Formation of the Union, 1750-1829 Part 14

65. DIFFICULTIES OF RATIFICATION (1787, 1788).

[Sidenote: Action of Congress.]

[Sidenote: Action of legislatures.]

The text of the Const.i.tution was printed and rapidly distributed throughout the Union. It was still but a lifeless draft, and before it could become an instrument of government the approving action of Congress, of the legislatures, and of State conventions was necessary. Congress, on Sept. 28, 1787, unanimously resolved that the Const.i.tution be transmitted to State legislatures. The federal convention had determined that the consideration of its work should not depend, like the Articles of Confederation, upon the slow and unwilling humor of the legislatures, but that in each State a convention should be summoned solely to express the will of the State upon the acceptance of the Const.i.tution. It had further avoided the rock upon which had been wrecked the amendments proposed by Congress; when nine State conventions should have ratified the Const.i.tution, it was to take effect for those nine. On the same day that Congress in New York was pa.s.sing its resolution, the Pennsylvania legislature in Philadelphia was fixing the day for the election of delegates; all the State legislatures followed, except in Rhode Island.

[Sidenote: The Const.i.tution attacked.]

The next six months was a period of great anxiety and of national danger.

The Const.i.tution was violently attacked in every part of the Union: the President, it was urged, would be a despot, the House of Representatives a corporate tyrant, the Senate an oligarchy. The large States protested that Delaware and Rhode Island would still neutralize the votes of Virginia and Ma.s.sachusetts in the Senate. The federal courts were said to be an innovation. It was known that there had been great divisions in the convention, and that several influential members had left, or at the last moment had refused to sign. "The people of this commonwealth," said Patrick Henry, "are exceedingly uneasy in being brought from that state of full security which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things." A special objection was made to the lack of a bill of rights, such as existed in State const.i.tutions. The reply was that the framers of the Const.i.tution had deliberately omitted it because Congress was in no case to have powers not conferred upon it by the Const.i.tution. The argument was not conclusive: Rev. Mr. Caldwell, in the North Carolina convention, declared that "unalienable rights ought not to be given up if not necessary;" and another member of the same convention objected that "if there be no religious test required, Pagans, Deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices, And ... the senators and representatives might all be pagans." It was even suggested as a serious danger that the Pope of Rome might eventually be elected president.

[Sidenote: Federalists and Antifederalists.]

The friends of the measure, in order to deprecate the charge that they aimed at centralization, took upon themselves the name of Federalists.

Their opponents called themselves antifederalists, corresponded with each other, and formed a short-lived national party. A shower of pamphlets on both sides fell upon the country. Of these the most famous and most efficacious was the "Federalist," successive numbers of which were contributed by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay. With a calmness of spirit, a lucidity of style, and a power of logic which make it to this day one of the most important commentaries on the Const.i.tution, the "Federalist"

strove to show that the Const.i.tution was safe for the people and advantageous for the States.

66. STATE CONVENTIONS (1787, 1788).

[Sidenote: First nine states.]

As the State conventions a.s.sembled, the excitement grew more intense. Four States alone contained within a few thousands of half the population of the Union: they were Ma.s.sachusetts, Virginia, New York, and North Carolina. In the convention of each of these States there was opposition strong and stubborn; one of them--North Carolina--adjourned without action; in the other three, ratification was obtained with extreme difficulty and by narrow majorities.

The first State to come under the "New Roof," as the Const.i.tution was popularly called, was Delaware. In rapid succession followed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. In Ma.s.sachusetts, the sixth State, there was a hard fight; the spirit of the Shays Rebellion was still alive; the opposition of Samuel Adams was only overcome by showing him that he was in the minority; John Hanc.o.c.k was put out of the power to interfere by making him the silent president of the convention. It was suggested that Ma.s.sachusetts ratify on condition that a long list of amendments be adopted by the new government: the friends of the Const.i.tution pointed out that the plan was simply to ratify a part of the Const.i.tution and to reject the rest; each succeeding State would insist on a list of amendments, and the whole work must be done over. Feb. 6, 1788, the enthusiastic people of Boston knew that the convention, by a vote of 187 to 167, had ratified the Const.i.tution; the amendments being added, not as a condition, but as a suggestion. Maryland, South Carolina, and New Hamps.h.i.+re brought the number up to nine.

[Sidenote: Virginia and New York.]

Before the ninth ratification was known, the fight had been won also in Virginia. Among the champions of the Const.i.tution were Madison, Edmund Randolph, and John Marshall. James Monroe argued against the system of election which was destined twice to make him President. In spite of the determined opposition of Patrick Henry, and in spite of a proposition to ratify with amendments, the convention accepted. New York still held off.

Her acquiescence was geographically necessary; and Alexander Hamilton, by the power of his eloquence and his reason, changed the vote of a hostile convention and added the eleventh State.

67. EXPIRATION OF THE CONFEDERATION (1788).

[Sidenote: The old Congress.]

During the session of the convention in Philadelphia Congress had continued to sit in New York, and the Northwest Ordinance was pa.s.sed at this time (-- 52). On Sept. 13, 1788 Congress voted that the Const.i.tution had been ratified, and that elections should proceed for the officers of the new government, which was to go into operation the first Wednesday in March, 1789.

[Sidenote: Seat of government.]

[Sidenote: Congress expires.]

Since Congress and the President must meet somewhere, it became the duty of the old Congress to fix, at least temporarily, the seat of government, Trenton, Lancaster, Princeton, and New York were suggested. Baltimore was voted; then, with its usual inconsistency, two days later Congress voted for New York. An attempt was made to settle the accounts of Congress; but all that could be ascertained was that they were in great confusion, and that vouchers had not yet been turned in for the expenditure of large sums. On October 23 is the last official record: "Two States attended."

During the next five months the only evidences of national life were the perfunctory service of a few executive officers, the feeble movements of the army, now reduced to about six hundred men, and the steady acc.u.mulation of unpaid interest.

[Sidenote: Rhode Island and North Carolina.]

What, meantime, was the situation of the two States, Rhode Island and North Carolina, which had not ratified the Const.i.tution, and which were, therefore, not ent.i.tled to take part in the elections? They had in 1781 entered into a const.i.tution which was to be amended only by unanimous consent; their consent was refused; legally they had a right to insist on the continuance of the old Congress. The new Const.i.tution was, strictly speaking, unconst.i.tutional; it had been ratified by a process unknown to law. The situation was felt to be delicate, and the States were for the time being left to themselves. North Carolina came into the Union by a ratification of Nov. 21, 1789. It was suggested that the trade of States which did not recognize Congress should be cut off, and Rhode Island yielded. May 19, 1790, her ratification completed the Union.

68. WAS THE CONSt.i.tUTION A COMPACT?

[Sidenote: The Const.i.tution irregular.]

The third attempt to form an organic union was now successfully carried out. The irregular authority of the Continental Congress had been replaced by the legal but inefficient Confederation; to this was now to succeed an organized government, complete in all its departments, and well endowed with powers. How had this Const.i.tution been adopted? What was the authority which had taken upon itself to diminish the powers of the States, and to disregard the clauses which required unanimous consent to amendments? Was the new Const.i.tution an agreement between eleven States, or was it an instrument of government for the whole people? Upon this question depends the whole discussion about the nature of the Union and the right of secession.

[Sidenote: Compact theory.]

The first theory is that the Const.i.tution was a compact made between sovereign States. Thus Hayne in 1830 declared that "Before the Const.i.tution each state was an independent sovereignty, possessing all the rights and powers appertaining to independent nations.... After the Const.i.tution was formed, they remained equally sovereign and independent as to all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government.... The true nature of the Federal Const.i.tution, therefore, is ... a compact to which the States are parties." The importance of the word "compact" is that it means an agreement which loses its force when any one of the parties ceases to observe it; a compact is little more than a treaty.

Those who framed the Const.i.tution appeared to consider it no compact; for on May 30, 1787, Mr. Randolph moved that "-no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual sovereignties, would be sufficient." In fact, the reason for the violent opposition to the ratification of the Const.i.tution was that when once ratified, the States could not withdraw from it.

[Sidenote: Const.i.tution theory.]

Another view is presented by Webster in his reply to Hayne: "It is, sir, the people's Const.i.tution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Const.i.tution shall be the supreme law." It is plain that the Const.i.tution does not rest simply upon the consent of the majority of the nation. No popular vote was taken or thought of; each act of ratification set forth that it proceeded from a convention of the people of a State.

[Sidenote: Basis of the Const.i.tution.]

The real nature of the new Const.i.tution appears in the light of the previous history of the country. The Articles of Confederation had been a compact. One of the princ.i.p.al reasons why the Confederation was weak was that there was no way of compelling the States to perform their duties.

The new Const.i.tution was meant to be stronger and more permanent. The Const.i.tution was, then, not a compact, but an instrument of government similar in its origin to the const.i.tutions of the States. The difference was that, by general agreement, it was not to take effect until it was shown that in at least nine States the people were willing to live under it. Whatever the defects of the Confederation, however humiliating its weakness to our national pride, it had performed an indispensable service; it had educated the American people to the point where they were willing to accept a permanent federal union. As the "Federalist" put it, "A nation without a national government is an awful spectacle."

CHAPTER VII.

ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT (1789-1793).

69. REFERENCES.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES.--W. E. Foster, _References to Presidential Administrations_, 1-5; _References to the Const.i.tution_, 18, 19; Justin Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History_, VII. 299-309, 323-329, 413-418, 446, 454, VIII. App.; P. L. Ford, _Bibliotheca Hamiltonia_; Channing and Hart, _Guide_, ---- 157-161.

HISTORICAL MAPS.--Nos. 1 and 3, this volume, and No. 1 in W. Wilson, _Division and Reunion_ (_Epoch Maps_, Nos. 6, 7, and 8); T. MacCoun, _Historical Geography_; Scribner, _Statistical Atlas_, Plate 13.

GENERAL ACCOUNTS.--J. B. McMaster, _People of the United States_, I.

525-604, II. 1-88; R. Hildreth, _United States_, IV. 25-410; J. Schouler, _United States_, I. 74-220; H. Von Holst, _Const.i.tutional History_, I. 64- 111; T. Pitkin, _Political and Civil History_, II. 317-355; Gen. Tucker, _United States_, I. 384-503; J. S. Landon, _Const.i.tutional History_, 97- 119; Bryant and Gay, _Popular History_, IV. 100-123.

SPECIAL HISTORIES.--George Gibbs, _Memoirs of the Administrations of Was.h.i.+ngton and Adams_, I. 28-88; J. C. Hamilton, _History of the Republic_, IV.; W. G. Sumner, _Alexander Hamilton_; H. C. Adams, _Taxation in the United States_ (1789-1816); W. G. Sumner, _Financier and Finances of the American Revolution_, II. chs. xvii.-x.x.xii.; J. T. Morse, _Life of Hamilton_, I. chs. vii.-xii.; M. P. Follet, _Speaker_; H. C.

Lodge, _Hamilton_, 88-152, and _Was.h.i.+ngton_, II. 1-128; J. T. Morse, _John Adams_, 241-264, and _Jefferson_, 96-145; S. H. Gay, _Madison_, 128-192.

CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS.--W. Maclay, _Journal_ (1789-1791) (a racy account of the Senate in the First Congress); Thomas Jefferson, _Anas_, in _Works_, ix. 87-185 (confessedly made up twenty-five years later); William Sullivan, _Familiar Letters on Public Characters_, 36-47 (written in reply to Jefferson); Joel Barlow, _Vision of Columbus_, 1787 (an epic poem); correspondence in works of Was.h.i.+ngton, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and John Jay; newspapers, especially the _Columbian Centinel_, _Gazette of the United States_, _National Gazette_.--Reprints in _American History told by Contemporaries_, III.