congress. 3. the democratic party is the oldest political party in the united states. 4. the anti-federalists were one of the first two american political parties; they wanted a strong central government. 5. the "era of good feelings" was a period from 1816-1824 where there was only one political party: the democrat-republicans.
Answers: 1
You know the right answer?
. . . [A] great portion of that time which ought to have been devoted calmly and impartially to cons...

Questions in other subjects:

Konu
Mathematics, 24.05.2021 17:40
Konu
Mathematics, 24.05.2021 17:40