The Fathers of the Constitution, A Chronicle of the
Establishment of the Union
Foreword
The Project Gutenberg Etext of The Fathers of the Constitution
by Max Farrand
Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check
the laws for your country before redistributing these files!!!
Please take a look at the important information in this header.
We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an
electronic path open for the next readers.
Please do not remove this.
This should be the first thing seen when anyone opens the book.
Do not change or edit it without written permission. The words
are carefully chosen to provide users with the information they
need about what they can legally do with the texts.
**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
*These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Donations*
Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and
further information is included below. We need your donations.
Presently, contributions are only being solicited from people in:
Texas, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota,
Iowa, Indiana, and Vermont. As the requirements for other states
are met, additions to this list will be made and fund raising will
begin in the additional states. These donations should be made to:
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Ave.
Oxford, MS 38655
Title: The Fathers of the Constitution
Author: Max Farrand
Release Date: January, 2002 [Etext #3032]
[Yes, we are about one year ahead of schedule]
Edition: 10
Language: English
The Project Gutenberg Etext of The Fathers of the Constitution
by Max Farrand
******This file should be named fathc10.txt or fathc10.zip******
Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, fathc11.txt
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, fathc10a.txt
Project Gutenberg Etexts are usually created from multiple editions,
all of which are in the Public Domain in the United States, unless a
copyright notice is included. Therefore, we usually do NOT keep any
of these books in compliance with any particular paper edition.
We are now trying to release all our books one year in advance
of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please be encouraged to send us error messages even years after
the official publication date.
Please note: neither this list nor its contents are final till
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so.
Most people start at our sites at:
http://gutenberg.net
http://promo.net/pg
Those of you who want to download any Etext before announcement
can surf to them as follows, and just download by date; this is
also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext02
or
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext02
Or /etext01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90
Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
as it appears in our Newsletters.
Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)
We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The
time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. This
projected audience is one hundred million readers. If our value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour this year as we release fifty new Etext
files per month, or 500 more Etexts in 2000 for a total of 3000+
If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
should reach over 300 billion Etexts given away by year's end.
The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext
Files by December 31, 2001. [10,000 x 100,000,000 = 1 Trillion]
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.
At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third
of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 3,333 Etexts unless we
manage to get some real funding.
Something is needed to create a future for Project Gutenberg for
the next 100 years.
We need your donations more than ever!
Presently, contributions are only being solicited from people in:
Texas, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota,
Iowa, Indiana, and Vermont. As the requirements for other states
are met, additions to this list will be made and fund raising will
begin in the additional states.
All donations should be made to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and will be tax deductible to the extent
permitted by law.
Mail to:
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Avenue
Oxford, MS 38655 [USA]
We are working with the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation to build more stable support and ensure the
future of Project Gutenberg.
We need your donations more than ever!
You can get up to date donation information at:
http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html
***
You can always email directly to:
Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>
hart@pobox.com forwards to hart@prairienet.org and archive.org
if your mail bounces from archive.org, I will still see it, if
it bounces from prairienet.org, better resend later on. . . .
We would prefer to send you this information by email.
Example command-line FTP session:
ftp ftp.ibiblio.org
login: anonymous
password: your@login
cd pub/docs/books/gutenberg
cd etext90 through etext99 or etext00 through etext02, etc.
dir [to see files]
get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files]
GET GUTINDEX.?? [to get a year's listing of books, e.g., GUTINDEX.99]
GET GUTINDEX.ALL [to get a listing of ALL books]
**The Legal Small Print**
(Three Pages)
***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START***
Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to.
*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from. If you received this etext on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etexts,
is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext
under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
any commercial products without permission.
To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works. Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] the Project (and any other party you may receive this
etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from. If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.
THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.
INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors,
officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost
and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause:
[1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification,
or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect.
DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
or:
[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this
requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
etext or this "small print!" statement. You may however,
if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable
binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
including any form resulting from conversion by word
processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
*EITHER*:
[*] The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
does *not* contain characters other than those
intended by the author of the work, although tilde
(~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
be used to convey punctuation intended by the
author, and additional characters may be used to
indicate hypertext links; OR
[*] The etext may be readily converted by the reader at
no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
form by the program that displays the etext (as is
the case, for instance, with most word processors);
OR
[*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
or other equivalent proprietary form).
[2] Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this
"Small Print!" statement.
[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the
gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you
don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are
payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
periodic) tax return. Please contact us beforehand to
let us know your plans and to work out the details.
WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
public domain etexts, and royalty free copyright licenses.
If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
hart@pobox.com
*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.04.07.00*END*
The Fathers of the Constitution, A Chronicle of the
Establishment of the Union
By Max Farrand
THIS BOOK, VOLUME 13 IN THE CHRONICLES OF AMERICA SERIES, ALLEN
JOHNSON, EDITOR, WAS DONATED TO PROJECT GUTENBERG BY THE JAMES J.
KELLY LIBRARY OF ST. GREGORY'S UNIVERSITY; THANKS TO ALEV AKMAN.
THE 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
1921
CONTENTS
I. THE TREATY OF PEACE
II. TRADE AND INDUSTRY
III. THE CONFEDERATION
IV. THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE
V. DARKNESS BEFORE DAWN
VI. THE FEDERAL CONVENTION
VII. FINISHING THE WORK
VIII. THE UNION ESTABLISHED
APPENDIX
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
NOTES ON THE PORTRAITS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION
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 development, they are
inclined to add that it must have been before an expectant world.
In these days of prosperity and national greatness it is hard to
realize that the achievement of independence did not place the
United States on a footing of equality with other countries and
that, in fact, the new state was more or less an unwelcome member
of the world family. It is nevertheless true that the latest
comer into the family of nations 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 conservative community; and
discontent was the underlying 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 almost every
conceivable sect and of no sect at all. Many of the newcomers
were poor. It was common, too, to regard colonies as inferior
places of residence to which objectionable persons might be
encouraged to go and where the average of the population was
lowered by the influx of convicts and thousands of slaves.
"The great number of emigrants from Europe"--wrote Thieriot,
Saxon Commissioner of Commerce to America, from Philadelphia in
1784--"has filled this place with worthless persons to such a
degree that scarcely a day passes without theft, robbery, or even
assassination."* It would perhaps 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 Germany 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.
* Quoted by W. E. Lingelbach, "History Teacher's Magazine,"
March, 1913.
It is usually thought that the dregs of humiliation have been
reached when the rights of foreigners are not considered safe in
a particular country, so that another state insists upon
establishing therein its own tribunal for the trial of its
citizens or subjects. Yet that is what the French insisted upon
in the United States, and they were supposed to be especially
friendly. They had had their own experience in America. First the
native Indian had appealed to their imagination. Then, at an
appropriate moment, they seemed to see in the Americans a living
embodiment of the philosophical theories of the time: they
thought that they had at last found "the natural man" of Rousseau
and Voltaire; they believed that they saw the social contract
theory being worked out before their very eyes. Nevertheless, in
spite of this interest in Americans, the French looked upon them
as an inferior people over whom they would have liked to exercise
a sort of protectorate. To them the Americans seemed to lack a
proper knowledge of the amenities of life. Commissioner Thieriot,
describing the administration of justice in the new republic,
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
recognize them, smiles at seeing in the court room men dressed in
street clothes, simple, often quite common. 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 matters involving French subjects."
France failed in this; but at the very time that peace was under
discussion Congress authorized Franklin to negotiate a consular
convention, ratified a few years later, according 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
consuls or vice-consuls. Though this agreement was made
reciprocal in its terms and so saved appearances 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 Americans in France
but an increasing number of Frenchmen 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. The war really ended with the surrender
of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781. Yet even then the British were
unwilling to concede the independence of the revolted colonies.
This refusal of recognition was not merely a matter of pride; a
division and a consequent weakening of the empire was involved;
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 independent equality. The British, being in no position 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 1781 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 in Congress by the French
Minister in Philadelphia, the Chevalier de la Luzerne, the
American peace commissioners 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 negotiations for peace or truce without
their knowledge and concurrence; and ultimately to govern
yourselves by their advice and opinion."* If France had been
actuated only by unselfish motives in supporting the colonies in
their revolt against Great Britain, these instructions might have
been acceptable and even advisable. But such was not the case.
France was working not so much with philanthropic 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.
* "Secret Journals of Congress." June 15, 1781.
The treaty with France in 1778 had declared that war should be
continued until the independence 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 struggle. Spain, of course, fought to cripple Great
Britain and not to help the United States. In return for this
support France was pledged to assist Spain in obtaining certain
additions to her territory. In so far as these additions 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 direct 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 Commissioners 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, experience, and reputation. Over seventy-five
years old, he was more universally known and admired than
probably any man of his time. 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 diplomatic 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 outbreak of the
Revolution, it was as if destiny had intended him for that
particular task. His achievements 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 attractiveness 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 efforts, owing to his
shrewdness and his willingness to compromise, he was generally
successful.
John Adams, being then the American representative at The Hague,
was the first Commissioner to be appointed. Indeed, when he was
first 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
confidence in the purity of his motives as well as in the
soundness of his judgment, Adams was little inclined 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 suspicious 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 active 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 scholar's stoop, and was usually dressed in black. His
manners were gentle and unassuming, but his face, with its
penetrating black eyes, its aquiline nose and pointed chin,
revealed a proud and sensitive disposition. He had been sent to
the court of Spain in 1780, and there he had learned enough to
arouse his suspicious, 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 remain at The Hague
in order to complete the negotiations already successfully begun
for a commercial treaty with the Netherlands. Franklin, thus the
only Commissioner on the ground in Paris, began informal
negotiations alone but sent an urgent call to Jay in Spain, who
was convinced of the fruitlessness of his mission there and
promptly responded. Jay's experience in Spain and his knowledge
of Spanish hopes had led him to believe that the French were not
especially concerned about American interests but were in fact
willing to sacrifice them if necessary to placate Spain. He
accordingly insisted that the American Commissioners should
disregard their instructions and, without the knowledge of
France, should deal directly with Great Britain. In this
contention he was supported by Adams when he arrived, but it was
hard to persuade Franklin to accept this point 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 opinion 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 hopelessness of reconciling American
and Spanish ambitions, especially when the latter were supported
by France. On the one hand, the Americans were the proteges 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 Alleghany Mountains, Great
Britain was persuaded without great difficulty, having once
conceded independence 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.*
* See Lord Bryce's Introduction (p. xxiv) to W. A. Dunning. "The
British Empire and the United States" (1914).
The fisheries of the North Atlantic, for which Newfoundland
served as the chief entrepot, 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 continent, and they had
been of so much value that a British statute of 1775 which cut
off the New England fisheries was regarded, even after the
"intolerable acts" of the previous year, as the height of
punishment for New England. Many Englishmen would have been glad
to see the Americans excluded from these fisheries, but John
Adams, when he arrived from The Hague, displayed an appreciation
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" enjoyed.
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 Mississippi River, the right was of little
practical value.
Two subjects involving the greatest difficulty of arrangement
were the compensation of the Loyalists 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 preferred to make no concessions
and would have allowed creditors to take their own chances of
getting paid. But the matter appeared to Adams in a different
light--perhaps his New England 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 provision 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. Accordingly, when
some of the States later disregarded this part of the treaty, the
British had an excuse for refusing to carry out certain of their
own obligations.
The historian of the Virginia Federal Convention 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 (i. e., especially the
laws as to the collection 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 goes 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 Revolution was involved. There is a tendency among
many scholars of the present day to regard the policy 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 technically 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 the controversy. Indeed, it has been estimated
that as large a proportion as one-third of the population
remained loyal to the Crown. Numbers must remain more or less
uncertain, but probably the majority of the people in the United
States, whatever their feelings may have been, tried to remain
neutral 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
composed of the royal officeholders, 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 positions for political debts incurred in England. The
opposition of both groups to the Revolution was inevitable 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 as to
conditions and sentiment in America, partly through stupidity and
partly through selfish interest. 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 understate 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 extorted
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, and 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 absentees" 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 Government, especially when the claims of
justice were reinforced 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 determined
that Americans should make good to the 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, expressed 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 Americans
never would forgive.
But this was the one thing needed to complete the negotiations
for peace, and the British arguments on the injustice and
irregularity of the treatment accorded to the Loyalists were so
strong that the American Commissioners were finally driven to
the excuse that the Government of the Confederation had no power
over the individual States by whom the necessary action must be
taken. Finally, in a spirit of mutual concession at the end of
the negotiations, the Americans agreed that Congress 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."
With this show of yielding on the part of the American
Commissioners it was possible to conclude 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 ruffed feelings by
his suavity and tact and presenting difficult 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 premature, but he made no
inconvenient remonstrances, ill procured six millions of the
twenty."* On September 3, 1783, the definite treaty of peace was
signed 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.
* Channing, "History of the United States," vol. III, p. 368.
CHAPTER II. TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Though the word revolution implies a violent break with the past,
there was nothing in the Revolution that transformed the
essential character or the characteristics of the American
people. The Revolution severed the ties which bound the colonies
to Great Britain; it created some new activities; some soldiers
were diverted from their former trades and occupation; 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 comparatively slight, it is safe to say that in
general the mass of the people remained about the same after the
war as before. The professional man was found in his same
calling; the artisan returned to his tools, if he had ever laid
them down; the shopkeeper resumed his business, if it had been
interrupted; the merchant went back to his trading; and the
farmer before the Revolution remained a farmer afterward.
The country as a whole was in relatively good condition and the
people were reasonably prosperous; at least, there was no general
distress or poverty. 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 period 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 dispose of their
commodites at good prices. The Americans are commonly said to
have been an agricultural people, but it would be more correct to
say that the great majority of the people were dependent 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
manufacturing 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 activity was much the same as it had been before
the war.
A fundamental fact is to be observed in the economy of the young
nation: the people were raising 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 markets.
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
industrial dependence, which was aggravated rather than
alleviated by the separation from Great Britain. During the
colonial period, Americans had carried on a large amount of this
external trade by means of their own vessels. The British
Navigation 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 old 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 rehabilitation of the fishing fleet was
an important feature of their programme. In other directions they
were not so successful. The British still believed in their
colonial system and applied its principles 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 production 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 some satisfaction from the fact that
certain restrictions 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 characteristic 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 unimportant 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 designed to legalize
commerce rather than to encourage 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 excluded the shipping of the United
States. This proved to be so disastrous for their colonies that
the French Government soon was forced to relax its restrictions.
The British also made some concessions, and where their orders
were not modified they were evaded. And so, in the course of a
few years, the West India trade recovered.
* Clive Day, "Encyclopedia of American Government," Vol. I, p.
340.
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
accustomed 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 captains 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--whatever the cause may have been--within a comparatively
few years a large part of American trade was in British hands as
it had been before the Revolution. American trade with Europe was
carried on through English merchants very much as the Navigation
Acts had prescribed.
* C. R. Fish, "American Diplomacy," pp. 56-57.
From the very first settlement of the American 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 commercial dependence upon Great
Britain, but by seeking new avenues of trade. A striking
illustration 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 Voyage 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 imagination 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 of prosperity, owing to an unusual demand for
American 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 commerce had been carried on mostly
by water, and when war interfered commerce almost ceased for want
of roads. The loss of ocean highways, however, stimulated road
building and led to what might be regarded as the first
"good-roads movement" 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 companies 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 and
divert the trade of others to their own advantage. This was done
by imposing fees and charges and duties, not merely upon goods
and vessels from abroad but upon those of their fellow States.
James Madison described the situation in the words so often
quoted: "Some of the States, . . . having no convenient ports for
foreign commerce, were subject to be taxed by their neighbors,
thro whose ports, their commerce was carryed on. New Jersey,
placed between Phila. & N. York, was likened to a Cask tapped at
both ends: and N. Carolina between Virga. & S. Carolina to a
patient bleeding at both Arms."*
* "Records of the Federal Convention," vol. III, p. 542.
The business depression which very naturally followed the short
revival of trade was so serious in its financial consequences
that it has even been referred to as the "Panic of 1785." The
United States afforded a good market for imported articles in
1788 and 1784, all the better because of the supply of gold and
silver which had been sent into the country by England and France
to maintain their armies and fleets and which had remained in the
United States. But this influx of imported goods was one of the
chief factors in causing the depression of 1785, as it brought
ruin to many of those domestic industries which had sprung up in
the days of nonintercourse or which had been stimulated by the
artificial protection of the war.
To make matters worse, the currency was in a confused condition.
"In 1784 the entire coin of the land, except coppers, was the
product of foreign mints. English guineas, crowns, shillings and
pence were still paid over the counters of shops and taverns, and
with them were mingled many French and Spanish and some German
coins . . . . The value of the gold pieces expressed in dollars
was pretty much the same the country over. But the dollar and the
silver pieces regarded as fractions of a dollar had no less than
five different values."* The importation of foreign goods was
fast draining the hard money out of the country. In an effort to
relieve the situation but with the result of making it much
worse, several of the States began to issue paper money; and this
was in addition to the enormous quantities of paper which had
been printed during the Revolution and which was now worth but a
small fraction of its face value.
* McMaster, "History of the People of the United States", vol. I,
pp. 190-191.
The expanding currency and consequent depreciation in the value
of money had immediately resulted in a corresponding rise of
prices, which for a while the States attempted to control. But in
1778 Congress threw up its hands in despair and voted that "all
limitations of prices of gold and silver be taken off," although
the States for some time longer continued to endeavor to regulate
prices by legislation.* The fluctuating value of the currency
increased the opportunities for speculation which war conditions
invariably offer, and "immense fortunes were suddenly
accumulated." A new financial group rose into prominence composed
largely of those who were not accustomed to the use of money and
who were consequently inclined to spend it recklessly and
extravagantly.
* W. E. H. Lecky, "The American Revolution," New York, 1898, pp.
288-294.
Many contemporaries comment upon these things, of whom Brissot de
Warville may be taken as an example, although he did not visit
the United States until 1788:
"The inhabitants . . . prefer the splendor of wealth and the show
of enjoyment to the simplicity of manners and the pure pleasures
which result from it. If there is a town on the American
continent where the English luxury displays its follies, it is
New York. You will find here the English fashions: in the dress
of the women you will see the most brilliant silks, gauzes, hats,
and borrowed hair; equipages are rare, but they are elegant; the
men have more simplicity in their dress; they disdain gewgaws,
but they take their revenge in the luxury of the table; luxury
forms already a class of men very dangerous to society; I mean
bachelors; the expense of women causes matrimony to be dreaded by
men. Tea forms, as in England, the basis of parties of pleasure;
many things are dearer here than in France; a hairdresser asks
twenty shilling a month; washing costs four shillings a dozen."*
* Quoted by Henry Tuckerman, "America and her Commentators,"
1886.
An American writer of a later date, looking back upon his earlier
years, was impressed by this same extravagance, and his testimony
may well be used to strengthen the impression which it is the
purpose of the present narrative to convey:
"The French and British armies circulated immense sums of money
in gold and silver coin, which had the effect of driving out of
circulation the wretched paper currency which had till then
prevailed. Immense quantities of British and French goods were
soon imported: our people imbibed a taste for foreign fashions
and luxury; and in the course of two or three years, from the
close of the war, such an entire change had taken place in the
habits and manners of our inhabitants, that it almost appeared as
if we had suddenly become a different nation. The staid and sober
habits of our ancestors, with their plain home-manufactured
clothing, were suddenly laid aside, and European goods of fine
quality adopted in their stead. Fine rues, powdered heads, silks
and scarlets, decorated the men; while the most costly silks,
satins, chintzes, calicoes, muslins, etc., etc., decorated our
females. Nor was their diet less expensive; for superb plate,
foreign spirits, wines, etc., etc., sparkled on the sideboards of
many farmers. The natural result of this change of the habits and
customs of the people--this aping of European manners and morals,
was to suddenly drain our country of its circulating specie; and
as a necessary consequence, the people ran in debt, times became
difficult, and money hard to raise.*
* Samuel Kercheval, "History of the Valley of Virginia," 1833,
pp. 199-200.
The situation was serious, and yet it was not as dangerous or
even as critical as it has generally been represented, because
the fundamental bases of American prosperity were untouched. The
way by which Americans could meet the emergency and recover from
the hard times was fairly evident first to economize, and then to
find new outlets for their industrial energies. But the process
of adjustment was slow and painful. There were not a few persons
in the United States who were even disposed to regret that
Americans were not safely under British protection and prospering
with Great Britain, instead of suffering in political isolation.
CHAPTER III. THE CONFEDERATION
When peace came in 1783 there were in the United States
approximately three million people, who were spread over the
whole Atlantic coast from Maine to Georgia and back into the
interior as far as the Alleghany Mountains; and a relatively
small number of settlers had crossed the mountain barrier. About
twenty per cent of the population, or some six hundred thousand,
were negro slaves. There was also a large alien element of
foreign birth or descent, poor when they arrived in America, and,
although they had been able to raise themselves to a position of
comparative comfort, life among them was still crude and rough.
Many of the people were poorly educated and lacking in
cultivation and refinement and in a knowledge of the usages of
good society. Not only were they looked down upon by other
nations of the world; there was within the United States itself a
relatively small upper class inclined to regard the mass of the
people as of an inferior order.
Thus, while forces were at work favorable to democracy, the
gentry remained in control of affairs after the Revolution,
although their numbers were reduced by the emigration of the
Loyalists and their power was lessened. The explanation of this
aristocratic control may be found in the fact that the generation
of the Revolution had been accustomed to monarchy and to an upper
class and that the people were wont to take their ideas and to
accept suggestions from their betters without question or murmur.
This deferential attitude is attested by the indifference of
citizens to the right of voting. In our own day, before the great
extension of woman suffrage, the number of persons voting
approximated twenty per cent of the population, but after the
Revolution less than five per cent of the white population voted.
There were many limitations upon the exercise of the suffrage,
but the small number of voters was only partially due to these
restrictions, for in later years, without any radical change in
suffrage qualifications, the proportion of citizens who voted
steadily increased.
The fact is that many of the people did not care to vote. Why
should they, when they were only registering the will or the
wishes of their superiors? But among the relatively small number
who constituted the governing class there was a high standard of
intelligence. Popular magazines were unheard of and newspapers
were infrequent, so that men depended largely upon correspondence
and personal intercourse for the interchange of ideas. There was
time, however, for careful reading of the few available books;
there was time for thought, for writing, for discussion, and for
social intercourse. It hardly seems too much to say, therefore,
that there was seldom, if ever, a people-certainly never a people
scattered over so wide a territory-who knew so much about
government as did this controlling element of the people of the
United States.
The practical character, as well as the political genius, of the
Americans was never shown to better advantage than at the
outbreak of the Revolution, when the quarrel with the mother
country was manifesting itself in the conflict between the
Governors, and other appointed agents of the Crown, and the
popularly elected houses of the colonial legislatures. When the
Crown resorted to dissolving the legislatures, the revolting
colonists kept up and observed the forms of government. When the
legislature was prevented from meeting, the members would come
together and call themselves a congress or a convention, and,
instead of adopting laws or orders, would issue what were really
nothing more than recommendations, but which they expected would
be obeyed by their supporters. To enforce these recommendations
extra-legal committees, generally backed by public opinion and
sometimes concretely supported by an organized "mob," would meet
in towns and counties and would be often effectively centralized
where the opponents of the British policy were in control.
In several of the colonies the want of orderly government became
so serious that, in 1775, the Continental Congress advised them
to form temporary governments until the trouble with Great
Britain had been settled. When independence was declared Congress
recommended to all the States that they should adopt governments
of their own. In accordance with that recommendation, in the
course of a very few years each State established an independent
government and adopted a written constitution. It was a time when
men believed in the social contract or the "compact theory of the
state," that states originated through agreement, as the case
might be, between king and nobles, between king and people, or
among the people themselves. In support of this doctrine no less
an authority than the Bible was often quoted, such a passage for
example as II Samuel v, 3: "So all the elders of Israel came to
the King to Hebron; and King David made a covenant with them in
Hebron before the Lord; and they anointed David King over
Israel." As a philosophical speculation to explain why people
were governed or consented to be governed, this theory went back
at least to the Greeks, and doubtless much earlier; and, though
of some significance in medieval thought, it became of greater
importance in British political philosophy, especially through
the works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. A very practical
application of the compact theory was made in the English
Revolution of 1688, when in order to avoid the embarrassment of
deposing the king, the convention of the Parliament adopted the
resolution: "That King James the Second, having endeavored to
subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom, by breaking the original
Contract between King and People, and having, by the advice of
Jesuits, and other wicked persons, violated the fundamental Laws,
and withdrawn himself out of this Kingdom, has abdicated the
Government, and that the throne is hereby vacant." These theories
were developed by Jean Jacques Rousseau in his "Contrat
Social"--a book so attractively written that it eclipsed all
other works upon the subject and resulted in his being regarded
as the author of the doctrine--and through him they spread all
over Europe.
Conditions in America did more than lend color to pale
speculation; they seemed to take this hypothesis out of the realm
of theory and to give it practical application. What happened
when men went into the wilderness to live? The Pilgrim Fathers on
board the Mayflower entered into an agreement which was signed by
the heads of families who took part in the enterprise: "We, whose
names are underwritten . . . Do by these presents, solemnly and
mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and
combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick."
Other colonies, especially in New England, with this example
before them of a social contract entered into similar compacts or
"plantation covenants," as they were called. But the colonists
were also accustomed to having written charters granted which
continued for a time at least to mark the extent of governmental
powers. Through this intermingling of theory and practice it was
the most natural thing in the world, when Americans came to form
their new State Governments, that they should provide written
instruments framed by their own representatives, which not only
bound them to be governed in this way but also placed limitations
upon the governing bodies. As the first great series of written
constitutions, these frames of government attracted wide
attention. Congress printed a set for general distribution, and
numerous editions were circulated both at home and abroad.
The constitutions were brief documents, varying from one thousand
to twelve thousand words in length, which established the
framework of the governmental machinery. Most of them, before
proceeding to practical working details, enunciated a series of
general principles upon the subject of government and political
morality in what were called declarations or bills of rights. The
character of these declarations may be gathered from the
following excerpts:
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and
have certain inherent rights, . . . the enjoyment of life and
liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and
pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. "That no man, or set
of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or
privileges from the community, but in consideration of public
services.
"The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of
individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people
covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole
people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common
good.
"That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by
any authority, without consent of the representatives of the
people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be
exercised.
"That general warrants, . . . are grievous and oppressive, and
ought not to be granted.
"All penalties ought to be proportioned to the nature of the
offence.
"That sanguinary laws ought to be avoided, as far as is
consistent with the safety of the State; and no law, to inflict
cruel and unusual pains and penalties, ought to be made in any
case, or at any time hereafter.
"No magistrate or court of law shall demand excessive bail or
sureties, impose excessive fines . . . .
"Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship
God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason;
. . .
"That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of
liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic
governments."
It will be perceived at once that these are but variations of the
English Declaration of Rights of 1689, which indeed was
consciously followed as a model; and yet there is a world-wide
difference between the English model and these American copies.
The earlier document enunciated the rights of English subjects,
the recent infringement of which made it desirable that they
should be reasserted in convincing form. The American documents
asserted rights which the colonists generally had enjoyed and
which they declared to be "governing principles for all peoples
in all future times."
But the greater significance of these State Constitutions is to
be found in their quality as working instruments of government.
There was indeed little difference between the old colonial and
the new State Governments. The inhabitants of each of the
Thirteen States had been accustomed to a large measure of
self-government, and when they took matters into their own hands
they were not disposed to make any radical changes in the forms
to which they had become accustomed. Accordingly the State
Governments that were adopted simply continued a framework of
government almost identical with that of colonial times. To be
sure, the Governor and other appointed officials were now elected
either by the people or the legislature, and so were ultimately
responsible to the electors instead of to the Crown; and other
changes were made which in the long run might prove of
far-reaching and even of vital significance; and yet the
machinery of government seemed the same as that to which the
people were already accustomed. The average man was conscious of
no difference at all in the working of the Government under the
new order. In fact, in Connecticut and Rhode Island, the most
democratic of all the colonies, where the people had been
privileged to elect their own governors, as well as legislatures,
no change whatever was necessary and the old charters were
continued as State Constitutions down to 1818 and 1842,
respectively.
To one who has been accustomed to believe that the separation
from a monarchical government meant the establishment of
democracy, a reading of these first State Constitutions is likely
to cause a rude shock. A shrewd English observer, traveling a
generation later in the United States, went to the root of the
whole matter in remarking of the Americans that, "When their
independence was achieved their mental condition was not
instantly changed. Their deference for rank and for judicial and
legislative authority continued nearly unimpaired."* They might
declare that "all men are created equal," and bills of rights
might assert that government rested upon the consent of the
governed; but these constitutions carefully provided that such
consent should come from property owners, and, in many of the
States, from religious believers and even followers of the
Christian faith. "The man of small means might vote, but none
save well-to-do Christians could legislate, and in many states
none but a rich Christian could be a governor."** In South
Carolina, for example, a freehold of 10,000 pounds currency was
required of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and members of A
he Council; 2,000 pounds of the members of the Senate; and, while
every elector was eligible to the House of Representatives, he
had to acknowledge the being of a God and to believe in a future
state of rewards and punishments, as well as to hold "a freehold
at least of fifty acres of land, or a town lot."
* George Combe, "Tour of the United States," vol. I, p. 205.
** McMaster, "Acquisition of Industrial, Popular, and Political
Rights of Man in America," p. 20.
It was government by a property-owning class, but in comparison
with other countries this class represented a fairly large and
increasing proportion of the population. In America the
opportunity of becoming a property-owner was open to every one,
or, as that phrase would then have been understood, to most white
men. This system of class control is illustrated by the fact
that, with the exception of Massachusetts, the new State
Constitutions were never submitted to the people for approval.
The democratic sympathizer of today is inclined to point to those
first State Governments as a continuance of the old order. But to
the conservative of that time it seemed as if radical and
revolutionary changes were taking place. The bills of rights
declared, "That no men, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive
or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in
consideration of public services." Property qualifications and
other restrictions on officeholding and the exercise of the
suffrage were lessened. Four States declared in their
constitutions against the entailment of estates, and
primogeniture was abolished in aristocratic Virginia. There was a
fairly complete abolition of all vestiges of feudal tenure in the
holding of land, so that it may be said that in this period full
ownership of property was established. The further separation of
church and state was also carried out.
Certainly leveling influences were at work, and the people as a
whole had moved one step farther in the direction of equality and
democracy, and it was well that the Revolution was not any more
radical and revolutionary than it was. The change was gradual and
therefore more lasting. One finds readily enough contemporary
statements to the effect that, "Although there are no nobles in
America, there is a class of men denominated 'gentlemen,' who, by
reason of their wealth, their talents, their education, their
families, or the offices they hold, aspire to a preeminence,"
but, the same observer adds, this is something which "the people
refuse to grant them." Another contemporary contributes the
observation that there was not so much respect paid to gentlemen
of rank as there should be, and that the lower orders of people
behave as if they were on a footing of equality with them.
Whether the State Constitutions are to be regarded as
property-conserving, aristocratic instruments, or as progressive
documents, depends upon the point of view. And so it is with the
spirit of union or of nationality in the United States. One
student emphasizes the fact of there being "thirteen independent
republics differing . . . widely in climate, in soil, in
occupation, in everything which makes up the social and economic
life of the people"; while another sees "the United States a
nation." There is something to be said for both sides, and
doubtless the truth lies between them, for there were forces
making for disintegration as well as for unification. To the
student of the present day, however, the latter seem to have been
the stronger and more important, although the possibility was
never absent that the thirteen States would go their separate
ways.
There are few things so potent as a common danger to bring
discordant elements into working harmony. Several times in the
century and a half of their existence, when the colonies found
themselves threatened by their enemies, they had united, or at
least made an effort to unite, for mutual help. The New England
Confederation of 1643 was organized primarily for protection
against the Indians and incidentally against the Dutch and
French. Whenever trouble threatened with any of the European
powers or with the Indians--and that was frequently--a plan would
be broached for getting the colonies to combine their efforts,
sometimes for the immediate necessity and sometimes for a broader
purpose. The best known of these plans was that presented to the
Albany Congress of 1754, which had been called to make effective
preparation for the inevitable struggle with the French and
Indians. The beginning of the troubles which culminated in the
final breach with Great Britain had quickly brought united action
in the form of the Stamp Act Congress of 1765, in the Committees
of Correspondence, and then in the Continental Congress.
It was not merely that the leaven of the Revolution was already
working to bring about the freer interchange of ideas; instinct
and experience led the colonies to united action. The very day
that the Continental Congress appointed a committee to frame a
declaration of independence, another committee was ordered to
prepare articles of union. A month later, as soon as the
Declaration of Independence had been adopted, this second
committee, of which John Dickinson of Pennsylvania was chairman,
presented to Congress a report in the form of Articles of
Confederation. Although the outbreak of fighting made some sort
of united action imperative, this plan of union was subjected to
debate intermittently for over sixteen months and even after
being
adopted by Congress, toward the end of 1777, it was not ratified
by the States until March, 1781, when the war was already drawing
to a close. The exigencies of the hour forced Congress, without
any authorization, to act as if it had been duly empowered and in
general to proceed as if the Confederation had been formed.
Benjamin Franklin was an enthusiast for union. It was he who had
submitted the plan of union to the Albany Congress in 1754, which
with modifications was recommended by that congress for adoption.
It provided for a Grand Council of representatives chosen by the
legislature of each colony, the members to be proportioned to the
contribution of that colony to the American military service. In
matters concerning the colonies as a whole, especially in Indian
affairs, the Grand Council was to be given extensive powers of
legislation and taxation. The executive was to be a President or
Governor-General, appointed and paid by the Crown, with the right
of nominating all military officers, and with a veto upon all
acts
of the Grand Council. The project was far in advance of the times
and ultimately failed of acceptance:, but in 1775, with the
beginning of the troubles with Great Britain, Franklin took his
Albany plan and, after modifying it in accordance with the
experience of twenty years, submitted it to the Continental
Congress as a new plan of government under which the colonies
might unite.
Franklin's plan of 1775 seems to have attracted little attention
in America, and possibly it was not generally known; but much
was made of it abroad, where it soon became public, probably in
the same way that other Franklin papers came out. It seems to
have
been his practice to make, with his own hand, several copies of
such a document, which he would send to his friends with the
statement that as the document in question was confidential they
might not otherwise see a copy of it. Of course the inevitable
happened, and such documents found their war into print to the
apparent surprise and dismay of the author. Incidentally this
practice caused confusion in later years, because each possessor
of such a document would claim that he had the original. Whatever
may have been the procedure in this particular case, it is fairly
evident that Dickinson's committee took Franklin's plan of 1775
as the starting point of its work, and after revision submitted
it to Congress as their report; for some of the most important
features of the Articles of Confederation are to be found,
sometimes word for word, in Franklin's draft.
This explanation of the origin of the Articles of Confederation
is helpful and perhaps essential in understanding the form of
government established, because that government in its main
features had been devised for an entirely different condition of
affairs, when a strong, centralized government would not have
been accepted even if it had been wanted. It provided for a
"league of friendship," with the primary purpose of considering
preparation for action rather than of taking the initiative.
Furthermore, the final stages of drafting the Articles of
Confederation had occurred at the outbreak of the war, when the
people of the various States were showing a disposition to
follow readily suggestions that came from those whom they could
trust and when they seemed to be willing to submit without
compulsion to orders from the same source. These circumstances,
quite as much as the inexperience of Congress and the jealousy of
the States, account for the inefficient form of government which
was devised; and inefficient the Confederation certainly was. The
only organ of government was a Congress in which every State was
entitled to one vote and was represented by a delegation whose
members were appointed annually as the legislature of the State
might direct, whose expenses were paid by the State, and who were
subject to recall. In other words, it was a council of States
whose representatives had little incentive to independence of
action.
Extensive powers were granted to this Congress "of determining on
peace and war, . . . of entering into treaties and alliances," of
maintaining an army and a navy, of establishing post offices, of
coining money, and of making requisitions upon the States for
their respective share of expenses "incurred for the common
defence or general welfare." But none of these powers could be
exercised without the consent of nine States, which was
equivalent to requiring a two-thirds vote, and even when such a
vote had been obtained and a decision had been reached, there was
nothing to compel the individual States to obey beyond the mere
declaration in the Articles of Confederation that, "Every State
shall abide by the determinations of the United States in
Congress assembled."
No executive was provided for except that Congress was authorized
"to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be
necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States
under their direction." In judicial matters, Congress was to
serve as "the last resort on appeal in all disputes and
differences" between States; and Congress might establish courts
for the trial of piracy and felonies committed on the high seas
and for determining appeals in cases of prize capture.
The plan of a government was there but it lacked any driving
force. Congress might declare war but the States might decline to
participate in it; Congress might enter into treaties but it
could not make the States live up to them; Congress might borrow
money but it could not be sure of repaying it; and Congress might
decide disputes without being able to make the parties accept the
decision. The pressure of necessity might keep the States
together for a time, yet there is no disguising the fact that the
Articles of Confederation formed nothing more than a gentlemen's
agreement.
CHAPTER IV. THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE
The population of the United States was like a body of water that
was being steadily enlarged by internal springs and external
tributaries. It was augmented both from within and from without,
from natural increase and from immigration. It had spread over
the whole coast from Maine to Georgia and slowly back into the
interior, at first along the lines of river communication and
then gradually filling up the spaces between until the larger
part of the available land east of the Alleghany Mountains was
settled. There the stream was checked as if dammed by the
mountain barrier, but the population was trickling through
wherever it could find an opening, slowly wearing channels, until
finally, when the obstacles were overcome, it broke through with
a rush.
Twenty years before the Revolution the expanding population had
reached the mountains and was ready to go beyond. The difficulty
of crossing the mountains was not insuperable, but the French
and Indian War, followed by Pontiac's Conspiracy, made outlying
frontier settlement dangerous if not impossible. The arbitrary
restriction of western settlement by the Proclamation of 1763
did not stop the more adventurous but did hold back the mass of
the population until near the time of the Revolution, when a few
bands of settlers moved into Kentucky and Tennessee and rendered
important but inconspicuous service in the fighting. But so long
as the title to that territory was in doubt no considerable body
of people would move into it, and it was not until the Treaty of
Peace in 1783 determined that the western country as far as the
Mississippi River was to belong to the United States that the
dammed-up population broke over the mountains in a veritable
flood.
The western country and its people presented no easy problem to
the United States: how to hold those people when the pull was
strong to draw them from the Union; how to govern citizens so
widely separated from the older communities; and, of most
immediate importance, how to hold the land itself. It was,
indeed, the question of the ownership of the land beyond the
mountains which delayed the ratification of the Articles of
Confederation. Some of the States, by right of their colonial
charter grants "from sea to sea," were claiming large parts of
the western region. Other States, whose boundaries were fixed,
could put forward no such claims; and, as they were therefore
limited in their area of expansion, they were fearful lest in the
future they should be overbalanced by those States which might
obtain extensive property in the West. It was maintained that the
Proclamation of 1763 had changed this western territory into
"Crown lands," and as, by the Treaty of Peace, the title had
passed to the United States, the non-claimant States had demanded
in self-defense that the western land should belong to the
country as a whole and not to the individual States. Rhode
Island, Maryland, and Delaware were most seriously affected, and
they were insistent upon this point. Rhode Island and at length
Delaware gave in, so that by February, 1779, Maryland alone held
out. In May of that year the instructions of Maryland to her
delegates were read in Congress, positively forbidding them to
ratify the plan of union unless they should receive definite
assurances that the western country would become the common
property of the United States. As the consent of all of the
Thirteen States was necessary to the establishment of the
Confederation, this refusal of Maryland brought matters to a
crisis. The question was eagerly discussed, and early in 1780 the
deadlock was broken by the action of New York in authorizing her
representatives to cede her entire claim in western lands to the
United States.
It matters little that the claim of New York was not as good as
that of some of the other States, especially that of Virginia.
The whole situation was changed. It was no longer necessary for
Maryland to defend her position; but the claimant States were
compelled to justify themselves before the country for not
following New York's example. Congress wisely refrained from any
assertion of jurisdiction, and only urgently recommended that
States having claims to western lands should cede them in order
that the one obstacle to the final ratification of the Articles
of Confederation might be removed.
Without much question Virginia's claim was the strongest; but the
pressure was too great even for her, and she finally yielded,
ceding to the United States, upon certain conditions, all her
lands northwest of the Ohio River. Then the Maryland delegates
were empowered to ratify the Articles of Confederation. This was
early in 1781, and in a very short time the other States had
followed the example of New York and Virginia. Certain of the
conditions imposed by Virginia were not acceptable to Congress,
and three years later, upon specific request, that State withdrew
the objectionable conditions and made the cession absolute.
The territory thus ceded, north and west of the Ohio River,
constituted the public domain. Its boundaries were somewhat
indefinite, but subsequent surveys confirmed the rough estimate
that it contained from one to two hundred millions of acres. It
was supposed to be worth, on the average, about a dollar an acre,
which would make this property an asset sufficient to meet the
debts of the war and to leave a balance for the running expenses
of the Government. It thereby became one of the strong bonds
holding the Union together.
"Land!" was the first cry of the storm-tossed mariners of
Columbus. For three centuries the leading fact of American
history has been that soon after 1600 a body of Europeans, mostly
Englishmen, settled on the edge of the greatest piece of
unoccupied agricultural land in the temperate zone, and proceeded
to subdue it to the uses of man. For three centuries the chief
task of American mankind has been to go up westward against the
land and to possess it. Our wars, our independence, our state
building, our political democracy, our plasticity with respect to
immigration, our mobility of thought, our ardor of initiative,
our mildness and our prosperity, all are but incidents or
products of this prime historical fact.*
* Lecture by J. Franklin Jameson before the Trustees of the
Carnegie Institution, at Washington, in 1912, printed in the
"History Teacher's Magazine," vol. IV, 1913, p. 5.
It is seldom that one's attention is so caught and held as by the
happy suggestion that American interest in land or rather
interest in American land--began with the discovery of the
continent. Even a momentary consideration of the subject,
however, is sufficient to indicate how important was the desire
for land as a motive of colonization. The foundation of European
governmental and social organizations had been laid in feudalism-
-a system of landholding and service. And although European
states might have lost their original feudal character, and
although new classes had arisen, land-holding still remained the
basis of social distinction.
One can readily imagine that America would be considered as El
Dorado, where one of the rarest commodities as well as one of the
most precious possessions was found in almost unlimited
quantities that family estates were sought in America and that to
the lower classes it seemed as if a heaven were opening on earth.
Even though available land appeared to be almost unlimited in
quantity and easy to acquire, it was a possession that was
generally increasing in value. Of course wasteful methods of
farming wore out some lands, especially in the South; but, taking
it by and large throughout the country, with time and increasing
density of population the value of the land was increasing. The
acquisition of land was a matter of investment or at least of
speculation. In fact, the purchase of land was one of the
favorite get-rich-quick schemes of the time. George Washington
was not the only man who invested largely in western lands. A
list of those who did would read like a political or social
directory of the time. Patrick Henry, James Wilson, Robert
Morris, Gouverneur Morris, Chancellor Kent, Henry Knox, and James
Monroe were among them.*
* Not all the speculators were able to keep what they acquired.
Fifteen million acres of land in Kentucky were offered for sale
in 1800 for nonpayment of taxes. Channing, "History of the United
States," vol. IV, p. 91.
It is therefore easy to understand why so much importance
attached to the claims of the several States and to the cession
of that western land by them to the United States. But something
more was necessary. If the land was to attain anything like its
real value, settlers must be induced to occupy it. Of course it
was possible to let the people go out as they pleased and take up
land, and to let the Government collect from them as might be
possible at a fixed rate. But experience during colonial days had
shown the weakness of such a method, and Congress was apparently
determined to keep under its own control the region which it now
possessed, to provide for orderly sale, and to permit settlement
only so far as it might not endanger the national interests. The
method of land sales and the question of government for the
western country were recognized as different aspects of the same
problem. The Virginia offer of cession forced the necessity of a
decision, and no sooner was the Virginia offer framed in an
acceptable form, in 1783, than two committees were appointed by
Congress to report upon these two questions of land sales and of
government.
Thomas Jefferson was made chairman of both these committees. He
was then forty years old and one of the most remarkable men in
the country. Born on the frontier--his father from the upper
middle class, his mother "a Randolph"--he had been trained to an
outdoor life; but he was also a prodigy in his studies and
entered William and Mary College with advanced standing at the
age of eighteen. Many stories are told of his precocity and
ability, all of which tend to forecast the later man of catholic
tastes, omnivorous interest, and extensive but superficial
knowledge; he was a strange combination of natural aristocrat and
theoretical democrat, of philosopher and practical politician.
After having been a student in the law office of George Wythe,
and being a friend of Patrick Henry, Jefferson early espoused the
cause of the Revolution, and it was his hand that drafted the
Declaration of Independence. He then resigned from Congress to
assist in the organization of government in his own State. For
two years and a half he served in the Virginia Assembly and
brought about the repeal of the law of entailment, the abolition
of primogeniture, the recognition of freedom of conscience, and
the encouragement of education. He was Governor of Virginia for
two years and then, having declined reelection, returned to
Congress in 1783. There, among his other accomplishments, as
chairman of the committee, he reported the Treaty of Peace and,
as
chairman of another committee, devised and persuaded Congress to
adopt a national system of coinage which in its essentials is
still in use.
It is easy to criticize Jefferson and to pick flaws in the things
that he said as well as in the things that he did, but
practically every one admits that he was closely in touch with
the course of events and understood the temper of his
contemporaries. In this period of transition from the old order
to the new, he seems to have expressed the genius of American
institutions better than almost any other man of his generation.
He possessed a quality that enabled him, in the Declaration of
Independence, to give voice to the hopes and aspirations of a
rising nationality and that enabled him in his own State to bring
about so many reforms.
Just how much actual influence Thomas Jefferson had in the
framing of the American land policy is not clear. Although the
draft of the committee report in 1784 is in Jefferson's
handwriting, it is altogether probable that more credit is to be
given to Thomas Hutchins, the Geographer of the United States,
and to William Grayson of Virginia, especially for the final form
which the measure took; for Jefferson retired from the
chairmanship and had already gone to Europe when the Land
Ordinance was adopted by Congress in 1785. This ordinance has
been superseded by later enactments, to which references are
usually made; but the original ordinance is one of the great
pieces of American legislation, for it contained the fundamentals
of the American land system which, with the modifications
experience has introduced, has proved to be permanently workable
and which has been envied and in several instances copied by
other countries. Like almost all successful institutions of that
sort, the Land Ordinance of 1785 was not an immediate creation
but was a development out of former practices and customs and was
in the nature of a compromise. Its essential features were the
method of survey and the process for the sale of land. New
England, with its town system, had in the course of its expansion
been accustomed to proceed in an orderly method but on a
relatively small scale. The South, on the other hand, had granted
lands on a larger scale and had permitted individual selection in
a haphazard manner. The plan which Congress adopted was that of
the New England survey with the Southern method of extensive
holdings. The system is repellent in its rectangular orderliness,
but it made the process of recording titles easy and complete,
and it was capable of indefinite expansion. These were matters of
cardinal importance, for in the course of one hundred and forty
years the United States was to have under its control nearly two
thousand million acres of land.
The primary feature of the land policy was the orderly survey in
advance of sale. In the next place the township was taken as the
unit, and its size was fixed at six miles square. Provision was
then made for the sale of townships alternately entire and by
sections of one mile square, or 640 acres each. In every township
a section was reserved for educational purposes; that is, the
land
was to be disposed of and the proceeds used for the development
of public schools in that region. And, finally, the United States
reserved four sections in the center of each township to be
disposed of at a later time. It was expected that a great
increase
in the value of the land would result, and it was proposed that
the Government should reap a part of the profits.
It is evident that the primary purpose of the public land policy
as first developed was to acquire revenue for the Government;
but it was also evident that there was a distinct purpose of
encouraging settlement. The two were not incompatible, but the
greater interest of the Government was in obtaining a return for
the property.
The other committee of which Jefferson was chairman made its
report of a plan for the government of the western territory upon
the very day that the Virginia cession was finally accepted,
March 1, 1784; and with some important modifications Jefferson's
ordinance, or the Ordinance of 1784 as it was commonly called,
was ultimately adopted. In this case Jefferson rendered a service
similar to that of framing the Declaration of Independence. His
plan was somewhat theoretical and visionary, but largely
practical, and it was constructive work of a high order,
displaying not so much originality as sympathetic appreciation of
what had already been done and an instinctive forecast of future
development. Jefferson seemed to be able to gather up ideas, some
conscious and some latent in men's minds, and to express them in
a form that was generally acceptable.
It is interesting to find in the Articles of Confederation
(Article XI) that, "Canada acceding to this confederation, and
joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted
into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union: but no
other colony shall be admitted into the same unless such
admission
be agreed to by nine States." The real importance of this article
lay in the suggestion of an enlargement of the Confederation. The
Confederation was never intended to be a union of only thirteen
States. Before the cession of their western claims it seemed to
be inevitable that some of the States should be broken up into
several units. At the very time that the formation of the
Confederation was under discussion Vermont issued a declaration
of independence from New York and New Hampshire, with the
expectation of being admitted into the Union. It was impolitic to
recognize the appeal at that time, but it seems to have been
generally understood that sooner or later Vermont would come in
as a full-fledged State.
It might have been a revolutionary suggestion by Maryland, when
the cession of western lands was under discussion, that Congress
should have sole power to fix the western boundaries of the
States, but her further proposal was not even regarded as
radical, that Congress should "lay out the land beyond the
boundaries so ascertained into separate and independent states."
It seems to have been taken as a matter of course in the
procedure of Congress and was accepted by the States. But the
idea was one thing; its carrying out was quite another. Here was
a great extent of western territory which would be valuable only
as it could be sold to prospective settlers. One of the first
things these settlers would demand was protection--protection
against the Indians, possibly also against the British and the
Spanish, and protection in their ordinary civil life. The former
was a detail of military organization and was in due time
provided by the establishment of military forts and garrisons;
the latter was the problem which Jefferson's committee was
attempting to solve.
The Ordinance of 1784 disregarded the natural physical features
of the western country and, by degrees of latitude and meridians
of longitude, arbitrarily divided the public domain into
rectangular districts, to the first of which the following names
were applied: Sylvania, Michigania, Cherronesus, Assenisipia,
Metropotamia, Illinoia, Saratoga, Washington, Polypotamia,
Pelisipia. The amusement which this absurd and thoroughly
Jeffersonian nomenclature is bound to cause ought not to detract
from the really important features of the Ordinance. In each of
the districts into which the country was divided the settlers
might be authorized by Congress, for the purpose of establishing
a temporary government, to adopt the constitution and laws of any
one of the original States. When any such area should have twenty
thousand free inhabitants it might receive authority from
Congress to establish a permanent constitution and government and
should be entitled to a representative in Congress with the right
of debating but not of voting. And finally, when the inhabitants
of any one of these districts should equal in number those of the
least populous of the thirteen original States, their delegates
should be admitted into Congress on an equal footing.
Jefferson's ordinance, though adopted, was never put into
operation. Various explanations have been offered for this
failure to give it a fair trial. It has been said that Jefferson
himself was to blame. In the original draft of his ordinance
Jefferson had provided for the abolition of slavery in the new
States after the year 1800, and when Congress refused to accept
this clause Jefferson, in a manner quite characteristic, seemed
to lose all interest in the plan. There were, however, other
objections, for there were those who felt that it was somewhat
indefinite to promise admission into the Confederation of certain
sections of the country as soon as their population should equal
in number that of the least populous of the original States. If
the original States should increase in population to any extent,
the new States might never be admitted. But on the other hand, if
from any cause the population of one of the smaller States should
suddenly decrease, might not the resulting influx of new States
prove dangerous?
But the real reason why the ordinance remained a dead letter was
that, while it fixed the limits within which local governments
might act, it left the creation of those governments wholly to
the future. At Vincennes, for example, the ordinance made no
change in the political habits of the people. "The local
government bowled along merrily under this system. There was the
greatest abundance of government, for the more the United States
neglected them the more authority their officials assumed."* Nor
could the ordinance operate until settlers became numerous. It
was partly, indeed, to hasten settlement that the Ordinance of
1785 for the survey and sale of the public lands was passed.**
* Jacob Piat Dunn, Jr., "Indiana: A Redemption from Slavery,"
1888.
** Although the machinery was set in motion, by the appointment
of men and the beginning of work, it was not until 1789 that the
survey of the first seven ranges of townships was completed and
the land offered for sale.
In the meantime efforts were being made by Congress to improve
the unsatisfactory ordinance for the government of the West.
Committees were appointed, reports were made, and at intervals of
weeks or months the subject was considered. Some amendments were
actually adopted, but Congress, notoriously inefficient,
hesitated to undertake a fundamental revision of the ordinance.
Then, suddenly, in July, 1787, after a brief period of
adjournment, Congress took up this subject and within a week
adopted the now famous Ordinance of 1787.
The stimulus which aroused Congress to activity seems to have
come from the Ohio Company. From the very beginning of the public
domain there was a strong sentiment in favor of using western
land for settlement by Revolutionary soldiers. Some of these
lands had been offered as bounties to encourage enlistment, and
after the war the project of soldiers' settlement in the West was
vigorously agitated. The Ohio Company of Associates was made up
of veterans of the Revolution, who were looking for homes in the
West, and of other persons who were willing to support a worthy
cause by a subscription which might turn out to be a good
investment. The company wished to buy land in the West, and
Congress had land which it wished to sell. Under such
circumstances it was easy to strike a bargain. The land, as we
have seen, was roughly estimated at one dollar an acre; but, as
the company wished to purchase a million acres, it demanded and
obtained wholesale rates of two-thirds of the usual price. It
also obtained the privilege of paying at least a portion in
certificates of Revolutionary indebtedness, some of which were
worth about twelve and a half cents on the dollar. Only a little
calculation is required to show that a large quantity of land was
therefore sold at about eight or nine cents an acre. It was in
connection with this land sale that the Ordinance of 1787 was
adopted.
The promoter of this enterprise undertaken by the Ohio Company
was Manasseh Cutler of Ipswich, Massachusetts, a clergyman by
profession who had served as a chaplain in the Revolutionary War.
But his interests and activities extended far beyond the bounds
of his profession. When the people of his parish were without
proper medical advice he applied himself to the study and
practice of medicine. At about the same time he took up the study
of botany, and because of his describing several hundred species
of plants he is regarded as the pioneer botanist of New England.
His next interest seems to have grown out of his Revolutionary
associations, for it centered in this project for settlement of
the West, and he was appointed the agent of the Ohio Company. It
was in this capacity that he had come to New York and made the
bargain with Congress which has just been described. Cutler must
have been a good lobbyist, for Congress was not an efficient
body, and unremitting labor, as well as diplomacy, was required
for so large and important a matter. Two things indicate his
method of procedure. In the first place he found it politic to
drop his own candidate for the governorship of the new territory
and to endorse General Arthur St. Clair, then President of
Congress. And in the next place he accepted the suggestion of
Colonel William Duer for the formation of another company, known
as the Scioto Associates, to purchase five million acres of land
on similar terms, "but that it should be kept a profound secret."
It was not an accident that Colonel Duer was Secretary of the
Board of the Treasury through whom these purchases were made, nor
that associated with him in this speculation were "a number of
the principal characters in the city." These land deals were
completed afterwards, but there is little doubt that there was a
direct connection between them and the adoption of the ordinance
of government.
The Ordinance of 1787 was so successful in its working and its
renown became so great that claims of authorship, even for
separate articles, have been filed in the name of almost every
person who had the slightest excuse for being considered.
Thousands of pages have been written in eulogy and in dispute, to
the helpful clearing up of some points and to the obscuring of
others. But the authorship of this or of that clause is of much
less importance than the scope of the document as a working plan
of government. As such the Ordinance of 1787 owes much to
Jefferson's Ordinance of 1784. Under the new ordinance a governor
and three judges were to be appointed who, along with their other
functions, were to select such laws as they thought best from the
statute books of all the States. The second stage in
self-government would be reached when the population contained
five thousand free men of age; then the people were to have a
representative legislature with the usual privilege of making
their own laws. Provision was made for dividing the whole region
northwest of the Ohio River into three or four or five districts
and the final stage of government was reached when any one of
these districts had sixty thousand free inhabitants, for it might
then establish its own constitution and government and be
admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original
States.
The last-named provision for admission into the Union, being in
the nature of a promise for the future, was not included in the
body of the document providing for the government, but was
contained in certain "articles of compact, between the original
States and the people and States in the said territory, [which
should] forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent."
These articles of compact were in general similar to the bills of
rights in State Constitutions; but one of them found no parallel
in any State Constitution. Article VI reads: "There shall be
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory,
otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted." This has been hailed as a
farsighted, humanitarian measure, and it is quite true that many
of the leading men, in the South as well as in the North, were
looking forward to the time when slavery would be abolished. But
the motives predominating at the time were probably more nearly
represented by Grayson, who wrote to James Monroe, three weeks
after the ordinance was passed: "The clause respecting slavery
was agreed to by the southern members for the purpose of
preventing tobacco and indigo from being made on the northwest
side of the Ohio, as well as for several other political
reasons."
It is over one hundred and forty years since the Ordinance of
1787 was adopted, during which period more than thirty
territories of the United States have been organized, and there
has never been a time when one or more territories were not under
Congressional supervision, so that the process of legislative
control has been continuous. Changes have been made from time to
time in order to adapt the territorial government to changed
conditions, but for fifty years the Ordinance of 1787 actually
remained in operation, and even twenty years later it was
specifically referred to by statute. The principles of
territorial government today are identical with those of 1787,
and those principles comprise the largest measure of local
self-government compatible with national control, a gradual
extension of self-government to the people of a territory, and
finally complete statehood and admission into the Union on a
footing of equality with the other States.
In 1825, when the military occupation of Oregon was suggested in
Congress, Senator Dickerson of New Jersey objected, saying, "We
have not adopted a system of colonization and it is to be hoped
we never shall." Yet that is just what America has always had.
Not only were the first settlers on the Atlantic coast colonists
from Europe; but the men who went to the frontier were also
colonists from the Atlantic seaboard. And the men who settled the
States in the West were colonists from the older communities. The
Americans had so recently asserted their independence that they
regarded the name of colony as not merely indicating dependence
but as implying something of inferiority and even of reproach.
And when the American colonial system was being formulated in
1783-87 the word "Colony" was not used. The country under
consideration was the region west of the Alleghany Mountains and
in particular the territory north and west of the Ohio River and,
being so referred to in the documents, the word "Territory"
became the term applied to all the colonies.
The Northwest Territory increased so rapidly in population that
in 1800 it was divided into two districts, and in 1802 the
eastern part was admitted into the Union as the State of Ohio.
The rest of the territory was divided in 1805 and again in 1809;
Indiana was admitted as a State in 1816 and Illinois in 1818. So
the process has gone on. There were thirteen original States and
six more have become members of the Union without having been
through the status of territories, making nineteen in all; while
twenty-nine States have developed from the colonial stage. The
incorporation of the colonies into the Union is not merely a
political fact; the inhabitants of the colonies become an
integral part of the parent nation and in turn become the
progenitors of new colonies. If such a process be long continued,
the colonies will eventually outnumber the parent States, and the
colonists will outnumber the citizens of the original States and
will themselves become the nation. Such has been the history of
the United States and its people. By 1850, indeed, one-half of
the population of the United States was living west of the
Alleghany Mountains, and at the present time approximately
seventy per cent are to be found in the West.
The importance of the Ordinance of 1787 was hardly overstated by
Webster in his famous debate with Hayne when he said: "We are
accustomed to praise the lawgivers of antiquity; we help to
perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus; but I doubt whether
one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has produced
effects of more distinct, marked and lasting character than the
Ordinance of 1787." While improved means of communication and
many other material ties have served to hold the States of the
Union together, the political bond was supplied by the Ordinance
of 1787, which inaugurated the American colonial system.
CHAPTER V. DARKNESS BEFORE DAWN
John Fiske summed up the prevailing impression of the government
of the Confederation in the title to his volume, "The Critical
Period of American History." "The period of five years," says
Fiske, "following the peace of 1783 was the most critical moment
in all the history of the American people. The dangers from which
we were saved in 1788 were even greater than were the dangers
from which we were saved in 1865." Perhaps the plight of the
Confederation was not so desperate as he would have us believe,
but it was desperate enough. Two incidents occurring between the
signing of the preliminary terms of peace and the definitive
treaty reveal the danger in which the country stood. The main
body of continental troops made up of militiamen and short-term
volunteers--always prone to mutinous conduct--was collected at
Newburg on the Hudson, watching the British in New York. Word
might come at any day that the treaty had been signed, and the
army did not wish to be disbanded until certain matters had been
settled primarily the question of their pay. The officers had
been promised half-pay for life, but nothing definite had been
done toward carrying out the promise. The soldiers had no such
hope to encourage them, and their pay was sadly in arrears. In
December, 1782, the officers at Newburg drew up an address in
behalf of themselves and their men and sent it to Congress.
Therein they made the threat, thinly veiled, of taking matters
into their own hands unless their grievances were redressed.
There is reason to suppose that back of this movement--or at
least in sympathy with it--were some of the strongest men in
civil as in military life, who, while not fomenting insurrection,
were willing to bring pressure to bear on Congress and the
States. Congress was unable or unwilling to act, and in March,
1783, a second paper, this time anonymous, was circulated urging
the men not to disband until the question of pay had been settled
and recommending a meeting of officers on the following day. If
Washington's influence was not counted upon, it was at least
hoped that he would not interfere; but as soon as he learned of
what had been done he issued general orders calling for a meeting
of officers on a later day, thus superseding the irregular
meeting that had been suggested. On the day appointed the
Commander-in-Chief appeared and spoke with so much warmth and
feeling that his "little address . . . drew tears from many of
the officers." He inveighed against the unsigned paper and
against the methods that were talked of, for they would mean the
disgrace of the army, and he appealed to the patriotism of the
officers, promising his best efforts in their behalf. The effect
was so strong that, when Washington withdrew, resolutions were
adopted unanimously expressing their loyalty and their faith in
the justice of Congress and denouncing the anonymous circular.
The general apprehension was not diminished by another incident
in June. Some eighty troops of the Pennsylvania line in camp at
Lancaster marched to Philadelphia and drew up before the State
House, where Congress was sitting. Their purpose was to demand
better treatment and the payment of what was owed to them. So far
it was an orderly demonstration, although not in keeping with
military regulations; in fact the men had broken away from camp
under the lead of noncommissioned officers. But when they had
been stimulated by drink the disorder became serious. The
humiliating feature of the situation was that Congress could do
nothing, even in self-protection. They appealed, to the
Pennsylvania authorities and, when assistance was refused, the
members of Congress in alarm fled in the night and three days
later gathered in the college building in Princeton.
Congress became the butt of many jokes, but men could not hide
the chagrin they felt that their Government was so weak. The
feeling deepened into shame when the helplessness of Congress was
displayed before the world. Weeks and even months passed before a
quorum could be obtained to ratify the treaty recognizing the
independence of the United States and establishing peace. Even
after the treaty was supposed to be in force the States
disregarded its provisions and Congress could do nothing more
than utter ineffective protests. But, most humiliating of all,
the British maintained their military posts within the
northwestern territory ceded to the United States, and Congress
could only request them to retire. The Americans' pride was hurt
and their pockets were touched as well, for an important issue at
stake was the control of the lucrative fur trade. So resentment
grew into anger; but the British held on, and the United States
was powerless to make them withdraw. To make matters worse, the
Confederation, for want of power to levy taxes, was facing
bankruptcy, and Congress was unable to devise ways and means to
avert a crisis.
The Second Continental Congress had come into existence in 1775.
It was made up of delegations from the various colonies,
appointed in more or less irregular ways, and had no more
authority than it might assume and the various colonies were
willing to concede; yet it was the central body under which the
Revolution had been inaugurated and carried through to a
successful conclusion. Had this Congress grappled firmly with the
financial problem and forced through a system of direct taxation,
the subsequent woes of the Confederation might have been
mitigated and perhaps averted. In their enthusiasm over the
Declaration of Independence the people--by whom is meant the
articulate class consisting largely of the governing and
commercial elements--would probably have accepted such a
usurpation of authority. But with their lack of experience it is
not surprising that the delegates to Congress did not appreciate
the necessity of such radical action and so were unwilling to
take the responsibility for it. They counted upon the goodwill
and support of their constituents, which simmered down to a
reliance upon voluntary grants from the States in response to
appeals from Congress. These desultory grants proved to be so
unsatisfactory that, in 1781, even before the Articles of
Confederation had been ratified, Congress asked for a grant of
additional power to levy a duty of five per cent ad valorem upon
all goods imported into the United States, the revenue from which
was to be applied to the discharge of the principal and interest
on debts "contracted . . . for supporting the present war."
Twelve States agreed, but Rhode Island, after some hesitation,
finally rejected the measure in November, 1782.
The Articles of Confederation authorized a system of requisitions
apportioned among the "several States in proportion to the value
of all land within each State." But, as there was no power vested
in Congress to force the States to comply, the situation was in
no way improved when the Articles were ratified and put into
operation. In fact, matters grew worse as Congress itself
steadily lost ground in popular estimation, until it had become
little better than a laughing-stock, and with the ending of the
war its requests were more honored in the breach than in the
observance. In 1782 Congress asked for $8,000,000 and the
following year for $2,000,000 more, but by the end of 1783 less
than $1,500,000 had been paid in.
In the same year, 1783, Congress made another attempt to remedy
the financial situation by proposing the so-called Revenue
Amendment, according to which a specific duty was to be laid upon
certain articles and a general duty of five per cent ad valorem
upon all other goods, to be in operation for twenty-five years.
In addition to this it was proposed that for the same period of
time $1,500,000 annually should be raised by requisitions, and
the definite amount for each State was specified until "the rule
of the Confederation" could be carried into practice: It was then
proposed that the article providing for the proportion of
requisitions should be changed so as to be based not upon land
values but upon population, in estimating which slaves should be
counted at three-fifths of their number. In the course of three
years thereafter only two States accepted the proposals in full,
seven agreed to them in part, and four failed to act at all.
Congress in despair then made a further representation to the
States upon the critical condition of the finances and
accompanied this with an urgent appeal, which resulted in all the
States except New York agreeing to the proposed impost. But the
refusal of one State was sufficient to block the whole measure,
and there was no further hope for a treasury that was practically
bankrupt. In five years Congress had received less than two and
one-half million dollars from requisitions, and for the fourteen
months ending January 1, 1786, the income was at the rate of less
than $375,000 a year, which was not enough, as a committee of
Congress reported, "for the bare maintenance of the Federal
Government on the most economical establishment and in time of
profound peace." In fact, the income was not sufficient even to
meet the interest on the foreign debt.
In the absence of other means of obtaining funds Congress had
resorted early to the unfortunate expedient of issuing paper
money based solely on the good faith of the States to redeem it.
This fiat money held its value for some little time; then it
began to shrink and, once started on the downward path, its fall
was rapid. Congress tried to meet the emergency by issuing paper
in increasing quantities until the inevitable happened: the paper
money ceased to have any value and practically disappeared from
circulation. Jefferson said that by the end of 1781 one thousand
dollars of Continental scrip was worth about one dollar in
specie.
The States had already issued paper money of their own, and their
experience ought to have taught them a lesson, but with the
coming of hard times after the war, they once more proposed by
issuing paper to relieve the "scarcity of money" which was
commonly supposed to be one of the principal evils of the day. In
1785 and 1786 paper money parties appeared in almost all the
States. In some of these the conservative element was strong
enough to prevent action, but in others the movement had to run
its fatal course. The futility of what they were doing should
have been revealed to all concerned by proposals seriously made
that the paper money which was issued should depreciate at a
regular rate each year until it should finally disappear.
The experience of Rhode Island is not to be regarded as typical
of what was happening throughout the country but is, indeed,
rather to be considered as exceptional. Yet it attracted
widespread attention and revealed to anxious observers the
dangers to which the country was subject if the existing
condition of affairs were allowed to continue. The machinery of
the State Government was captured by the paper-money party in the
spring election of 1786. The results were disappointing to the
adherents of the paper-money cause, for when the money was issued
depreciation began at once, and those who tried to pay their
bills discovered that a heavy discount was demanded. In response
to indignant demands the legislature of Rhode Island passed an
act to force the acceptance of paper money under penalty and
thereupon tradesmen refused to make any sales at all some closed
their shops, and others tried to carry on business by exchange of
wares. The farmers then retaliated by refusing to sell their
produce to the shopkeepers, and general confusion and acute
distress followed. It was mainly a quarrel between the farmers
and the merchants, but it easily grew into a division between
town and country, and there followed a whole series of town
meetings and county conventions. The old line of cleavage was
fairly well represented by the excommunication of a member of St.
John's Episcopal Church of Providence for tendering bank notes,
and the expulsion of a member of the Society of the Cincinnati
for a similar cause.
The contest culminated in the case of Trevett vs. Weeden, 1786,
which is memorable in the judicial annals of the United States.
The legislature, not being satisfied with ordinary methods of
enforcement, had provided for the summary trial of offenders
without a jury before a court whose judges were removable by the
Assembly and were therefore supposedly subservient to its wishes.
In the case in question the Superior Court boldly declared the
enforcing act to be unconstitutional, and for their contumacious
behavior the judges were summoned before the legislature. They
escaped punishment, but only one of them was reelected to office.
Meanwhile disorders of a more serious sort, which startled the
whole country, occurred in Massachusetts. It is doubtful if a
satisfactory explanation ever will be found, at least one which
will be universally accepted, as to the causes and origin of
Shays' Rebellion in 1786. Some historians maintain that the
uprising resulted primarily from a scarcity of money, from a
shortage in the circulating medium; that, while the eastern
counties were keeping up their foreign trade sufficiently at
least to bring in enough metallic currency to relieve the
stringency and could also use various forms of credit, the
western counties had no such remedy. Others are inclined to think
that the difficulties of the farmers in western Massachusetts
were caused largely by the return to normal conditions after the
extraordinarily good times between 1776 and 1780, and that it was
the discomfort attending the process that drove them to revolt.
Another explanation reminds one of present-day charges against
undue influence of high financial circles, when it is insinuated
and even directly charged that the rebellion was fostered by
conservative interests who were trying to create a public opinion
in favor of a more strongly organized government.
Whatever other causes there may have been, the immediate source
of trouble was the enforced payment of indebtedness, which to a
large extent had been allowed to remain in abeyance during the
war. This postponement of settlement had not been merely for
humanitarian reasons; it would have been the height of folly to
collect when the currency was greatly depreciated. But conditions
were supposed to have been restored to normal with the cessation
of hostilities, and creditors were generally inclined to demand
payment. These demands, coinciding with the heavy taxes, drove
the people of western Massachusetts into revolt. Feeling ran high
against lawyers who prosecuted suits for creditors, and this
antagonism was easily transferred to the courts in which the
suits were brought. The rebellion in Massachusetts accordingly
took the form of a demonstration against the courts. A paper was
carried from town to town in the County of Worcester, in which
the signers promised to do their utmost "to prevent the sitting
of the Inferior Court of Common Pleas for the county, or of any
other court that should attempt to take property by distress."
The Massachusetts Legislature adjourned in July, 1786, without
remedying the trouble and also without authorizing an issue of
paper money which the hardpressed debtors were demanding. In the
months following mobs prevented the courts from sitting in
various towns. A special session of the legislature was then
called by the Governor but, when that special session had
adjourned on the 18th of November, it might just as well have
never met. It had attempted to remedy various grievances and had
made concessions to the malcontents, but it had also passed
measures to strengthen the hands of the Governor. This only
seemed to inflame the rioters, and the disorders increased. After
the lower courts a move was made against the State Supreme Court,
and plans were laid for a concerted movement against the cities
in the eastern part of the State. Civil war seemed imminent. The
insurgents were led by Daniel Shays, an officer in the army of
the Revolution, and the party of law and order was represented by
Governor James Bowdoin, who raised some four thousand troops and
placed them under the command of General Benjamin Lincoln.
The time of year was unfortunate for the insurgents, especially
as December was unusually cold and there was a heavy snowfall.
Shays could not provide stores and equipment and was unable to
maintain discipline. A threatened attack on Cambridge came to
naught for, when preparations were made to protect the city, the
rebels began a disorderly retreat, and in the intense cold and
deep snow they suffered severely, and many died from exposure.
The center of interest then shifted to Springfield, where the
insurgents were attempting to seize the United States arsenal.
The local militia had already repelled the first attacks, and the
appearance of General Lincoln with his troops completed the
demoralization of Shays' army. The insurgents retreated, but
Lincoln pursued relentlessly and broke them up into small bands,
which then wandered about the country preying upon the
unfortunate inhabitants. When spring came, most of them had been
subdued or had taken refuge in the neighboring States.
Shays' Rebellion was fairly easily suppressed, even though it
required the shedding of some blood. But it was the possibility
of further outbreaks that destroyed men's peace of mind. There
were similar disturbances in other States; and there the
Massachusetts insurgents found sympathy, support, and finally a
refuge. When the worst was over, and Governor Bowdoin applied to
the neighboring States for help in capturing the last of the
refugees, Rhode Island and Vermont failed to respond to the
extent that might have been expected of them. The danger,
therefore, of the insurrection spreading was a cause of deep
concern. This feeling was increased by the impotence of Congress.
The Government had sufficient excuse for intervention after the
attack upon the national arsenal in Springfield. Congress,
indeed, began to raise troops but did not dare to admit its
purpose and offered as a pretext an expedition against the
Northwestern Indians. The rebellion was over before any
assistance could be given. The inefficiency of Congress and its
lack of influence were evident. Like the disorders in Rhode
Island, Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts helped to bring about a
reaction and strengthened the conservative movement for reform.
These untoward happenings, however, were only symptoms: the
causes of the trouble lay far deeper. This fact was recognized
even in Rhode Island, for at least one of the conventions had
passed resolutions declaring that, in considering the condition
of the whole country, what particularly concerned them was the
condition of trade. Paradoxical as it may seem, the trade and
commerce of the country were already on the upward grade and
prosperity was actually returning. But prosperity is usually a
process of slow growth and is seldom recognized by the community
at large until it is well established. Farsighted men forecast
the coming of good times in advance of the rest of the community,
and prosper accordingly. The majority of the people know that
prosperity has come only when it is unmistakably present, and
some are not aware of it until it has begun to go. If that be
true in our day, much more was it true in the eighteenth century,
when means of communication were so poor that it took days for a
message to go from Boston to New York and weeks for news to get
from Boston to Charleston. It was a period of adjustment, and as
we look back after the event we can see that the American people
were adapting themselves with remarkable skill to the new
conditions. But that was not so evident to the men who were
feeling the pinch of hard times, and when all the attendant
circumstances, some of which have been described, are taken into
account, it is not surprising that commercial depression should
be one of the strongest influences in, and the immediate occasion
of, bringing men to the point of willingness to attempt some
radical changes.
The fact needs to be reiterated that the people of the United
States were largely dependent upon agriculture and other forms of
extractive industry, and that markets for the disposal of their
goods were an absolute necessity. Some of the States, especially
New England and the Middle States, were interested in the
carrying trade, but all were concerned in obtaining markets. On
account of jealousy interstate trade continued a precarious
existence and by no means sufficed to dispose of the surplus
products, so that foreign markets were necessary. The people were
especially concerned for the establishment of the old trade with
the West India Islands, which had been the mainstay of their
prosperity in colonial times; and after the British Government,
in 1783, restricted that trade to British vessels, many people in
the United States were attributing hard times to British
malignancy. The only action which seemed possible was to force
Great Britain in particular, but other foreign countries as well,
to make such trade agreements as the prosperity of the United
States demanded. The only hope seemed to lie in a commercial
policy of reprisal which would force other countries to open
their markets to American goods. Retaliation was the dominating
idea in the foreign policy of the time. So in 1784 Congress made
a new recommendation to the States, prefacing it with an
assertion of the importance of commerce, saying: "The fortune of
every Citizen is interested in the success thereof; for it is the
constant source of wealth and incentive to industry; and the
value of our produce and our land must ever rise or fall in
proportion to the prosperous or adverse state of trade."
And after declaring that Great Britain had "adopted regulations
destructive of our commerce with her West India Islands," it was
further asserted: "Unless the United States in Congress assembled
shall be vested with powers competent to the protection of
commerce, they can never command reciprocal advantages in trade."
It was therefore proposed to give to Congress for fifteen years
the power to prohibit the importation or exportation of goods at
American ports except in vessels owned by the people of the
United States or by the subjects of foreign governments having
treaties of commerce with the United States. This was simply a
request for authorization to adopt navigation acts. But the
individual States were too much concerned with their own
interests and did not or would not appreciate the rights of the
other States or the interests of the Union as a whole. And so the
commercial amendment of 1784 suffered the fate of all other
amendments proposed to the Articles of Confederation. In fact
only two States accepted it.
It usually happens that some minor occurrence, almost unnoticed
at the time, leads directly to the most important consequences.
And an incident in domestic affairs started the chain of events
in the United States that ended in the reform of the Federal
Government. The rivalry and jealousy among the States had brought
matters to such a pass that either Congress must be vested with
adequate powers or the Confederation must collapse. But the
Articles of Confederation provided no remedy, and it had been
found that amendments to that instrument could not be obtained.
It was necessary, therefore, to proceed in some extra-legal
fashion. The Articles of Confederation specifically forbade
treaties or alliances between the States unless approved by
Congress. Yet Virginia and Maryland, in 1785, had come to a
working agreement regarding the use of the Potomac River, which
was the boundary line between them. Commissioners representing
both parties had met at Alexandria and soon adjourned to Mount
Vernon, where they not only reached an amicable settlement of the
immediate questions before them but also discussed the larger
subjects of duties and commercial matters in general. When the
Maryland legislature came to act on the report, it proposed that
Pennsylvania and Delaware should be invited to join with them in
formulating a common commercial policy. Virginia then went one
step farther and invited all the other States to send
commissioners to a general trade convention and later announced
Annapolis as the place of meeting and set the time for September,
1786.
This action was unconstitutional and was so recognized, for James
Madison notes that "from the Legislative Journals of Virginia it
appears, that a vote to apply for a sanction of Congress was
followed by a vote against a communication of the Compact to
Congress," and he mentions other similar violations of the
central authority. That this did not attract more attention was
probably due to the public interest being absorbed just at that
time by the paper money agitation. Then, too, the men concerned
seem to have been willing to avoid publicity. Their purposes are
well brought out in a letter of Monsieur Louis Otto, French
Charge d'Affaires, written on October 10, 1786, to the Comte de
Vergennes, Minister for Foreign Affairs, though their motives may
be somewhat misinterpreted.
"Although there are no nobles in America, there is a class of men
denominated "gentlemen," who, by reason of their wealth, their
talents, their education, their families, or the offices they
hold, aspire to a preeminence which the people refuse to grant
them; and, although many of these men have betrayed the interests
of their order to gain popularity, there reigns among them a
connection so much the more intimate as they almost all of them
dread the efforts of the people to despoil them of their
possessions, and, moreover, they are creditors, and therefore
interested in strengthening the government, and watching over the
execution of the laws.
"These men generally pay very heavy taxes, while the small
proprietors escape the vigilance of the collectors. The majority
of them being merchants, it is for their interest to establish
the credit of the United States in Europe on a solid foundation
by the exact payment of debts, and to grant to congress powers
extensive enough to compel the people to contribute for this
purpose. The attempt, my lord, has been vain, by pamphlets and
other publications, to spread notions of justice and integrity,
and to deprive the people of a freedom which they have so
misused. By proposing a new organization of the federal
government all minds would have been revolted; circumstances
ruinous to the commerce of America have happily arisen to furnish
the reformers with a pretext for introducing innovations.
"They represented to the people that the American name had become
opprobrious among all the nations of Europe; that the flag of the
United States was everywhere exposed to insults and annoyance;
the husbandman, no longer able to export his produce freely,
would soon be reduced to want; it was high time to retaliate, and
to convince foreign powers that the United States would not with
impunity suffer such a violation of the freedom of trade, but
that strong measures could be taken only with the consent of the
thirteen states, and that congress, not having the necessary
powers, it was essential to form a general assembly instructed to
present to congress the plan for its adoption, and to point out
the means of carrying it into execution.
"The people, generally discontented with the obstacles in the way
of commerce, and scarcely suspecting the secret motives of their
opponents, ardently embraced this measure, and appointed
commissioners, who were to assemble at Annapolis in the beginning
of September.
"The authors of this proposition had no hope, nor even desire, to
see the success of this assembly of commissioners, which was only
intended to prepare a question much more important than that of
commerce. The measures were so well taken that at the end of
September no more than five states were represented at Annapolis,
and the commissioners from the northern states tarried several
days at New York in order to retard their arrival.
"The states which assembled, after having waited nearly three
weeks, separated under the pretext that they were not in
sufficient numbers to enter on business, and, to justify this
dissolution, they addressed to the different legislatures and to
congress a report, the translation of which I have the honor to
enclose to you."*
* Quoted by Bancroft, "History of the Formation of the
Constitution," vol. ii, Appendix, pp. 399-400.
Among these "men denominated 'gentlemen'" to whom the French
Charge d'Affaires alludes, was James Madison of Virginia. He was
one of the younger men, unfitted by temperament and physique to
be a soldier, who yet had found his opportunity in the
Revolution. Graduating in 1771 from Princeton, where tradition
tells of the part he took in patriotic demonstrations on the
campus -characteristic of students then as now--he had thrown
himself heart and soul into the American cause. He was a member
of the convention to frame the first State Constitution for
Virginia in 1776, and from that time on, because of his ability,
he was an important figure in the political history of his State
and of his country. He was largely responsible for bringing about
the conference between Virginia and Maryland and for the
subsequent steps resulting in the trade convention at Annapolis.
And yet Madison seldom took a conspicuous part, preferring to
remain in the background and to allow others to appear as the
leaders. When the Annapolis Convention assembled, for example, he
suffered Alexander Hamilton of New York to play the leading role.
Hamilton was then approaching thirty years of age and was one of
the ablest men in the United States. Though his best work was
done in later years, when he proved himself to be perhaps the
most brilliant of American statesmen, with an extraordinary
genius for administrative organization, the part that he took in
the affairs of this period was important. He was small and slight
in person but with an expressive face, fair complexion, and
cheeks of "almost feminine rosiness." The usual aspect of his
countenance was thoughtful and even severe, but in conversation
his face lighted up with a remarkably attractive smile. He
carried himself erectly and with dignity, so that in spite of his
small figure, when he entered a room "it was apparent, from the
respectful attention of the company, that he was a distinguished
person." A contemporary, speaking of the opposite and almost
irreconcilable traits of Hamilton's character, pronounced a bust
of him as giving a complete exposition of his character: "Draw a
handkerchief around the mouth of the bust, and the remnant of the
countenance represents fortitude and intrepidity such as we have
often seen in the plates of Roman heroes. Veil in the same manner
the face and leave the mouth and chin only discernible, and all
this fortitude melts and vanishes into almost feminine softness."
Hamilton was a leading spirit in the Annapolis Trade Convention
and wrote the report that it adopted. Whether or not there is any
truth in the assertion of the French charge that Hamilton and
others thought it advisable to disguise their purposes, there is
no doubt that the Annapolis Convention was an all-important step
in the progress of reform, and its recommendation was the direct
occasion of the calling of the great convention that framed the
Constitution of the United States.
The recommendation of the Annapolis delegates was in the form of
a report to the legislatures of their respective States, in which
they referred to the defects in the Federal Government and called
for "a convention of deputies from the different states for the
special purpose of entering into this investigation and digesting
a Plan for supplying such defects." Philadelphia was suggested as
the place of meeting, and the time was fixed for the second
Monday
in May of the next year.
Several of the States acted promptly upon this recommendation and
in February, 1787, Congress adopted a resolution accepting the
proposal and calling the convention "for the sole and express
purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting .
. . such alterations . . . as shall . . . render the Federal
Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the
preservation of the Union." Before the time fixed for the meeting
of the Philadelphia Convention, or shortly after that date, all
the States had appointed deputies with the exception of New
Hampshire and Rhode Island. New Hampshire was favorably disposed
toward the meeting but, owing to local conditions, failed to act
before the Convention was well under way. Delegates, however,
arrived in time to share in some of the most important
proceedings. Rhode Island alone refused to take part, although a
letter signed by some of the prominent men was sent to the
Convention pledging their support.
CHAPTER VI. THE FEDERAL CONVENTION
The body of delegates which met in Philadelphia in 1787 was the
most important convention that ever sat in the United States. The
Confederation was a failure, and if the new nation was to be
justified in the eyes of the world, it must show itself capable
of effective union. The members of the Convention realized the
significance of the task before them, which was, as Madison said,
"now to decide forever the fate of Republican government."
Gouverneur Morris, with unwonted seriousness, declared: "The
whole human race will be affected by the proceedings of this
Convention." James Wilson spoke with equal gravity: "After the
lapse of six thousand years since the creation of the world
America now presents the first instance of a people assembled to
weigh deliberately and calmly and to decide leisurely and
peaceably upon the form of government by which they will bind
themselves and their posterity."
Not all the men to whom this undertaking was entrusted, and who
were taking themselves and their work so seriously, could pretend
to social distinction, but practically all belonged to the upper
ruling class. At the Indian Queen, a tavern on Fourth Street
between Market and Chestnut, some of the delegates had a hall in
which they lived by themselves. The meetings of the Convention
were held in an upper room of the State House. The sessions were
secret; sentries were placed at the door to keep away all
intruders; and the pavement of the street in front of the
building
was covered with loose earth so that the noises of passing
traffic
should not disturb this august assembly. It is not surprising
that
a tradition grew up about the Federal Convention which hedged it
round with a sort of awe and reverence. Even Thomas Jefferson
referred to it as "an assembly of demigods." If we can get away
from the glamour which has been spread over the work of the
Fathers of the Constitution and understand that they were human
beings, even as we are, and influenced by the same motives as
other men, it may be possible to obtain a more faithful
impression
of what actually took place.
Since representation in the Convention was to be by States, just
as it had been in the Continental Congress, the presence of
delegations from a majority of the States was necessary for
organization. It is a commentary upon the times, upon the
difficulties of travel, and upon the leisurely habits of the
people, that the meeting which had been called for the 14th of
May
could not begin its work for over ten days. The 25th of May was
stormy, and only twenty-nine delegates were on hand when the
Convention organized. The slender attendance can only partially
be attributed to the weather, for in the following three months
and a half of the Convention, at which fifty-five members were
present at one time or another, the average attendance was only
slightly larger than that of the first day. In such a small body
personality counted for much, in ways that the historian can only
surmise. Many compromises of conflicting interests were reached
by informal discussion outside of the formal sessions. In these
small gatherings individual character was often as decisive as
weighty argument.
George Washington was unanimously chosen as the presiding officer
of the Convention. He sat on a raised platform; in a large,
carved, high-backed chair, from which his commanding figure and
dignified bearing exerted a potent influence on the assembly; an
influence enhanced by the formal courtesy and stately intercourse
of the times. Washington was the great man of his day and the
members not only respected and admired him; some of them were
actually afraid of him. When he rose to his feet he was almost
the Commitnder-in-Chief again. There is evidence to show that
his support or disapproval was at times a decisive factor in the
deliberations of the Convention.
Virginia, which had taken a conspicuous part in the calling of
the Convention, was looked to for leadership in the work that
was to be done. James Madison, next to Washington the most
important member of the Virginia delegation, was the very
opposite of Washington in many respects--small and slight in
stature, inconspicuous in dress as in figure, modest and
retiring,
but with a quick, active mind and wide knowledge obtained both
from experience in public affairs and from extensive reading.
Washington was the man of action; Madison, the scholar in
politics.
Madison was the younger by nearly twenty years, but Washington
admired him greatly and gave him the support of his influence--a
matter of no little consequence, for Madison was the leading
expert
worker of the Convention in the business of framing the
Constitution.
Governor Edmund Randolph, with his tall figure, handsome face,
and dignified manner, made an excellent impression in the
position
accorded tohim of nominal leader of the Virginia delegation.
Among
others irom the same State who should be noticed were the famous
lawyers, George Wythe and George Mason.
Among the deputies from Pennsylvania the foremost was James
Wilson,
the "Caledonian," who probably stood next in importance in the
convention 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 cof prominence.
Several
times a member of Congress, a signer of the Declaration of
Independence, he was now regarded as one of the ablest lawyers
in the United States. A more brilliant member of the Pennsylvania
delegation, and one of the most brilliant of the Convention, was
Gouverneur Morris, who shone by his cleverness and quick wit as
well as by his wonderful command of )anguage. But Morris was
admired more than he was trusted; and, while he supported the
efforts for a strong government, his support was not always as
great a help as might have been expected. A crippled arm and a
wooden leg might detract from his personal appearance, but they
could not subdue his spirit and audacity.*
* 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.
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
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 Convention. Then, too, there were the delegates from South
Carolina: John Rutledge, the orator, General 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 concerned, 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 Delaware, the author of the
"Farmer's Letters" and chairman of the committee of Congress that
had framed the Articles of Confederation--able, scholarly, and
sincere, but nervous, sensitive, and conscientious 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 of
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 delegates, 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 Madison 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 individuals 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
aristocratic
rather than democratic and, however excellent his ideas may have
been, they were too radical for his fellow delegates and found
but little support. He threw his strength in favor of a strong
government and was ready to aid the movement in whatever way he
could. But within his own delegation 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
Convention
for the purpose of opposing a strong government. He proved to be
a tiresome speaker and his prosiness, when added to the suspicion
attaching to his motives, cost him much of the influence which
he might otherwise have had.
All in all, the delegates to the Federal Convention 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
called them, for another contemporary insisted "that twenty
assemblies of equal number might be collected equally respectable
both in point of ability, integrity, and patriotism." Perhaps it
would be safer to regard the Convention as a fairly
representative 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 procedure; 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 principal 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 judiciary.
This was in reality providing for a new government and was
probably quite beyond the ideas of most of the members of the
Convention, who had come there under instructions and with the
expectation of revising the Articles of Confederation. 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 opposition
headed by New Jersey and Connecticut presented 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 Confederation, 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 divided the Congress of the Confederation, the
cleavage between the large States and the small States. The large
States were in favor of representation in both houses of the
legislature according to population, while the small States were
opposed to any change which would deprive them of their equal
vote in Congress, and though outvoted, they were not ready to
yield. The Virginia Plan, and subsequently the New Jersey Plan,
had first been considered in committee of the whole, and the
question 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 conducted
with remarkably good temper. But it was evidently the calm before
the storm. And the issue was finally joined when the question of
representation 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 proportional representation in the lower
house. But on the question of the upper house, owing to a
peculiar combination of circumstances--the absence of one
delegate and another's change of vote causing the position of
their respective States to be reversed or nullified--the vote on
the 2d of July resulted in a tie. This brought the proceedings of
the Convention to a standstill. A committee of one member from
each State was appointed to consider the question, and, "that
time might be given to the Committee, and to such as chose to
attend to the celebration on the anniversary of Independence, the
Convention adjourned" over the Fourth. The committee was chosen
by ballot, and its composition 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 satisfactory solution would permanently
adjourn,
that Franklin proposed that "prayers imploring the assistance
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 dissensions 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 consideration Of details, on the 16th of July, the great
compromise 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 in 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 amendment 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 enumerating the population. This impression is
quite erroneous. It was one of the details of the compromise, 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 possessed the attributes both of persons and of property.
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
was 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
"representation 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 determine upon their course of action. They were apparently
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
dissensions had reached the ears of the public, and it 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 compromise 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 government. 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 enlargements
and amendments, and the Convention had gone as far as it could
effectively in determining the general principles upon which the
government should be formed. There were too many members to work
efficiently when it came to the actual framing of a constitution
with all the inevitable details that were necessary in setting up
a machinery 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 committee proceeded. Of course the members were
bound by the resolutions which had been adopted by the Convention
and they held themselves closely 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 consistent with the new plan of
government. Then they made use of the New Jersey Plan, which had
been put forward by the smaller States, and of a third plan
which had been presented by Charles Pinckney; for the rest they
drew largely upon the State Constitutions. By a combination of
these different sources the committee prepared a document bearing
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 Monday, the 6th of August,
and for five weeks the report 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
considered.
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 importance
attaches to matters of phrasing. Just as the Virginia Plan was
made more acceptable to the majority by changes in wording that
seem to us insignificant, 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 Convention. There was now an expectation
on the part of the members that something definite was going to
be accomplished, and all were concerned in making 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 Confederation 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 Confederation 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 importance. The Virginia Plan declared that, in addition
to the powers under the Confederation, Congress should have the
right "to legislate in all cases to which the separate States
are incompetent." This statement was elaborated in the printed
draft which granted specific powers of taxation, of regulating
commerce, of establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, and
at the end of the enumeration of powers two clauses were added
giving to Congress authority:
"To call forth the aid of the militia, in order to execute the
laws of the Union, enforce treaties, suppress insurrections, and
repel invasions;
"And to make all laws that shall be necessary and proper 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 executive a right of veto, which might be
overruled, however, by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
Following British tradition yielding as it were to an inherited
fear--these delegates in America were led to place the first
restraint upon the exercise of congressional 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 convicted of treason only on the
testimony of two witnesses, and that attainder of treason should
not "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 shipping 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 disposed. 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 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 misunderstood, for
one should not read into the sentiment of the members of the
Convention any of the later strong prejudice against slavery.
There were some who objected on moral grounds to the recognition
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 admit." 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 institution, 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 morality or wisdom of slavery
are considerations belonging to the States themselves," and the
compromise was nothing more or less than a bargain between the
sections.
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. Experience under the
Confederation had taught men that something more was necessary in
the direction of restricting the States in matters which might
interfere with the working of the central Government. As in the
case of the powers of Congress, the Articles 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 subject 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 which foreigners and foreign countries were involved,
and to controversies between States and citizens of different
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
regarded as in contravention to the Constitution. There is little
doubt that the more important men in the Convention, such as
Wilson, Madison, Gouverneur 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.
Oddly enough, this was a modification of a clause introduced by
Luther Martin with quite another intent. As adopted it reads:
"That this Constitution and the Laws of the United States . . .
and all Treaties . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; 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
significance lies in the fact that the Constitution is 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 Convention faced but one of the last to be
settled--that providing for an executive. There was a general
agreement in the Convention that there should be a separate
executive. The opinion also developed quite early that a single
executive was better than a plural body, but that was as far as
the members 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 accustomed to it that it is
difficult for us to hark back to the time when there was no such
officer and to 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 quoted to
the effect that the men of that time had been accustomed to
considering themselves subjects 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 desirability 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 country to see if he could be induced to
accept the headship 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 despotic
powers. When the sessions were over, a lady asked Franklin:
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "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 impeachment, and it was also readily agreed that his
veto might be overruled by a two-thirds vote of Congress; but
some further safeguards were necessary, 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 members voted in favor of an
appointment by the national legislature, but they also voted
against it. Once they voted for a system of electors chosen 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 weeks' close application. During the
discussions it had become apparent to every one that an election
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 conclusion, 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 choice 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 representatives, 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, 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 concentrate 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 delegates
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
majority. 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 Representatives, where each State was
still to have but one vote. Had this scheme worked as the
designers 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 Convention. The chief problem before them
was the method of election. If the President was to be chosen by
the legislature, he should not be eligible to reelection. On the
other hand, if there was to be some form of popular election, an
opportunity for reelection 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 reelection was permitted. It was upon these
considerations that the term of four years was eventually agreed
upon, with no restriction placed upon reelection.
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 powers to the President, such
as the making of treaties and the appointing of ambassadors and
judges, although 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 anxious 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 single executive they also agreed upon the
man for the position. Just as Washington had been chosen
unanimously 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 conception
of the office prevailing at the time that Washington, when he
became President, is 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 tendency to ride rough-shod over those whose temperaments
forced
them to demand modifications in petty matters. This precipitancy
gave rise to considerable 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. Accordingly on Saturday, the 8th of September, a new
committee was appointed, to consist of five members, whose duty
it was "to revise the stile of and arrange the articles which
had been agreed to by the House." The committee was chosen by
ballot and was made up exclusively of friends of the new
Constitution: Doctor Johnson of Connecticut, Alexander Hamilton,
who had returned to Philadelphia to help in finishing the work,
Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, and Rufus King. On Wednesday
the twelfth, the Committee made its report, 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
waiting for the report to be printed. But on Thursday this was
ready, and three days were devoted to going over carefully each
article and section and giving 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 Convention 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 Convention by the unanimous consent of the
states present . . . in witness whereof we have hereunto
subscribed our names." Thirty-nine delegates, representing twelve
States, then signed the Constitution.
When Charles Biddle of Philadelphia, who was acquainted with most
of the members of the Convention, wrote his "Autobiography,"
which was published in 1802, he declared that for his part he
considered the government established by the Constitution 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 Constitution, 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 practical sagacity. They had a very
definite object before them. No matter how much the members might
talk about democracy in theory or about ancient confederacies,
when it came to action they did not go outside of their own
experience. The Constitution was devised to correct well-known
defects and it contained few provisions which had not been tested
by practical political experience. Before the Convention met,
some of the leading men in the country had prepared lists of the
defects which existed 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
The course of English history shops 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
English 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
fundamental 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 of Great Britain with "repeated injuries and usurpations 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 accomplished only by disregarding
the forms prescribed 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 began 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 because it was believed that ratification by the
legislatures 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 Convention from meeting the fate of all
previous amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which had
required the consent of every State in 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 to determine
what
the course of procedure should be in the individual States; so it
simply transmitted the Constitution to Congress and in an
accompanying document, which significantly omitted any request
for the approval of Congress, strongly expressed 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 it unanimously voted, eleven
States being present, that the recommendations of the Convention
should be followed, and accordingly sent the document 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 opportunity 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 successive 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
various States, divided on one and another question, such as that
of hard and soft money, and these issues 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 Federal Convention and the framing
of the Constitution 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 government
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 government and
legislation which would tend to relieve or postpone the payment
of debts; and, as that relief would come more readily from the
State Governments, they were naturally the friends of State
rights and State authority and were opposed to any enlargement of
the powers of the Federal Government. 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 credit; 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. Almost simultaneously with the action
by Congress, and before notification of it had been received, a
motion was introduced in the Pennsylvania Assembly to call a
ratifying convention. The Anti-Federalists were surprised by the
suddenness of this proposal and to prevent action absented
themselves 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 the 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 contested, but the Federalists were
generally successful. The convention met towards the end of
November and, after three weeks of futile discussion, mainly upon
trivial matters and the meaning of words, ratified the
Constitution on the 12th of December, by a vote of forty-six to
twenty-three. Again the city of Philadelphia celebrated.
Pennsylvania was the first State to call a convention, but its
final action was anticipated by Delaware, 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 unanimously, 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, 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 Connecticut convention adjourned. The sentiment of
Boston, like that of Philadelphia, was strongly Federalist; but
the outlying districts, and in particular 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
ratification. The division was close, however, and it was
believed that the attitude of two men would determine the result.
One of these was Governor John Hancock, who was chosen chairman
of the convention but who did not attend the sessions at the
outset, as he was confined to his house by an attack of gout,
which, it was maliciously said, would disappear as soon as it was
known which way the majority of the convention would vote. The
other was Samuel Adams, a genuine friend of liberty, who was
opposed on principle to the general theory of the government set
forth in the Constitution. "I stumble at the threshold," he
wrote. "I meet with a national government, instead of a federal
union of sovereign states." But, being a shrewd politician, Adams
did not commit himself openly and, when the tradesmen of Boston
declared themselves in favor of ratification, he was ready to
yield his personal opinion.
There were many delegates in the Massachusetts convention who
felt that it was better to amend the document before them than
to try another Federal Convention, when as good an instrument
might not be devised. If this group were added to those who were
ready to accept the Constitution as it stood, they would make a
majority in favor of the new government. But the delay involved
in amending was regarded as dangerous, and it was argued that,
as the Constitution made ample provision for changes, it would
be safer and wiser to rely upon that method. The question was
one,
therefore, of immediate or future amendment. Pressure was
accordingly brought to bear upon Governor Hancock and intimations
were made to him of future political preferment, until he was
persuaded to propose immediate ratification of the Constitution,
with an urgent recommendation of such amendments as would remove
the objections of the Massachusetts people. When this proposal
was approved by Adams, its success was assured, and a few days
later, on the 6th of February, the convention voted 187 to 168
in favor of ratification. Nine amendments, largely in the nature
of a bill of rights, were then demanded, and the Massachusetts
representatives in Congress were enjoined "at all times, . . . to
exert all their influence, and use all reasonable and legal
methods, To obtain a ratification of the said alterations and
provisions." On the very day this action was taken, Jefferson
wrote from Paris to Madison: "I wish with all my soul that the
nine first conventions may accept the new Constitution, to secure
to us the good it contains; but I equally wish that the four
latest, whichever they may be, may refuse to accede to it till
a declaration of rights be annexed."
Boston proceeded to celebrate as Philadelphia, and Benjamin
Lincoln wrote to Washington, on the 9th of February, enclosing an
extract from the local paper describing the event:
"By the paper your Excellency will observe some account of the
parade of the Eighth the printer had by no means time eno' to do
justice to the subject. To give you some idea how far he has been
deficient I will mention an observation I heard made by a Lady
the last evening who saw the whole that the description in the
paper would no more compare with the original than the light of
the faintest star would with that of the Sun fortunately for us
the whole ended without the least disorder and the town during
the whole evening was, so far as I could observe perfectly
quiet."*
*Documentary History, vol. IV, pp. 488-490.
He added another paragraph which he later struck out as being of
little importance; but it throws an interesting sidelight upon
the customs of the time.
"The Gentlemen provided at Faneul Hall some biscuit & cheese four
qr Casks of wine three barrels & two hogs of punch the moment
they found that the people had drank sufficiently means were
taken to overset the two hogspunch this being done the company
dispersed and the day ended most agreeably"*
* Ibid.
Maryland came next. When the Federal Convention was breaking up,
Luther Martin was speaking of the new system of government to his
colleague, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, and exclaimed: "I'll be
hanged if ever the people of Maryland agree to it!" To which his
colleague retorted: "I advise you to stay in Philadelphia, lest
you should be hanged." And Jenifer proved to be right, for in
Maryland the Federalists obtained control of the convention and,
by a vote of 63 to 11, ratified the Constitution on the 26th of
April.
In South Carolina, which was the Southern State next in
importance to Virginia, the compromise on the slave trade proved
to be one of the deciding factors in determining public opinion.
When the elections were held, they resulted in an overwhelming
majority for the Federalists, so that after a session of less
than two weeks the convention ratified the Constitution, on the
28th of May, by a vote of over two to one.
The only apparent setback which the adoption of the Constitution
had thus far received was in New Hampshire, where the convention
met early in February and then adjourned until June to see what
the other States might do. But this delay proved to be of no
consequence for, when the time came for the second meeting of the
New Hampshire delegates, eight States had already acted favorably
and adoption was regarded as a certainty. This was sufficient to
put a stop to any further waiting, and New Hampshire added its
name to the list on the 21st of June; but the division of opinion
was fairly well represented by the smallness of the majority, the
vote standing 57 to 46.
Nine States had now ratified the Constitution and it was to go
into effect among them. But the support of Virginia and New York
was of so much importance that their decisions were awaited with
uneasiness. In Virginia, in spite of the support of such men as
Washington and Madison, the sentiment for and against the
Constitution was fairly evenly divided, and the opposition
numbered in its ranks other names of almost equal influence, such
as Patrick Henry and George Mason. Feeling ran high; the contest
was a bitter one and, even after the elections had been held and
the convention had opened, early in June, the decision was in
doubt and remained in doubt until the very end. The situation
was, in one respect at least, similar to that which had existed
in Massachusetts, in that it was possible to get a substantial
majority in favor of the Constitution provided certain amendments
were made. The same arguments were used; strengthened on the one
side by what other States had done, and on the other side by the
plea that now was the time to hold out for amendments. The
example of Massachusetts, however, seems to have been decisive,
and on the 25th of June, four days later than New Hampshire, the
Virginia convention voted to ratify, "under the conviction that
whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought
rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to
bring the Union into danger by delay, with a hope of obtaining
amendments previous to the ratification."
When the New York convention began its sessions on the 17th of
June, it is said that more than two-thirds of the delegates were
Anti-Federalist in sentiment. How a majority in favor of the
Constitution was obtained has never been adequately explained,
but it is certain that the main credit for the achievement
belongs to Alexander Hamilton. He had early realized how greatly
it would help the prospects of the Constitution if thinking
people could be brought to an appreciation of the importance and
value of the new form of government. In order to reach the
intelligent public everywhere, but particularly in New York, he
projected a series of essays which should be published in the
newspapers, setting forth the aims and purposes of the
Constitution. He secured the assistance of Madison and Jay, and
before the end of October, 1787, published the first essay in
"The Independent Gazetteer." From that time on these papers
continued to be printed over the signature of "Publius,"
sometimes as many as three or four in a week. There were
eighty-five numbers altogether, which have ever since been known
as "The Federalist." Of these approximately fifty were the work
of Hamilton, Madison wrote about thirty and Jay five. Although
the essays were widely copied in other journals, and form for us
the most important commentary on the Constitution, making what is
regarded as one of America's greatest books, it is doubtful how
much immediate influence they had. Certainly in the New York
convention itself Hamilton's personal influence was a stronger
force. His arguments were both eloquent and cogent, and met every
objection; and his efforts to win over the opposition were
unremitting. The news which came by express riders from New
Hampshire and then from Virginia were also deciding factors, for
New York could not afford to remain out of the new Union if it
was to embrace States on either side. And yet the debate
continued, as the opposition was putting forth every effort to
make ratification conditional upon certain amendments being
adopted. But Hamilton resolutely refused to make any concessions
and at length was successful in persuading the New York
convention, by a vote of 30 against 27, on the 26th of July, to
follow the example of Massachusetts and Virginia and to ratify
the Constitution with merely a recommendation of future
amendments.
The satisfaction of the country at the outcome of the long and
momentous struggle over the adoption of the new government was
unmistakable. Even before the action of New York had been taken,
the Fourth of July was made the occasion for a great celebration
throughout the United States, both as the anniversary of
independence and as the consummation of the Union by the adoption
of the Constitution.
The general rejoicing was somewhat tempered, however, by the
reluctance of North Carolina and Rhode Island to come under "the
new roof." Had the convention which met on the 21st of July in
North Carolina reached a vote, it would probably have defeated
the Constitution, but it was doubtless restrained by the action
of New York and adjourned without coming to a decision. A second
convention was called in September, 1789, and in the meantime the
new government had come into operation and was bringing pressure
to bear upon the recalcitrant States which refused to abandon the
old union for the new. One of the earliest acts passed by
Congress was a revenue act, levying duties upon foreign goods
imported, which were made specifically to apply to imports from
Rhode Island and North Carolina. This was sufficient for North
Carolina, and on November 21, 1789, the convention ratified the
Constitution. But Rhode Island still held out. A convention of
that State was finally called to meet in March, 1790, but
accomplished nothing and avoided a decision by adjourning until
May. The Federal Government then proceeded to threaten drastic
measures by taking up a bill which authorized the President to
suspend all commercial intercourse with Rhode Island and to
demand of that State the payment of its share of the Federal
debt. The bill passed the Senate but stopped there, for the State
gave in and ratified the Constitution on the 29th of May. Two
weeks later Ellsworth, who was now United States Senator from
Connecticut, wrote that Rhode Island had been "brought into the
Union, and by a pretty cold measure in Congress, which would have
exposed me to some censure, had it not produced the effect which
I expected it would and which in fact it has done. But 'all is
well that ends well.' The Constitution is now adopted by all the
States and I have much satisfaction, and perhaps some vanity, in
seeing, at length, a great work finished, for which I have long
labored incessantly."*
* "Connecticut's Ratification of the Federal Constitution," by B.
C. Steiner, in "Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society,"
April 1915, pp. 88-89.
Perhaps the most striking feature of these conventions is the
trivial character of the objections that were raised. Some of the
arguments it is, true, went to the very heart of the matter and
considered the fundamental principles of government. It is
possible to tolerate and even to sympathize with a man who
declared:
"Among other deformities the Constitution has an awful squinting.
It squints toward monarchy; . . . . your president may easily
become a king . . . . If your American chief be a man of ambition
and ability how easy it is for him to render himself absolute. We
shall have a king. The army will salute him monarch.*
* "Connecticut's Ratification of the Federal Constitution," by B.
C. Steiner, in "Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society,"
April 1915 pp. 88-89.
But it is hard to take seriously a delegate who asked permission
"to make a short apostrophe to liberty," and then delivered
himself of this bathos:
"O liberty!--thou greatest good--thou fairest property--with thee
I wish to live--with thee I wish to die!--Pardon me if I drop a
tear on the peril to which she is exposed; I cannot, sir, see
this brightest of jewels tarnished! a jewel worth ten thousand
worlds! and shall we part with it so soon? O no!"*
* Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," vol. III. p.
144.
There might be some reason in objecting to the excessive power
vested in Congress; but what is one to think of the fear that
imagined the greatest point of danger to lie in the ten miles
square which later became the District of Columbia, because the
Government might erect a fortified stronghold which would be
invincible? Again, in the light of subsequent events it is
laughable to find many protesting that, although each house was
required to keep a journal of proceedings, it was only required
"FROM TIME TO TIME to publish the same, excepting such parts as
may in their judgment require secrecy." All sorts of personal
charges were made against those who were responsible for the
framing of the Constitution. Hopkinson wrote to Jefferson in
April, 1788:
"You will be surprised when I tell you that our public News
Papers have anounced General Washington to be a Fool influenced &
lead by that Knave Dr. Franklin, who is a public Defaulter for
Millions of Dollars, that Mr. Morris has defrauded the Public out
of as many Millions as you please & that they are to cover their
frauds by this new Government."*
* "Documentary History of the Constitution," vol. IV, p. 563.
All things considered, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that such critics and detractors were trying to find excuses for
their opposition.
The majorities in the various conventions can hardly be said
really to represent the people of their States, for only a small
percentage of the people had voted in electing them; they were
representative rather of the propertied upper class. This
circumstance has given rise to the charge that the Constitution
was framed and adopted by men who were interested in the
protection
of property, in the maintenance of the value of government
securities, and in the payment of debts which had been incurred
by the individual States in the course of the Revolution.
Property
holders were unquestionably assisted by the mere establishment of
a
strong government. The creditor class seemed to require some
special provision and, when the powers of Congress were under
consideration in the Federal Convention, several of the members
argued strongly for a positive injunction on Congress to assume
obligations of the States. The chief objection to this procedure
seemed to be based upon the fear of benefiting speculators rather
than the legitimate creditors, and the matter was finally
compromised by providing that all debts should be "as valid
against the United States under this Constitution asunder the
Confederation." The charge that the Constitution was framed and
its adoption obtained by men of property and wealth is
undoubtedly
true, but it is a mistake to attribute unworthy motives to them.
The upper classes in the United States were generally people of
wealth and so would be the natural holders of government
securities. They were undoubtedly acting in self-protection, but
the responsibility rested upon them to take the lead. They were
acting indeed for the public interest in the largest sense, for
conditions in the United States were such that every man might
become a landowner and the people in general therefore wished to
have property rights protected.
In the autumn of 1788 the Congress of the old Confederation made
testamentary provision for its heir by voting that presidential
electors should be chosen on the first Wednesday in January,
1789; that these electors should meet and cast their votes for
President on the first Wednesday in February; and that the Senate
and House of Representatives should assemble on the first
Wednesday in March. It was also decided that the seat of
government should be in the City of New York until otherwise
ordered by Congress. In accordance with this procedure, the
requisite elections were held, and the new government was duly
installed. It happened in 1789 that the first Wednesday in March
was the fourth day of that month, which thereby became the date
for the beginning of each subsequent administration.
The acid test of efficiency was still to be applied to the new
machinery of government. But Americans then, as now, were an
adaptable people, with political genius, and they would have been
able to make almost any form of government succeed. If the
Federal Convention had never met, there is good reason for
believing that the Articles of Confederation, with some
amendments, would have been made to work. The success of the new
government was therefore in a large measure dependent upon the
favor of the people. If they wished to do so, they could make it
win out in spite of obstacles. In other words, the new government
would succeed exactly to the extent to which the people stood
back of it. This was the critical moment when the slowly growing
prosperity, described at length and emphasized in the previous
chapters, produced one of its most important effects. In June,
1788, Washington wrote to Lafayette:
"I expect, that many blessings will be attributed to our new
government, which are now taking their rise from that industry
and frugality into the practice of which the people have been
forced from necessity. I really believe that there never was so
much labour and economy to be found before in the country as at
the present moment. If they persist in the habits they are
acquiring, the good effects will soon be distinguishable. When
the people shall find themselves secure under an energetic
government, when foreign Nations shall be disposed to give us
equal advantages in commerce from dread of retaliation, when the
burdens of the war shall be in a manner done away by the sale of
western lands, when the seeds of happiness which are sown here
shall begin to expand themselves, and when every one (under his
own vine and fig-tree) shall begin to taste the fruits of
freedom--then all these blessings (for all these blessings will
come) will be referred to the fostering influence of the new
government. Whereas many causes will have conspired to produce
them."
A few months later a similar opinion was expressed by Crevecoeur
in writing to Jefferson:
"Never was so great a change in the opinion of the best people as
has happened these five years; almost everybody feels the
necessity of coercive laws, government, union, industry, and
labor . . . . The exports of this country have singularly
increased within these two years, and the imports have decreased
in proportion."
The new Federal Government was fortunate in beginning its career
at the moment when returning prosperity was predisposing the
people to think well of it. The inauguration of Washington marked
the opening of a new era for the people of the United States of
America.
APPENDIX*
*The documents in this Appendix follow the text of the "Revised
Statutes of the United States", Second Edition, 1878.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE--1776
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of
America
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the
separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that
mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they
are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce
them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of
these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains
them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of
the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove
this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and
necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and
pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his
Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly
neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the
right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable
to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public
Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance
with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing
with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause
others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable
of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their
exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the
dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for
that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of
Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration
hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of
Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his
Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of
their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms
of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without
the Consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and
superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to
subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and
unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their acts of
pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any
Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these
States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended
offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and
enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example
and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into
these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws,
and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Government:
For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves
invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his
Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns,
and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign
mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and
tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy
scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally
unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high
Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the
executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves
by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has
endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the
merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for
Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have
been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character
is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit
to be the ruler of a free People.
Nor have We been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren.
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their
legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We
have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and
settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and
magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common
kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably
interrupt our connections and correspondence[.] They too have
been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must,
therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our
Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind,
Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representative of the united States of
America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in
the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies,
solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are,
and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they
are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that
all political connection between them and the State of Great
Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free
and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,
conclude
Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
other
Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for
the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other
our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
JOHN HANCOCK.
New Hampshire.
JOSIAH BARTLETT, WM. WHIPPLE, MATTHEW THORNTON.
Massachusetts Bay.
SAML. ADAMS, JOHN ADAMS, ROBT. TREAT PAINE, ELBRIDGE GERRY.
Rhode Island.
STEP. HOPKINS, WILLIAM ELLERY.
Connecticut.
ROGER SHERMAN, SAM'EL HUNTINGTON,WM. WILLIAMS, OLIVER WOLCOTT.
New York.
WM. FLOYD, PHIL. LIVINGSTON,FRANS. LEWIS, LEWIS MORRIS.
New Jersey.
RICHD. STOCKTON, JNO. WITHERSPOON, FRAS. HOPKINSON, JOHN HART,
ABRA. CLARK.
Pennsylvania.
ROBT. MORRIS, BENJAMIN RUSH,BENJA. FRANKLIN, JOHN MORTON, GEO.
CLYMER, JAS. SMITH, GEO. TAYLOR, JAMES WILSON, GEO. ROSS.
Delaware.
CAESAR RODNEY, GEO. READ, THO. M'KEAN.
Maryland.
SAMUEL CHASE, WM. PACA,, THOS. STONE, CHARLES CARROLL of
Carrollton.
Virginia.
GEORGE W WYTHE, RICHARD HENRY LEE, TH. JEFFERSON, BENJA.
HARRISON,THOS. NELSON, JR., FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE, CARTER
BRAXTON.
North Carolina.
WM. HOOPER, JOSEPH HEWES, JOHN PENN.
South Carolina.
EDWARD RUTLEDGE, THOS. HEYWARD, JUNR., THOMAS LYNCH, JUNR.,
ARTHUR MIDDLETON.
Georgia.
BUTTON GWINNETT, LYMAN HALL, GEO. WALTON.
NOTE.--Mr. Ferdinand Jefferson, Keeper of the Rolls in the
Department of State, at Washington, says: "The names of the
signers are spelt above as in the fac-simile of the original, but
the punctuation of them is not always the same; neither do the
names of the States appear in the fac-simile of the original. The
names of the signers of each State are grouped together in the
fac-simile of the original, except the name of Matthew Thornton,
which follows that of Oliver Wolcott."
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION -- 1777.
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned
Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
WHEREAS the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress
assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our
Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventyseven, and in the
Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain
articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States
of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South-Carolina and
Georgia in the Words following, viz.
"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States
of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina
and Georgia.
ARTICLE I. The stile of this confederacy shall be "The United
States of America."
ARTICLE II. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is
not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United
States, in Congress assembled.
ARTICLE III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm
league of friendship with each other, for their common defence,
the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general
welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all
force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on
account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence
whatever.
ARTICLE IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship
and intercourse among the people of the different States in this
Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers,
vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled
to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several
States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and
regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all
the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties,
impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof
respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so
far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any
State, to any other State of which the owner is an inhabitant;
provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be
laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or
either of them.
If any person guilty of, or charged with treason, felony, or
other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and
be found in any of the United States, he shall upon demand of the
Governor or Executive power, of the State from which he fled, be
delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his
offence.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to
the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and
magistrates of every other State.
ARTICLE V. For the more convenient management of the general
interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually
appointed in such manner as the legislature of each State shall
direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in
every year, with a power reserved to each State, to recall its
delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to
send others in their stead, for the remainder of the year.
No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor
by more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of
being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six
years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of
holding any office under the United States, for which he, or
another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of
any kind.
Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the
States, and while they act as members of the committee of the
States.
In determining questions in the United States, in Congress
assembled, each State shall have one vote.
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached
or questioned in any court, or place out of Congress, and the
members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from
arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and
from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or
breach of the peace.
ARTICLE VI. No State without the consent of the United States in
Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any
embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance
or treaty with any king prince or state; nor shall any person
holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or
any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office or title of
any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state; nor
shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them,
grant any title of nobility.
No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation
or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the
United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the
purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long
it shall continue.
No state shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere
with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United
States in Congress assembled, with any king, prince or state, in
pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the
courts of France and Spain.
No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State,
except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the
United States in Congress assembled, for the defence of such
State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by
any State, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the
judgment of the United States, in Congress assembled, shall be
deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence
of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well
regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and
accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use,
in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a
proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the
United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be
actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain
advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to
invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit
of a delay, till the United States in Congress assembled can be
consulted: nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or
vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be
after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress
assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state and the
subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and
under such regulations as shall be established by the United
States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by
pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that
occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until
the United States in Congress assembled shall determine
otherwise.
ARTICLE VII. When land-forces are raised by any State for the
common defence, all officers of or under the rank of colonel,
shall be appointed by the Legislature of each State respectively
by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such
State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the
State which first made the appointment.
ARTICLE VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that
shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and
allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be
defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the
several States, in proportion to the value of all land within
each State, granted to or surveyed for any person, as such land
and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated
according to such mode as the United States in Congress
assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.
The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by
the authority and direction of the Legislatures of the several
States within the time agreed upon by the United States in
Congress assembled.
ARTICLE IX. The United States in Congress assembled, shall have
the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace
and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article--of
sending and receiving ambassadors--entering into treaties and
alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made
whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be
restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners,
as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the
exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities
whatsoever--of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what
captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner
prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United
States shall be divided or appropriated--of granting letters of
marque and reprisal in times of peace--appointing courts for the
trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and
establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals
in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress
shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.
The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last
resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting
or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning
boundary, jurisdiction or any other cause whatever; which
authority shall always be exercised in the manner following.
Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent
of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition
to Congress, stating the matter in question and praying for a
hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to
the legislative or executive authority of the other State in
controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties
by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by
joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for
hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they
cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of
the United States, and from the list of such persons each party
shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning,
until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that
number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress
shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by
lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five
of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally
determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the
judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination:
and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed,
without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient,
or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall
proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the
Secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent
or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court to be
appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and
conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to
the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim
or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce
sentence, or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and
decisive, the judgment or sentence and other proceedings being in
either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of
Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that
every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an
oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or
superior court of the State where the cause shall be tried, "well
and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according
to the best of his judgment, without favour, affection or hope of
reward:" provided also that no State shall be deprived of
territory for the benefit of the United States.
All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed
under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdiction
as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such
grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at
the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such
settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party
to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as
near as may be in the same manner as is before prescribed for
deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between
different States.
The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole
and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value
of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the
respective States.--fixing the standard of weights and measures
throughout the United States.--regulating the trade and managing
all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States,
provided that the legislative right of any State within its own
limits be not infringed or violated--establishing and regulating
post-offices from one State to another, throughout all the United
States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing thro' the
same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said
office--appointing all officers of the land forces, in the
service of the United States, excepting regimental
officers--appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and
commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United
States--making rules for the government and regulation of the
said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.
The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to
appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be
denominated "a Committee of the States," and to consist of one
delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees
and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general
affairs of the United States under their direction--to appoint
one of their number to preside, provided that no person be
allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in
any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money
to be raised for the service of the United States, and to
appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public
expenses--to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the
United States, transmitting every half year to the respective
States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or
emitted,--to build and equip a navy--to agree upon the number of
land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its
quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such
State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the
Legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers,
raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a soldier like
manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and
men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place
appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in
Congress assembled: but if the United States in Congress
assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper
that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller
number than its quota, and that any other State should raise a
greater number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number
shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the
same manner as the quota of such State, unless the legislature of
such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely
spared out of the same, in which case they shall raise officer,
cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judge
can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed
and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the
time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled.
The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a
war, nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace,
nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor
regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses
necessary for the defence and welfare of the United States, or
any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of
the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the
number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number
of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in
chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same:
nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning
from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of a majority
of the United States in Congress assembled.
The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to
any time within the year, and to any place within the United
States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration
than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of
their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to
treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgment
require secresy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each
State on any question shall be entered on the journal, when it is
desired by any delegate; and the delegates of a State, or any of
them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a
transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above
excepted, to lay before the Legislatures of the several States.
ARTICLE X. The committee of the States, or any nine of them,
shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such
of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress
assembled, by the consent of nine States, shall from time to time
think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be
delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, by
the articles of confederation, the voice of nine States in the
Congress of the United States assembled is requisite.
ARTICLE XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in
the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and
entitled to all the advantages of this Union: but no other colony
shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed
to by nine States.
ARTICLE XII. All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed and
debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before
the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present
confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against
the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said
United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.
ARTICLE XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of
the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which
by this confederation are submitted to them. And the articles of
this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State,
and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any
time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be
agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards
confirmed by the Legislatures of every State.
And whereas it has pleased the Great Governor of the world to
incline the hearts of the Legislatures we respectively represent
in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the
said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know ye that
we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and
authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in
the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and
entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles
of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the
matters and things therein contained: and we do further solemnly
plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that
they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in
Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said
confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles
thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we
re[s]pectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress.
Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day
of July in the year of our Lord one thousand s even hundred and
seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence of
America.*
* From the circumstances of delegates from the same State having
signed the Articles of Confederation at different times, as
appears by the dates, it is probable they affixed their names as
they happened to be present in Congress, after they had been
authorized by their constituents.
On the part & behalf of the State of New Hampshire.
JOSIAH BARTLETT, JOHN WENTWORTH, JUNR., August 8th, 1778.
On the part and behalf of the State of Massachusetts Bay.
JOHN HANCOCK, SAMUEL ADAMS, ELDBRIDGE GERRY, FRANCIS DANA, JAMES
LOVELL, SAMUEL HOLTEN.
On the part and behalf of the State of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations.
WILLIAMS ELLERY, HENRY MARCHANT, JOHN COLLINS.
On the part and behalf of the State of Connecticut.
ROGER SHERMAN, SAMUEL HUNTINGTON, OLIVER WOLCOTT, TITUS HOSMER,
ANDREW ADAMS.
On the part and behalf of the State of New York.
JAS. DUANE, FRA. LEWIS, Wm. DUER, GOUV. MORRIS.
On the part and in behalf of the State of New Jersey, Novr. 26,
1778.
JNO. WITHERSPOON, NATHL. SCUDDER.
On the part and behalf of the State of Pennsylvania.
ROBT. MORRIS, DANIEL ROBERDEAU, JONA. BAYARD SMITH, WILLIAM
CLINGAN, JOSEPH REED, 22d July, 1778.
On the part & behalf of the State of Delaware.
THO. M'KEAN, Feby. 12, 1779. JOHN DICKINSON, May 5, 1779.
NICHOLAS VAN DYKE.
On the part and behalf of the State of Maryland.
JOHN HANSON, March 1, 1781. DANIEL CARROLL, Mar. 1, 1781.
On the part and behalf of the State of Virginia.
RICHARD HENRY LEE, JNO. HARVIE, JOHN BANISTER, THOMAS ADAMS,
FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE.
On the part and behalf of the State of No. Carolina.
JOHN PENN, July 21st, 1778. CORNS. HARNETT, JNO. WILLIAMS.
On the part & behalf of the State of South Carolina.
HENRY LAURENS, WILLIAM HENRY DRAYTON, JNO. MATHEWS, RICHD.
HUTSON, THOS. HEYWARD, JUNR.
On the part & behalf of the State of Georgia.
JNO. WALTON, 24th July, EDWD. TELFAIR, EDWD. LANGWORTHY. 1778.
THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT -- 1787.
THE CONFEDERATE CONGRESS, JULY 13, 1787.
An Ordinance for the government of the territory of the United
States northwest of the river Ohio.
SECTION 1. Be it ordained by the United States in Congress
assembled, That the said territory, for the purpose of temporary
government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided into
two districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of
Congress, make it expedient.
SEC. 2. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the
estates both of resident and non-resident proprietors in the said
territory, dying intestate, shall descend to, and be distributed
among, their children and the descendants of a deceased child in
equal parts, the descendants of a deceased child or grandchild to
take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among
them; and where there shall be no children or descendants, then
in equal parts to the next of kin, in equal degree; and among
collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or sister of the
intestate shall have, in equal parts among them, their deceased
parent's share; and there shall, in no case, be a distinction
between kindred of the whole and half blood; saving in all cases
to the widow of the intestate, her third part of the real estate
for life, and one-third part of the personal estate; and this law
relative to descents and dower, shall remain in full force until
altered by the legislature of the district. And until the
governor and judges shall adopt laws as hereinafter mentioned,
estates in the said territory may be devised or bequeathed by
wills in writing, signed and sealed by him or her in whom the
estate may be, (being of full age,) and attested by three
witnesses; and real estates may be conveyed by lease and release,
or bargain and sale, signed, sealed, and delivered by the person,
being of full age, in whom the estate may be, and attested by two
witnesses, provided such wills be duly proved, and such
conveyances be acknowledged, or the execution thereof duly
proved, and be recorded within one year after proper magistrates,
courts, and registers, shall be appointed for that purpose; and
personal property may be transferred by delivery, saving,
however, to the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other
settlers of the Kaskaskias, Saint Vincents, and the neighboring
villages, who have heretofore professed themselves citizens of
Virginia, their laws and customs now being in force among them,
relative to the descent and conveyance of property.
SEC. 3. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That there
shall be appointed, from time to time, by Congress, a governor,
whose commission shall continue in force for the term of three
years, unless sooner revoked by Congress; he shall reside in the
district, and have a freehold estate therein, in one thousand
acres of land, while in the exercise of his office.
SEC. 4. There shall be appointed from time to time, by Congress,
a secretary, whose commission shall continue in force for four
years, unless sooner revoked; he shall reside in the district,
and have a freehold estate therein, in five hundred acres of
land, while in the exercise of his office. It shall be his duty
to keep and preserve the acts and laws passed by the legislature,
and the public records of the district, and the proceedings of
the governor in his executive department, and transmit authentic
copies of such acts and proceedings every six months to the
Secretary of Congress. There shall also be appointed a court, to
consist of three judges, any two of whom to form a court, who
shall have a common-law jurisdiction, and reside in the district,
and have each therein a freehold estate, in five hundred acres of
land, while in the exercise of their offices; and their
commissions shall continue in force during good behavior.
SEC. 5. The governor and judges, or a majority of them, shall
adopt and publish in the distric[t] such laws of the original
States, criminal and civil, as may be necessary, and best suited
to the circumstances of the district, and report them to Congress
from time to time, which laws shall be in force in the district
until the organization of the general assembly therein, unless
disapproved of by Congress; but afterwards the legislature shall
have authority to alter them as they shall think fit.
SEC. 6. The governor, for the time being, shall be
commander-in-chief of the militia, appoint and commission all
officers in the same below the rank of general officers; all
general officers shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress.
SEC. 7. Previous to the organization of the general assembly the
governor shall appoint such magistrates, and other civil
officers, in each county or township, as he shall find necessary
for the preservation of the peace and good order in the same.
After the general assembly shall be organized the powers and
duties of magistrates and other civil officers shall be regulated
and defined by the said assembly; but all magistrates and other
civil officers, not herein otherwise directed, shall, during the
continuance of this temporary government, be appointed by the
governor.
SEC. 8. For the prevention of crimes and injuries, the laws to be
adopted or made shall have force in all parts of the district,
and for the execution of process, criminal and civil, the
governor shall make proper divisions thereof; and he shall
proceed, from time to time, as circumstances may require, to lay
out the parts of the district in which the Indian titles shall
have been extinguished, into counties and townships, subject,
however, to such alterations as may thereafter be made by the
legislature.
SEC. 9. So soon as there shall be five thousand free male
inhabitants, of full age, in the district, upon giving proof
thereof to the governor, they shall receive authority, with time
and place, to elect representatives from their counties or
townships, to represent them in the general assembly: Provided,
That for every five hundred free male inhabitants there shall be
one representative, and so on, progressively, with the number of
free male inhabitants, shall the right of representation
increase, until the number of representatives shall amount to
twenty-five; after which the number and proportion of
representatives shall be regulated by the legislature: Provided,
That no person be eligible or qualified to act as a
representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the
United States three years, and be a resident in the district, or
unless he shall have resided in the district three years; and, in
either case, shall likewise hold in his own right, in fee-simple,
two hundred acres of land within the same: Provided also, That a
freehold in fifty acres of land in the district, having been a
citizen of one of the States, and being resident in the district,
or the like freehold and two years' residence in the district,
shall be necessary to qualify a man as an elector of a
representative.
SEC. 10. The. representatives thus elected shall serve for the
term of two years; and in case of the death of a representative,
or removal from office, the governor shall issue a writ to the
county or township, for which he was a member, to elect another
in his stead, to serve for the residue of the term.
SEC. 11. The general assembly, or legislature, shall consist of
the governor, legislative council, and a house of
representatives. The legislative council shall consist of five
members, to continue in office five years, unless sooner removed
by Congress; any three of whom to be a quorum; and the members of
the council shall be nominated and appointed in the following
manner, to wit: As soon as representatives shall be elected the
governor shall appoint a time and place for them to meet
together, and when met they shall nominate ten persons, resident
in the district, and each possessed of a freehold in five hundred
acres of land, and return their names to Congress, five of whom
Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as aforesaid; and
whenever a vacancy shall happen in the council, by death or
removal from office, the house of representatives shall nominate
two persons, qualified as aforesaid, for each vacancy, and return
their names to Congress, one of whom Congress shall appoint and
commission for the residue of the term; and every five years,
four months at least before the expiration of the time of service
of the members of the council, the said house shall nominate ten
persons, qualified as aforesaid, and return their names to
Congress, five of whom Congress shall appoint and commission to
serve as members of the council five years, unless sooner
removed. And the governor, legislative council, and house of
representatives shall have authority to make laws in all cases
for the good government of the district, not repugnant to the
principles and articles in this ordinance established and
declared. And all bills, having passed by a majority in the
house, and by a majority in the council, shall be referred to the
governor for his assent; but no bill, or legislative act
whatever, shall be of any force without his assent. The governor
shall have power to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the general
assembly when, in his opinion, it shall be expedient.
SEC. 12. The governor, judges, legislative council, secretary,
and such other officers as Congress shall appoint in the
district, shall take an oath or affirmation of fidelity, and of
office; the governor before the President of Congress, and all
other officers before the governor. As soon as a legislature
shall be formed in the district, the council and house assembled,
in one room, shall have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a
delegate to Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a
right of debating, but not of voting, during this temporary
government.
SEC. 13. And for extending the fundamental principles of civil
and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these
republics, their laws and constitutions, are erected; to fix and
establish those principles as the basis of all laws,
constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be
formed in the said territory; to provide, also, for the
establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and
for their admission to a share in the Federal councils on an
equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as
may be consistent with the general interest:
SEC. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared, by the authority
aforesaid, that the following articles shall be considered as
articles of compact, between the original States and the people
and States in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable,
unless by common consent, to wit:
ARTICLE I.
No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner,
shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship, or
religious sentiments, in the said territories.
ARTICLE II.
The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to
the benefits of the writs of habeas corpus, and of the trial by
jury; of a propo[r]tionate representation of the people in the
legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to the course
of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for
capital offences, where the proof shall be evident, or the
presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no cruel or
unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived
of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or
the law of the land, and should the public exigencies make it
necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's
property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation
shall be made for the same. And, in the just preservation of
rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law
ought ever to be made or have force in the said territory, that
shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private
contracts, or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud
previously formed.
ARTICLE III.
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith
shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and
property shall never be taken from them without their consent;
and in their property, rights, and liberty they never shall be
invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized
by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall, from
time to time, be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them,
and for preserving peace and friendship with them.
ARTICLE IV.
The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein,
shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of the United
States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and
to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made;
and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in
Congress assembled, conformable thereto. The inhabitants and
settlers in the said territory shall be subject to pay a part of
the Federal debts, contracted, or to be contracted, and a
proportional part of the expenses of government to be apportioned
on them by Congress, according to the same common rule and
measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the
other States; and the taxes for paying their proportion shall be
laid and levied by the authority and direction of the
legislatures of the district, or districts, or new States, as in
the original States, within the time agreed upon by the United
States in Congress assembled. The legislatures of those
districts, or new States, shall never interfere with the primary
disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled,
nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing
the title in such soil to the bona-fide purchasers. No tax shall
be imposed on lands the property of the United States; and in no
case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than
residents. The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and
Saint Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall
be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants
of the said territory as to the citizens of the United States,
and those of any other States that may be admitted into the
confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor.
ARTICLE V.
There shall be formed in the said territory not less than three
nor more than five States; and the boundaries of the States, as
soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession and consent to
the same, shall become fixed and established as follows, to wit:
The western State, in the said territory, shall be bounded by the
Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Wabash Rivers; a direct line drawn
from the Wabash and Post Vincents, due north, to the territorial
line between the United States and Canada; and by the said
territorial line to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The
middle State shall be bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash
from Post Vincents to the Ohio, by the Ohio, by a direct line
drawn due north from the mouth of the Great Miami to the said
territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The eastern
State shall be bounded by the last-mentioned direct line, the
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said territorial line: Provided,
however, And it is further understood and declared, that the
boundaries of these three States shall be subject so far to be
altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it expedient,
they shall have authority to form one or two States in that part
of the said territory which lies north of an east and west line
drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan. And
whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free
inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its
delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal
footing with the original States, in all respects whatever; and
shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State
government: Provided, The constitution and government, so to be
formed, shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles
contained in these articles, and, so far as it can be consistent
with the general interest of the confederacy, such admission
shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a
less number of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand.
ARTICLE VI.
There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the
said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes,
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided
always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor
or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States,
such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the
person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.
Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the resolutions
of the 23d of April, 1784, relative to the subject of this
ordinance, be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and declared
null and void.
Done by the United States, in Congress assembled, the 13th day of
July, in the year of our Lord 1787, and of their sovereignty and
independence the twelfth.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES -- 1787.
WE THE PEOPLE Of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States
of America.
ARTICLE I.
SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested
in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives.
SECTION. 2. 1.The House of Representatives shall be composed of
Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several
States, and the Electors in each State shall have the
Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch
of the State Legislature.
2. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have
attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a
Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be
an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. 3.
[Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the
several States which may be included within this Union, according
to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding
to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.] The actual Enumeration shall
be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the
Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term
of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The
Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty
Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;
and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New
Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight,
Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five,
New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one,
Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina
five, and Georgia three.
4. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State,
the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to
fill such Vacancies.
5. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and
other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
SECTION. 3. 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed
of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature
thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of
the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be
into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class
shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second year, of the
second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the
third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that
one-third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies
happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the
Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make
temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature,
which shall then fill such Vacancies.
3. No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to
the Age of thi[r]ty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the
United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant
of that State for which he shall be chosen.
4. The Vice President of the United States shall be President of
the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally
divided.
5. The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a
President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or
when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United
States.
6. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or
Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried,
the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted
without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
7. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than
to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but
the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
SECTION. 4. 1. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections
for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each
State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any
time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the
Places of chusing Senators.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and
such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless
they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
SECTION. 5. 1. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections,
Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of
each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller
Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to
compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and
under such Penalties as each House may provide.
2. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish
its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of
two thirds, expel a Member.
3. Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from
time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in
their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the
Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of
one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.
4. Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without
the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor
to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be
sitting.
SECTION. 6. 1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a
Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and
paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all
Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be
privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of
their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the
same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall
not be questioned in any other Place.
2. No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which
he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the
Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or
the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such
time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States,
shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in
Office.
SECTION. 7. 1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in
the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or
concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
2. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of
Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be
presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he
shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections
to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter
the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to
reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that
House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together
with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall
likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that
House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of
both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names
of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered
on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not
be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)
after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a
Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress
by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall
not be a Law.
3. Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of
the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except
on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President
of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect,
shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be
repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of
Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations
prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
SECTION. 8. 1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide
for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States;
2. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform
Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities
and current Coin of the United States;
7. To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the
high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and
make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to
that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
and naval Forces;
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, 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 Militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress;
17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by
Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to
exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for
the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
needful Buildings;--And
18. To, make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
SECTION. 9. 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as
any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall
not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand
eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such
Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
2. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it.
3. No Bill of Attainder or expost facto Law shall be passed.
4. No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in
Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to
be taken.
5. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
State.
6. No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or
Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor
shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter,
clear, or pay Duties in another.
7. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence
of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and
Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money
shall be published from time to time.
8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them,
shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from
any King, Prince, or foreign State.
SECTION. 10. 1. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance,
or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque or Reprisal; coin
Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver
Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex
post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or
grant any Title of Nobility.
2. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any
Imposts or Duties on imports or Exports, except what may be
absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the
net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on
Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the
United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision
and Controul of the Congress.
3. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty
of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter
into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a
foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in
such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
ARTICLE. II.
SECTION. 1. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President
of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during
the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President,
chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole
Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or
Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United
States, shall be appointed an Elector.
3. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors,
and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall
be the same throughout the United States.
4. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to
the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States.
5. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his
Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and
Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice
President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of
Removal, Death, Resignation, or Inability, both of the President
and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as
President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the
Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
6. The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his
Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor
dimished during the Period for which he shall have been elected,
and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument
from the United States, or any of them.
7. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take
the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the
President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States."
SECTION. 2. 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the
Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United
States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal
Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject
relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall
have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against
the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice
and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and
all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established
by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such
inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone,
in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
3. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that
may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
SECTION. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress
Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their
Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and
expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both
Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between
them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn
them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that
the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the
Officers of the United States.
SECTION. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers
of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors.
ARTICLE III.
SECTION. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be
vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges,
both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices
during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.
SECTION. 2. 1. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in
Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and
maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United
States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more
States;--between a State and Citizens of another State --between
Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State
claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or
Subjects;
2. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases
before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate
Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
3. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall
be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the
said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed
within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as
the Congress may by Law have directed.
SECTION. 3. 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist
only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be
convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to
the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
2. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of
Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
attainted.
ARTICLE IV.
SECTION. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to
the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other
State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner
in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and
the Effect thereof.
SECTION. 2. 1. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
2. A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other
Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another
State, shall on Demand of the Executive Authority of the State
from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the State
having jurisdiction of the Crime.
3. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the
Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any
Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or
Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom
such Service or Labour may be due.
SECTION. 3. 1. New States may be admitted by the Congress into
this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within
the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by
the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without
the Consent of the Legislature of the States concerned as well as
of the Congress.
2. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this
Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of
the United States, or of any particular State.
SECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect
each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be
convened) against domestic Violence.
ARTICLE V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on
the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several
States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which,
in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as
Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three
fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may
be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may
be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight
shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the
Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without
its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
ARTICLE. VI.
1. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the
United States under this Constitution, as under the
Confederation.
2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any States to the Contrary notwithstanding.
3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States.
ARTICLE VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be
sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the
States so ratifying the Same.
DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present
the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven, and of the Independance
of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We
have hereunto subscribed our Names,
GO: WASHINGTON--Presidt. and Deputy from Virginia.
New Hampshire.
JOHN LANGDON, NICHOLAS GILMAN
Massachusetts.
NATHANIEL GORHAM, RUFUS KING
Connecticut.
WM. SAML. JOHNSON, ROGER SHERMAN
New York.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON
New Jersey.
WIL: LIVINGSTON, DAVID BREARLEY, WM. PATERSON, JONA: DAYTON
Pennsylvania.
B. FRANKLIN, THOMAS MIFFLIN, ROBT. MORRIS, GEO. CLYMER, THOS.
FITZSIMONS, JARED INGERSOLL, JAMES WILSON, GOUV MORRIS
Delaware.
GEO: READ, GUNNING BEDFORD JUN, JOHN DICKINSON, RICHARD BASSETT,
JACO: BROOM
Maryland.
JAMES MCHENRY, DAN OF ST THOS JENIFER, DANL. CARROLL
Virginia.
JOHN BLAIR-- JAMES MADISON JR.
North Carolina.
WM. BLOUNT, RICHD. DOBBS SPAIGHT, HU WILLIAMSON
South Carolina.
J. RUTLEDGE, CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY, CHARLES PINCKNEY,
PIERCE BUTLER
Georgia.
WILLIAM FEW, ABR BALDWIN
Attest WILLIAM JACKSON Secretary
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
There are many comprehensive histories which include the period
covered by the present volume, of which a few--without
disparaging the other--are deserving of mention for some
particular reason. David Ramsay's "History of the American
Revolution," 2 vols. (1789, and subsequently reprinted), gives
but little space to this particular period, but it reveals the
contemporary point of view. Richard Hildreth's "History of the
United States," 6 vols. (1849-1852), is another early work that
is still of value, although it is written with a Federalist bias.
J. B. McMaster's "History of the People of the United States from
the Revolution to the Civil War," 8 vols. (1883-1913), presents a
kaleidoscopic series of pictures gathered largely from
contemporary newspapers, throwing light upon, and adding color to
the story. E. M. Avery's "History of the United States," of which
seven volumes have been published (1904-1910), is remarkable for
its illustrations and reproductions of prints, documents, and
maps. Edward Channing's "History of the United States," of which
four volumes have appeared (1905-1917), is the latest, most
readable, and probably the best of these comprehensive histories.
Although it was subsequently published as Volume VI in a revised
edition of his "History of the United States of America," George
Bancroft's "History of the Formation of the Constitution," 2
vols. (1882), is really a separate work. The author appears at
his best in these volumes and has never been entirely superseded
by later writers. G. T. Curtis's "History of the Constitution of
the United States, "2 vols. (1854), which also subsequently
appeared as Volume I of his "Constitutional History of the United
States," is one of the standard works, but does not retain quite
the same hold that Bancroft's volumes do.
Of the special works more nearly covering the same field as the
present volume, A. C. McLaughlin's "The Confederation and the
Constitution" (1905), in the "American Nation," is distinctly the
best. John Fiske's "Critical Period of American History" (1888),
written with the clearness of presentation and charm of style
which are characteristic of the author, is an interesting and
readable comprehensive account. Richard Frothingham's "Rise of
the Republic of the United States" (1872; 6th ed.1895), tracing
the two ideas of local self-government and of union, begins with
early colonial times and culminates in the Constitution.
The treaty of peace opens up the whole field of diplomatic
history, which has a bibliography of its own. But E. S. Corwin's
"French Policy and the American Alliance" (1916) should be
mentioned as the latest and best work, although it lays more
stress upon the phases indicated by the title. C. H. Van Tyne's
"Loyalists in the American Revolution" (1902) remains the
standard work on this subject, but special studies are appearing
from time to time which are changing our point of view.
The following books on economic and industrial aspects are not
for popular reading, but are rather for reference: E. R. Johnson
et al., "History of the Domestic and Foreign Commerce of the
United States" 2 vols. (1915); V. S. Clark, "History of the
Manufactures of the United States, 1607-1860" (1916). G. S.
Callender has written short introductions to the various chapters
of his "Selections from the Economic History of the United
States" (1909), which are brilliant interpretations of great
value. P. J. Treat's "The National Land System, 1785-1820"
(1910), gives the most satisfactory account of the subject
indicated by the title. Of entirely different character is
Theodore Roosevelt's "Winning of the West," 4 vols. (1889-96;
published subsequently in various editions), which is both
scholarly and of fascinating interest on the subject of the early
expansion into the West.
On the most important subject of all, the formation of the
Constitution, the material ordinarily wanted can be found in Max
Farrand's "Records of the Federal Convention," 3 vols. (1910),
and the author has summarized the results of his studies in "The
Framing of the Constitution" (1913). C. A. Beard's "An Economic
Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States" (1913)
gives some interesting and valuable facts regarding economic
aspects of the formation of the Constitution, and particularly on
the subject of investments in government securities. There is no
satisfactory account of the adoption of the Constitution, but the
debates in many of the State conventions are included in Jonathan
Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Constitution," 5 vols.
(1836-1845, subsequently reprinted in many editions).
A few special works upon the adoption of the Constitution in the
individual States may be mentioned: H. B. Grigsby's "History of
the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788," Virginia Historical
Society Collections, N. S., IX and X(1890-91); McMaster and
Stone's "Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787-88"
(1888); S. B. Harding's "Contest over the Ratification of the
Federal Constitution in the State of Massachusetts"(1896); O. G.
Libby's "The Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the
Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788"
(University of Wisconsin, "Bulletin, Economics, Political
Science, and History Series," I, No. 1,1894).
Contemporary differences of opinion upon the Constitution will be
found in P. L. Ford's "Pamphlets on the Constitution," etc.
(1888). The most valuable commentary on the Constitution, "The
Federalist," is to be found in several editions of which the more
recent are by E. H. Scott (1895) and P. L. Ford (1898).
A large part of the so-called original documents or first-hand
sources of information is to be found in letters and private
papers of prominent men. For most readers there is nothing better
than the "American Statesmen Series," from which the following
might be selected: H. C. Lodge's "George Washington "(2 vols.,
1889) and "Alexander Hamilton" (1882); J. T. Morse's "Benjamin
Franklin" (1889), "John Adams" (1885), and "Thomas Jefferson"
(1883); Theodore Roosevelt's "Gouverneur Morris," (1888). Other
readable volumes are P. L. Ford's "The True George Washington"
(1896) and "The Many-sided Franklin" (1899); F. S. Oliver's
"Alexander Hamilton, An Essay on American Union" (New ed. London,
1907); W. G. Brown's "Life of Oliver Ellsworth"(1905); A. McL.
Hamilton's "The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton" (1910);
James Schouler's "Thomas Jefferson" (1893); Gaillard Hunt's "Life
of James Madison" (1902).
Of the collections of documents it may be worth while to notice:
"Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States," 5
vols. (1894-1905); B. P. Poore's "Federal and State
Constitutions, Colonial Charters, etc.," 2 vols. (1877); F. N.
Thorpe's "The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters,
and other Organic Laws", 7 vols. (1909); and the "Journals of the
Continental Congress" (1904-1914), edited from the original
records in the Library of Congress by Worthington C. Ford and
Gaillard Hunt, of which 23 volumes have appeared, bringing the
records down through 1782.
NOTES ON THE PORTRAITS OF MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION WHO
SIGNED THE CONSTITUTION
BY VICTOR HUGO PALTSITS
Forty signatures were attached to the Constitution of the United
States in the Federal Convention on September 17, 1787, by
thirty-nine delegates, representing twelve States, and the
secretary of the Convention, as the attesting officer. George
Washington, who signed as president of the Convention, was a
delegate from Virginia. There are reproduced in this volume the
effigies or pretended effigies of thirty-seven of them, from
etchings by Albert Rosenthal in an extra-illustrated volume
devoted to the Members of the Federal Convention, 1787, in the
Thomas Addis Emmet Collection owned by the New York Public
Library. The autographs are from the same source. This series
presents no portraits of David Brearley of New Jersey, Thomas
Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania, and Jacob Broom of Delaware. With
respect to the others we give such information as Albert
Rosenthal, the Philadelphia artist, inscribed on each portrait
and also such other data as have been unearthed from the
correspondence of Dr. Emmet, preserved in the Manuscript Division
of the New York Public Library.
Considerable controversy has raged, on and off, but especially of
late, in regard to the painted and etched portraits which
Rosenthal produced nearly a generation ago, and in particular
respecting portraits which were hung in Independence Hall,
Philadelphia. Statements in the case by Rosenthal and by the late
Charles Henry Hart are in the "American Art News," March 3, 1917,
p. 4. See also Hart's paper on bogus American portraits in
"Annual Report, 1913," of the American Historical Association. To
these may be added some interesting facts which are not
sufficiently known by American students.
In the ninth decade of the nineteenth century, principally from
1885 to 1888, a few collectors of American autographs united in
an informal association which was sometimes called a "Club," for
the purpose of procuring portraits of American historical
characters which they desired to associate with respective
autographs as extra-illustrations. They were pioneers in their
work and their purposes were honorable. They cooperated in effort
and expenses, 'in a most commendable mutuality. Prime movers and
workers were the late Dr. Emmet, of New York, and Simon Gratz,
Esq., still active in Philadelphia. These men have done much to
stimulate appreciation for and the preservation of the
fundamental sources of American history. When they began, and for
many years thereafter, not the same critical standards reigned
among American historians, much less among American collectors,
as the canons now require. The members of the "Club" entered into
an extensive correspondence with the descendants of persons whose
portraits they wished to trace and then have reproduced. They
were sometimes misled by these descendants, who themselves, often
great-grandchildren or more removed by ties and time, assumed
that a given portrait represented the particular person in
demand, because in their own uncritical minds a tradition was as
good as a fact.
The members of the "Club," then, did the best they could with the
assistance and standards of their time. The following extract
from a letter written by Gratz to Emmet, November 10, 1885,
reveals much that should be better known. He wrote very frankly
as follows: "What you say in regard to Rosenthal's work is
correct: but the fault is not his. Many of the photographs are
utterly wanting in expression or character; and if the artist
were to undertake to correct these deficiencies by making the
portrait what he may SUPPOSE it should be, his production (while
presenting a better appearance ARTISTICALLY) might be very much
less of a LIKENESS than the photograph from which he works.
Rosenthal always shows me a rough proof of the unfinished
etching, so that I may advise him as to corrections & additions
which I may consider justifiable & advisable."
Other correspondence shows that Rosenthal received about twenty
dollars for each plate which he etched for the "Club."
The following arrangement of data follows the order of the names
as signed to the Constitution. The Emmet numbers identify the
etchings in the bound volume from which they have been
reproduced.
1. George Washington, President (also delegate from Virginia),
Emmet 9497, inscribed "Joseph Wright Pinxit Phila. 1784. Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888. Aqua fortis."
NEW HAMPSHIRE
2. John Langdon, Emmet 9439, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after Painting by Trumbull."
Mr. Walter Langdon, of Hyde Park, N. Y., in January, 1885, sent
to Dr. Emmet a photograph of a "portrait of Governor John Langdon
LL.D." An oil miniature painted on wood by Col. John Trumbull, in
1792, is in the Yale School of Fine Arts. There is also painting
of Langdon in Independence Hall, by James Sharpless.
3. Nicholas Gilman, Emmet 9441, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888." A drawing by the same artist formerly
hung in Independence Hall. The two are not at all alike. No
contemporary attribution is made and the Emmet correspondence
reveals nothing.
MASSACHUSETTS
4. Nathaniel Gorham, Emmet 9443. It was etched by Albert
Rosenthal but without inscription of any kind or date. A painting
by him, in likeness identical, formerly hung in Independence
Hall. No evidence in Emmet correspondence.
5. Rufus King, Emmet 9445, inscribed "Etched by Albert Rosenthal
Phila. 1888 after Painting by Trumbull." King was painted by Col.
John Trumbull from life and the portrait is in the Yale School of
Fine Arts. Gilbert Stuart painted a portrait of King and there is
one by Charles Willson Peale in Independence Hall.
6. William Samuel Johnson, Emmet 9447, inscribed "Etched by
Albert Rosenthal Phila. 1888 from Painting by Gilbert Stuart." A
painting by Rosenthal after Stuart hung in Independence Hall.
Stuart's portrait of Dr. Johnson "was one of the first, if not
the first, painted by Stuart after his return from England."
Dated on back 1792. Also copied by Graham.Mason, Life of Stuart,
208.
7. Roger Sherman, Emmet 9449, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after Painting by Earle." The identical
portrait copied by Thomas Hicks, after Ralph Earle, is in
Independence Hall.
NEW YORK
8. Alexander Hamilton, Emmet 9452, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal 1888 after Trumbull." A full length portrait, painted
by Col. John Trumbull, is in the City Hall, New York. Other
Hamilton portraits by Trumbull are in the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York, the Boston Museum of Art, and in private
possession.
NEW JERSEY
9. William Livingston, Emmet 9454, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila., 1888." A similar portrait, painted by
Rosenthal, formerly hung in Independence Hall. No correspondence
relating to it is in the Emmet Collection.
10. David Brearley. There is no portrait. Emmet 9456 is a drawing
of a Brearley coat-of-arms taken from a book-plate.
11. William Paterson, Emmet 9458, inscribed "Albert Rosenthal
Phila. 1888." A painted portrait by an unknown artist was hung in
Independence Hall. The Emmet correspondence reveals nothing.
12. Jonathan Dayton, Emmet 9460, inscribed "Albert Rosenthal." A
painting by Rosenthal also formerly hung in Independence Hall.
The two are dissimilar. The etching is a profile, but the
painting is nearly a full-face portrait. The Emmet correspondence
reveals no evidence.
PENNSYLVANIA
13. Benjamin Franklin, Emmet 9463, inscribed "C. W. Peale Pinxit.
Albert Rosenthal Sc."
14. Thomas Mifflin, Emmet 9466, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after Painting by Gilbert Stuart." A
portrait by Charles Willson Peale, in civilian dress, is in
Independence Hall. The Stuart portrait shows Mifflin in military
uniform.
15. Robert Morris, Emmet 9470, inscribed "Gilbert Stuart Pinxit.
Albert Rosenthal Sc." The original painting is in the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania. Stuart painted Morris in 1795. A copy
was owned by the late Charles Henry Hart; a replica also existed
in the possession of Morris's granddaughter.--Mason, "Life of
Stuart," 225.
16. George Clymer, Emmet 9475, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after Painting by C. W. Peale." There is a
similar type portrait, yet not identical, in Independence Hall,
where the copy was attributed to Dalton Edward Marchant.
17. Thomas Fitzsimons. There is no portrait and the Emmet
correspondence offers no information.
18. Jared Ingersoll, Emmet 9468, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal after Painting by C. W. Peale." A portrait of the same
origin, said to have been copied by George Lambdin, "after
Rembrandt Peale," hung in Independence Hall.
19. James Wilson, Emmet 9472, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal 1888." Seems to have been derived from a painting by
Charles Willson Peale in Independence Hall.
20. Gouverneur Morris, Emmet 9477, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after a copy by Marchant from Painting by
T. Sully." The Emmet correspondence has no reference to it.
DELAWARE
21. George Read, Emmet 9479, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888." There is in Emmet 9481 a stipple plate
"Engraved by J. B. Longacre from a Painting by -- Pine." It is
upon the Longacre-Pine portrait that Rosenthal and others, like
H. B. Hall, have depended for their portrait of Read.
22. Gunning Bedford, Jr., Emmet 9483, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888." Rosenthal also painted a portrait, "after
Charles Willson Peale," for Independence Hall. The, etching is
the same portrait. On May 13, 1883, Mr. Simon Gratz wrote to Dr.
Emmet: "A very fair lithograph can, I think, be made from the
photograph of Gunning Bedford, Jun.; which I have just received
from you. I shall call the artist's attention to the excess of
shadow on the cravat." The source was a photograph furnished by
the Bedford descendants.
23. John Dickinson, Emmet 9485, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after Painting by C. W. Peale." The Peale
painting is in Independence Hall.
24. Richard Bassett, Emmet 9487, inscribed "Albert Rosenthal."
There was also a painting by Rosenthal in Independence Hall.
While similar in type, they are not identical. They vary in
physiognomy and arrangement of hair. There is nothing in the
Emmet correspondence about this portrait.
25. Jacob Broom. There is no portrait and no information in the
Emmet correspondence.
MARYLAND
26. James McHenry, Emmet 9490, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888." Rosenthal also painted a portrait for
Independence Hall "after Saint-Memin." They are not alike. The
etching faces three-quarters to the right, whilst the St. Memin
is a profile portrait. In January, 1885, Henry F. Thompson, of
Baltimore, wrote to Dr. Emmet: "If you wish them, you can get
Portraits and Memoirs of James McHenry and John E. Howard from
their grandson J. Howard McHenry whose address is No. 48 Mount
Vernon Place, Baltimore."
27. Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Emmet 9494, inscribed "Etched
by Albert Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after Trumbull." Rosenthal also
painted a portrait for Independence Hall. They are not identical.
A drawn visage is presented in the latter. In January, 1885,
Henry F. Thompson of Baltimore, wrote to Dr. Emmet: "Mr. Daniel
Jenifer has a Portrait of his Grand Uncle Daniel of St. Thomas
Jenifer and will be glad to make arrangements for you to get a
copy of it . . . . His address is No. 281 Linden Ave, Baltimore."
In June, of the same year, Simon Gratz wrote to Emmet: "The Dan.
of St. Thos. Jenifer is so bad, that I am almost afraid to give
it to Rosenthal. Have you a better photograph of this man (from
the picture in Washington [sic.]), spoken of in one of your
letters?"
28. Daniel Carroll, Emmet 9492, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal, Phila. 1888." Henry F. Thompson, of Baltimore, in
January, 1885, wrote to Dr. Emmet: "If you will write to Genl.
John Carroll No. 61 Mount Vernon Place you can get a copy of Mr.
Carroll's (generally known as Barrister Carroll) Portrait."
VIRGINIA
29. John Blair, Emmet 9500, inscribed "Albert Rosenthal Etcher."
He also painted a portrait for Independence Hall. The two are of
the same type but not alike. The etching is a younger looking
picture. There is no evidence in the Emmet correspondence.
30. James Madison, Jr., Emmet 9502, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after Painting by G. Stuart." Stuart
painted several paintings of Madison, as shown in Mason, Life of
Stuart, pp. 218-9. Possibly the Rosenthal etching was derived
from the picture in the possession of the Coles family of
Philadelphia.
NORTH CAROLINA
31. William Blount, Emmet 9504, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888." He also painted a portrait for
Independence Hall. The two are alike. In November, 1885, Moses
White, of Knoxville, Tenn., wrote thus: Genl. Marcus J. Wright,
published, last year, a life of Win. Blount, which contains a
likeness of him . . . . This is the only likeness of Gov. Blount
that I ever saw." This letter was written to Mr. Bathurst L.
Smith, who forwarded it to Dr. Emmet.
32. Richard Dobbs Spaight, Emmet 9506, inscribed "Etched by
Albert Rosenthal Phila. 1887." In Independence Hall is a portrait
painted by James Sharpless. On comparison these two are of the
same type but not alike. The etching presents an older facial
appearance. On November 8, 1886, Gen. John Meredith Read, writing
from Paris, said he had found in the possession of his friend in
Paris, J. R. D. Shepard, "St. Memin's engraving of his
great-grandfather Governor Spaight of North Carolina." In 1887
and 1888, Dr. Emmet and Mr. Gratz were jointly interested in
having Albert Rosenthal engrave for them a portrait of Spaight.
On December 9, 1887, Gratz wrote to Emmet: "Spaight is worthy of
being etched; though I can scarcely agree with you that our
lithograph is not a portrait of the M. O. C. Is it taken from the
original Sharpless portrait, which hangs in our old State House?
. . . However if you are sure you have the right man in the
photograph sent, we can afford to ignore the lithograph."
33. Hugh Williamson, Emmet 9508, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal after Painting by J. Trumbull Phila. 1888," Rosenthal
also painted a copy "after John Wesley Jarvis" for Independence
Hall. The two are undoubtedly from the same original source. The
Emmet correspondence presents no information on this subject.
SOUTH CAROLINA
34. John Rutledge, Emmet 9510, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after J. Trumbull." The original painting
was owned by the Misses Rutledge, of Charleston, S. C.
35. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Emmet 9519, inscribed "Etched by
Albert Rosenthal Phila. 1888. Painting by Trumbull." An oil
miniature on wood was painted by Col. John Trumbull, in 1791,
which is in the Yale School of Fine Arts. Pinckney was also
painted by Gilbert Stuart and the portrait was owned by the
family at Runnymeade, S. C. Trumbull's portrait shows a younger
face.
36. Charles Pinckney, Emmet 9514, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888." He also painted a portrait for
Independence Hall. They are alike. In the Emmet correspondence
the following information, furnished to Dr. Emmet, is found:
"Chas. Pinckney--Mr. Henry L. Pinckney of Stateburg [S. C.] has a
picture of Gov. Pinckney." The owner of this portrait was a
grandson of the subject. On January 12, 1885, P. G. De Saussure
wrote to Emmet: "Half an hour ago I received from the
Photographer two of the Pictures [one being] Charles Pinckney
copied from a portrait owned by Mr. L. Pinckney--who lives in
Stateburg, S. C." The owner had put the portrait at Dr. Emmet's
disposal, in a letter of December 4, 1884, in which he gave its
dimensions as "about 3 ft. nearly square," and added, "it is very
precious to me."
37. Pierce Butler, Emmet 9516, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888." He also painted a portrait for
Independence Hall. They are dissimilar and dubious. Three letters
in the Emmet correspondence refer to the Butler portraiture. On
January 31, 1887, Mrs. Sarah B. Wister, of Philadelphia, wrote to
Dr. Emmet: "I enclose photograph copies of two miniatures of Maj.
Butler wh. Mr. Louis Butler [a bachelor then over seventy years
old living in Paris, France] gave me not long ago: I did not know
of their existence until 1882, & never heard of any likeness of
my great-grandfather, except an oil-portrait wh. was last seen
more than thirty years ago in a lumber room in his former house
at the n. w. corner of 8th & Chestnut streets [Phila.], since
then pulled down." On February 8th, Mrs. Wister wrote: "I am not
surprised that the two miniatures do not strike you as being of
the same person. Yet I believe there is no doubt of it; my cousin
had them from his father who was Maj. Butler's son. The more
youthful one is evidently by a poor artist, & therefore probably
was a poor likeness." In her third letter to Dr. Emmet, on April
5, 1888, Mrs. Wister wrote: "I sent you back the photo. from the
youthful miniature of Maj. Butler & regret very much that I have
no copy of the other left; but four sets were made of wh. I sent
you one & gave the others to his few living descendants. I regret
this all the more as I am reluctant to trust the miniature again
to a photographer. I live out of town so that there is some
trouble in sending & calling for them; (I went personally last
time, & there are no other likenesses of my great grandfather
extant."
GEORGIA
38. William Few, Emmet 9518, inscribed "Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888." He also painted a portrait "after John
Ramage," for Independence Hall. They are identical.
39. Abraham Baldwin, Emmet 9520, inscribed" Etched by Albert
Rosenthal Phila. 1888." There is also a painting "after Fulton"
in Independence Hall. They are of the same type but not exactly
alike, yet likely from the same original. The variations may be
just artist's vagaries. There is no information in the Emmet
correspondence.
40. William Jackson, Secretary, Emmet 9436, inscribed "Etched by
Albert Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after Painting by J. Trumbull."
Rosenthal also painted a copy after Trumbull for Independence
Hall. They are identical.
2006 GunShowOnTheNet.com