History of the Origin, Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution of the United States Volume II Part 25

In New York, as elsewhere, the first impressions were in favor of the Const.i.tution. In the city, and in the southern counties generally, it was from the first highly popular. But it was soon apparent that the whole official influence of the executive government of the State would be thrown against it. There had been a strong party in the State, ever since its refusal to bestow on the Congress the powers asked for in the revenue system of 1783, who had regarded the Union with jealousy, and steadily opposed the surrender to it of any further powers. Of this party, the Governor, George Clinton, was now the head; and the government of the State, which embraced a considerable amount of what is termed "patronage," was in their hands. Two of the delegates of the State to the national Convention, Yates and Lansing, had retired from that body before the Const.i.tution was completed, and had announced their opposition to it in a letter to the Governor, which, from its tone and the character of its objections, was likely to produce a strong impression on the public mind. It became evident that the Const.i.tution could be carried in the State of New York in no other way than by a thorough discussion of its merits,--such a discussion as would cause it to be understood by the people, and would convince them that its adoption was demanded by their interests. For this purpose, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, under the common signature of Publius, commenced the publication of the series of essays which became known as The Federalist. The first number was issued in the latter part of October.

In January, the Governor presented the official communication of the instrument from the Congress to the legislature, with the cold remark, that, from the nature of his official position, it would be improper for him to have any other agency in the business than that of laying the papers before them for their information. Neither he nor his party, however, contented themselves with this abstinence. After a severe struggle, resolutions ordering a State convention to be elected were pa.s.sed by the bare majorities of three in the Senate and two in the House, on the first day of February, 1788. The elections were held in April; and when the result became known, in the latter part of May, it appeared that the Anti-Federalists had elected two thirds of the members of the Convention, and that probably four sevenths of the people of the State were unfriendly to the Const.i.tution. Backed by this large majority, the leaders of the Anti-Federal party intended to meet in convention at the appointed time, in June, and then to adjourn until the spring or summer of 1789. Their argument for this course was, that, if the Const.i.tution had been adopted in the course of a twelvemonth by nine other States, New York would have an opportunity to witness its operation and to act according to circ.u.mstances. They would thus avoid an immediate rejection,--a step which might lead the Federalists to seek a separation of the southern from the northern part of the State, for the purpose of forming a new State. On the other hand, the Federalists rested their hopes upon what they could do to enlighten the public at large, and upon the effect on their opponents of the action of other States, especially of Virginia, whose convention was to meet at nearly the same time. The Convention of New York a.s.sembled at Poughkeepsie,[402] on the 17th of June, 1788.

However strong the opposition in other States, it was to be in Virginia far more formidable, from the abilities and influence of its leaders, from the nature of their objections, and from the peculiar character of the State. Possessed of a large number of men justly ent.i.tled to be regarded then and always as statesmen, although many of them were p.r.o.ne to great refinements in matters of government; filled with the spirit of republican freedom, although its polity and manners were marked by several aristocratic features; having, on the one hand, but few among its citizens interested in commerce, and still fewer, on the other hand, of those levelling and licentious cla.s.ses which elsewhere sought to overturn or control the interests of property; ever ready to lead in what it regarded as patriotic and demanded by the interests of the Union, but jealous of its own dignity and of the rights of its sovereignty;--the State of Virginia would certainly subject the Const.i.tution to as severe an ordeal as it could undergo anywhere, and would elicit in the discussion all the good or the evil that could be discovered in the examination of a system before it had been practically tried. The State was to feel, it is true, the almost overshadowing influence of Was.h.i.+ngton, in favor of the new system, exerted, not by personal partic.i.p.ation in its proceedings, but in a manner which could leave no doubt respecting his opinion. But it was also to feel the strenuous opposition of Patrick Henry, that great natural orator of the Revolution, whose influence over popular a.s.semblies was enormous, and who added acuteness, subtilty, and logic to the fierce sincerity of his unstudied harangues, although his knowledge was meagre and his range of thought circ.u.mscribed; and the not less strenuous or effective opposition of George Mason, who had little of the eloquence and pa.s.sion of his renowned compatriot, but who was one of the most profound and able of all the American statesmen opposed to the Const.i.tution, while he was inferior in general powers and resources to not more than two or three of those who framed or advocated it. Richard Henry Lee, William Grayson, Benjamin Harrison, John Tyler, and others of less note, were united with Henry and Mason in opposing the Const.i.tution. Its leading advocates were to be Madison, Marshall, the future Chief Justice of the United States, George Nicholas, and the Chancellor Pendleton. The Governor, Edmund Randolph, occupied for a time a middle position between its friends and its opponents, but finally gave to it his support, from motives which I have elsewhere described as eminently honorable and patriotic.

One of the most distinguished of the public men of Virginia had been absent in the diplomatic service of the country for three years. His eminent abilities and public services, his national reputation, and the influence of his name, naturally made both parties anxious to claim the authority of Jefferson, and he was at once furnished with a copy of the Const.i.tution as soon as it appeared. In the heats of subsequent political conflicts he has been often charged by his opponents with a general hostility to the Const.i.tution. The truth is, that Mr. Jefferson's opinions on the subject of government, and of what was desirable and expedient to be done in this country, united with the effect of his long absence from home,[403] did lead him, at first, to think and to say that the Const.i.tution had defects which, if not corrected, would destroy the liberties of America. He was by far the most democratic, in the tendency of his opinions, of all the princ.i.p.al American statesmen of that age. He was, according to his own avowal, no friend to an energetic government anywhere. He carried abroad the opinion that the Confederation could be adapted, with a few changes, to all the wants of the Union; and this opinion he continued to retain, because the events which had taken place here during his absence did not produce upon his mind the effect which they produced upon the great majority of public men who remained in the midst of them. He freely declared to more than one of his correspondents in Virginia, at this time, that such disorders as had been witnessed in Ma.s.sachusetts were necessary to public liberty, and that the national Convention had been too much influenced by them, in preparing the Const.i.tution. He held that the natural progress of things is for liberty to lose and for government to gain ground; and that no government should be organized without those express and positive restraints which will jealously guard the liberties of the people, even if those liberties should periodically break into licentiousness.

One of his favorite maxims of government was "rotation in office"; and he thought the government of the Union should have cognizance only of matters involved in the relations of the people of each State to foreign countries, or to the people of the other States, and that each State should retain the exclusive control of all its internal and domestic concerns, and especially the power of direct taxation.

Hence it is not surprising that, when Mr. Jefferson received at Paris, early in November, a copy of the Const.i.tution, and when he found in it no express declarations insuring the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of the person under the uninterrupted protection of the _habeas corpus_, and no trial by jury in civil cases, and found also that the President would be re-eligible, and that the government would have the power of direct taxation, his anxiety should have been excited. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that he counselled a direct rejection of the instrument by the people of Virginia. His first suggestion was, that the nine States which should first act upon it should adopt it, unconditionally, and that the four remaining States should accept it only on the previous condition that certain amendments should be made. This plan of his became known in Virginia in the course of the winter of 1787-88, and it gave the Anti-Federalists what they considered a warrant for using his authority on their side. But before the following spring, when he had had an opportunity to see the course pursued by Ma.s.sachusetts, he changed his opinion, and authorized his friends to say that he regarded an unconditional acceptance by each State, and subsequent amendments, in the mode provided by the Const.i.tution, as the only rational plan.[404] He also abandoned the opinion that the general government ought not to have the power of direct taxation; but he never receded from his objections founded on the want of a bill of rights, and of trial by jury, and on the re-eligibility of the President.

Immediately after his return to Mount Vernon from the national Convention, Was.h.i.+ngton sent copies of the Const.i.tution to Patrick Henry, Mason, Harrison, and other leading persons whose opposition he antic.i.p.ated, with a temperate but firm expression of his own opinion.

The replies of these gentlemen furnished him with the grounds of their objections, and at the same time relieved him, as to all of them but Henry, from the apprehension that they might resist the calling of a State convention. Mason and Henry were both members of the legislature. The former was expressly instructed by his const.i.tuents of Alexandria county[405] to vote for a submission of the Const.i.tution to the people of the State in convention;--a vote which he would probably have given without instruction, as he declared to General Was.h.i.+ngton that he should use all his influence for this purpose. Mr.

Henry was not instructed, and the friends of the Const.i.tution expected his resistance. The legislature a.s.sembled in October, and on the first day of the session, in a very full House, Henry declared, to the surprise of everybody, that the proposed Const.i.tution must go to a popular convention. The elections for such a body were ordered to be held in March and April of the following spring. When they came on, the news that the convention of New Hamps.h.i.+re had postponed their action was employed by the Anti-Federalists, who insisted that this step had been taken in deference to Virginia; although it was in fact taken merely in order that the delegates of New Hamps.h.i.+re might get their previous instructions against the Const.i.tution removed by their const.i.tuents. The pride of Virginia was touched by this electioneering expedient, and the result was that the parties in the State convention were nearly balanced, the Federalists however having, as they supposed, a majority.[406] The convention was to a.s.semble on the 2d of June, 1788.

In the legislature of South Carolina the Const.i.tution was debated, with great earnestness, for three days, before it was decided to send it to a popular convention. This was owing to the great persistency of Rawlins Lowndes, who carried on the discussion in opposition to the Const.i.tution, almost single-handed and with great ability, against the two Pinckneys, Pierce Butler, John and Edward Rutledge, John Julius Pringle, Robert Barnwell, Dr. David Ramsay, and many other gentlemen.

At length, on the 19th of January, a resolution was pa.s.sed, directing a convention of the people to a.s.semble on the 12th of May. The debate in the legislature had tended to diffuse information respecting the system, but it had also produced a formidable minority throughout the State. Mr. Lowndes had employed, with a good deal of skill, the local arguments which would be most likely to form the objections of a citizen of South Carolina. He inveighed against the regulation of commerce, the power over the slave-trade that was to belong to Congress at the end of twenty years, and the preponderance which he contended would be given to the Eastern States by the system of representation in Congress; and although he was ably answered on all points, the effect of the discussion was such, that a large minority was returned to the Convention having a strong hostility to the proposed system.[407]

The legislature of Maryland a.s.sembled in December, and directed the delegates who had represented the State in the national Convention to attend and give an account of the proceedings of that a.s.sembly. It was in compliance with this direction that Luther Martin laid before the legislature that celebrated communication which embodied not only a very clear statement of the mode in which the princ.i.p.al compromises of the Const.i.tution were framed, as seen from the point of view occupied by one who resisted them at every step, but also an exceedingly able argument against the fundamental principle of the proposed government. It was a paper, too, marked throughout with an earnestness almost amounting to fanaticism. Repelling, with natural indignation and dignity, the imputation that he was influenced by a State office which he then held, he referred to the numerous honors and emoluments which the Const.i.tution of the United States would create, and suggested--what his abilities and reputation well justified--that his chance of obtaining a share of them was as good as most men's. "But this," was his solemn conclusion, "I can say with truth,--that so far was I from being influenced in my conduct by interest, or the consideration of office, that I would cheerfully resign the appointment I now hold; I would bind myself never to accept another, either under the general government or that of my own State; I would do more, sir;--so destructive do I consider the present system to the happiness of my country, I would cheerfully sacrifice that share of property with which Heaven has blessed a life of industry; I would reduce myself to indigence and poverty; and those who are dearer to me than my own existence, I would intrust to the care and protection of that Providence who hath so kindly protected myself,--if on _those terms only_ I could procure my country to reject those chains which are forged for it."

Such a strength of conviction as this, on the part of a man of high talent, was well calculated to produce an effect. No doc.u.ment that appeared anywhere, against the Const.i.tution, was better adapted to rouse the jealousy, to confirm the doubts, or to decide the opinions, of a certain cla.s.s of minds. But it was an argument which reduced the whole question substantially to the issue, whether the principle of the Union could safely be changed from that of a federal league, with an equality of representation and power as between the States, to a system of national representation in a legislative body having cognizance of certain national interests, in one branch of which the people inhabiting the respective States should have power in proportion to their numbers.[408] This was a question on which men would naturally and honestly differ; but it was a question which a majority of reflecting men, in almost every State, were likely, after due inquiry, to decide against the views of Mr. Martin, because it was clear that the Confederation had failed, and had failed chiefly by reason of the peculiar and characteristic nature of its representative system, and because the representative system proposed in the Const.i.tution was the only one that could be agreed upon as the alternative. Mr. Martin's objections, however, like those of other distinguished men who took the same side in other States, were of a nature to form the creed of an earnest, conscientious, and active minority. They had this effect in the State of Maryland. The legislature ordered a State convention, to consider the proposed Const.i.tution, and directed it to meet on the 21st of April, 1788.

The convention of New Hamps.h.i.+re was to a.s.semble in February. A large portion of the State lay remote from the channels of intelligence, and a considerable part of the people in the interior had not seen the Const.i.tution, when they were called upon to elect their delegates. The population, outside of two or three princ.i.p.al places, was a rural one, thinly scattered over towns.h.i.+ps of large territorial extent, lying among the hills of a broken and rugged country, extending northerly from the narrow strip of sea-coast towards the frontier of Canada. It was easy for the opposition to persuade such a people that a scheme of government had been prepared which they ought to reject; and the consequence of their efforts was that the State convention a.s.sembled, probably with a majority, certainly with a strong minority, of its members bound by positive instructions to vote against the Const.i.tution which they were to consider.

I have thus, in antic.i.p.ation of the strict order of events, given a general account of the position of this great question in six of the States, down to the time of the meeting of their respective conventions, because when the session of the convention of Ma.s.sachusetts commenced, in January, 1788, the people of the five States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut had successively ratified the Const.i.tution without proposing any amendments, and because the action of the others, extending through the six following months, embraced the real crisis to which the Const.i.tution was subjected, and developed what were thereafter to be considered as its important defects, according to the view of a majority of the States, and probably also of a majority of the people of all the States. For although the people of Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut ratified the Const.i.tution without insisting on previous or subsequent amendments, it is certain that some of the same topics were the causes of anxiety and objection in those States, which occasioned so much difficulty, and became the grounds of special action, in the remaining States.

In coming, however, to the more particular description of the resistance which the Const.i.tution encountered, it will be necessary to discriminate between the opposition that was made to the general plan of the government, or to the particular features of it which it was proposed to create, and that which was founded on its omission to provide for certain things that were deemed essential. Of what may be called the positive objections to the Const.i.tution, it may be said, in general, that, however fruitful of debate, or declamation, or serious and important doubt, might be the question whether such a government as had been framed by the national Convention should be subst.i.tuted for the Confederation, the opposition were not confined to this question, as the means of persuading the people that the proposed system ought to be rejected. One of the most deeply interested of the men who were watching the currents of public opinion with extreme solicitude, observed "a strong belief in the people at large of the insufficiency of the Confederation to preserve the existence of the Union, and of the necessity of the Union to their safety and prosperity; of course, a strong desire of a change, and a predisposition to receive well the propositions of the Convention."[409] But while the Const.i.tution came before the people with this conviction and this predisposition in its favor, yet when its opponents, in addition to their positive objections to what it did contain, could point to what it did _not_ embrace, and could say that it proposed to establish a government of great power, without providing for rights of primary importance, and without any declaration of the cardinal maxims of liberty which the people had from the first been accustomed to incorporate with their State const.i.tutions; and while the local interests, the sectional feelings, and the separate policy, real or supposed, of different States, furnished such a variety of means for defeating its adoption by the necessary number of nine States;--we may not wonder that its friends should have been doubtful of the issue. "It is almost arrogance," said the same anxious observer, "in so complicated a subject, depending so entirely upon the incalculable fluctuations of the human pa.s.sions, to attempt even a conjecture about the result."[410]

FOOTNOTES:

[395] It may be amusing to Americans of this and future generations to know who this personage was for whom it was rumored that the Loyalists desired to "send," and whose advent as a possible ruler of this country was a vague apprehension in the popular mind for a good while, and finally came to be imputed as a project to the framers of the Const.i.tution. The Bishop of Osnaburg was no other than the late Duke of York, Frederick, the second son of King George III.; a prince whose conduct as commander-in-chief of the army, in consequence of the sale of commissions by his mistress, one Mrs. Clarke, became in 1809 a subject of inquiry, leading to the most scandalous revelations, before the House of Commons. The Duke was born in 1763, and was consequently, at the period spoken of in the text, at the ripe age of twenty-four.

When about a year old (1764), he was chosen Bishop of Osnaburg. This was a German province (Osnabruck), formerly a bishopric of great antiquity, founded by Charlemagne. At the Reformation most of the inhabitants became Lutherans, and by the Treaty of Westphalia it was agreed that it should be governed alternately by a Roman Catholic and a Protestant Bishop. In 1802 it was secularized, and a.s.signed as an hereditary princ.i.p.ality to George III., in his capacity of King of Hanover. Prince Frederick continued to be called by the t.i.tle of Bishop of Osnaburg, until he was created Duke of York. I am not aware that the whispers of his name in the secret counsels of our Loyalists, as a proposed king for America, became known in England. Whether such knowledge would have excited a smile, or have awakened serious hopes, is a question on which the reader can speculate. But it is certain that there were persons in this country, and in the neighboring British Provinces, who had long hoped for a reunion of the American States with the parent country, through this or some other "mad project." Colonel Humphreys, (who had been one of Was.h.i.+ngton's _aides_,) writing to Hamilton, from New Haven, under date of September 16, 1787, says: "The quondam Tories have undoubtedly conceived hopes of a future union with Great Britain, from the inefficacy of our government, and the tumults which prevailed during the last winter. I saw a letter, written at that period, by a clergyman of considerable reputation in Nova Scotia, to a person of eminence in this State, stating the impossibility of our being happy under our present const.i.tution, and proposing (now we could think and argue calmly on all the consequences), that the efforts of the moderate, the virtuous, and the brave should be exerted to effect a reunion with the parent state.... It seems, by a conversation I have had here, that the ultimate practicability of introducing the Bishop of Osnaburg is not a novel idea among those who were formerly termed Loyalists. Ever since the peace it has been occasionally talked of and wished for.

Yesterday, where I dined, half jest, half earnest, he was given as the first toast. I leave you now, my dear friend, to reflect how ripe we are for the most mad and ruinous project that can be suggested, especially when, in addition to this view, we take into consideration how thoroughly the patriotic part of the community, the friends of an efficient government, are discouraged with the present system, and irritated at the popular demagogues who are determined to keep themselves in office, at the risk of everything. Thence apprehensions are formed, that, though the measures proposed by the Convention may not be equal to the wishes of the most enlightened and virtuous, yet that they will be too high-toned to be adopted by our popular a.s.semblies. Should that happen, our political s.h.i.+p will be left afloat on a sea of chance, without a rudder as well as without a pilot."

(Works of Hamilton, I. 443.) In a grave and comprehensive private memorandum, drawn up by Hamilton soon after the Const.i.tution appeared, in which he summed up the probabilities for and against its adoption, and the consequences of its rejection, the following occurs, as among the events likely to follow such rejection: "A reunion with Great Britain, from universal disgust at a state of commotion, is not impossible, though not much to be feared. The most plausible shape of such a business would be, the establishment of a son of the present monarch in the supreme government of this country, with a family compact." (Works, II. 419, 421.)

[396] Pennsylvania Journal, August 22, 1787.

[397] The history of the term "Federal," or "Federalist," offers a curious ill.u.s.tration of the capricious changes of sense which political designations often undergo, within a short period of time, according to the accidental circ.u.mstances which give them their application. During the discussions of the Convention which framed the Const.i.tution of the United States, the term _federal_ was employed in its truly philosophic sense, to designate the nature of the government established by the Articles of Confederation, in distinction from a national system, that would be formed by the introduction of the plan of having the States represented in the Congress in proportion to the numbers of their inhabitants. But when the Const.i.tution was before the people of the States for their adoption, its friends and advocates were popularly called Federalists, because they favored an enlargement of the Federal government at the expense of some part of the State sovereignties, and its opponents were called the Anti-Federalists. In this use, the former term in no way characterized the nature of the system advocated, but merely designated a supporter of the Const.i.tution. A few years later, when the first parties were formed, in the first term of Was.h.i.+ngton's Administration, it so happened that the leading men who gave a distinct character to the development which the Const.i.tution then received had been prominent advocates of its adoption, and had been known therefore as Federalists, as had also been the case with some of those who separated themselves from this body of persons and formed what was termed the Republican, afterwards the Democratic party. But the prominent supporters of the policy which originated in Was.h.i.+ngton's administration continued to be called Federalists, and the term thus came to denote a particular school of politics under the Const.i.tution, although it previously signified merely an advocacy of its adoption. Thus, for example, Hamilton, in 1787, was no Federalist, because he was opposed to the continuance of a federal, and desired the establishment of a national government. In 1788, he was a Federalist, because he wished the Const.i.tution to be adopted; and he afterwards continued to be a Federalist, because he favored a particular policy in the administration of the government, under the Const.i.tution. It was in this latter sense that the term became so celebrated in our political history. The reader will observe that I use it, of course, in this work, only in the sense attached to it while the Const.i.tution was before the people of the States for adoption.

[398] A striking proof of the importance attached by the people to the opinions of Was.h.i.+ngton and Franklin may be found in a controversy carried on for a short time in the newspapers of Philadelphia and New York, after the Const.i.tution appeared, whether those distinguished persons _really approved_ what they had signed.

[399] All but Maryland and Rhode Island.

[400] Pa.s.sed September 28, 1787. Journals, XII. 149-166.

[401] This is the substance of a careful account given by General Knox to General Was.h.i.+ngton. (Works of Was.h.i.+ngton, IX. 310, 311.)

[402] A town on the Hudson River, seventy-five miles north of the city of New York.

[403] He went abroad in the summer of 1784.

[404] Compare Mr. Jefferson's autobiography, and his correspondence, in the first, second, and third volumes of his collected works (edition of 1853), and the letters of Mr. Madison.

[405] In the newspapers of the time there is to be found a story that Mr. Mason was very roughly received on his arrival at the city of Alexandria, after the adjournment of the national Convention, on account of his refusal to sign the Const.i.tution. The occurrence is not alluded to in Was.h.i.+ngton's correspondence, although he closely observed Mr. Mason's movements, and regarded them with evident anxiety. The story is told in the Pennsylvania Journal of October 17, 1787,--a strong Federal paper. I know of no other confirmation of it than the fact that the people of Alexandria embraced the Const.i.tution from the first with "enthusiastic warmth," according to the account given by General Was.h.i.+ngton to one of his correspondents. (Works, IX.

272.)

[406] Was.h.i.+ngton's Works, IX. 266, 267, 273, 340-342, 345, 346.

[407] This debate of three days in the South Carolina legislature was one of the most able of all the discussions attending the ratification of the Const.i.tution. Mr. Lowndes was overmatched by his antagonists, but he resisted with great spirit, finally closed with the declaration that he saw dangers in the proposed government so great, that he could wish, when dead, for no other epitaph than this: "Here lies the man that opposed the Const.i.tution, because it was ruinous to the liberty of America." He lived to find his desired epitaph a false prophecy. He was the father, of the late William Lowndes, who represented the State of South Carolina in Congress, with so much honor and distinction, during the administration of Mr. Madison.

[408] Mr. Martin's objections extended to many of the details of the Const.i.tution, but his great argument was that directed against its system of representation, which he predicted would destroy the State governments.

[409] Hamilton, Works, II. 419, 420.

[410] Hamilton, Works, II. 421.

CHAPTER II.

RATIFICATIONS OF DELAWARE, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, GEORGIA, AND CONNECTICUT, WITHOUT OBJECTION.--CLOSE OF THE YEAR 1787.--BEGINNING OF THE YEAR 1788.--RATIFICATION OF Ma.s.sACHUSETTS, THE SIXTH STATE, WITH PROPOSITIONS OF AMENDMENT.--RATIFICATION OF MARYLAND, WITHOUT OBJECTION.--SOUTH CAROLINA, THE EIGHTH STATE, ADOPTS, AND PROPOSES AMENDMENTS.

The first State that ratified the Const.i.tution, although its convention was not the first to a.s.semble, was Delaware. It was a small, compact community, with the northerly portion of its territory lying near the city of Philadelphia, with which its people had constant and extensive intercourse. Its public men were intelligent and patriotic. In the national Convention it had contended with great spirit for the interests of the smaller States, and its people now had the sagacity and good sense to perceive that they had gained every reasonable security for their peculiar rights. The public press of Philadelphia friendly to the Const.i.tution furnished the means of understanding its merits, and the discussions in the convention of Pennsylvania, which a.s.sembled before that of Delaware, threw a flood of light over the whole subject, which the people of Delaware did not fail to regard. Their delegates unanimously ratified and adopted the Const.i.tution on the 7th of December.

The convention of Pennsylvania met, before that of any of the other States, at Philadelphia, on the 20th of November. It was the second State in the Union in population. Its chief city was perhaps the first in the Union in refinement and wealth, and had often been the scene of great political events of the utmost interest and importance to the whole country. There had sat, eleven years before, that ill.u.s.trious Congress of deputies from the thirteen Colonies, who had declared the independence of America, had made Was.h.i.+ngton commander-in-chief of her armies, and had given her struggle for freedom a name throughout the world. There, the Revolutionary Congress had continued, with a short interruption, to direct the operations of the war. There, the alliance with France was ratified, in 1778. There, the Articles of Confederation were finally carried into full effect, in 1781. There, within six months afterwards, the Congress received intelligence of the surrender of Cornwallis, and walked in procession to one of the churches of the city, to return thanks to G.o.d for a victory which in effect terminated the war. There, the instructions for the treaty of peace were given, in 1782, and there the Const.i.tution of the United States had been recently framed. For more than thirteen years, since the commencement of the Revolution, and with only occasional intervals, the people of Philadelphia had been accustomed to the presence of the most eminent statesmen of the country, and had learned, through the influences which had gone forth from their city, to embrace in their contemplation the interests of the Union.

They placed in the State convention, that was to consider the proposed Const.i.tution of the United States, one of the wisest and ablest of its framers,--James Wilson. The modesty of his subsequent career,[411] and the comparatively little attention that has been bestowed by succeeding generations upon the personal exertions that were made in framing and establis.h.i.+ng the Const.i.tution, must be regarded as the causes that have made his reputation, at this day, less extensive and general than his abilities and usefulness might have led his contemporaries to expect that it would be. Yet the services which he rendered to the country, first in a.s.sisting in the preparation of the Const.i.tution, and afterwards in securing its adoption by the State of Pennsylvania, should place his name high upon the list of its benefactors. He had not the political genius which gave Hamilton such a complete mastery over the most complex subjects of government, and which enabled him, when the Const.i.tution had been adopted, to give it a development in practice that made it even more successful than its theory alone could have allowed any one to regard as probable; nor had he the talent of Madison for debate and for const.i.tutional a.n.a.lysis; but in the comprehensiveness of his views, and in his perception of the necessities of the country, he was not their inferior, and he was throughout one of their most efficient and best informed coadjutors.

He had to encounter, in the convention of the State, a body of men, a majority of whom were not unfriendly to the Const.i.tution, but among whom there was a minority very hard to be conciliated. In the counties which lay west of the Susquehanna,--the same region which afterwards, in Was.h.i.+ngton's administration, became the scene of an insurrection against the authority of the general government,--there was a rancorous, active, and determined opposition. Mr. Wilson, being the only member of the State convention who had taken part in the framing of the Const.i.tution, was obliged to take the lead in explaining and defending it. His qualifications for this task were ample. He had been a very important and useful member of the national Convention; he had read every publication of importance, on both sides of the question, that had appeared since the Const.i.tution was published, and his legal and historical knowledge was extensive and accurate. No man succeeded better than he did, in his arguments on that occasion, in combating the theory that a State government possessed the whole political sovereignty of the people of the State. However true it might be, he said, in England, that the Parliament possesses supreme and absolute power, and can make the const.i.tution what it pleases, in America it has been incontrovertible since the Revolution, that the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power is in the people, before they make a const.i.tution, and remains in them after it is made. To control the power and conduct of the legislature by an overruling const.i.tution, was an improvement in the science and practice of government reserved to the American States; and at the foundation of this practice lies the right to change the const.i.tution at pleasure,--a right which no positive inst.i.tution can ever take from the people. When they have made a State const.i.tution, they have bestowed on the government created by it a certain portion of their power; but the fee simple of their power remains in themselves.

Mr. Wilson was equally clear in accounting for the omission to insert a bill of rights in the Const.i.tution of the United States. In a government, he observed, consisting of enumerated powers, such as was then proposed for the United States, a bill of rights, which is an enumeration of the powers reserved by the people, must either be a perfect or an imperfect statement of the powers and privileges reserved. To undertake a perfect enumeration of the civil rights of mankind, is to undertake a very difficult and hazardous, and perhaps an impossible task; yet if the enumeration is imperfect, all implied power seems to be thrown into the hands of the government, on subjects in reference to which the authority of government is not expressly restrained, and the rights of the people are rendered less secure than they are under the silent operation of the maxim that every power not expressly granted remains in the people. This, he stated, was the view taken by a large majority of the national Convention, in which no direct proposition was ever made, according to his recollection, for the insertion of a bill of rights.[412] There is, undoubtedly, a general truth in this argument, but, like many general truths in the construction of governments, it may be open to exceptions when applied to particular subjects or interests. It appears to have been, for the time, successful; probably because the opponents of the Const.i.tution, with whom Mr. Wilson was contending, did not bring forward specific propositions for the declaration of those particular rights which were made the subjects of special action in other State conventions.

Besides a very thorough discussion of these great subjects, Mr. Wilson entered into an elaborate examination and defence of the whole system proposed in the Const.i.tution. He was most ably seconded in his efforts by Thomas McKean, then Chief Justice of Pennsylvania and afterwards its Governor, the greater part of whose public life had been pa.s.sed in the service of Delaware, his native State, and who had always been a strenuous advocate of the interests of the smaller States, but who found himself satisfied with the provision for them made by the Const.i.tution for the construction of the Senate of the United States.[413] "I have gone," said he, "through the circle of office, in the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of government; and from all my study, observation, and experience, I must declare, that, from a full examination and due consideration of this system, it appears to me the best the world has yet seen. I congratulate you on the fair prospect of its being adopted, and am happy in the expectation of seeing accomplished what has long been my ardent wish, that you will hereafter have a salutary permanency in magistracy and stability in the laws."

The result of the discussion in the convention of Pennsylvania was the ratification of the Const.i.tution. The official ratification sent to Congress was signed by a very large majority of the delegates, and contains no notice of any dissent.[414] But the representatives of that portion of the State which lay west of the Susquehanna generally refused their a.s.sent, and their district afterwards became the place in which the proposition was considered whether the government should be allowed to be organized.[415]

The convention of New Jersey was in session at the time of the ratification by Pennsylvania. Mr. Madison had pa.s.sed through the State, in the autumn, on his way to the Congress, then sitting in the city of New York, and could discover no evidence of serious opposition to the Const.i.tution. Lying between the States of New York and Pennsylvania, New Jersey was closely watched by the friends and the opponents of the Const.i.tution in both of those States, and was likely to be much influenced by the predominating sentiment in the one that should first act.[416] But the people of New Jersey had, in truth, fairly considered the whole matter, and had found what their own interests required. They alone, of all the States, when the national Convention was inst.i.tuted, had expressly declared that the regulation of commerce ought to be vested in the general government. They had learned that to submit longer to the diverse commercial and revenue systems in force in New York on the one side of them, and in Pennsylvania on the other side, would be like remaining between the upper and the nether millstone. Their delegates in the national Convention had, it is true, acted with those of New York, in the long contest concerning the representative system, resisting at every step each departure from the principle of the Confederation, until the compromise was made which admitted the States to an equal representation in the Senate. Content with the security which this arrangement afforded, the people of New Jersey had the sagacity to perceive that their interests were no longer likely to be promoted by following in the lead of the Anti-Federalists of New York. Their delegates unanimously ratified the Const.i.tution on the 12th of December, five days after the ratification of Pennsylvania.

A few days later, there came from the far South news that the convention of Georgia had, with like unanimity, adopted the Const.i.tution. Neither the people of the State, nor their delegates, could well have acted under the influence of what was taking place in the centre of the Union. Their situation was too remote for the reception, at that day, within the same fortnight, of the news of events that had occurred in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and they could scarcely have read the great discussions that were going on in various forms of controversy in the cities of New York and Philadelphia, and throughout the Middle and the Eastern States. Wasted excessively during the Revolution, by the nature of the warfare carried on within her limits; left at the peace to contend with a large, powerful, and cruel tribe of Indians, that pressed upon her western settlements; and having her southern frontier bordering upon the unfriendly territory of a Spanish colony,--the State of Georgia had strong motives to lead her to embrace the Const.i.tution of the United States, and found little in that instrument calculated to draw her in the opposite direction. Her delegates had resisted the surrender of control over the slave-trade, but they had acquiesced in the compromise on that subject, and there was in truth nothing in the position in which it was left that was likely to give the State serious dissatisfaction or uneasiness. The people of Georgia had something more important to do than to quarrel with their representatives about the principles or details of the system to which they had consented in the national Convention. They felt the want of a general government able to resist, with a stronger hand than that of the Confederation, the evils which pressed upon them.[417] Their a.s.sent was unanimously given to the Const.i.tution on the 2d of January, 1788.

The legislature of Connecticut had ordered a convention to be held on the 4th of January. When the elections were over, it was ascertained that there was a large majority in favor of the Const.i.tution; but there was to be some opposition, proceeding princ.i.p.ally from that portion of the people who resisted whatever tended to the vigor and stability of government,--a spirit that existed to some extent in all the New England States. When the convention of the State a.s.sembled, the princ.i.p.al duty of advocating the adoption of the Const.i.tution devolved on Oliver Ellsworth, who had borne an active and distinguished part in its preparation. He found that the topic which formed the chief subject of all the arguments against the Const.i.tution, was the general power of taxation which it would confer on the national government, and the particular power of laying imposts. Mr. Ellsworth was eminently qualified to explain and defend the proposed revenue system. While he contended for the necessity of giving to Congress a general power to levy direct taxes, in order that the government might be able to meet extraordinary emergencies, and thus be placed upon an equality with other governments, he demonstrated by public and well-known facts that an indirect revenue, to be derived from imposts, would be at once the easiest and most reliable mode of defraying the ordinary expenses of the government, because it would interfere less than any other form of taxation with the internal police of the States; and he argued, from sufficient data, that a very small rate of duty would be enough for this purpose.[418] Under his influence and that of Oliver Wolcott, Richard Law, and Governor Huntington, the Const.i.tution was ratified by a large majority, on the 9th of January.[419]

The action of Connecticut completed the list of the States that ratified the Const.i.tution without any formal record of objections, and without proposing or insisting upon amendments. The opposition in these five States had been overcome by reason and argument, and they were a majority of the whole number of States whose accession was necessary to the establishment of the government. But a new act in the drama was to open with the new year. The conventions of Ma.s.sachusetts, New York, and Virginia were still to meet, and each of them was full of elements of opposition of the most formidable character, and of different kinds, which made the result in all of them extremely doubtful. If all the three were to adopt the Const.i.tution, still one more must be gained from the States of New Hamps.h.i.+re, Maryland, and North and South Carolina. The influence of each accession to the Const.i.tution on the remaining States might be expected to be considerable; but, unfortunately, the convention of New Hamps.h.i.+re was to meet five months before those of Virginia and New York, and a large number of its members had been instructed to reject the Const.i.tution.

If New Hamps.h.i.+re and Ma.s.sachusetts were to refuse their a.s.sent in the course of the winter, the States that were to act in the spring could scarcely be expected to withstand the untoward influence of such an example, which would probably operate with a constantly accelerating force throughout the whole number of the remaining States.

The convention of Ma.s.sachusetts commenced its session on the 9th of January, the same day on which that of Connecticut closed its proceedings. The State certainly held a very high rank in the Union.

Her Revolutionary history was filled with glory; with sufferings cheerfully borne; with examples of patriotism that were to give her enduring fame. The blood of martyrs in that cause, which she had made from the first the cause of the whole country, had been poured profusely upon her soil, and in the earlier councils of the Union she had maintained a position of commanding influence. But there had been in her political conduct, since the freedom of the country was achieved, an unsteadiness and vacillation of which her former reputation gave no presage. In 1783, the legislature had refused to give the revenue powers asked for by the Congress, for the miserable reason that the Congress had granted half-pay for life to the officers of the Revolutionary army. In May, 1785, the legislature adopted a resolution for a convention of the States to consider the subject of enlarging the powers of the Federal Union, and in the following November they rescinded it. These, and other occurrences, when remembered, gave the friends of the Const.i.tution elsewhere great anxiety, as they turned their eyes towards Ma.s.sachusetts. They were fully aware, too, that the recent insurrection in that State, and the severe measures which had followed it, had created divisions in society which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to heal.