eed Sevens Soa ene facing htt te kk te ethLe f Hy if | i . ‘3 LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA BE QUEATHED BY _ — — * — — ne et OO BEI Oh Re ET Es ee eet SAS ee Ne nn a perererer eat Soe betel bees = ty - oaha aes e as a Sp I Sg Sy = ~ ‘ ——- Satie a “ RoBertT Lewis Harrison SE Pe ea a ee oe ee ee eR ech al Ri eee bene LeenaSto. Tees a ga ee ee = re Tt ee ee ee eer oe anes ae Ae | hd Me i Nt ned i iH ‘ ad i } 1 iP i los teey Repeat Tosti ew nen fectsSS Ttttg erat epdastSbtebemey rus os Fae tng e IEM PEO ne SALT ESSE TNE TTR Cee nO nee atl reer ere aE eh helical - fs ae eae i Fe He fh) iH } ie ¥ f ; cae 7 f ae bi f fl: ? 7 ie i 7 } f f i, f } 7 a i ie i i 4 : HI He { i! He i H 2 Fr i a i}: 4 Ei; B 4 ; 5ee ee re re Se ee i | ! iH i F ; 3 a | ] t ‘ | 4 i H r J a a ee See nreerere err rt rienen ere Sth hed ere ier ener er ere atesies eet Fp aetna ee OTE ERED ine SEE t 1 i | } } j | i i } He i . H eerie ieee tek Se Rk dey a eee Oe eee ere eT Tt et eee ee ee eenee tt eet aie toe hee Snape pagan ele ul i 1 | 1 i a 4 { ! : i 7 i 4 F i | f ; i 1 H H j ee a ee Se teeter te tre ee re ets etree ere eaa ee a ee Y F} 4 rt} erTHE FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION A CHRONICLE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNION BY MAX FARRAND NEW HAVEN: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS TORONTO: GLASGOW, BROOK & CO. LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1921tres ara a ae ab hele en iT he 301613 Copyright, 1921, by Yale University Press ie ' HH Fr i {i Hy i }, E Ge f if r if | i Or Nee ene ee ee ee ee en eee ne ee a Pe hee Sh marIf. -Til. LY: Vv. Ey I. D VII. NIII. THE CONFEDERATION APPENDIX MEMBERS OF T VENTION CONTENTS THE TREATY OF PEACE TRADE AND INDUSTRY THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE DARKNESS BEFORE DAWN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION FINISHING THE WORK THE UNION ESTABLISHED BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE NOTES ON THE PORTRATTS OF THE EDERAL CON- 22 35 55 81 108 167 219} ) Fi 1 i i f if 1 } f i 3 iH f fi | ores ee eee ete erent) Somer eee ren oe re een tee ener ee ert e tt tte Tee oeILLUSTRATIONS JAMES MADISON Painting by Gilbert Stuart. Inthe Bowdoin College Art Collection, Brunswick, Maine. By courtesy of Gerald G. Wilder, Esq., Li- brarian, Bowdoin College. Frontispiece BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, 1787 Painting by Charles Willson Peale. In the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia. The bequest of Mrs. Joseph Harrison. Charles Henry Hart says: ‘‘This is the latest portrait of Franklin from life. It was painted during the sittings of the con- vention to frame the Constitution of the United States. The portrait seems to ex- press the individuality of the man more satisfactorily than any other of Franklin’s portraits.” Facing page 10 JOHN JAY Plaster cast from the marble bust by Cer- rachi. In the collection of the New York Historical Society. “ “ 90 BACK OF THE STATE HOUSE, PHILA- DELPHIA Engraving by W. Birch, 1799. Photograph in the collection of Ph. B. Wallace, Phila- delphia. “108 ix ee ee eek ee ee ne ae ee eeSS nn Paka hh fa eee gre I th ee en ee ee ee ee Se ee ee tee er? re dream tages pret re sere i HY i ii J fi i Nae eee ee ne ee ea i ene ree a babes os x ILLUSTRATIONS FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. PLATE I JOHN LANGDON NICHOLAS GILMAN NATHANIEL GORHAM RUFUS KING From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. Facing page 114 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. PLATE II WILLIAM SAMUEL JOHNSON ROGER SHERMAN ALEXANDER HAMILTON WILLIAM LIVINGSTON From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. ‘ ter 180 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. PLATE IIl WILLIAM PATERSON JONATHAN DAYTON BENJAMIN FRANKLIN THOMAS MIFFLIN From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. : “26 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. PLATE IV JARED INGERSOLL ROBERT MORRIS JAMES WILSON GEORGE CLYMER From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library.ILLUSTRATIONS FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. PLATE V GOUVERNEUR MORRIS GEORGE READ GUNNING BEDFORD, JR. JOHN DICKINSON From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. Facing page 138 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. PLATE VI RICHARD BASSETT JAMES McHENRY DANIEL CARROLL DANIEL OF ST. THOMAS JENIFER From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. = ed +~ ~ FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. PLATE VII GEORGE WASHINGTON JOHN BLAIR JAMES MADISON, JR. WILLIAM BLOUNT From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. a ‘aa LOO FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. PLATE VIII RICHARD DOBBS SPAIGHT HUGH WILLIAMSON JOHN RUTLEDGE CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library.ata OP ee ey manny pee Oe r i] i 4 4 5 H t | J r F H ? 3 asag pee * CPt Seog rman ra atoreysa) Nn auhiie ie iees aa ene tee aes ee nee oS - coor —— ILLUSTRATIONS FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. PLATE IX CHARLES PINCKNEY PIERCE BUTLER WILLIAM FEW ABRAHAM BALDWIN From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. Facing page 160 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. PLATE X WILLIAM JACKSON, SECRETARY OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION DAVID BREARLEY (Sienature ONty) THOMAS FITZSIMONS (Srenature ONty) JACOB BROOM (Sicnature ON ty) From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library.FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION CHAPTER I THE TREATY OF PEACE “THe United States of America”! It was in the Declaration of Independence that this name was first and formally proclaimed to the world, and to maintain its verity the war of the Revolution was fought. Americans like to think that they were then assuming ‘‘ among the Powers of the Earth the equal and independent Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”’; and, in view of their subsequent marvelous develop- ment, they are inclined to add that it must have been before an expectant world. In these days of prosperity and national great- ness it is hard to realize that the achievement of in- dependence did not place the United States on a footing of equality with other countries and that, 1ee ae eh hele eee EE ee ee ae ert te te ee ee re 2 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION in fact, the new state was more or less an unwel- come member of the world family. It is neverthe- less true that the latest comer into the family of na- tions did not for a long time command the respect of the world. This lack of respect was partly due to the character of the American population. Along with the many estimable and excellent people who had come to British North America inspired by the best of motives, there had come others who were not regarded favorably by the governing classes of Europe. Discontent is frequently a healthful sign and a forerunner of progress, but it makes one an uncomfortable neighbor in a satisfied and conserva- tive community; and discontent was the underly- ing factor in the migration from the Old World to the New. In any composite immigrant population such as that of the United States there was bound to be a large element of undesirables. Among those who came “for conscience’s sake’’ were the best type of religious protestants, but there were also religious cranks from many countries, of al- most every conceivable sect and of no sect at all. Many of the newcomers were poor. It was com- mon, too, to regard colonies as inferior places of residence to which objectionable persons might be encouraged to go and where the average of theTHE TREATY OF PEACE 8 population was lowered by the influx of convicts and thousands of slaves. ‘The great number of emigrants from Europe” — wrote Thieriot, Saxon Commissioner of Com- merce to America, from Philadelphia in 1784 — “has filled this place with worthless persons to such a degree that scarcely a day passes without theft, Idx robbery, or even assassination. It would per- haps be too much to say that the people of the United States were looked upon by the rest of the world as only half civilized, but certainly they were regarded as of lower social standing and of inferior quality, and many of them were known to be rough, uncultured, and ignorant. Great Britain and Ger- many maintained American missionary societies, not, as might perhaps be expected, for the benefit of the Indian or negro, but for the poor, benighted colonists themselves; and Great Britain refused to commission a minister to her former colonies for nearly ten years after their independence had been recognized. It is usually thought that the dregs of humilia- tion have been reached when the rights of foreigners are not considered safe in a particular country, so *Quoted by W. E. Lingelbach, History Teacher's Magazine, March, 1918.4 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION that another state insists upon establishing therein ‘ts own tribunal for the trial of its citizens or sub- jects. Yet that is what the French insisted upon ‘n the United States, and they were supposed to be especially friendly. They had had their own ex- perience in America. First the native Indian had appealed to their imagination. Then, at an ap- propriate moment, they seemed to see in the Amer- icans a living embodiment of the philosophical the- ories of the time: they thought that they had at last found ‘‘the natural man” of Rousseau and Vol- taire; they believed that they saw the social con- tract theory being worked out before their very eyes. Nevertheless, in spite of this interest in Americans, the French looked upon them as an in- ferior people over whom they would have liked to exercise a sort of protectorate. To them the Amer- icans seemed to lack a proper knowledge of the amenities of life. Commissioner Thieriot, describ- ing the administration of justice in the new re- public, noticed that: “A Frenchman, with the prejudices of his country and accustomed to court sessions in which the officers have imposing robes and a uniform that makes it impossible to recog- nize them, smiles at seeing in the court room men dressed in street clothes, simple, often quiteTHE TREATY OF PEACE 5 eommon. He is astonished to see the public enter and leave the court room freely, those who prefer even keeping their hats on.”’ Later he adds: “‘It appears that the court of France wished to set up a jurisdiction of its own on this continent for all mat- ters involving French subjects.” France failed in this; but at the very time that peace was under dis- cussion Congress authorized Franklin to negotiate a consular convention, ratified a few years later, ac- cording to which the citizens of the United States and the subjects of the French King in the country of the other should be tried by their respective con- suls or vice-consuls. Though this agreement was made reciprocal in its terms and so saved appear- ances for the honor of the new nation, nevertheless in submitting it to Congress John Jay clearly pointed out that it was reciprocal in name rather than in substance, as there were few or no Ameri- cans in France but an increasing number of French- men in the United States. Such was the status of the new republic in the family of nations when the time approached for the negotiation of a treaty of peace with the mother country. Thewarreally ended with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktownin1781. Yeteventhen the British were unwilling to concede the independence SPE ee eee ee ET tt et re a tte eet aD tial ey ee eee Se ears a wae Teds lege etted wes ies hieSS PSST ca os es a — ae fenrnenenasenr~re SENT ———— eee eeee — ere SS ee — eee Perea aaa hte tees en tees 2 ee ee ee a ee ee ne Dh At ere teenie tet ttre tet eal hk 1 | tL " & 6 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION of the revolted colonies. This refusal of recogni- tion was not merely a matter of pride; a division and a consequent weakening of the empire was in- volved; to avoid this Great Britain seems to have been willing to make any other concessions that were necessary. The mother country sought to avoid disruption at all costs. But the time had passed when any such adjustment might have been possible. The Americans now flatly refused to treat of peace upon any footing except that of in- dependent equality. The British, being in no posi- tion to continue the struggle, were obliged to yield and to declare in the first article of the treaty of peace that “His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States . . . to be free, sovereign, and independent states.”’ With France the relationship of the United States was clear and friendly enough at the time. The American War of Independence had been brought to a successful issue with the aid of France. In the treaty of alliance which had been signed in 1778 it had been agreed that neither France nor the United States should, without the consent of the other, make peace with Great Britain. More than that, in 1781, partly out of gratitude but largely as a result of clever manipulation of factions inTHE TREATY OF PEACE 7 Congress by the French Ministerin Philadelphia, the Chevalier de la Luzerne, the American peace com- missioners had been instructed “‘to make the most candid and confidential communications upon all subjects to the ministers of our generous ally, the King of France; to undertake nothing in the nego- tiations for peace or truce without their knowledge and concurrence; and ultimately to govern your- selves by their advice and opinion.”’! If France had been actuated only by unselfish motives in sup- porting the colonies in their revolt against Great Britain, these instructions might have been accept- able and even advisable. But such was not the case. France was working not so much with philan- thropic purposes or for sentimental reasons as for the restoration to her former position of supremacy in Europe. Revenge upon England was only a part of a larger plan of national aggrandizement. The treaty with France in 1778 had declared that war should be continued until the independ- ence of the United States had been established, and it appeared as if that were the main purpose of the alliance. For her own good reasons France had dragged Spain into the striggle. Spain, of course, fought to cripple Great Britain and not to help the t Secret Journals of Congress, June 15, 1781. Sete eee ee ee Sn ee ee ene ener ra —— a — ee ee te ee eee ee ae we ennaNeen en a ea a Alea ee Cee nn en eer ar omett ee ere tt ans Ke in 2 7 er ear ents] 8 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION United States. In return for this support France was pledged to assist Spain in obtaining certain ad- ditions to her territory. In so far as these addi- tions related to North America, the interests of Spain and those of the United States were far from being identical; in fact, they were frequently in di- rect opposition. Spain was already in possession of Louisiana and, by prompt action on her entry into the war in 1780, she had succeeded in getting control of eastern Louisiana and of practically all the Floridas except St. Augustine. To consolidate these holdings and round out her American empire, Spain would have liked to obtain the title to all the land between the Alleghany Mountains and the Mississippi. Failing this, however, she seemed to prefer that the region northwest of the Ohio River should belong to the British rather than to the United States. Under these circumstances it was fortunate for the United States that the American Peace Com- missioners were broad-minded enough to appreciate the situation and to act on their own responsibility. Benjamin Franklin, although he was not the first to be appointed, was generally considered to be the chief of the Commission by reason of his age, ex- perience, and reputation. Over seventy-five yearsTHE TREATY OF PEACE 9 old, he was more universally known and admired than probably any man of his tme. This many- sided American — printer, almanac maker, writer, scientist, and philosopher — by the variety of his abilities as well as by the charm of his manner seemed to have found his real mission in the diplo- matic field, where he could serve his country and at the same time, with credit to himself, preach his own doctrines. When Franklin was sent to Europe at the out- break of the Revolution, it was as if destiny had in- tended him for that particular task. His achieve- ments had already attracted attention; in his fur cap and eccentric dress “‘he fulfilled admirably the Parisian ideal of the forest philosopher’’; and with his facility in conversation, as well as by the attrac- tiveness of his personality, he won both young and old. But, with his undoubted zeal for liberty and his unquestioned love of country, Franklin never departed from the Quaker principles he affected and always tried to avoid a fight. In these ef- forts, owing to his shrewdness and his willingness to compromise, he was generally successful. John Adams, being then the American repre- sentative at The Hague, was the first Commis- sioner to be appointed. Indeed, when he was first SS ee en el Te tee te ee Sn ae at a ee ee a a ET Pe ee ay ee ne nn teiain annie—— ee ——— a ae semen wy EP EG MTP As 2h Caen een nn es hl peer aree ara at bahia ee er ee ree ee eer tr x, b — ee — — ee nn ee - 10 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION named, in 1779, he was to be sole commissioner to negotiate peace; and it was the influential French Minister to the United States who was responsible for others being added to the commission. Adams was a sturdy New Englander of British stock and of a distinctly English type — medium height, a stout figure, and a ruddy face. No one questioned his honesty, his straightforwardness, or his lack of tact. Being a man of strong mind, of wide reading and ‘even great learning, and having serene confi- dence in the purity of his motives as well as in the soundness of his judgment, Adams was little in- clined to surrender his own views, and was ready to carry out his ideas against every obstacle. By nature as well as by training he seems to have been incapable of understanding the French; he was sus- picious of them and he disapproved of Franklin’s popularity even as he did of his personality. Five Commissioners in all were named, but Thomas Jefferson and Henry Laurens did not take part in the negotiations, so that the only other ac- tive member was John Jay, then thirty-seven years old and already a man of prominence in his own country. Of French Huguenot stock and type, he was tall and slender, with somewhat of a schol- ar’s stoop, and was usually dressed in black. HisBENJAMIN FRANKLIN, 1787 Painting by Charles Willson Peale. In the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia. The bequest of Mrs Joseph Harrison. Charles Henry Hart says: “This is the latest portrait of Franklin from life. It was painted during the sittings of the convention to frame the Constitution of the United States. The portrait seems to express the individuality of the man more satisfactorily than any other of Franklin’s portraits.”’ th eee eee ee rary ee ae = ee eee = re i | i wie F I ' | He q i H et ae al 4 s eld r re ee ee ee ee tee treers SRY seine” on yorabrodA it1ehl dqozolt 11 to Hewieg vero? 2nd to : TI10QG od T I! } } i) 1 , i i L | ‘ 4 i f i 4 i; peenecee en geener eee swan enne: Nee ee ee nnn ee nn et tke ts 4 eT hk a maeee tt eet tre eat oe eee ee ee an owen Mee rceeeet PRO ye, foie erty NTTeT ee naman ETERS MEE } i f ; 0 } i ae | I i i i i ee S| ee er Deh ete te te te ke be be OP ease rer noe arisTHE TREATY OF PEACE 11 manners were gentle and unassuming, but his face, with its penetrating black eyes, its aquiline nose and pointed chin, revealed a proud and sensitive dis- position. He had been sent to the court of Spain in 1780, and there he had learned enough to arouse his suspicions, if nothing more, of Spain’s designs as well as of the French intention to support them. In the spring of 1782 Adams felt obliged to re- main at The Hague in order to complete the nego- tiations already successfully begun for a commer- cial treaty with the Netherlands. Franklin, thus the only Commissioner on the ground in Paris, be- gan informal negotiations alone but sent an urgent call to Jay in Spain, who was convinced of the fruitlessness of his mission there and promptly re- sponded. Jay’s experience in Spain and his knowl- edge of Spanish hopes had led him to believe that the French were not especially concerned about American interests but were in fact willing to sacri- fice them if necessary to placate Spain. He ac- cordingly insisted that the American Commis- sioners should disregard their instructions and, without the knowledge of France, should deal di- rectly with Great Britain. In this contention he was supported by Adams when he arrived, but it was hard to persuade Franklin to accept this point12 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION of view, for he was unwilling to believe anything so unworthy of his admiring and admired French. Nevertheless, with his cautious shrewdness, he finally yielded so far as to agree to see what might come out of direct negotiations. The rest was relatively easy. Of course there were difficulties and such sharp differences of opin- ion that, even after long negotiation, some matters had to be compromised. Some problems, too, were found insoluble and were finally left without a settlement. But such difficulties as did exist were slight in comparison with the previous hopeless- ness of reconciling American and Spanish ambi- tions, especially when the latter were supported by France. On the one hand, the Americans were the protégés of the French and were expected to give way before the claims of their patron’s friends to an extent which threatened to limit seriously their growth and development. On the other hand, they were the younger sons of England, uncivilized by their wilderness life, ungrateful and rebellious, but still to be treated by England as children of the blood. In the all-important question of extent of territory, where Spain and France would have limited the United States to the east of the Alle- ghany Mountains, Great Britain was persuadedTHE TREATY OF PEACE 13 without great difficulty, having once conceded in- dependence to the United States, to yield the boundaries which she herself had formerly claimed —from the Atlantic Ocean on the east to the Mississippi River on the west, and from Canada on the north to the southern boundary of Georgia. Unfortunately the northern line, through ignorance and carelessness rather than through malice, was left uncertain at various points and became the subject of almost continuous controversy until the last bit of it was settled in 1911.’ The fisheries of the North Atlantic, for which Newfoundland served as the chief entrepdt, had been one of the great assets of North America from the time of its discovery. They had been one of the chief prizes at stake in the struggle between the French and the British for the possession of the con- tinent, and they had been of so much value that a British statute of 1775 which cut off the New Eng- - land fisheries was regarded, even after the ‘‘intoler- able acts” of the previous year, as the height of punishment for New England. Many Englishmen would have been glad to see the Americans ex- cluded from these fisheries, but John Adams, when t See Lord Bryce’s Introduction (p. xxiv) to W. A. Dunning, The British Empire and the United States (1914).Ne etre Rh aie ee — Sn — —, a 7 = rT ra oe awe ee = — ort 7 > * 14 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION he arrived from The Hague, displayed an apprecia- tion of New England interests and the quality of his temper as well by flatly refusing to agree to any treaty which did not allow full fishing privileges. The British accordingly yielded and the Americans were granted fishing rights as “heretofore” en- joyed. The right of navigation of the Mississippi River, it was declared in the treaty, should “forever remain free and open” to both parties; but here Great Britain was simply passing on to the United States a formal right which she had received from France and was retaining for herself a similar right which might sometime prove of use, for as long as Spain held both banks at the mouth of the Missis- sippi River, the right was of little practical value. Two subjects involving the greatest difficulty of arrangement were the compensation of the Loyal- ists and the settlement of commercial indebtedness. The latter was really a question of the payment of British creditors by American debtors, for there was little on the other side of the balance sheet, and it seems as if the frugal Franklin would have pre- ferred to make no concessions and would have al- lowed creditors to take their own chances of get- ting paid. But the matter appeared to Adams in a different light — perhaps his New EnglandTHE TREATY OF.PEACE 15 conscience was aroused — and in this point of view he was supported by Jay. It was therefore finally agreed “that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.” However just this pro- vision may have been, its incorporation in the terms of the treaty was a mistake on the part of the Commissioners, because the Government of the United States had no power to give effect to such an arrangement, so that the provision had no more value than an emphatic expression of opinion. Ac- cordingly, when some of the States later disregarded this part of the treaty, the British had an excuse for refusing tocarry out certain of their own obligations. The historian of the Virginia Federal Conven- tion of 1788, H. B. Grigsby, relates an amusing incident growing out of the controversy over the payment of debts to creditors in England: A Scotchman, John Warden, a prominent lawyer and good classical scholar, but suspected rightly of Tory leanings during the Revolution, learning of the large minority against the repeal of laws in conflict with the treaty of 1783 (7. e., especially the laws as to the collec- tion of debts by foreigners) caustically remarked that some of the members of the House had voted against paying for the coats on their backs. ‘The story goeset eens ee aot ee eee meer. ® (Pte iran sed sre renee bese azeerr seers ee ere al bee a ek 16 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION that he was summoned before the House in full session, and was compelled to beg their pardon on his knees; but as he rose, pretending to brush the dust from his knees, he pointed to the House and said audibly, with evident double meaning, ‘““Upon my word, a dommed dirty house it is indeed.”’ The Journal of the House, however, shows that the honor of the delegates was satisfied by a written assurance from Mr. Warden that he meant in no way to affront the dignity of the House or to insult any of its members The other question, that of compensating the Loyalists for the loss of their property, was not so simple a matter, for the whole story of the Revolu- tion was involved. There is a tendency among many scholars of the present day to regard the pol- icy of the British toward their North American colonies as possibly unwise and blundering but as being entirely in accordance with the legal and constitutional rights of the mother country, and to believe that the Americans, while they may have been practically and therefore morally justified in asserting their independence, were still techni- cally and legally in the wrong. It is immaterial whether or not that point of view is accepted, for its mere recognition is sufficient to explain the existence of a large number of Americans who were steadfast in their support of the British side of theTHE TREATY OF PEACE 17 controversy. Indeed, it has been estimated that as large a proportion as one-third of the population remained loyal to the Crown. Numbers must re- main more or less uncertain, but probably the ma- jority of the people in the United States, whatever their feelings may have been, tried to remain neu- tral or at least to appear so; and it is undoubtedly true that the Revolution was accomplished by an aggressive minority and that perhaps as great a number were actively loyal to Great Britain. These Loyalists comprised at least two groups. One of these was a wealthy, property-owning class, representing the best social element in the colonies, extremely conservative, believing in privilege and fearing the rise of democracy. The other was com- posed of the royal office-holders, which included some of the better families, but was more largely made up of the lower class of political and social hangers-on, who had been rewarded with these posi- tions for political debts incurred in England. The opposition of both groups to the Revolution was ‘nevitable and easily to be understood, but it was also natural that the Revolutionists should incline to hold the Loyalists, without distinction, largely responsible for British pre-Revolutionary policy, asserting that they misinformed the Government a “ ee - - Tera e e N n n OR ee te were re a en enon ee eer es a Sea en — ans sate od —— oo —s Se ees = etd weceoen eee Soften ewe or n ohare c ~~ — ones wane 2S eee eT as += . — Wy tee eeee en cereee S - ~ Aten hee eee: os Nee ee ene eae et iets epee 18 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION as to conditions and sentiment in America, partly through stupidity and partly through selfish in- terest. It was therefore perfectly comprehensible that the feeling should be bitter against them in the United States, especially as they had given efficient aid to the British during the war. In various States they were subjected to personal violence at the hands of indignant “patriots,” many being forced to flee from their homes, while their property was destroyed or confiscated, and frequently these acts were legalized by statute. The historian of the Loyalists of Massachusetts, James H. Stark, must not be expected to under- state the case, but when he is describing, especially in New England, the reign of terror which was established to suppress these people, he writes: Loyalists were tarred and feathered and carried on rails, gagged and bound for days at a time: stoned, fastened in a room with a fire and the chimney stopped on top; advertised as public enemies, so that they would be cut off from all dealings with their neighbors; they had bullets shot into their bedrooms, their horses poisoned or mutilated; money or valuable plate ex- torted from them to save them from violence, and on pretence of taking security for their good behavior; their houses and ships burned: they were compelled to pay the guards who watched them in their houses, andTHE TREATY OF PEACE 19 when carted about for the mob to stare at and abuse, they were compelled to pay something at every town. There is little doubt also that the confiscation of property and the expulsion of the owners from the community were helped on by people who were debtors to the Loyalists and in this way saw a chance of escaping from the payment of their rightful obligations. The ‘‘ Act for confiscating the estates of certain persons commonly called absen- tees’? may have been a measure of self-defense for the State but it was passed by the votes of those who undoubtedly profited by its provisions. Those who had stood loyally by the Crown must in turn be looked out for by the British Govern- ment, especially when the claims of justice were re- inforced by the important consideration that many of those with property and financial interests in America were relatives of influential persons in England. The immediate necessity during the war had been partially met by assisting thousands to go to Canada — where their descendants today form an important element in the population and are proud of being United Empire Loyalists — while pensions and gifts were supplied to others. Now that the war was over the British were deter- mined that Americans should make good to the ee ane te ee eee Ot eek oe FN Ue ar ee ee RSasKsed eee eeee Se beh eh ate ane ee ae ne ee nee OE pry sn eeiiny pyEEE TETADrere ett Peet Se ere Seer te te ee be bbb cf h ie i] 3 SS 20 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION Loyalists for all that they had suffered, and His Majesty’s Commissioners were hopeful at least of obtaining a proviso similar to the one relating to the collection of debts. John Adams, however, ex- pressed the prevailing American idea when he said that “‘ paying debts and compensating Tories” were two very different things, and Jay asserted that there were certain of these refugees whom Ameri- cans never would forgive. But this was the one thing needed to complete the negotiations for peace, and the British argu- ments on the injustice and irregularity of the treat- ment accorded to the Loyalists were so strong that the American Commissioners were finally driven to the excuse that the Government of the Confedera- tion had no power over the individual States by whom the necessary action must betaken. Final- ly, in a spirit of mutual concession at the end of the negotiations, the Americans agreed that Con- gress should “recommend to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution”’ of properties which had been confiscated ‘‘belonging to real British subjects,” and “that persons of any other description” might return to the United States for a period of twelve months and be “‘unmolested in their endeavours to obtain the restitution.”SS et ee ee a tee aE DDS es a JOHN JAY Plaster cast from the marble bust by Cerrachi. In the collection of the New York Historical Society. | i ia i ‘a 4 mi ae | i ee q ; ve ‘a ner t re nn Ee corer rs earreer et ti ete Neie Teenes t eis Ps hiemo ee eet eee eee TAL UROL i Beane diok119.). vd: jeud. »sldtgo., 91 mot tess rstesl. tginne IgoimotziH A10Y wa silt to aofsoallos } | 1 i } i f i! if if | ! if if i 4 : f Fi f J i i ‘ 7 ’ J r t t t | i ] { i i H He H t : i r | t 4 t Hi t 4 H f H i] i 7 r i ¥ MY d Py h f i Ey 3 3r iN ? ; i 0 * ‘ | ra eta Pee aril: Wirt eee ot sei 5 4| 1 | F b 4 : ee nen ee eee eee tn ent ee Ds eS een tet tee eh Le on hl rr PartTHE TREATY OF PEACE 21 With this show of yielding on the part of the American Commissioners it was possible to con- clude the terms of peace, and the preliminary treaty was drawn accordingly and agreed to on November 30,1782. Franklin had been of such great service during all the negotiations, smoothing down ruffled feelings by his suavity and tact and presenting dif- ficult subjects in a way that made action possible, that to him was accorded the unpleasant task of communicating what had been accomplished to Vergennes, the French Minister, and of requesting at the same time “a fresh loan of twenty million francs.” Franklin, of course, presented his case with much “delicacy and kindliness of manner” and with a fair degree of success. “ Vergennes thought that the signing of the articles was prema- ture, but he made no inconvenient remonstrances, and procured six millions of the twenty." On September 3, 1783, the definite treaty of peace was signed and in due time it was ratified by the British Parliament as well as by the American Congress. The new state, duly accredited, thus took its place in the family of nations; but it was a very humble place that was first assigned to the United States of America. t Channing, History of the United States, vol. iii, p. 368.CHAPTER II TRADE AND INDUSTRY THovuGu the word revolution implies a violent break with the past, there was nothing in the Revolution that transformed the essential character or the char- acteristics of the American people. The Revolution severed the ties which bound the colonies to Great Britain; it created some new activities; some sol- diers were diverted from their former trades and oc- cupation; but, as the proportion of the population engaged in the war was relatively small and the area of country affected for any length of time was com- paratively slight, it is safe to say that in general the mass of the people remained about the same after the warasbefore. The professional man was found in his same calling; the artisan returned to his tools, if he had ever laid them down; the shopkeeper re- sumed his business, if it had been interrupted; the merchant went back to his trading; and the farmer before the Revolution remained a farmer afterward. 22TRADE AND INDUSTRY 23 The country as a whole was in relatively good condition and the people were reasonably prosper- ous; at least, there was no general distress or pov- erty. Suffering had existed in the regions ravaged by war, but no section had suffered unduly or had had to bear the burden of war during the entire pe- riod of fighting. American products had been in demand, especially in the West India Islands, and an illicit trade with the enemy had sprung up, so that even during the war shippers were able to dis- pose of their commodites at good prices. The Americans are commonly said to have been an agri- cultural people, but it would be more correct to say that the great majority of the people were depend- ent upon extractive industries, which would include lumbering, fishing, and even the fur trade, as well as the ordinary agricultural pursuits. Save for a few industries, of which shipbuilding was one of the most important, there was relatively little manu- facturing apart from the household crafts. These household industries had increased during the war, but as it was with the individual so it was with the whole country; the general course of industrial ac- tivity was much the same as it had been before the war. A fundamental fact is to be observed in the24 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION economy of the young nation: the people were rais- ing far more tobacco and grain and were extracting far more of other products than they could possibly use themselves; for the surplus they must find mar- kets. They had, as well, to rely upon the outside world for a great part of their manufactured goods, especially for those of the higher grade. In other words, from the economic point of view, the United States remained in the former colonial stage of in- dustrial dependence, which was aggravated rather than alleviated by the separation from Great Brit- ain. During the colonial period, Americans had carried on a large amount of this external trade by means of their own vessels. The British Naviga- tion Acts required the transportation of goods in British vessels, manned by crews of British sailors, and specified certain commodities which could be shipped to Great Britain only. They also required that much of the European trade should pass by way of England. But colonial vessels and colonial sailors came under the designation of “British,” and no small part of the prosperity of New England, and of the middle colonies as well, had been due to the carrying trade. It would seem therefore as if a primary need of the American people immediately after the Revolution was to get access to their oldTRADE AND INDUSTRY 26 markets and to carry the goods as much as possible in their own vessels. In some directions they were successful. One of the products in greatest demand was fish. The fishing industry had been almost annihilated by the war, but with the establishment of peace the New England fisheries began to recover. They were in competition with the fishermen of France and England who were aided by large bounties, yet the superior geographical advantages which the American fishermen possessed enabled them to maintain and expand their business, and the re- habilitation of the fishing fleet was an important feature of their programme. In other directions they were not so successful. The British still be- lieved in their colonial system and applied its prin- ciples without regard to the interests of the United States. Such American products as they wanted they allowed to be carried to British markets, but in British vessels. Certain commodities, the pro- duction of which they wished to encourage within their own dominions, they added to the prohibited list. Americans cried out indignantly that this was an attempt on the part of the British to punish their former colonies for their temerity in revolting. The British Government may well have derived——— Repent ee to teee ee Le an OT ee re seer te a a A WE pete ne — a alee eee ee! ee ree — ee aha teeny rene ee REET AEN PARENTS RR RENAE Pe ee ett 26 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION some satisfaction from the fact that certain restric- tions bore heavily upon New England, as John Adams complained; but it would seem to be much nearer the truth to say that in a truly characteris- tic way the British were phlegmatically attending to their own interests and calmly ignoring the United States, and that there was little malice in their policy. European nations had regarded American trade as a profitable field of enterprise and as probably responsible for much of Great Britain’s prosperity. It was therefore a relatively easy matter for the United States to enter into commercial treaties with foreign countries. These treaties, however, were not fruitful of any great result; for, “with un- important exceptions, they left still in force the high import duties and prohibitions that marked the European tariffs of the time, as well as many features of the old colonial system. They were de- signed to legalize commerce rather than to encour- age it.’’* Still, for a year or more after the war the demand for American products was great enough to satisfy almost everybody. But in 1784 France and Spain closed their colonial ports and thus ex- cluded the shipping of the United States. This * Clive Day, Encyclopedia of American Government, vol. i, p. $40.TRADE AND INDUSTRY Q7 proved to be so disastrous for their colonies that the French Government soon was forced to relax its restrictions. The British also made some con- cessions, and where their orders were not modified they were evaded. And so, in the course of a few years, the West India trade recovered. More astonishing to the men of that time than it is to us was the fact that American foreign trade fell under British commercial control again. Whether it was that British merchants were ac- customed to American ways of doing things and knew American business conditions; whether other countries found the commerce not as profitable as they had expected, as certainly was the case with France; whether ‘‘ American merchants and sea cap- tains found themselves under disadvantages due to the absence of treaty protection which they had enjoyed as English subjects”; or whether it was the necessity of trading on British capital — what- ever the cause may have been — within a com- paratively few years a large part of American trade was in British hands as it had been before the Revolution. American trade with Europe was car- ried on through English merchants very much as the Navigation Acts had prescribed. tC. R. Fish, American Diplomacy, pp. 56-57. ee - ee acess here ee ee se te eet ae ee Ore ere ewer tere meee re A terre odee etl aaah oe — Se ts Neen ne nt ieee aaa Ea —— - . > oe ee eee 298 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION From the very first settlement of the Ameri- can continent the colonists had exhibited one of the earliest and most lasting characteristics of the American people — adaptability. The Americans now proceeded to manifest that trait anew, not only by adjusting themselves to renewed com- mercial dependence upon Great Britain, but by seeking new avenues of trade. A striking illus- tration of this is to be found in the development of trade with the Far East. Captain Cook’s voyage around the world (1768-1771), an account of which was first published in London in 1773, attracted a great deal of attention in America; an edition of the New V oyage was issued in New York in 1774. No sooner was the Revolution over than there began that romantic trade with China and the northwest coast of America, which made the fortunes of some families of Salem and Boston and Philadelphia. This commerce added to the prosperity of the country, but above all it stimulated the imagi- nation of Americans. In the same way another outlet was found in trade with Russia by way of the Baltic. The foreign trade of the United States after the Revolution thus passed through certain well- marked phases. First there was a short period ofTRADE AND INDUSTRY 29 prosperity, owing to an unusual demand for Amer- ican products; this was followed by a longer period of depression; and then came a gradual recovery through acceptance of the new conditions and adjustment to them. A similar cycle may be traced in the domestic or internal trade. In early days intercolonial com- merce had been carried on mostly by water, and when war interfered commerce almost ceased for want of roads. The loss of ocean highways, how- ever, stimulated road building and led to what might be regarded as the first “ good-roads move- ment ”’ of the new nation, except that to our eyes it would be a misuse of the word to call any of those roads good. But anything which would improve the means of transportation took on a patriotic tinge, and the building of roads and the cutting of canals were agitated until turnpike and canal com- panies became a favorite form of investment; and in a few years the interstate land trade had grown to considerable importance. But in the meantime, water transportation was the main reliance, and with the end of the war the coastwise trade had been promptly resumed. For a time it prospered; but the States, affected by the general economic conditions and by jealousy, tried to interfere with sas sss3 — eee ate ta Ps ones aetna a ES NA —- oT = ee Shee at WArRE EES + Soe ee ee tres ST ee op ener ene ee 112 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION Governor Edmund Randolph, with his tall figure, handsome face, and dignified manner, made an excellent impression in the position accorded to him of nominal leader of the Virginia delegation. Among others from the same State who should be noticed were the famous lawyers, George Wythe and George Mason. Among the deputies from Pennsylvania the fore- most wa’James Wilson, the “Caledonian,” who probably stood next in importance in the Conven- tion to Madison and Washington. He had come to America as a young man just when the troubles with England were beginning and by sheer ability had attained a position of prominence. Several times a member of Congress, a signer of the Dec- laration of Independence, he was now regarded as vone of the ablest lawyers in the United States. A more brilliant member of the Pennsylvania delega- tion, and one of the most brilliant of the Conven- tion, was Gouverneur Morris, who shone by his cleverness and quick wit as well as by his wonder- ful command of language. But Morris was ad- mired more than he was trusted; and, while he sup- ported the efforts for a strong government, his sup- port was not always as great a help as might have been expected. A crippled arm and a wooden legTHE FEDERAL CONVENTION 113 might detract from his personal appearance, but they could not subdue his spirit and audacity.’ There were other prominent members of the Pennsylvania delegation, but none of them took an important part in the Convention, not even the aged Benjamin Franklin, President of the State. At the age of eighty-one his powers were failing, and he was so feeble that his colleague Wilson read his speeches for him. His opinions were respected, but they do not seem to have carried much weight. Other noteworthy members of the Convention, though hardly in the first class, were the handsome and charming Rufus King of Massachusetts, one of the coming men of the country, and Nathaniel t There is a story which illustrates admirably the audacity of Morris and the austere dignity of Washington. The story runs that Morris and several members of the Cabinet were spending an evening at the President’s house in Philadelphia, where they were discussing the absorbing question of the hour, whatever it may have been. ‘‘The President,” Morris is said to have related on the following day, “‘ was standing with his arms behind him — his usual position — his back to the fire. I started up and spoke, stamping, as I walked up and down, with my wooden leg; and, as I was certain I had the best of the argument, as I finished I stalked up to the President, slapped him on the back, and said, ‘Ain't I right, General?’ The President did not speak, but the majesty of the American people was before me. Oh, his look! How I wished the floor would open and I could descend to the cellar! You know me,’ continued Mr. Morris, ‘‘and you know my eye would never quail before any other mortal.’” —W. T. Read, Life and Correspondence of George Read (1870) p. 441. 8 a a a ay Oy oe ee tte tet vere ae pe erd a et ae POE ate Wee ee ee ene ree ee et ee eer Peele ieee ee eee TT ee te eee peers114 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION Gorham of the same State, who was President of Congress — a man of good sense rather than of great ability, but one whose reputation was high and whose presence was a distinct asset to the Con- vention. Then, too, there were the delegates from South Carolina: John Rutledge, the orator, Gen- eral Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of Revolutionary fame, and his cousin, Charles Pinckney. The last named took a conspicuous part in the proceedings in Philadelphia but, so far as the outcome was con- cerned, left his mark on the Constitution mainly in minor matters and details. The men who have been named were nearly all supporters of the plan for a centralized government. On the other side were William Paterson of New Jersey, who had been Attorney-General of his State for eleven years and who was respected for his knowledge and ability; John Dickinson of Dela- ware, the author of the Farmer’s Letters and chair- man of the committee of Congress that had framed the Articles of Confederation — able, scholarly, and sincere, but nervous, sensitive, and conscien- tious to the verge of timidity — whose refusal to sign the Declaration of Independence had cost him his popularity, though he was afterward returned to Congress and became president successively ofFATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION PEATE I JOHN LANGDON NICHOLAS GILMAN NATHANIEL GORHAM RUFUS KING t Collection in the New York Public er ee eee eee ek SS eee ieee = — eae a Saaepee seer etre SS Se Poo aaits From the Thomas A. Emme Library. rR | ! a a aif i | i] f ig Ta wid Ha ‘a ee | WF | eat aac’ : i ee + | i L 0 eg eee ee eeenh ae Ce ee es atl) pean ee ees if } 18} ; | 1 l ee iene een ST Caen nee nnn nn ad een ht lean heehee rteaaa 2 Sees rere Ce ST ne EO en a ee i i 4 PI F a J z } iy > } A i i A P| | f ay i ? ' i eerpeyeh VAS? Dba. 3a3 csecetes Gana sy ren STETicepan eyest mers tier Bere rr it Tree Teeerrs ae f 4 1 | ? 4 F t f i i i j 3 H | { H ft i } } H a i ; Ce ae a he Se ne ee ee eeTHE FEDERAL CONVENTION 115 Delaware and of Pennsylvania; Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, a successful merchant, prominent in politics, and greatly interested in questions of commerce and finance; and the Connecticut dele- gates, forming an unusual trio, Dr. William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth. These men were fearful of establishing too strong a government and were at one time or another to be found in opposition to Madison and his supporters. They were not mere obstructionists, however, and while not constructive in the same way that Madi- son and Wilson were, they must be given some credit for the form which the Constitution finally assumed. ‘Their greatest service was in restraining the tendency of the majority to overrule the rights of States and in modifying the desires of individ- uals for a government that would have been too strong to work well in practice. Alexander Hamilton of New York, as one of the ablest members of the Convention, was expected to take an important part, but he was out of touch with the views of the majority. He was aristo- cratic rather than democratic and, however excel- lent his ideas may have been, they were too radi- cal for his fellow delegates and found but little sup- port. He threw his strength in favor of a strong ee ve i ee NN eee ee eT rere et ‘cacaneseeubh pany abewpeie byenaden - Perea eee eee Se eerie116 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION government and was ready to aid the movement in whatever way he could. But within his own delega- tion he was outvoted by Robert Yates and John Lansing, and before the sessions were half over he was deprived of a vote by the withdrawal of his colleagues. ‘Thereupon, finding himself of little service, he went to New York and returned to Philadelphia only once or twice for a few days at a time, and finally to sign the completed document. Luther Martin of Maryland was an able lawyer and the Attorney-General of his State; but he was supposed to be allied with undesirable interests, and it was said that he had been sent to the Con- vention for the purpose of opposing a strong gov- ernment. He proved to be a tiresome speaker and his prosiness, when added to the suspicion attach- ing to his motives, cost him much of the influence which he might otherwise have had. All in all, the delegates to the Federal Conven- tion were a remarkable body of men. Most of them had played important parts in the drama of the Revolution; three-fourths of them had served in Congress, and practically all were persons of note in their respective States and had held important public positions. They may not have been the “assembly of demigods” which Jefferson calledTHE FEDERAL CONVENTION 117 them, for another contemporary insisted “that twenty assemblies of equal number might be col- lected equally respectable both in point of ability, integrity, and patriotism.” Perhaps it would be safer to regard the Convention as a fairly represen- tative body, which was of a somewhat higher order than would be gathered together today, because the social conditions of those days tended to bring forward men of a better class, and because the seriousness of the crisis had called out leaders of the highest type. Two or three days were consumed in organizing the Convention — electing officers, considering the delegates’ credentials, and adopting rules of proce- dure; and when these necessary preliminaries had been accomplished the main business was opened with the presentation by the Virginia delegation of a series of resolutions providing for radical changes in the machinery of the Confederation. The prin- cipal features were the organization of a legislature of two houses proportional to population and with increased powers, the establishment of a separate executive, and the creation of an independent ju- diciary. This was in reality providing for a new government and was probably quite beyond the118 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION ideas of most of the members of the Convention, who had come there under instructions and with the expectation of revising the Articles of Confed- eration. But after the Virginia Plan had been the subject of discussion for two weeks so that the members had become a little more accustomed to its proposals, and after minor modifications had been made in the wording of the resolutions, the Convention was won over to its support. To check this drift toward radical change the opposi- tion headed by New Jersey and Connecticut pre- sented the so-called New Jersey Plan, which was in sharp contrast to the Virginia Resolutions, for it contemplated only a revision of the Articles of Con- federation, but after a relatively short discussion, the Virginia Plan was adopted by a vote of seven States against four, with one State divided. The dividing line between the two parties or groups in the Convention had quickly manifested itself. It proved to be the same line that had di- vided the Congress of the Confederation, the cleay- age between the large States and the small States. The large States were in favor of representation in both houses of the legislature according to popula- tion, while the small States were opposed to any change which would deprive them of their equalTHE FEDERAL CONVENTION 119 vote in Congress, and though outvoted, they were not ready to yield. ‘The Virginia Plan, and subse- quently the New Jersey Plan, had first been con- sidered in committee of the whole, and the ques- tion of “proportional representation,” as it was then called, would accordingly come up again in formal session. Several weeks had been occupied by the proceedings, so that it was now near the end of June, and in general the discussions had been eonducted with remarkably good temper. But it was evidently the calm before the storm. And the issue was finally joined when the question of repre- sentation in the two houses again came before the Convention. The majority of the States on the 29th of June once more voted in favor of propor- tional representation in the lower house. But on the question of the upper house, owing to a pecu- liar combination of circumstances — the absence of one delegate and another’s change of vote caus- ing the position of their respective States to be re- versed or nullified — the vote on the 2d of July re- sulted in a tie. This brought the proceedings of the Convention to a standstill. A committee of one member from each State was appointed to con- sider the question, and, “ that time might be given to the Committee, and to such as chose to attend PP a TT o ee ees120 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION to the celebration on the anniversary of Independ: ence, the Convention adjourned” over the Fourth. The committee was chosen by ballot, and its com- position was a clear indication that the small-State men had won their fight, and that a compromise would be effected. It was during the debate upon this subject, when © feeling was running high and when at times it seemed as if the Convention in default of any satis- factory solution would permanently adjourn, that Franklin proposed that “prayers imploring the as- sistance of Heaven . . . be held in this Assembly every morning.” ‘Tradition relates that Hamilton opposed the motion. The members were evidently afraid of the impression which would be created outside, if it were suspected that there were dis- sensions in the Convention, and the motion was not put to a vote. How far physical conditions may influence men in adopting any particular course of action it is impossible to say. But just when the discussion in the Convention reached a critical stage, just when the compromise presented by the committee was ready for adoption or rejection, the weather turned from unpleasantly hot to being comfortably cool. And, after some little time spent in the considerationSSS SS SS FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION PLATE II WILLIAM SAMUEL JOHNSON ROGER SHERMAN ALEXANDER HAMILTON WILLIAM LIVINGSTON From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. ee ee ee ee eet ee ee eae i ‘rh | | aE | He A 3 A A' | | 4 a q z ' ‘ i | i | ; i f i i i t ; i i OR emery| | i | ‘ } i [ | i t Ca a ee a ee rE ee eer) 5 er oe hee tie We srt acheSee ere et rerio Sn eee ee sree ree ee eee VIAL APL \ ] i aH | Nit | 7] : , : : ia HH ; | i i ; i t { a H ul i i r Mu ‘ u i } i 1 ors eleeesertrtes ro cee tea cre Pete er ieeeeee ee EE al / i } : } i } i i ! | } rh i ) H t ‘ 1 : i i] ft j i i i , ee ee ee een ti oe ie a Sle ene seit Lanta hall wT a]THE FEDERAL CONVENTION 121 of details, on the 16th of July, the great com- promise of the Constitution was adopted. There was no other that compared with it in importance. Its most significant features were that in the upper house each State should have an equal vote and that in the lower house representation should be apportioned on the basis of population, while direct taxation should follow the same proportion. The further proviso that money bills should originate ‘n the lower house and should not be amended in the upper house was regarded by some delegates as of considerable importance, though others did not think so, and eventually the restriction upon amend- ment by the upper house was dropped. There has long been a prevailing belief that an essential feature of the great compromise was the counting of only three-fifths of the slaves in enu- merating the population. This impression is quite erroneous. It was one of the details of the com- promise, but it had been a feature of the revenue amendment of 1783, and it was generally accepted as a happy solution of the difficulty that slaves pos- sessed the attributes both of persons and of prop- erty. It had been included both in the amended Virginia Plan and in the New Jersey Plan; and when it was embodied in the compromise it was122 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION described as “‘the ratio recommended by Congress in their resolutions of April 18, 1783.” A few months later, in explaining the matter to the Massachusetts convention, Rufus King said that, “This rule . . . was adopted because it was the language of all America.” In reality the three- fifths rule was a mere incident in that part of the great compromise which declared that ‘“represen- tation should be proportioned according to direct taxation.” As a further indication of the attitude of the Convention upon this point, an amendment to have the blacks counted equally with the whites was voted down by eight States against two. With the adoption of the great compromise a marked difference was noticeable in the attitude of the delegates. Those from the large States were deeply disappointed at the result and they asked for an adjournment to give them time to consider what they should do. The next morning, before the Convention met, they held a meeting to deter- mine upon their course of action. They were ap- | parently afraid of taking the responsibility for breaking up the Convention, so they finally decided to let the proceedings go on and to see what might be the ultimate outcome. Rumors of these dis- sensions had reached the ears of the public, and itTHE FEDERAL CONVENTION 123 may have been to quiet any misgivings that the following inspired item appeared in several local papers: “So great is the unanimity, we hear, that prevails in the Convention, upon all great federal subjects, that it has been proposed to call the room in which they assemble Unanimity Hall.”’ On the other hand the effect of this great com- promise upon the delegates from the small States was distinctly favorable. Having obtained equal representation in one branch of the legislature, they now proceeded with much greater willingness to consider the strengthening of the central govern- ment. Many details were yet to be arranged, and sharp differences of opinion existed in connection with the executive as well as with the judiciary. But these difficulties were slight in comparison with those which they had already surmounted in the matter of representation. By the end of July the fifteen resolutions of the original Virginia Plan had been increased to twenty-three, with many en- largements and amendments, and the Convention had gone as far as it could effectively in determin- ing the general principles upon which the govern- ment should be formed. ‘There were too many members to work efficiently when it came to the ac- tual framing of a constitution with all the inevitableof es ee Sm at bh ee ee oe ~ shee rmmm “ \ i i / }, i 4 i i | } 4 | i i t _ rater ere ens 124 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION details that were necessary in setting up a ma- chinery of government. Accordingly this task was turned over to a committee of five members who had already given evidence of their ability in this direction. Rutledge was made the chairman, and the others were Randolph, Gorham, Ellsworth, and Wilson. To give them time to perfect their work, on the 26th of July the Convention adjourned for ten days.CHAPTER VII FINISHING THE WORK RUTLEDGE and his associates on the committee of detail accomplished so much in such a short time that it seems as if they must have worked day and night. Their efforts marked a distinct stage in the development of the Constitution. The committee left no records, but some of the members retained among their private papers drafts of the different stages of the report they were framing, and we are therefore able to surmise the way in which the com- mittee proceeded. Of course the members were bound by the resolutions which had been adopted by the Convention and they held themselves close- ly to the general principles that had been laid down. But in the elaboration of details they seem to have begun with the Articles of Confederation and to have used all of that document that was consist- ent with the new plan of government. Then they made use of the New Jersey Plan, which had been 125a er a here ee eae eal — nah 2 90 aren nent eee oom 126 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION put forward by the smaller States, and of a third plan which had been presented by Charles Pinck- ney; for the rest they drew largely upon the State Constitutions. By a combination of these different sources the committee prepared a document bear- ing a close resemblance to the present Constitution, although subjects were in a different order and in somewhat different proportions, which, at the end of ten days, by working on Sunday, they were able to present to the Convention. This draft of a constitution was printed on seven folio pages with wide margins for notes and emendations. The Convention resumed its sessions on Mon- day, the 6th of August, and for five weeks the re- port of the committee of detail was the subject of discussion. For five hours each day, and sometimes for six hours, the delegates kept persistently at their task. It was midsummer, and we read in the diary of one of the members that in all that period only five days were “cool.’’ Item by item, line by line, the printed draft of the Constitution was con- sidered. It is not possible, nor is it necessary, to follow that work minutely; much of it was purely formal, and yet any one who has had experience with committee reports knows how much import- ance attaches to matters of phrasing. Just as theFATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION PLATE III WILLIAM PATERSON JONATHAN DAYTON BENJAMIN FRANKLIN THOMAS MIFFLIN From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. A A] | a } it Ha i HT ne ba eo | HT | Tie i it at if 7 i } a } H i a ‘Et 4 | 3 : tt | H i : : 1 i | / q 4 eS a ee eee ST st eee Sent ne ett eeeenenete Tree) ee nee a Sar sore tswee ae ee ; Hi , 1 e fii : | { | j } f a i f Se nen en eee eee eer ev ere rte tet Set a tee Teen ee nnn Oe eit teeet ee eee Se Hy ti a 4 | Z i : u 5 3 f 4 i 4 4 iJ F P| Ae F Pi : { Bs | r] a Pf r eh ee een ee te eens SN eren ae ree nT ret wot teers eye “~ me. ie ee KEL CE 12 a \* / 7 4 A Se paactrees 2-929 Se neo ee eee diated : | : i i | ‘ | a \. ee Sie iet echt lett re eaFINISHING THE WORK 127 Virginia Plan was made more acceptable to the ma- jority by changes in wording that seem to us insig- nificant, so modifications in phrasing slowly won support for the draft of the Constitution. The adoption of the great compromise, as we have seen, changed the whole spirit of the Conven- tion. ‘There was now an expectation on the part of the members that something definite was going to be accomplished, and all were concerned in mak- ing the result as good and as acceptable as possible. In other words, the spirit of compromise pervaded every action, and it is essential to remember this in considering what was accomplished. One of the greatest weaknesses of the Confedera- tion was the inefficiency of Congress. More than four pages, or three-fifths of the whole printed draft, were devoted to Congress and its powers. It is more significant, however, that in the new Constitution the legislative powers of the Confed- eration were transferred bodily to the Congress of the United States, and that the powers added were few in number, although of course of the first im- portance. The Virginia Plan declared that, in ad- dition to the powers under the Confederation, Con- gress should have the right “‘to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent.”ail iene ict RA oye enw eng Oe a a ERE ES EE NEES ICN TEL ER Ran eer PRR Mannan eee TT NTT Mi eee ee ee 128 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION This statement was elaborated in the printed draft which granted specific powers of taxation, of regu- lating commerce, of establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, and at the end of the enumeration of powers two clauses were added giving to Con- gress authority: To call forth the aid of the militia, in order to execute the laws of the Union, enforce treaties, suppress insur- rections, and repel invasions; And to make all laws that shall be necessary and prop- er for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. On the other hand, it was necessary to place some limitations upon the power of Congress. A general restriction was laid by giving to the execu- tive a right of veto, which might be overruled, how- ever, by a two-thirds vote of both houses. Follow- ing British tradition — yielding as it were to an in- herited fear — these delegates in America were led to place the first restraint upon the exercise of con- gressional authority in connection with treason. The legislature of the United States was given the power to declare the punishment of treason; but treason itself was defined in the Constitution, and it was further asserted that a person could be con- victed of treason only on the testimony of two wit- nesses, and that attainder of treason should notFINISHING THE WORK 129 “work corruption of blood nor forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.” Arising more nearly out of their own experience was the prohibition of export taxes, of capitation taxes, and of the granting of titles of nobility. While the committee of detail was preparing its report, the Southern members of that committee had succeeded in getting a provision inserted that navigation acts could be passed only by a two- thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. New England and the Middle States were strongly in favor of navigation acts for, if they could require all American products to be carried in American- built and American-owned vessels, they would give a great stimulus to the ship-building and commerce of the United States. They therefore wished to give Congress power in this matter on exactly the same terms that other powers were granted. The South, however, was opposed to this policy, for it wanted to encourage the cheapest method of ship- ping its raw materials. The South also wanted a larger number of slaves to meet its labor demands. To this need New England was not favorably dis- posed. To reconcile the conflicting interests of the two sections a compromise was finally reached. The requirement of a two-thirds vote of both houses for 9adeno ret eee al en er ice ee ee S| re EB ieee Sere eet eee nee ee 130 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION the passing of navigation acts which the Southern members had obtained was abandoned, and on the other hand it was determined that Congress should not be allowed to interfere with the importation of slaves for twenty years. This, again, was one of the important and conspicuous compromises of the Constitution. It is liable, however, to be misun- derstood, for one should not read into the senti- ment of the members of the Convention any of the later strong prejudice against slavery. There were some who objected on moral grounds to the recog- nition of slavery in the Constitution, and that word was carefully avoided by referring to “‘such Persons as any States now existing shall think proper to ad- mit.”’ And there were some who were especially opposed to the encouragement of that institution by permitting the slave trade, but the majority of the delegates regarded slavery as an accepted in- stitution, as a part of the established order, and public sentiment on the slave trade was not much more emphatic and positive than it Is now on cruelty to animals. As Ellsworth said, ““The mo- rality or wisdom of slavery are considerations be- longing to the States themselves,” and the com- promise was nothing more or less than a bargain between the sections.FINISHING THE WORK 131 The fundamental weakness of the Confederation was the inability of the Government to enforce its decrees, and in spite of the increased powers of Congress, even including the use of the militia “to execute the laws of the Union,” it was not felt that this defect had been entirely remedied. Experi- ence under the Confederation had taught men that something more was necessary in the direction of restricting the States in matters which might inter- fere with the working of the central Government. As in the case of the powers of Congress, the Arti- cles of Confederation were again resorted to and the restrictions which had been placed upon the States in that document were now embodied in the Constitution with modifications and additions. But the final touch was given in connection with the judiciary. There was little in the printed draft and there is comparatively little in the Constitution on the sub- ject of the judiciary. A Federal Supreme Court was provided for, and Congress was permitted, but not required, to establish inferior courts; while the jurisdiction of these tribunals was determined upon the general principles that it should extend to cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, to treaties and cases in whichee ee tte Neen nnn ee tt be pepe eee ath abe eee ee oe a 132 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION foreigners and foreign countries were involved, and to controversies between States and citizens of dif- ferent States. Nowhere in the document itself is there any word as to that great power which has been exercised by the Federal courts of declaring null and void laws or parts of laws that are re- garded as in contravention to the Constitution. There is little doubt that the more important men in the Convention, such as Wilson, Madison, Gou- verneur Morris, King, Gerry, Mason, and Luther Martin, believed that the judiciary would exercise this power, even though it should not be specifically granted. ‘The nearest approach to a declaration of this power is to be found in a paragraph that was inserted toward the end of the Constitution. Odd- ly enough, this was a modification of a clause intro- duced by Luther Martin with quite another intent. As adopted it reads: ‘That this Constitution and the Laws of the United States . . . and all Trea- ties . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound there- by; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” This paragraph may well be regarded as the keystone of the constitutional arch of national power. Its sig- nificance lies in the fact that the Constitution isFATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION PLATE T# JARED INGERSOLL ROBERT MORRIS JAMES WILSON GEORGE CLYMER From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. i My he } | {A i ed | He | 4 iu } Be q Hh | er | a : a Pi i or | H iH Hy j ' ‘ i a} H i H : iH 4 4 : Hf 1 4 , 4 1 a ee ee et Tt te ee tet PT ec deerreen traeee tele es pee a eh ae i I | | f ; } Settee lan tee a ee eet Ls tal en ee eee TRO et nr te Bet eat Be yer t eatsa ee eee Ok, St eee ies i y j | 4 “ i i rs 4 j Hl rf j 2 i 2 1 a A , ‘ ; } { j i eee ae epee = +) ot eae errs tree Parr teaen Leer hteee ste se ee Hl } H : 4 f I: i | i ; H i } i if ; i i } 1, if i f } Se ad ee aT ee et te er errs Re As eh eedFINISHING THE WORK 133 regarded not as a treaty nor as an agreement between States, but as a law; and while its enforcement is backed by armed power, it is a law enforceable in the courts. One whole division of the Constitution has been as yet barely referred to, and it not only presented one of the most perplexing problems which the Con- vention faced but one of the last to be settled — that providing for an executive. There was a gen- eral agreement in the Convention that there should be a separate executive. The opinion also devel- oped quite early that a single executive was better than a plural body, but that was as far as the mem- bers could go with any degree of unanimity. At the outset they seemed to have thought that the executive would be dependent upon the legislature, appointed by that body, and therefore more or less subject to its control. But in the course of the proceedings the tendency was to grant greater and greater powers to the executive; in other words, he was becoming a figure of importance. No such office as that of President of the United States was then in existence. It was a new position which they were creating. We have become so accus- tomed to it that it is difficult for us to hark back to the time when there was no such officer and to nr ets ee a ee eee et er et rte ee tT eee te tered od een Aen ere Oe emer es eee ee erry ee ee134 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION realize the difficulties and the fears of the men who were responsible for creating that office. The presidency was obviously modeled after the governorship of the individual States, and yet the incumbent was to be at the head of the Thirteen States. Rufus King is frequently quot- ed to the effect that the men of that time had been accustomed to considering themselves sub- jects of the British king. Even at the time of the Convention there is good evidence to show that some of the members were still agitating the desir- ability of establishing a monarchy in the United States. It was a common rumor that a son of George III was to be invited to come over, and there is reason to believe that only a few months before the Convention met Prince Henry of Prussia was approached by prominent people in this coun- try to see if he could be induced to accept the head- ship of the States, that is, to become the king of the United States. The members of the Convention evidently thought that they were establishing something like a monarchy. As Randolph said, the people would see “‘the form at least of a little monarch,” and they did not want him to have des- potic powers. When the sessions were over, a lady asked Franklin: “Well, Doctor, what have we got,FINISHING THE WORK 135 a republic or amonarchy?” “A republic,” replied the doctor, “‘if you can keep it.” The increase of powers accruing to the executive office necessitated placing a corresponding check upon the exercise of those powers. The obvious method was to render the executive subject to im- peachment, and it was also readily agreed that his veto might be overruled by a two-thirds vote of Congress; but some further safeguards were neces- sary, and the whole question accordingly turned upon the method of his election and the length of his term. In the course of the proceedings of the Convention, at several different times, the mem- bers voted in favor of an appointment by the na- tional legislature, but they also voted against it. Once they voted for a system of electors cho- sen by the State legislatures and twice they voted against such a system. ‘Three times they voted to reconsider the whole question. It is no wonder that Gerry should say: ‘‘We seem to be entirely at a loss.” So it came to the end of August, with most of the other matters disposed of and with the patience of the delegates worn out by the long strain of four veeks’ close application. During the discussions it had become apparent to every one that an election ee Se ee ee et SS rere SS ee eh eh ane and ee rer i ees dade me136 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION of the President by the people would give a decided advantage to the large States, so that again there was arising the divergence between the large and small States. In order to hasten matters to a con- clusion, this and all other vexing details upon which | the Convention could not agree were turned over to a committee made up of a member from each State. It was this committee which pointed the way to a compromise by which the ¢hoice of the executive was to be entrusted to electors chosen in each State as its legislature might direct. The electors were to be equal in number to the State’s representation in Congress, including both senators and represen- tatives, and in each State they were to meet and to vote for two persons, one of whom should not be an inhabitant of that State. The votes were to be listed and sent to Congress, and the person who had received the greatest number of votes was to be President, provided such a number was a majority of all the electors. In case of a tie the Senate was to choose between the candidates and, if no one had a majority, the Senate was to elect ‘‘from the five highest on the list.” This method of voting would have given the large States a decided advantage, of course, in that they would appoint the greater number of electors,FINISHING THE WORK 137 but it was not believed that this system would ordinarily result in a majority of votes being cast for one man. Apparently no one anticipated the formation of political parties which would concen- trate the votes upon one or another candidate. It was rather expected that in the great majority of cases — ‘nineteen times in twenty,’ one of the dele- gates said — there would be several candidates and that the selection from those candidates would fall to the Senate, in which all the States were equally represented and the small States were in the major- ity. But since the Senate shared so many powers with the executive, it seemed better to transfer the right of ‘‘eventual election” to the House of Repre- sentatives, where each State was still to have but one vote. Had this scheme worked as the design- ers expected, the interests of large States and small States would have been reconciled, since in effect the large States would name the candidates and, “‘nineteen times in twenty,” the small States would choose from among them. Apparently the question of a third term was never considered by the delegates in the Con- vention. The chief problem before them was the method of election. If the President was to be cho- sen by the legislature, he should not be eligible to——— ~ =e. hae tne oy net en nen ee ene a ee 138 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION reélection. On the other hand, if there was to be some form of popular election, an opportunity for reélection was thought to be a desirable incentive to good behavior. Six or seven years was taken as an acceptable length for a single term and four years a convenient tenure if reélection was per- mitted. It was upon these considerations that the term of four years was eventually agreed upon, with no restriction placed upon reélection. When it was believed that a satisfactory method of choosing the President had been discovered — and it is interesting to notice the members of the Convention later congratulated themselves that at least this feature of their government was above criticism — it was decided to give still further pow- ers to the President, such as the making of treaties and the appointing of ambassadors and judges, al- though the advice and consent of the Senate was required, and in the case of treaties two-thirds of the members present must consent. The presidency was frankly an experiment, the success of which would depend largely upon the first election; yet no one seems to have been anx- lous about the first choice of chief magistrate, and the reason is not far to seek. From the moment the members agreed that there should be a singleFATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION PLATE V GOUVERNEUR MORRIS GEORGE READ GUNNING BEDFORD, JR. JOHN DICKINSON From the Thomas A. Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library | | tit a A ] ad | : Hf i iH : i i i H ee een tae tt eeaeans Se ee a Petre ieee tees tes eaeSree eo oo ns é i i r I f PO sa Pt chk ae ere a ee ee a mene en an ET UG ERPS pee he No ee ee ee eee ante - eee See hee —————————— ss a ———— 6 i rs r 4 * rr ~ ! iA iH \! Hy 7 a Ren -_ 7AAAAT AA } ai ao lod jormol /. esmody edt moree ty ogee Se ee ee M1 tf iM ; ad H fF a ay i i 4 i 4 7 i 1 ay | H va J 4 al / a i H i i My H | i r ee ee ae een ere) orereeree ors — eee reer Pet fee feet eles Ree eamen pcertakene? aessee e-ert pee Neen abe ieee ee ee oa res SE es ee eh etree dt eae ttn Dt alte F H | } | } ee keinFINISHING THE WORK 139 executive they also agreed upon the man for the po- sition. Just as Washington had been chosen unan- imously to preside over the Convention, so it was generally accepted that he would be the first head of the new state. Such at least was the trend of conversation and even of debate on the floor of the Convention. It indicates something of the con- ception of the office prevailing at the time that Washington, when he became President, 1s said to have preferred the title, ‘ His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties.” The members of the Convention were plainly growing tired and there are evidences of haste in the work of the last few days. There was a ten- dency to ride rough-shod over those whose tempera- ments forced them to demand modifications in petty matters. This precipitancy gave rise to con- siderable dissatisfaction and led several delegates to declare that they would not sign the completed document. But on the whole the sentiment of the Convention was overwhelmingly favorable. Ac- cordingly on Saturday, the 8th of September, a new committee was appointed, to consist of five mem- bers, whose duty it was “‘to revise the stile of and arrange the articles which had been agreed to by. rt Neen een Nn bara at habe De ar ETC cence 140 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION the House.”” The committee was chosen by bal- lot and was made up exclusively of friends of the new Constitution: Doctor Johnson of Connecticut, Alexander Hamilton, who had returned to Phila- delphia to help in finishing the work, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, and Rufus King. On Wednesday the twelfth, the Committee made its re- port, the greatest credit for which is probably to be given to Morris, whose powers of expression were so greatly admired. Another day was spent in wait- ing for the report to be printed. But on Thursday this was ready, and three days were devoted to go- ing over carefully each article and section and giy- ing the finishing touches. By Saturday the work of the Convention was brought to a close, and the Constitution was then ordered to be engrossed. On Monday, the 17th of September, the Conven- tion met for the last time. A few of those present being unwilling to sign, Gouverneur Morris again cleverly devised a form which would make the action appear to be unanimous: ‘Done in Con- vention by the unanimous consent of the states present . . . in witness whereof we have here- unto subscribed our names.” Thirty-nine dele- gates, representing twelve States, then signed the Constitution.FINISHING THE WORK 141 When Charles Biddle of Philadelphia, who was acquainted with most of the members of the Con- vention, wrote his Autobiography, which was pub- lished in 1802, he declared that for his part he con- sidered the government established by the Consti- tution to be “the best in the world, and as perfect as any human form of government can be.” But he prefaced that declaration with a statement that some of the best informed members of the Federal Convention had told him “they did not believe a single member was perfectly satisfied with the Con- stitution, but they believed it was the best they could ever agree upon, and that it was infinitely better to have such a one than break up without fixing on some form of government, which I believe at one time it was expected they would have done.” One of the outstanding characteristics of the members of the Federal Convention was their prac- tical sagacity. They had a very definite object before them. No matter how much the members might talk about democracy in theory or about an- cient confederacies, when it came to action they did not go outside of their own experience. The Con- stitution was devised to correct well-known defects and it contained few provisions which had not been tested by practical political experience. Before a ee eer tt St tt Se ee erat ee tee te =. eS et eee ee eee eed ee Se ee eee{42 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION the Convention met, some of the leading men in the country had prepared lists of the defects which ex- isted in the Articles of Confederation, and in the Constitution practically every one of these defects was corrected and by means which had already been tested in the States and under the Articles of Confederation.CHAPTER VIII THE UNION ESTABLISHED Tue course of English history shows that Anglo- Saxon tradition is strongly in favor of observing precedents and of trying to maintain at least the form of law, even in revolutions. When the Eng- lish people found it impossible to bear with James II and made it so uncomfortable for him that he fled the country, they shifted the responsibility from their own shoulders by charging him with “breaking the original Contract between King and People.” When the Thirteen Colonies had reached the point where they felt that they must separate from England, their spokesman, Thomas Jefferson, found the necessary justification in the funda- mental compact of the first settlers “in the wilds of America” where ‘‘the emigrants thought proper to adopt that system of laws under which they had hitherto lived in the mother country”’; and in the Declaration of Independence he charged the King 143 eee eee ee ee Oe eee — ee Ohne on wee FAT EE ma aee f—e merey mt ae et ae ne wy UPS NER EL Ort bet Dn ene anh Pee eee eye tate een ee eS HET HR ee - - — , yee Fela ra OR op geen nee eee a ee en _ ; ee Pert titer ato eer! et Seen eee eee ee etry U sl Fe i Fy * 144 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION of Great Britain with “repeated injuries and usurpa- tions all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” And so it was with the change to the new form of government in the United States, which was ac- complished only by disregarding the forms pre- scribed in the Articles of Confederation and has been called, therefore, ‘“‘the Revolution of 1789.” From the outset the new constitution was placed under the sanction of the old. The movement be- gan with an attempt, outwardly at least, to revise the Articles of Confederation and in that form was authorized by Congress. The first breach with the past was made when the proposal in the Virginia Resolutions was accepted that amendments made by the Convention in the Articles of Confederation should be submitted to assemblies chosen by the people instead of to the legislatures of the separate States. This was the more readily accepted be- cause it was believed that ratification by the legis- latures would result in the formation of a treaty rather than in a working instrument of government. The next step was to prevent the work of the Con- vention from meeting the fate of all previous amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which had required the consent of every State in(7 , F SfteAs/ fj ‘ / of (ff / tt thi), wW AA 47 l,j JPL: ZZ or ee i ‘ if 4 A / 4 a a a / Se SE ee ete Sr re fee ee ie Ee a Tee I te ee en eeee eee, i : by i } t ) { i i ORAS ope nen en aengeones Sen ema ape. ee ee Tt ae ee tee eee rma a ee oe teat beTHE UNION ESTABLISHED 145 the Union. At the time the committee of detail made its report, the Convention was ready to agree that the consent of all the States was not necessary, and it eventually decided that, when ratified by the conventions of nine States, the Constitution should go into effect between the States so ratifying. It was not within the province of the Convention +o determine what the course of procedure should be in the individual States; so it simply transmitted the Constitution to Congress and in an accompany- ing document, which significantly omitted any re- quest for the approval of Congress, strongly ex- pressed the opinion that the Constitution should “be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof.” This was nothing less than indirect ratification by the people; and, since it was impossible to foretell in advance which of the States would or would not ratify, the original draft of ‘We, the People of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, ”? was changed to the phrase “ We, the People of the United States.”’ No man of that day could imagine how significant this change would appear in the light of later history. Congress did not receive the new Constitution enthusiastically, yet after a few days’ discussion Io146 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION it unanimously voted, eleven States being pres- ent, that the recommendations of the Convention should be followed, and accordingly sent the docu- ment to the States, but without a word of approval or disapproval. On the whole the document was well received, especially as it was favored by the upper class, who had the ability and the opportu- nity for expression and were in a position to make themselves heard. For a time it looked as if the Constitution would be readily adopted. The contest over the Constitution in the States is usually taken as marking the beginning of the two great national political parties in the United States. This was, indeed, in a way the first great national question that could cause such a division. There had been, to be sure, Whigs and Tories in America, reproducing British parties, but when the trouble with the mother country began, the suc- cessive congresses of delegates were recognized and attended only by the so-called American Whigs, and after the Declaration of Independence the name of Tory became a reproach, so that with the end of the war the Tory party disappeared. After the Revolution there were local parties in the va- rious States, divided on one and another question, such as that of hard and soft money, and these issuesTHE UNION ESTABLISHED 147 had coincided in different States; but they were in no sense national parties with organizations, platforms, and leaders; they were purely local, and the followers of one or the other would have denied that they were anything else than Whigs. But a new issue was now raised. The Whig party split in two, new leaders appeared, and the elements gathered in two main divisions — the Federalists advocating, and the Anti-Federalists opposing, the adoption of the new Constitution. There were differences of opinion over all the questions which had led to the calling of the Fed- eral Convention and the framing of the Constitu- tion and so there was inevitably a division upon the result of the Convention’s work. There were those who wanted national authority for the suppression of disorder and of what threatened to be anarchy throughout the Union; and on the other hand there were those who opposed a strongly organized gov- ernment through fear of its destroying liberty. Especially debtors and creditors took opposite sides, and most of the people in the United States could have been brought under one or the other category. The former favored a system of gov- ernment and legislation which would tend to re- lieve or postpone the payment of debts; and, as thatee erent ren ee eer ——— ane ae enna ey Ete — Ok TE EE EE Pee ey TEN . ee eee tre] 4 148 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION relief would come more readily from the State Gov- ernments, they were naturally the friends of State rights and State authority and were opposed to any enlargement of the powers of the Federal Govern- ment. On the other hand, were those who felt the necessity of preserving inviolate every private and public obligation and who saw that the separate power of the States could not accomplish what was necessary to sustain both public and private cred- it; they were disposed to use the resources of the Union and accordingly to favor the strengthening of the national government. In nearly every State there was a struggle between these classes. In Philadelphia and the neighborhood there was great enthusiasm for the new Constitution. Al- most simultaneously with the action by Congress, and before notification of it had been received, a motion was introduced in the Pennsylvania As- sembly to call a ratifying convention. The Anti- Federalists were surprised by the suddenness of this proposal and to prevent action absented them- selves from the session of the Assembly, leaving that body two short of the necessary quorum for the transaction of business. The excitement and indignation in the city were so great that early the next morning a crowd gathered, dragged two of theTHE UNION ESTABLISHED 149 absentees from their lodgings to the State House, and held them firmly in their places until the roll was called and a quorum counted, when the House proceeded to order a State convention. As soon as the news of this vote got out, the city gave itself up to celebrating the event by the suspension of business, the ringing of church bells, and other demonstrations. The elections were hotly con- tested, but the Federalists were generally success- ful. The convention met towards the end of No- vember and, after three weeks of futile discussion, mainly upon trivial matters and the meaning of words, ratified the Constitution on the 12th of De- cember, by a vote of forty-six to twenty-three. Again the city of Philadelphia celebrated. Pennsylvania was the first State to call a conven- tion, but its final action was anticipated by Dela- ware, where the State convention met and ratified the Constitution by unanimous vote on the 7th of December. The New Jersey convention spent only a week in discussion and then voted, also unani- mously, for ratification on the 18th of December. The next State to ratify was Georgia, where the Constitution was approved without a dissenting vote on January 2, 1788. Connecticut followed immediately and, after a session of only five days,150 FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION declared itself in favor of the Constitution, on the 9th of January, by a vote of over three to one. The results of the campaign for ratification thus far were most gratifying to the Federalists, but the issue was not decided. With the exception of Pennsylvania, the States which had acted were of lesser importance, and, until Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia should declare themselves, the outcome would be in doubt. The convention of Massachusetts met on the same day that the Con- necticut convention adjourned. The sentiment of Boston, like that of Philadelphia, was strongly Federalist; but the outlying districts, and in par- ticular the western part of the State, where Shays’ Rebellion had broken out, were to be counted in the opposition. There were 355 delegates who took part in the Massachusetts convention, a larger number than was chosen in any of the other States, and the majority seemed to be opposed to ratifica- tion. The division was close, however, and it was believed that the attitude of two men would deter- mine the result. One of these was Governor John Hancock, who was chosen chairman of the conven- tion but who did not attend the sessions at the out- set, as he was confined to his house by an attack of gout, which, it was maliciously said, would disappearH * “a Fs , PI Ht oT iA f i BI Hale | H von fit mit f nae | A i ’ H] ee iti q tid Hh } 3 a | “a nH Wt it f + nil t y nar ny / a ; i } 4 i iy ; i FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. Piaee Vil GEORGE WASHINGTON JOHN BLAIR JAMES MADISON, JR. WILLIAM BLOUNT : ; : i From the Thomas A. Emmet ¢ ollection in the New York Publi Library. ee eee ete arene | Bee ppaaeein res PONT etter) itl eserct re er eee tee rater tite seeps To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and ofCONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES 207 foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; °To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; 7 To establish Post Offices and post Roads; * To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inven- tors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; ° To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; *° To define and punish Piracies and Felonies com- mitted on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; ‘t To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Re- prisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; ‘2 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropria- tion of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; *3'To provide and maintain a Navy; ™4'To make Rules for the Government and Regula- tion of the land and naval Forces; ts To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; ‘© 'To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplin- ing, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Mili- tia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; '7To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases pee ES eee) Se ry eS ee ee Oe ee ee eeee eereeern Std trees