THE FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, A CHRONICLE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNION

Volume 13 in The Chronicles Of America Series

Edited by Allen Johnson

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 ofIndependence that this name was first and formally proclaimed to theworld, and to maintain its verity the war of the Revolution was fought. Americans like to think that they were then assuming "among the Powersof the Earth the equal and independent Station to which the Lawsof Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"; and, in view of theirsubsequent marvelous development, they are inclined to add that it musthave been before an expectant world. 

In these days of prosperity and national greatness it is hard to realizethat the achievement of independence did not place the United States ona footing of equality with other countries and that, in fact, the newstate was more or less an unwelcome member of the world family. It isnevertheless true that the latest comer into the family of nationsdid not for a long time command the respect of the world. This lackof respect was partly due to the character of the American population. Along with the many estimable and excellent people who had come toBritish North America inspired by the best of motives, there had comeothers who were not regarded favorably by the governing classes ofEurope. Discontent is frequently a healthful sign and a forerunner ofprogress, but it makes one an uncomfortable neighbor in a satisfied andconservative community; and discontent was the underlying factor inthe migration from the Old World to the New. In any composite immigrantpopulation such as that of the United States there was bound to be alarge element of undesirables. Among those who came "for conscience'ssake" were the best type of religious protestants, but there were alsoreligious cranks from many countries, of almost every conceivable sectand of no sect at all. Many of the newcomers were poor. It was common, too, to regard colonies as inferior places of residence to whichobjectionable persons might be encouraged to go and where the averageof the population was lowered by the influx of convicts and thousands ofslaves. 

"The great number of emigrants from Europe"--wrote Thieriot, SaxonCommissioner of Commerce to America, from Philadelphia in 1784--"hasfilled this place with worthless persons to such a degree that scarcelya day passes without theft, robbery, or even assassination. "* It wouldperhaps be too much to say that the people of the United States werelooked upon by the rest of the world as only half civilized, butcertainly they were regarded as of lower social standing and of inferiorquality, and many of them were known to be rough, uncultured, andignorant. Great Britain and Germany maintained American missionarysocieties, not, as might perhaps be expected, for the benefit of theIndian or negro, but for the poor, benighted colonists themselves; andGreat Britain refused to commission a minister to her former coloniesfor 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 reachedwhen the rights of foreigners are not considered safe in a particularcountry, so that another state insists upon establishing therein its owntribunal for the trial of its citizens or subjects. Yet that is what theFrench insisted upon in the United States, and they were supposed to beespecially friendly. They had had their own experience in America. First the native Indian had appealed to their imagination. Then, atan appropriate moment, they seemed to see in the Americans a livingembodiment of the philosophical theories of the time: they thought thatthey had at last found "the natural man" of Rousseau and Voltaire;they believed that they saw the social contract theory being workedout before their very eyes. Nevertheless, in spite of this interest inAmericans, the French looked upon them as an inferior people over whomthey would have liked to exercise a sort of protectorate. To them theAmericans seemed to lack a proper knowledge of the amenities of life. Commissioner Thieriot, describing the administration of justice in thenew republic, noticed that: "A Frenchman, with the prejudices of hiscountry and accustomed to court sessions in which the officers haveimposing robes and a uniform that makes it impossible to recognizethem, smiles at seeing in the court room men dressed in street clothes, simple, often quite common. He is astonished to see the public enter andleave the court room freely, those who prefer even keeping their hatson. " Later he adds: "It appears that the court of France wished to setup a jurisdiction of its own on this continent for all matters involvingFrench subjects. " France failed in this; but at the very time thatpeace was under discussion Congress authorized Franklin to negotiate aconsular convention, ratified a few years later, according to which thecitizens of the United States and the subjects of the French King inthe country of the other should be tried by their respective consuls orvice-consuls. Though this agreement was made reciprocal in its terms andso saved appearances for the honor of the new nation, neverthelessin submitting it to Congress John Jay clearly pointed out that it wasreciprocal in name rather than in substance, as there were few or noAmericans in France but an increasing number of Frenchmen in the UnitedStates. 

Such was the status of the new republic in the family of nations whenthe time approached for the negotiation of a treaty of peace with themother country. The war really ended with the surrender of Cornwallisat Yorktown in 1781. Yet even then the British were unwilling to concedethe independence of the revolted colonies. This refusal of recognitionwas not merely a matter of pride; a division and a consequent weakeningof the empire was involved; to avoid this Great Britain seems to havebeen willing to make any other concessions that were necessary. Themother country sought to avoid disruption at all costs. But the time hadpassed when any such adjustment might have been possible. The Americansnow flatly refused to treat of peace upon any footing except that ofindependent equality. The British, being in no position to continue thestruggle, were obliged to yield and to declare in the first article ofthe treaty of peace that "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the saidUnited States. . . To be free, sovereign, and independent states. "

With France the relationship of the United States was clear and friendlyenough at the time. The American War of Independence had been broughtto a successful issue with the aid of France. In the treaty of alliancewhich had been signed in 1781 had been agreed that neither France northe United States should, without the consent of the other, make peacewith Great Britain. More than that, in 1781, partly out of gratitude butlargely as a result of clever manipulation of factions in Congress bythe French Minister in Philadelphia, the Chevalier de la Luzerne, theAmerican peace commissioners had been instructed "to make the mostcandid and confidential communications upon all subjects to theministers of our generous ally, the King of France; to undertake nothingin the negotiations for peace or truce without their knowledge andconcurrence; and ultimately to govern yourselves by their advice andopinion. "* If France had been actuated only by unselfish motives insupporting the colonies in their revolt against Great Britain, theseinstructions might have been acceptable and even advisable. But such wasnot the case. France was working not so much with philanthropic purposesor for sentimental reasons as for the restoration to her former positionof supremacy in Europe. Revenge upon England was only a part of a largerplan of national aggrandizement. 

 * "Secret Journals of Congress. " June 15, 1781. 

The treaty with France in 1778 had declared that war should be continueduntil the independence of the United States had been established, and itappeared as if that were the main purpose of the alliance. For herown good reasons France had dragged Spain into the struggle. Spain, of course, fought to cripple Great Britain and not to help the UnitedStates. In return for this support France was pledged to assist Spainin obtaining certain additions to her territory. In so far as theseadditions related to North America, the interests of Spain and thoseof the United States were far from being identical; in fact, they werefrequently in direct opposition. Spain was already in possession ofLouisiana and, by prompt action on her entry into the war in 1780, shehad succeeded in getting control of eastern Louisiana and of practicallyall the Floridas except St. Augustine. To consolidate these holdingsand round out her American empire, Spain would have liked to obtainthe title to all the land between the Alleghany Mountains and theMississippi. Failing this, however, she seemed to prefer that the regionnorthwest of the Ohio River should belong to the British rather than tothe United States. 

Under these circumstances it was fortunate for the United States thatthe American Peace Commissioners were broad-minded enough to appreciatethe situation and to act on their own responsibility. Benjamin Franklin, although he was not the first to be appointed, was generally consideredto be the chief of the Commission by reason of his age, experience, andreputation. Over seventy-five years old, he was more universallyknown and admired than probably any man of his time. This many-sidedAmerican--printer, almanac maker, writer, scientist, and philosopher--bythe variety of his abilities as well as by the charm of his mannerseemed to have found his real mission in the diplomatic field, where hecould 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. Hisachievements had already attracted attention; in his fur cap andeccentric dress "he fulfilled admirably the Parisian ideal of the forestphilosopher"; and with his facility in conversation, as well as by theattractiveness of his personality, he won both young and old. But, withhis undoubted zeal for liberty and his unquestioned love of country, Franklin never departed from the Quaker principles he affected andalways tried to avoid a fight. In these efforts, owing to his shrewdnessand his willingness to compromise, he was generally successful. 

John Adams, being then the American representative at The Hague, was thefirst Commissioner to be appointed. Indeed, when he was first named, in1779, he was to be sole commissioner to negotiate peace; and it was theinfluential French Minister to the United States who was responsible forothers being added to the commission. Adams was a sturdy New Englanderof British stock and of a distinctly English type--medium height, astout figure, and a ruddy face. No one questioned his honesty, hisstraightforwardness, or his lack of tact. Being a man of strong mind, of wide reading and even great learning, and having serene confidence inthe purity of his motives as well as in the soundness of his judgment, Adams was little inclined to surrender his own views, and was readyto carry out his ideas against every obstacle. By nature as well as bytraining he seems to have been incapable of understanding the French; hewas suspicious of them and he disapproved of Franklin's popularity evenas he did of his personality. 

Five Commissioners in all were named, but Thomas Jefferson and HenryLaurens did not take part in the negotiations, so that the only otheractive member was John Jay, then thirty-seven years old and already aman 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 wasusually dressed in black. His manners were gentle and unassuming, buthis face, with its penetrating black eyes, its aquiline nose and pointedchin, revealed a proud and sensitive disposition. He had been sent tothe court of Spain in 1780, and there he had learned enough to arousehis suspicious, if nothing more, of Spain's designs as well as of theFrench intention to support them. 

In the spring of 1782 Adams felt obliged to remain at The Hague in orderto complete the negotiations already successfully begun for a commercialtreaty with the Netherlands. Franklin, thus the only Commissioner on theground in Paris, began informal negotiations alone but sent an urgentcall to Jay in Spain, who was convinced of the fruitlessness of hismission there and promptly responded. Jay's experience in Spain and hisknowledge of Spanish hopes had led him to believe that the French werenot especially concerned about American interests but were in factwilling to sacrifice them if necessary to placate Spain. He accordinglyinsisted that the American Commissioners should disregard theirinstructions and, without the knowledge of France, should deal directlywith Great Britain. In this contention he was supported by Adams whenhe arrived, but it was hard to persuade Franklin to accept this pointof view, for he was unwilling to believe anything so unworthy of hisadmiring and admired French. Nevertheless, with his cautious shrewdness, he finally yielded so far as to agree to see what might come out ofdirect negotiations. 

The rest was relatively easy. Of course there were difficulties and suchsharp differences of opinion that, even after long negotiation, somematters had to be compromised. Some problems, too, were found insolubleand were finally left without a settlement. But such difficulties asdid exist were slight in comparison with the previous hopelessness ofreconciling American and Spanish ambitions, especially when the latterwere supported by France. On the one hand, the Americans were theproteges of the French and were expected to give way before the claimsof their patron's friends to an extent which threatened to limitseriously their growth and development. On the other hand, they werethe younger sons of England, uncivilized by their wilderness life, ungrateful and rebellious, but still to be treated by England aschildren of the blood. In the all-important question of extent ofterritory, where Spain and France would have limited the United Statesto the east of the Alleghany Mountains, Great Britain was persuadedwithout great difficulty, having once conceded independence to theUnited States, to yield the boundaries which she herself had formerlyclaimed--from the Atlantic Ocean on the east to the Mississippi Riveron the west, and from Canada on the north to the southern boundaryof Georgia. Unfortunately the northern line, through ignorance andcarelessness rather than through malice, was left uncertain at variouspoints and became the subject of almost continuous controversy until thelast 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 asthe chief entrepot, had been one of the great assets of North Americafrom the time of its discovery. They had been one of the chief prizesat stake in the struggle between the French and the British for thepossession of the continent, and they had been of so much value thata British statute of 1775 which cut off the New England fisheries wasregarded, even after the "intolerable acts" of the previous year, as theheight of punishment for New England. Many Englishmen would have beenglad to see the Americans excluded from these fisheries, but John Adams, when he arrived from The Hague, displayed an appreciation of New Englandinterests and the quality of his temper as well by flatly refusing toagree to any treaty which did not allow full fishing privileges. TheBritish accordingly yielded and the Americans were granted fishingrights as "heretofore" enjoyed. The right of navigation of theMississippi River, it was declared in the treaty, should "foreverremain free and open" to both parties; but here Great Britain was simplypassing on to the United States a formal right which she had receivedfrom France and was retaining for herself a similar right which mightsometime prove of use, for as long as Spain held both banks at the mouthof the Mississippi River, the right was of little practical value. 

Two subjects involving the greatest difficulty of arrangement werethe compensation of the Loyalists and the settlement of commercialindebtedness. The latter was really a question of the payment of Britishcreditors by American debtors, for there was little on the other sideof the balance sheet, and it seems as if the frugal Franklin would havepreferred to make no concessions and would have allowed creditors totake their own chances of getting paid. But the matter appeared toAdams in a different light--perhaps his New England conscience wasaroused--and in this point of view he was supported by Jay. It wastherefore finally agreed "that creditors on either side shall meetwith no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterlingmoney, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted. " However just thisprovision may have been, its incorporation in the terms of the treatywas a mistake on the part of the Commissioners, because the Governmentof 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 ofopinion. Accordingly, when some of the States later disregarded thispart of the treaty, the British had an excuse for refusing to carry outcertain 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 thepayment of debts to creditors in England:

"A Scotchman, John Warden, a prominent lawyer and good classicalscholar, but suspected rightly of Tory leanings during the Revolution, learning of the large minority against the repeal of laws in conflictwith the treaty of 1783 (i. E. , especially the laws as to the collectionof debts by foreigners) caustically remarked that some of the membersof the House had voted against paying for the coats on their backs. Thestory 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 andsaid audibly, with evident double meaning, 'Upon my word, a dommed dirtyhouse it is indeed. ' The Journal of the House, however, shows that thehonor 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 toinsult any of its members. "

The other question, that of compensating the Loyalists for the loss oftheir property, was not so simple a matter, for the whole story of theRevolution was involved. There is a tendency among many scholars ofthe present day to regard the policy of the British toward theirNorth American colonies as possibly unwise and blundering but as beingentirely in accordance with the legal and constitutional rights of themother country, and to believe that the Americans, while they may havebeen practically and therefore morally justified in asserting theirindependence, were still technically and legally in the wrong. It isimmaterial whether or not that point of view is accepted, for its mererecognition is sufficient to explain the existence of a large number ofAmericans who were steadfast in their support of the British side of thecontroversy. Indeed, it has been estimated that as large a proportionas one-third of the population remained loyal to the Crown. Numbers mustremain more or less uncertain, but probably the majority of the peoplein the United States, whatever their feelings may have been, tried toremain neutral or at least to appear so; and it is undoubtedly truethat the Revolution was accomplished by an aggressive minority and thatperhaps as great a number were actively loyal to Great Britain. 

These Loyalists comprised at least two groups. One of these was awealthy, property-owning class, representing the best social element inthe colonies, extremely conservative, believing in privilege andfearing the rise of democracy. The other was composed of the royalofficeholders, which included some of the better families, but was morelargely made up of the lower class of political and social hangers-on, who had been rewarded with these positions for political debts incurredin England. The opposition of both groups to the Revolution wasinevitable and easily to be understood, but it was also natural thatthe Revolutionists should incline to hold the Loyalists, withoutdistinction, largely responsible for British pre-Revolutionary policy, asserting that they misinformed the Government as to conditions andsentiment in America, partly through stupidity and partly throughselfish interest. It was therefore perfectly comprehensible that thefeeling should be bitter against them in the United States, especiallyas they had given efficient aid to the British during the war. Invarious States they were subjected to personal violence at the hands ofindignant "patriots, " many being forced to flee from their homes, whiletheir property was destroyed or confiscated, and frequently these actswere legalized by statute. 

The historian of the Loyalists of Massachusetts, James H. Stark, mustnot be expected to understate the case, but when he is describing, especially in New England, the reign of terror which was established tosuppress these people, he writes:

"Loyalists were tarred and feathered and carried on rails, gagged andbound for days at a time; stoned, fastened in a room with a fire and thechimney stopped on top; advertised as public enemies, so that they wouldbe cut off from all dealings with their neighbors; they had bulletsshot into their bedrooms, their horses poisoned or mutilated; money orvaluable plate extorted from them to save them from violence, and onpretence of taking security for their good behavior; their houses andships burned; they were compelled to pay the guards who watched them intheir 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 theexpulsion of the owners from the community were helped on by people whowere debtors to the Loyalists and in this way saw a chance ofescaping from the payment of their rightful obligations. The "Act forconfiscating the estates of certain persons commonly called absentees"may have been a measure of self-defense for the State but it was passedby the votes of those who undoubtedly profited by its provisions. 

Those who had stood loyally by the Crown must in turn be looked out forby the British Government, especially when the claims of justice werereinforced by the important consideration that many of those withproperty and financial interests in America were relatives ofinfluential persons in England. The immediate necessity during the warhad been partially met by assisting thousands to go to Canada--wheretheir descendants today form an important element in the population andare proud of being United Empire Loyalists--while pensions and giftswere supplied to others. Now that the war was over the British weredetermined that Americans should make good to the Loyalists for all thatthey had suffered, and His Majesty's Commissioners were hopeful at leastof obtaining a proviso similar to the one relating to the collection ofdebts. John Adams, however, expressed the prevailing American ideawhen he said that "paying debts and compensating Tories" were two verydifferent things, and Jay asserted that there were certain of theserefugees whom Americans never would forgive. 

But this was the one thing needed to complete the negotiations forpeace, and the British arguments on the injustice and irregularity ofthe treatment accorded to the Loyalists were so strong that the AmericanCommissioners were finally driven to the excuse that the Government ofthe Confederation had no power over the individual States by whomthe necessary action must be taken. Finally, in a spirit of mutualconcession at the end of the negotiations, the Americans agreed thatCongress should "recommend to the legislatures of the respective statesto provide for the restitution" of properties which had been confiscated"belonging to real British subjects, " and "that persons of any otherdescription" might return to the United States for a period oftwelve months and be "unmolested in their endeavours to obtain therestitution. "

With this show of yielding on the part of the American Commissioners itwas possible to conclude the terms of peace, and the preliminary treatywas drawn accordingly and agreed to on November 30, 1782. Franklin hadbeen of such great service during all the negotiations, smoothingdown ruffed feelings by his suavity and tact and presenting difficultsubjects in a way that made action possible, that to him was accordedthe unpleasant task of communicating what had been accomplished toVergennes, the French Minister, and of requesting at the same time "afresh loan of twenty million francs. " Franklin, of course, presentedhis case with much "delicacy and kindliness of manner" and with a fairdegree of success. "Vergennes thought that the signing of the articleswas premature, but he made no inconvenient remonstrances, ill procuredsix millions of the twenty. "* On September 3, 1783, the definitetreaty of peace was signed in due time it was ratified by the BritishParliament as well as by the American Congress. The new state, dulyaccredited, thus took its place in the family of nations; but it wasa very humble place that was first assigned to the United States ofAmerica. 

 * 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, therewas nothing in the Revolution that transformed the essential characteror the characteristics of the American people. The Revolution severedthe ties which bound the colonies to Great Britain; it created some newactivities; some soldiers were diverted from their former trades andoccupation; but, as the proportion of the population engaged in the warwas relatively small and the area of country affected for any lengthof time was comparatively slight, it is safe to say that in general themass of the people remained about the same after the war as before. Theprofessional man was found in his same calling; the artisan returnedto his tools, if he had ever laid them down; the shopkeeper resumedhis business, if it had been interrupted; the merchant went back tohis trading; and the farmer before the Revolution remained a farmerafterward. 

The country as a whole was in relatively good condition and the peoplewere reasonably prosperous; at least, there was no general distress orpoverty. Suffering had existed in the regions ravaged by war, but nosection had suffered unduly or had had to bear the burden of war duringthe entire period of fighting. American products had been in demand, especially in the West India Islands, and an illicit trade with theenemy had sprung up, so that even during the war shippers were able todispose of their commodities at good prices. The Americans are commonlysaid to have been an agricultural people, but it would be more correctto say that the great majority of the people were dependent uponextractive industries, which would include lumbering, fishing, and eventhe fur trade, as well as the ordinary agricultural pursuits. Save fora few industries, of which shipbuilding was one of the most important, there was relatively little manufacturing apart from the householdcrafts. These household industries had increased during the war, but asit was with the individual so it was with the whole country; the generalcourse of industrial activity was much the same as it had been beforethe 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 extractingfar more of other products than they could possibly use themselves; forthe surplus they must find markets. They had; as well, to rely upon theoutside world for a great part of their manufactured goods, especiallyfor those of the higher grade. In other words, from the economic pointof view, the United States remained in the former colonial stage ofindustrial dependence, which was aggravated rather than alleviated bythe separation from Great Britain. During the colonial period, Americanshad carried on a large amount of this external trade by means of theirown vessels. The British Navigation Acts required the transportationof goods in British vessels, manned by crews of British sailors, andspecified certain commodities which could be shipped to Great Britainonly. They also required that much of the European trade should pass byway of England. But colonial vessels and colonial sailors came underthe designation of "British, " and no small part of the prosperity ofNew England, and of the middle colonies as well, had been due to thecarrying trade. It would seem therefore as if a primary need of theAmerican people immediately after the Revolution was to get access totheir old markets and to carry the goods as much as possible in theirown vessels. 

In some directions they were successful. One of the products in greatestdemand was fish. The fishing industry had been almost annihilated by thewar, but with the establishment of peace the New England fisheries beganto recover. They were in competition with the fishermen of France andEngland who were aided by large bounties, yet the superior geographicaladvantages which the American fishermen possessed enabled them tomaintain and expand their business, and the rehabilitation of thefishing fleet was an important feature of their programme. In otherdirections they were not so successful. The British still believed intheir colonial system and applied its principles without regard to theinterests of the United States. Such American products as they wantedthey allowed to be carried to British markets, but in British vessels. Certain commodities, the production of which they wished to encouragewithin their own dominions, they added to the prohibited list. Americanscried out indignantly that this was an attempt on the part of theBritish to punish their former colonies for their temerity in revolting. The British Government may well have derived some satisfaction from thefact that certain restrictions bore heavily upon New England, as JohnAdams complained; but it would seem to be much nearer the truth tosay that in a truly characteristic way the British were phlegmaticallyattending 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 fieldof enterprise and as probably responsible for much of Great Britain'sprosperity. It was therefore a relatively easy matter for the UnitedStates to enter into commercial treaties with foreign countries. Thesetreaties, however, were not fruitful of any great result; for, "withunimportant exceptions, they left still in force the high import dutiesand prohibitions that marked the European tariffs of the time, as wellas many features of the old colonial system. They were designed tolegalize commerce rather than to encourage it. "* Still, for a year ormore after the war the demand for American products was great enoughto satisfy almost everybody. But in 1784 France and Spain closed theircolonial ports and thus excluded the shipping of the United States. Thisproved to be so disastrous for their colonies that the French Governmentsoon was forced to relax its restrictions. The British also made someconcessions, 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 factthat American foreign trade fell under British commercial control again. Whether it was that British merchants were accustomed to American waysof doing things and knew American business conditions; whether othercountries found the commerce not as profitable as they had expected, ascertainly was the case with France; whether "American merchants andsea captains found themselves under disadvantages due to the absenceof treaty protection which they had enjoyed as English subjects";* orwhether it was the necessity of trading on British capital--whatever thecause may have been--within a comparatively few years a large partof American trade was in British hands as it had been before theRevolution. American trade with Europe was carried on through Englishmerchants 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 colonistshad exhibited one of the earliest and most lasting characteristicsof the American people adaptability. The Americans now proceeded tomanifest that trait anew, not only by adjusting themselves to renewedcommercial dependence upon Great Britain, but by seeking new avenues oftrade. A striking illustration of this is to be found in the developmentof 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 NewVoyage was issued in New York in 1774. No sooner was the Revolution overthan there began that romantic trade with China and the northwest coastof America, which made the fortunes of some families of Salem and Bostonand Philadelphia. This commerce added to the prosperity of the country, but above all it stimulated the imagination of Americans. In the sameway another outlet was found in trade with Russia by way of the Baltic. 

The foreign trade of the United States after the Revolution thus passedthrough certain well-marked phases. First there was a short period ofprosperity, owing to an unusual demand for American products; thiswas followed by a longer period of depression; and then came a gradualrecovery through acceptance of the new conditions and adjustment tothem. 

A similar cycle may be traced in the domestic or internal trade. Inearly days intercolonial commerce had been carried on mostly by water, and when war interfered commerce almost ceased for want of roads. Theloss of ocean highways, however, stimulated road building and led towhat might be regarded as the first "good-roads movement" of the newnation, except that to our eyes it would be a misuse of the word to callany of those roads good. But anything which would improve the means oftransportation took on a patriotic tinge, and the building of roads andthe cutting of canals were agitated until turnpike and canal companiesbecame a favorite form of investment; and in a few years the interstateland trade had grown to considerable importance. But in the meantime, water transportation was the main reliance, and with the end of the warthe coastwise trade had been promptly resumed. For a time it prospered;but the States, affected by the general economic conditions and byjealousy, tried to interfere with and divert the trade of others totheir own advantage. This was done by imposing fees and charges andduties, not merely upon goods and vessels from abroad but upon those oftheir fellow States. James Madison described the situation in the wordsso often quoted: "Some of the States, . . . Having no convenient portsfor foreign commerce, were subject to be taxed by their neighbors, throwhose ports, their commerce was carryed on. New Jersey, placed betweenPhila. & N. York, was likened to a Cask tapped at both ends: and N. Carolina between Virga. & S. Carolina to a patient bleeding at bothArms. "*

 * "Records of the Federal Convention, " vol. III, p. 542. 

The business depression which very naturally followed the short revivalof trade was so serious in its financial consequences that it has evenbeen referred to as the "Panic of 1785. " The United States affordeda good market for imported articles in 1788 and 1784, all the betterbecause of the supply of gold and silver which had been sent into thecountry by England and France to maintain their armies and fleets andwhich had remained in the United States. But this influx of importedgoods was one of the chief factors in causing the depression of 1785, asit brought ruin to many of those domestic industries which had sprungup in the days of nonintercourse or which had been stimulated by theartificial protection of the war. 

To make matters worse, the currency was in a confused condition. "In1784 the entire coin of the land, except coppers, was the product offoreign mints. English guineas, crowns, shillings and pence were stillpaid over the counters of shops and taverns, and with them were mingledmany French and Spanish and some German coins. . . . The value of the goldpieces expressed in dollars was pretty much the same the country over. But the dollar and the silver pieces regarded as fractions of a dollarhad no less than five different values. "* The importation of foreigngoods was fast draining the hard money out of the country. In an effortto relieve the situation but with the result of making it much worse, several of the States began to issue paper money; and this was inaddition to the enormous quantities of paper which had been printedduring the Revolution and which was now worth but a small fraction ofits 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 moneyhad immediately resulted in a corresponding rise of prices, which for awhile the States attempted to control. But in 1778 Congress threw up itshands in despair and voted that "all limitations of prices of gold andsilver be taken off, " although the States for some time longer continuedto endeavor to regulate prices by legislation. * The fluctuating valueof the currency increased the opportunities for speculation whichwar conditions invariably offer, and "immense fortunes were suddenlyaccumulated. " A new financial group rose into prominence composedlargely of those who were not accustomed to the use of money and whowere 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 deWarville may be taken as an example, although he did not visit theUnited States until 1788:

"The inhabitants. . . Prefer the splendor of wealth and the show ofenjoyment to the simplicity of manners and the pure pleasures whichresult from it. If there is a town on the American continent where theEnglish luxury displays its follies, it is New York. You will find herethe English fashions: in the dress of the women you will see the mostbrilliant silks, gauzes, hats, and borrowed hair; equipages are rare, but they are elegant; the men have more simplicity in their dress; theydisdain gewgaws, but they take their revenge in the luxury of the table;luxury forms already a class of men very dangerous to society; I meanbachelors; the expense of women causes matrimony to be dreaded by men. Tea forms, as in England, the basis of parties of pleasure; many thingsare dearer here than in France; a hairdresser asks twenty shilling amonth; 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 beused to strengthen the impression which it is the purpose of the presentnarrative to convey:

"The French and British armies circulated immense sums of money in goldand silver coin, which had the effect of driving out of circulationthe wretched paper currency which had till then prevailed. Immensequantities of British and French goods were soon imported: our peopleimbibed a taste for foreign fashions and luxury; and in the course oftwo or three years, from the close of the war, such an entire change hadtaken place in the habits and manners of our inhabitants, that it almostappeared as if we had suddenly become a different nation. The staidand sober habits of our ancestors, with their plain home-manufacturedclothing, were suddenly laid aside, and European goods of fine qualityadopted 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 dietless expensive; for superb plate, foreign spirits, wines, etc. , etc. , sparkled on the sideboards of many farmers. The natural result of thischange of the habits and customs of the people--this aping of Europeanmanners and morals, was to suddenly drain our country of its circulatingspecie; and as a necessary consequence, the people ran in debt, timesbecame 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 ascritical as it has generally been represented, because the fundamentalbases of American prosperity were untouched. The way by which Americanscould meet the emergency and recover from the hard times was fairlyevident first to economize, and then to find new outlets for theirindustrial energies. But the process of adjustment was slow and painful. There were not a few persons in the United States who were even disposedto regret that Americans were not safely under British protectionand prospering with Great Britain, instead of suffering in politicalisolation. 

CHAPTER III. THE CONFEDERATION

When peace came in 1783 there were in the United States approximatelythree million people, who were spread over the whole Atlantic coastfrom Maine to Georgia and back into the interior as far as the AlleghanyMountains; and a relatively small number of settlers had crossed themountain barrier. About twenty per cent of the population, or somesix hundred thousand, were negro slaves. There was also a large alienelement of foreign birth or descent, poor when they arrived in America, and, although they had been able to raise themselves to a position ofcomparative comfort, life among them was still crude and rough. Manyof the people were poorly educated and lacking in cultivation andrefinement and in a knowledge of the usages of good society. Not onlywere they looked down upon by other nations of the world; there waswithin the United States itself a relatively small upper class inclinedto regard the mass of the people as of an inferior order. 

Thus, while forces were at work favorable to democracy, the gentryremained in control of affairs after the Revolution, although theirnumbers were reduced by the emigration of the Loyalists and their powerwas lessened. The explanation of this aristocratic control may be foundin the fact that the generation of the Revolution had been accustomedto monarchy and to an upper class and that the people were wont totake their ideas and to accept suggestions from their betters withoutquestion or murmur. This deferential attitude is attested by theindifference of citizens to the right of voting. In our own day, beforethe great extension of woman suffrage, the number of persons votingapproximated twenty per cent of the population, but after the Revolutionless than five per cent of the white population voted. There were manylimitations upon the exercise of the suffrage, but the small number ofvoters was only partially due to these restrictions, for in later years, without any radical change in suffrage qualifications, the proportion ofcitizens who voted steadily increased. 

The fact is that many of the people did not care to vote. Why shouldthey, when they were only registering the will or the wishes of theirsuperiors? But among the relatively small number who constituted thegoverning class there was a high standard of intelligence. Popularmagazines were unheard of and newspapers were infrequent, so that mendepended largely upon correspondence and personal intercourse for theinterchange of ideas. There was time, however, for careful reading ofthe few available books; there was time for thought, for writing, fordiscussion, and for social intercourse. It hardly seems too much to say, therefore, that there was seldom, if ever, a people-certainly nevera people scattered over so wide a territory-who knew so much aboutgovernment as did this controlling element of the people of the UnitedStates. 

The practical character, as well as the political genius, of theAmericans was never shown to better advantage than at the outbreak ofthe Revolution, when the quarrel with the mother country was manifestingitself in the conflict between the Governors, and other appointedagents of the Crown, and the popularly elected houses of the coloniallegislatures. 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 cometogether and call themselves a congress or a convention, and, instead ofadopting laws or orders, would issue what were really nothing morethan recommendations, but which they expected would be obeyed by theirsupporters. To enforce these recommendations extra-legal committees, generally backed by public opinion and sometimes concretely supported byan organized "mob, " would meet in towns and counties and would be ofteneffectively centralized where the opponents of the British policy werein control. 

In several of the colonies the want of orderly government became soserious that, in 1775, the Continental Congress advised them to formtemporary governments until the trouble with Great Britain had beensettled. When independence was declared Congress recommended to all theStates that they should adopt governments of their own. In accordancewith that recommendation, in the course of a very few years eachState established an independent government and adopted a writtenconstitution. It was a time when men believed in the social contractor the "compact theory of the state, " that states originated throughagreement, as the case might be, between king and nobles, between kingand people, or among the people themselves. In support of this doctrineno less an authority than the Bible was often quoted, such a passage forexample as II Samuel v, 3: "So all the elders of Israel came to the Kingto Hebron; and King David made a covenant with them in Hebron beforethe Lord; and they anointed David King over Israel. " As a philosophicalspeculation to explain why people were governed or consented to begoverned, this theory went back at least to the Greeks, and doubtlessmuch earlier; and, though of some significance in medieval thought, itbecame of greater importance in British political philosophy, especiallythrough the works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. A very practicalapplication of the compact theory was made in the English Revolution of1688, when in order to avoid the embarrassment of deposing the king, theconvention of the Parliament adopted the resolution: "That King Jamesthe Second, having endeavored to subvert the Constitution of theKingdom, by breaking the original Contract between King and People, andhaving, by the advice of Jesuits, and other wicked persons, violatedthe fundamental Laws, and withdrawn himself out of this Kingdom, hasabdicated the Government, and that the throne is hereby vacant. "These theories were developed by Jean Jacques Rousseau in his "ContratSocial"--a book so attractively written that it eclipsed all other worksupon the subject and resulted in his being regarded as the author of thedoctrine--and through him they spread all over Europe. 

Conditions in America did more than lend color to pale speculation; theyseemed to take this hypothesis out of the realm of theory and to give itpractical application. What happened when men went into the wildernessto live? The Pilgrim Fathers on board the Mayflower entered into anagreement which was signed by the heads of families who took part in theenterprise: "We, whose names are underwritten. . . Do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenantand combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick. "

Other colonies, especially in New England, with this example beforethem of a social contract entered into similar compacts or "plantationcovenants, " as they were called. But the colonists were also accustomedto having written charters granted which continued for a time at leastto mark the extent of governmental powers. Through this interminglingof theory and practice it was the most natural thing in the world, whenAmericans came to form their new State Governments, that they shouldprovide written instruments framed by their own representatives, which not only bound them to be governed in this way but also placedlimitations upon the governing bodies. As the first great seriesof written constitutions, these frames of government attracted wideattention. Congress printed a set for general distribution, and numerouseditions were circulated both at home and abroad. 

The constitutions were brief documents, varying from one thousand totwelve thousand words in length, which established the framework of thegovernmental machinery. Most of them, before proceeding to practicalworking details, enunciated a series of general principles upon thesubject of government and political morality in what were calleddeclarations or bills of rights. The character of these declarations maybe gathered from the following excerpts:

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and havecertain inherent rights, . . . The enjoyment of life and liberty, with themeans of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaininghappiness and safety. That no man, or set of men, are entitled toexclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, butin 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 eachcitizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall begoverned by certain laws for the common good. 

"That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by anyauthority, without consent of the representatives of the people, isinjurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised. 

"That general warrants, . . . Are grievous and oppressive, and ought not tobe 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 withthe safety of the State; and no law, to inflict cruel and unusual painsand 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 Godaccording 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 theEnglish Declaration of Rights of 1689, which indeed was consciouslyfollowed as a model; and yet there is a world-wide difference betweenthe English model and these American copies. The earlier documentenunciated the rights of English subjects, the recent infringement ofwhich made it desirable that they should be reasserted in convincingform. The American documents asserted rights which the colonistsgenerally had enjoyed and which they declared to be "governingprinciples for all peoples in all future times. "

But the greater significance of these State Constitutions is to be foundin their quality as working instruments of government. There wasindeed little difference between the old colonial and the new StateGovernments. The inhabitants of each of the Thirteen States had beenaccustomed to a large measure of self-government, and when they tookmatters into their own hands they were not disposed to make any radicalchanges in the forms to which they had become accustomed. Accordinglythe State Governments that were adopted simply continued a framework ofgovernment almost identical with that of colonial times. To be sure, theGovernor and other appointed officials were now elected either by thepeople or the legislature, and so were ultimately responsible to theelectors instead of to the Crown; and other changes were made which inthe long run might prove of far-reaching and even of vital significance;and yet the machinery of government seemed the same as that to whichthe people were already accustomed. The average man was conscious of nodifference at all in the working of the Government under the new order. In fact, in Connecticut and Rhode Island, the most democratic of allthe colonies, where the people had been privileged to elect their owngovernors, as well as legislatures, no change whatever was necessary andthe old charters were continued as State Constitutions down to 1818 and1842, respectively. 

To one who has been accustomed to believe that the separation from amonarchical government meant the establishment of democracy, a readingof these first State Constitutions is likely to cause a rude shock. A shrewd English observer, traveling a generation later in the UnitedStates, went to the root of the whole matter in remarking of theAmericans that, "When their independence was achieved their mentalcondition was not instantly changed. Their deference for rank and forjudicial and legislative authority continued nearly unimpaired. "* Theymight declare that "all men are created equal, " and bills of rightsmight assert that government rested upon the consent of the governed;but these constitutions carefully provided that such consent shouldcome from property owners, and, in many of the States, from religiousbelievers and even followers of the Christian faith. "The man of smallmeans might vote, but none save well-to-do Christians could legislate, and in many states none but a rich Christian could be a governor. "** InSouth Carolina, for example, a freehold of 10, 000 pounds currency wasrequired of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and members of A heCouncil; 2, 000 pounds of the members of the Senate; and, while everyelector was eligible to the House of Representatives, he had toacknowledge the being of a God and to believe in a future state ofrewards and punishments, as well as to hold "a freehold at least offifty acres of land, or a town lot. "

 * George Combe, "Tour of the United States, " vol. I, p. 205. 

 ** McMaster, "Acquisition of Industrial, Popular, and PoliticalRights of Man in America, " p. 20. 

It was government by a property-owning class, but in comparison withother countries this class represented a fairly large and increasingproportion of the population. In America the opportunity of becoming aproperty-owner was open to every one, or, as that phrase would thenhave been understood, to most white men. This system of class control isillustrated by the fact that, with the exception of Massachusetts, thenew State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for approval. 

The democratic sympathizer of today is inclined to point to thosefirst State Governments as a continuance of the old order. But to theconservative of that time it seemed as if radical and revolutionarychanges were taking place. The bills of rights declared, "That no men, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments orprivileges from the community, but in consideration of public services. "Property qualifications and other restrictions on officeholding and theexercise of the suffrage were lessened. Four States declared in theirconstitutions against the entailment of estates, and primogeniturewas abolished in aristocratic Virginia. There was a fairly completeabolition of all vestiges of feudal tenure in the holding of land, sothat it may be said that in this period full ownership of property wasestablished. The further separation of church and state was also carriedout. 

Certainly leveling influences were at work, and the people as a wholehad moved one step farther in the direction of equality and democracy, and it was well that the Revolution was not any more radical andrevolutionary than it was. The change was gradual and therefore morelasting. One finds readily enough contemporary statements to the effectthat, "Although there are no nobles in America, there is a class of mendenominated 'gentlemen, ' who, by reason of their wealth, their talents, their education, their families, or the offices they hold, aspire to apreeminence, " but, the same observer adds, this is something which"the people refuse to grant them. " Another contemporary contributes theobservation that there was not so much respect paid to gentlemen of rankas there should be, and that the lower orders of people behave as ifthey were on a footing of equality with them. 

Whether the State Constitutions are to be regarded asproperty-conserving, aristocratic instruments, or as progressivedocuments, depends upon the point of view. And so it is with the spiritof union or of nationality in the United States. One student emphasizesthe fact of there being "thirteen independent republics differing. . . Widely in climate, in soil, in occupation, in everything which makesup the social and economic life of the people"; while another sees "theUnited States a nation. " There is something to be said for both sides, and doubtless the truth lies between them, for there were forces makingfor disintegration as well as for unification. To the student of thepresent day, however, the latter seem to have been the stronger and moreimportant, although the possibility was never absent that the thirteenStates would go their separate ways. 

There are few things so potent as a common danger to bring discordantelements into working harmony. Several times in the century and a halfof their existence, when the colonies found themselves threatened bytheir enemies, they had united, or at least made an effort to unite, for mutual help. The New England Confederation of 1643 was organizedprimarily for protection against the Indians and incidentally againstthe Dutch and French. Whenever trouble threatened with any of theEuropean powers or with the Indians--and that was frequently--a planwould be broached for getting the colonies to combine their efforts, sometimes for the immediate necessity and sometimes for a broaderpurpose. The best known of these plans was that presented to the AlbanyCongress of 1754, which had been called to make effective preparationfor the inevitable struggle with the French and Indians. The beginningof the troubles which culminated in the final breach with Great Britainhad quickly brought united action in the form of the Stamp ActCongress of 1765, in the Committees of Correspondence, and then in theContinental Congress. 

It was not merely that the leaven of the Revolution was already workingto bring about the freer interchange of ideas; instinct and experienceled the colonies to united action. The very day that the ContinentalCongress appointed a committee to frame a declaration of independence, another committee was ordered to prepare articles of union. A monthlater, as soon as the Declaration of Independence had been adopted, thissecond 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 actionimperative, this plan of union was subjected to debate intermittentlyfor over sixteen months and even after being adopted by Congress, towardthe 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 hourforced Congress, without any authorization, to act as if it had beenduly empowered and in general to proceed as if the Confederation hadbeen formed. 

Benjamin Franklin was an enthusiast for union. It was he who hadsubmitted the plan of union to the Albany Congress in 1754, which withmodifications was recommended by that congress for adoption. It providedfor a Grand Council of representatives chosen by the legislature ofeach colony, the members to be proportioned to the contribution ofthat colony to the American military service. In matters concerning thecolonies as a whole, especially in Indian affairs, the Grand Council wasto be given extensive powers of legislation and taxation. The executivewas to be a President or Governor-General, appointed and paid by theCrown, with the right of nominating all military officers, and with aveto upon all acts of the Grand Council. The project was far in advanceof the times and ultimately failed of acceptance, but in 1775, with thebeginning of the troubles with Great Britain, Franklin took his Albanyplan and, after modifying it in accordance with the experience oftwenty years, submitted it to the Continental Congress as a new plan ofgovernment under which the colonies might unite. 

Franklin's plan of 1775 seems to have attracted little attention inAmerica, and possibly it was not generally known; but much was made ofit abroad, where it soon became public, probably in the same way thatother Franklin papers came out. It seems to have been his practice tomake, with his own hand, several copies of such a document, which hewould send to his friends with the statement that as the document inquestion was confidential they might not otherwise see a copy of it. Ofcourse the inevitable happened, and such documents found their war intoprint to the apparent surprise and dismay of the author. Incidentallythis practice caused confusion in later years, because each possessor ofsuch a document would claim that he had the original. Whatever may havebeen the procedure in this particular case, it is fairly evident thatDickinson's committee took Franklin's plan of 1775 as the startingpoint of its work, and after revision submitted it to Congress as theirreport; for some of the most important features of the Articles ofConfederation are to be found, sometimes word for word, in Franklin'sdraft. 

This explanation of the origin of the Articles of Confederation ishelpful and perhaps essential in understanding the form of governmentestablished, because that government in its main features had beendevised for an entirely different condition of affairs, when a strong, centralized government would not have been accepted even if it hadbeen wanted. It provided for a "league of friendship, " with the primarypurpose of considering preparation for action rather than of taking theinitiative. Furthermore, the final stages of drafting the Articles ofConfederation had occurred at the outbreak of the war, when the peopleof the various States were showing a disposition to follow readilysuggestions that came from those whom they could trust and when theyseemed to be willing to submit without compulsion to orders from thesame source. These circumstances, quite as much as the inexperience ofCongress and the jealousy of the States, account for the inefficientform of government which was devised; and inefficient the Confederationcertainly was. The only organ of government was a Congress in whichevery State was entitled to one vote and was represented by a delegationwhose members were appointed annually as the legislature of the Statemight direct, whose expenses were paid by the State, and who weresubject to recall. In other words, it was a council of States whoserepresentatives had little incentive to independence of action. 

Extensive powers were granted to this Congress "of determining on peaceand war, . . . Of entering into treaties and alliances, " of maintaining anarmy and a navy, of establishing post offices, of coining money, andof making requisitions upon the States for their respective share ofexpenses "incurred for the common defence or general welfare. " But noneof these powers could be exercised without the consent of nine States, which was equivalent to requiring a two-thirds vote, and even when sucha vote had been obtained and a decision had been reached, therewas nothing to compel the individual States to obey beyond the meredeclaration in the Articles of Confederation that, "Every State shallabide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled. "

No executive was provided for except that Congress was authorized "toappoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessaryfor managing the general affairs of the United States under theirdirection. " In judicial matters, Congress was to serve as "the lastresort on appeal in all disputes and differences" between States; andCongress might establish courts for the trial of piracy and feloniescommitted on the high seas and for determining appeals in cases of prizecapture. 

The plan of a government was there but it lacked any driving force. Congress might declare war but the States might decline to participatein it; Congress might enter into treaties but it could not make theStates live up to them; Congress might borrow money but it could not besure of repaying it; and Congress might decide disputes without beingable to make the parties accept the decision. The pressure of necessitymight keep the States together for a time, yet there is no disguisingthe fact that the Articles of Confederation formed nothing more than agentlemen's agreement. 

CHAPTER IV. THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE

The population of the United States was like a body of water that wasbeing steadily enlarged by internal springs and external tributaries. Itwas augmented both from within and from without, from natural increaseand from immigration. It had spread over the whole coast from Maine toGeorgia and slowly back into the interior, at first along the lines ofriver communication and then gradually filling up the spaces betweenuntil the larger part of the available land east of the AlleghanyMountains was settled. There the stream was checked as if dammed by themountain barrier, but the population was trickling through wherever itcould find an opening, slowly wearing channels, until finally, when theobstacles were overcome, it broke through with a rush. 

Twenty years before the Revolution the expanding population had reachedthe mountains and was ready to go beyond. The difficulty of crossing themountains was not insuperable, but the French and Indian War, followedby Pontiac's Conspiracy, made outlying frontier settlement dangerous ifnot impossible. The arbitrary restriction of western settlement by theProclamation of 1763 did not stop the more adventurous but did hold backthe mass of the population until near the time of the Revolution, whena few bands of settlers moved into Kentucky and Tennessee and renderedimportant but inconspicuous service in the fighting. But so long asthe title to that territory was in doubt no considerable body of peoplewould move into it, and it was not until the Treaty of Peace in 1783determined that the western country as far as the Mississippi River wasto belong to the United States that the dammed-up population broke overthe mountains in a veritable flood. 

The western country and its people presented no easy problem to theUnited States: how to hold those people when the pull was strong to drawthem from the Union; how to govern citizens so widely separated from theolder communities; and, of most immediate importance, how to hold theland itself. It was, indeed, the question of the ownership of the landbeyond the mountains which delayed the ratification of the Articles ofConfederation. Some of the States, by right of their colonial chartergrants "from sea to sea, " were claiming large parts of the westernregion. Other States, whose boundaries were fixed, could put forwardno such claims; and, as they were therefore limited in their areaof expansion, they were fearful lest in the future they should beoverbalanced by those States which might obtain extensive property inthe West. It was maintained that the Proclamation of 1763 had changedthis western territory into "Crown lands, " and as, by the Treaty ofPeace, the title had passed to the United States, the non-claimantStates had demanded in self-defense that the western land should belongto the country as a whole and not to the individual States. RhodeIsland, Maryland, and Delaware were most seriously affected, and theywere insistent upon this point. Rhode Island and at length Delaware gavein, so that by February, 1779, Maryland alone held out. In May ofthat year the instructions of Maryland to her delegates were read inCongress, positively forbidding them to ratify the plan of union unlessthey should receive definite assurances that the western country wouldbecome the common property of the United States. As the consent ofall of the Thirteen States was necessary to the establishment of theConfederation, this refusal of Maryland brought matters to a crisis. The question was eagerly discussed, and early in 1780 the deadlock wasbroken by the action of New York in authorizing her representatives tocede her entire claim in western lands to the United States. 

It matters little that the claim of New York was not as good as thatof some of the other States, especially that of Virginia. The wholesituation was changed. It was no longer necessary for Maryland todefend her position; but the claimant States were compelled to justifythemselves before the country for not following New York's example. Congress wisely refrained from any assertion of jurisdiction, and onlyurgently recommended that States having claims to western lands shouldcede them in order that the one obstacle to the final ratification ofthe Articles of Confederation might be removed. 

Without much question Virginia's claim was the strongest; but thepressure was too great even for her, and she finally yielded, ceding tothe United States, upon certain conditions, all her lands northwest ofthe Ohio River. Then the Maryland delegates were empowered to ratify theArticles of Confederation. This was early in 1781, and in a very shorttime the other States had followed the example of New York and Virginia. Certain of the conditions imposed by Virginia were not acceptable toCongress, and three years later, upon specific request, that Statewithdrew the objectionable conditions and made the cession absolute. 

The territory thus ceded, north and west of the Ohio River, constitutedthe public domain. Its boundaries were somewhat indefinite, butsubsequent surveys confirmed the rough estimate that it contained fromone to two hundred millions of acres. It was supposed to be worth, onthe average, about a dollar an acre, which would make this property anasset sufficient to meet the debts of the war and to leave a balancefor the running expenses of the Government. It thereby became one of thestrong bonds holding the Union together. 

"Land!" was the first cry of the storm-tossed mariners of Columbus. Forthree centuries the leading fact of American history has been that soonafter 1600 a body of Europeans, mostly Englishmen, settled on the edgeof the greatest piece of unoccupied agricultural land in the temperatezone, and proceeded to subdue it to the uses of man. For three centuriesthe chief task of American mankind has been to go up westward againstthe land and to possess it. Our wars, our independence, our statebuilding, our political democracy, our plasticity with respect toimmigration, our mobility of thought, our ardor of initiative, ourmildness and our prosperity, all are but incidents or products of thisprime historical fact. *

 * Lecture by J. Franklin Jameson before the Trustees of theCarnegie Institution, at Washington, in 1912, printed in the "HistoryTeacher's Magazine, " vol. IV, 1913, p. 5. 

It is seldom that one's attention is so caught and held as by the happysuggestion that American interest in land or rather interest in Americanland--began with the discovery of the continent. Even a momentaryconsideration of the subject, however, is sufficient to indicate howimportant was the desire for land as a motive of colonization. Thefoundation of European governmental and social organizations had beenlaid in feudalism--a system of landholding and service. And althoughEuropean states might have lost their original feudal character, andalthough new classes had arisen, land-holding still remained the basisof 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 preciouspossessions was found in almost unlimited quantities that family estateswere sought in America and that to the lower classes it seemed as if aheaven were opening on earth. Even though available land appeared to bealmost unlimited in quantity and easy to acquire, it was a possessionthat was generally increasing in value. Of course wasteful methods offarming wore out some lands, especially in the South; but, taking it byand large throughout the country, with time and increasing density ofpopulation the value of the land was increasing. The acquisition ofland was a matter of investment or at least of speculation. In fact, thepurchase of land was one of the favorite get-rich-quick schemes of thetime. George Washington was not the only man who invested largely inwestern lands. A list of those who did would read like a politicalor social directory of the time. Patrick Henry, James Wilson, RobertMorris, Gouverneur Morris, Chancellor Kent, Henry Knox, and James Monroewere 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 1800for nonpayment of taxes. Channing, "History of the United States, " vol. IV, p. 91. 

It is therefore easy to understand why so much importance attached tothe claims of the several States and to the cession of that western landby them to the United States. But something more was necessary. Ifthe land was to attain anything like its real value, settlers must beinduced to occupy it. Of course it was possible to let the people go outas they pleased and take up land, and to let the Government collectfrom them as might be possible at a fixed rate. But experience duringcolonial days had shown the weakness of such a method, and Congress wasapparently determined to keep under its own control the region whichit now possessed, to provide for orderly sale, and to permit settlementonly so far as it might not endanger the national interests. The methodof land sales and the question of government for the western countrywere recognized as different aspects of the same problem. The Virginiaoffer of cession forced the necessity of a decision, and no soonerwas the Virginia offer framed in an acceptable form, in 1783, than twocommittees were appointed by Congress to report upon these two questionsof land sales and of government. 

Thomas Jefferson was made chairman of both these committees. He was thenforty years old and one of the most remarkable men in the country. Bornon the frontier--his father from the upper middle class, his mother "aRandolph"--he had been trained to an outdoor life; but he was alsoa prodigy in his studies and entered William and Mary College withadvanced standing at the age of eighteen. Many stories are told of hisprecocity and ability, all of which tend to forecast the later man ofcatholic tastes, omnivorous interest, and extensive but superficialknowledge; he was a strange combination of natural aristocrat andtheoretical democrat, of philosopher and practical politician. Afterhaving been a student in the law office of George Wythe, and beinga friend of Patrick Henry, Jefferson early espoused the cause ofthe Revolution, and it was his hand that drafted the Declarationof Independence. He then resigned from Congress to assist in theorganization of government in his own State. For two years and a half heserved in the Virginia Assembly and brought about the repeal of thelaw of entailment, the abolition of primogeniture, the recognitionof freedom of conscience, and the encouragement of education. He wasGovernor 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, aschairman of another committee, devised and persuaded Congress to adopt anational system of coinage which in its essentials is still in use. 

It is easy to criticize Jefferson and to pick flaws in the things thathe said as well as in the things that he did, but practically everyone admits that he was closely in touch with the course of eventsand understood the temper of his contemporaries. In this period oftransition from the old order to the new, he seems to have expressed thegenius of American institutions better than almost any other man of hisgeneration. He possessed a quality that enabled him, in the Declarationof Independence, to give voice to the hopes and aspirations of a risingnationality and that enabled him in his own State to bring about so manyreforms. 

Just how much actual influence Thomas Jefferson had in the framingof the American land policy is not clear. Although the draft of thecommittee report in 1784 is in Jefferson's handwriting, it is altogetherprobable that more credit is to be given to Thomas Hutchins, theGeographer of the United States, and to William Grayson of Virginia, especially for the final form which the measure took; for Jeffersonretired from the chairmanship and had already gone to Europe when theLand Ordinance was adopted by Congress in 1785. This ordinance has beensuperseded by later enactments, to which references are usually made;but the original ordinance is one of the great pieces of Americanlegislation, for it contained the fundamentals of the American landsystem which, with the modifications experience has introduced, hasproved to be permanently workable and which has been envied and inseveral instances copied by other countries. Like almost all successfulinstitutions of that sort, the Land Ordinance of 1785 was not animmediate creation but was a development out of former practices andcustoms and was in the nature of a compromise. Its essential featureswere the method of survey and the process for the sale of land. NewEngland, with its town system, had in the course of its expansion beenaccustomed to proceed in an orderly method but on a relatively smallscale. The South, on the other hand, had granted lands on a larger scaleand had permitted individual selection in a haphazard manner. The planwhich Congress adopted was that of the New England survey with theSouthern method of extensive holdings. The system is repellent in itsrectangular orderliness, but it made the process of recording titleseasy and complete, and it was capable of indefinite expansion. Thesewere matters of cardinal importance, for in the course of one hundredand forty years the United States was to have under its control nearlytwo thousand million acres of land. 

The primary feature of the land policy was the orderly survey in advanceof sale. In the next place the township was taken as the unit, and itssize was fixed at six miles square. Provision was then made for the saleof townships alternately entire and by sections of one mile square, or640 acres each. In every township a section was reserved for educationalpurposes; that is, the land was to be disposed of and the proceeds usedfor the development of public schools in that region. And, finally, theUnited States reserved four sections in the center of each township tobe disposed of at a later time. It was expected that a great increasein the value of the land would result, and it was proposed that theGovernment should reap a part of the profits. 

It is evident that the primary purpose of the public land policy asfirst developed was to acquire revenue for the Government; but itwas also evident that there was a distinct purpose of encouragingsettlement. The two were not incompatible, but the greater interest ofthe Government was in obtaining a return for the property. 

The other committee of which Jefferson was chairman made its report of aplan for the government of the western territory upon the very day thatthe Virginia cession was finally accepted, March 1, 1784; and with someimportant modifications Jefferson's ordinance, or the Ordinance of1784 as it was commonly called, was ultimately adopted. In this caseJefferson rendered a service similar to that of framing the Declarationof 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 whathad already been done and an instinctive forecast of future development. Jefferson seemed to be able to gather up ideas, some conscious and somelatent in men's minds, and to express them in a form that was generallyacceptable. 

It is interesting to find in the Articles of Confederation (ArticleXI) that, "Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in themeasures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled toall the advantages of this Union: but no other colony shall be admittedinto the same unless such admission be agreed to by nine States. " Thereal importance of this article lay in the suggestion of an enlargementof the Confederation. The Confederation was never intended to be a unionof only thirteen States. Before the cession of their western claims itseemed to be inevitable that some of the States should be broken up intoseveral units. At the very time that the formation of the Confederationwas under discussion Vermont issued a declaration of independence fromNew York and New Hampshire, with the expectation of being admitted intothe Union. It was impolitic to recognize the appeal at that time, butit seems to have been generally understood that sooner or later Vermontwould come in as a full-fledged State. 

It might have been a revolutionary suggestion by Maryland, when thecession of western lands was under discussion, that Congress should havesole power to fix the western boundaries of the States, but her furtherproposal was not even regarded as radical, that Congress should "layout the land beyond the boundaries so ascertained into separate andindependent states. " It seems to have been taken as a matter of coursein the procedure of Congress and was accepted by the States. But theidea was one thing; its carrying out was quite another. Here was a greatextent of western territory which would be valuable only as it couldbe sold to prospective settlers. One of the first things these settlerswould demand was protection--protection against the Indians, possiblyalso against the British and the Spanish, and protection in theirordinary civil life. The former was a detail of military organizationand was in due time provided by the establishment of military forts andgarrisons; the latter was the problem which Jefferson's committee wasattempting to solve. 

The Ordinance of 1784 disregarded the natural physical features of thewestern country and, by degrees of latitude and meridians of longitude, arbitrarily divided the public domain into rectangular districts, to thefirst of which the following names were applied: Sylvania, Michigania, Cherronesus, Assenisipia, Metropotamia, Illinoia, Saratoga, Washington, Polypotamia, Pelisipia. The amusement which this absurd and thoroughlyJeffersonian nomenclature is bound to cause ought not to detract fromthe really important features of the Ordinance. In each of the districtsinto which the country was divided the settlers might be authorized byCongress, for the purpose of establishing a temporary government, toadopt the constitution and laws of any one of the original States. Whenany such area should have twenty thousand free inhabitants it mightreceive authority from Congress to establish a permanent constitutionand government and should be entitled to a representative in Congresswith the right of debating but not of voting. And finally, when theinhabitants of any one of these districts should equal in number thoseof the least populous of the thirteen original States, their delegatesshould 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 afair trial. It has been said that Jefferson himself was to blame. In theoriginal draft of his ordinance Jefferson had provided for the abolitionof slavery in the new States after the year 1800, and whenCongress refused to accept this clause Jefferson, in a manner quitecharacteristic, seemed to lose all interest in the plan. There were, however, other objections, for there were those who felt that it wassomewhat indefinite to promise admission into the Confederation ofcertain sections of the country as soon as their population should equalin number that of the least populous of the original States. If theoriginal States should increase in population to any extent, the newStates might never be admitted. But on the other hand, if from any causethe 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. AtVincennes, for example, the ordinance made no change in the politicalhabits of the people. "The local government bowled along merrily underthis system. There was the greatest abundance of government, for themore the United States neglected them the more authority their officialsassumed. "* Nor could the ordinance operate until settlers becamenumerous. It was partly, indeed, to hasten settlement that the Ordinanceof 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 appointmentof men and the beginning of work, it was not until 1789 that the surveyof the first seven ranges of townships was completed and the landoffered for sale. 

In the meantime efforts were being made by Congress to improve theunsatisfactory ordinance for the government of the West. Committees wereappointed, reports were made, and at intervals of weeks or months thesubject was considered. Some amendments were actually adopted, butCongress, notoriously inefficient, hesitated to undertake a fundamentalrevision of the ordinance. Then, suddenly, in July, 1787, after a briefperiod of adjournment, Congress took up this subject and within a weekadopted the now famous Ordinance of 1787. 

The stimulus which aroused Congress to activity seems to have come fromthe Ohio Company. From the very beginning of the public domain therewas a strong sentiment in favor of using western land for settlement byRevolutionary soldiers. Some of these lands had been offered as bountiesto encourage enlistment, and after the war the project of soldiers'settlement in the West was vigorously agitated. The Ohio Company ofAssociates was made up of veterans of the Revolution, who were lookingfor homes in the West, and of other persons who were willing to supporta worthy cause by a subscription which might turn out to be a goodinvestment. The company wished to buy land in the West, and Congress hadland which it wished to sell. Under such circumstances it was easy tostrike a bargain. The land, as we have seen, was roughly estimated atone dollar an acre; but, as the company wished to purchase a millionacres, it demanded and obtained wholesale rates of two-thirds of theusual price. It also obtained the privilege of paying at least a portionin certificates of Revolutionary indebtedness, some of which were worthabout twelve and a half cents on the dollar. Only a little calculationis required to show that a large quantity of land was therefore sold atabout eight or nine cents an acre. It was in connection with this landsale that the Ordinance of 1787 was adopted. 

The promoter of this enterprise undertaken by the Ohio Company wasManasseh Cutler of Ipswich, Massachusetts, a clergyman by profession whohad served as a chaplain in the Revolutionary War. But his interests andactivities extended far beyond the bounds of his profession. When thepeople of his parish were without proper medical advice he appliedhimself to the study and practice of medicine. At about the same timehe took up the study of botany, and because of his describing severalhundred species of plants he is regarded as the pioneer botanist of NewEngland. His next interest seems to have grown out of his Revolutionaryassociations, for it centered in this project for settlement of theWest, and he was appointed the agent of the Ohio Company. It was in thiscapacity that he had come to New York and made the bargain with Congresswhich has just been described. Cutler must have been a good lobbyist, for Congress was not an efficient body, and unremitting labor, as wellas diplomacy, was required for so large and important a matter. Twothings indicate his method of procedure. In the first place he foundit politic to drop his own candidate for the governorship of the newterritory and to endorse General Arthur St. Clair, then President ofCongress. And in the next place he accepted the suggestion of ColonelWilliam Duer for the formation of another company, known as the SciotoAssociates, to purchase five million acres of land on similar terms, "but that it should be kept a profound secret. " It was not an accidentthat Colonel Duer was Secretary of the Board of the Treasury throughwhom these purchases were made, nor that associated with him in thisspeculation were "a number of the principal characters in the city. "These land deals were completed afterwards, but there is little doubtthat there was a direct connection between them and the adoption of theordinance of government. 

The Ordinance of 1787 was so successful in its working and its renownbecame so great that claims of authorship, even for separate articles, have been filed in the name of almost every person who had the slightestexcuse for being considered. Thousands of pages have been written ineulogy and in dispute, to the helpful clearing up of some points and tothe obscuring of others. But the authorship of this or of that clause isof much less importance than the scope of the document as a working planof government. As such the Ordinance of 1787 owes much to Jefferson'sOrdinance of 1784. Under the new ordinance a governor and three judgeswere to be appointed who, along with their other functions, were toselect such laws as they thought best from the statute books of all theStates. The second stage in self-government would be reached when thepopulation contained five thousand free men of age; then the people wereto have a representative legislature with the usual privilege ofmaking their own laws. Provision was made for dividing the whole regionnorthwest of the Ohio River into three or four or five districts and thefinal stage of government was reached when any one of these districtshad sixty thousand free inhabitants, for it might then establish its ownconstitution and government and be admitted into the Union on an equalfooting with the original States. 

The last-named provision for admission into the Union, being in thenature of a promise for the future, was not included in the body ofthe document providing for the government, but was contained in certain"articles of compact, between the original States and the people andStates in the said territory, [which should] forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent. " These articles of compact were in generalsimilar to the bills of rights in State Constitutions; but one of themfound no parallel in any State Constitution. Article VI reads:"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the saidterritory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the partyshall 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 timewhen slavery would be abolished. But the motives predominating at thetime were probably more nearly represented by Grayson, who wrote toJames Monroe, three weeks after the ordinance was passed: "The clauserespecting slavery was agreed to by the southern members for the purposeof preventing tobacco and indigo from being made on the northwest sideof the Ohio, as well as for several other political reasons. "

It is over one hundred and forty years since the Ordinance of 1787 wasadopted, during which period more than thirty territories of the UnitedStates have been organized, and there has never been a time when one ormore territories were not under Congressional supervision, so that theprocess of legislative control has been continuous. Changes have beenmade from time to time in order to adapt the territorial government tochanged conditions, but for fifty years the Ordinance of 1787 actuallyremained in operation, and even twenty years later it was specificallyreferred to by statute. The principles of territorial government todayare identical with those of 1787, and those principles comprise thelargest measure of local self-government compatible with nationalcontrol, a gradual extension of self-government to the people of aterritory, and finally complete statehood and admission into the Unionon a footing of equality with the other States. 

In 1825, when the military occupation of Oregon was suggested inCongress, Senator Dickerson of New Jersey objected, saying, "We have notadopted 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 firstsettlers on the Atlantic coast colonists from Europe; but the men whowent to the frontier were also colonists from the Atlantic seaboard. Andthe men who settled the States in the West were colonists from the oldercommunities. The Americans had so recently asserted their independencethat they regarded the name of colony as not merely indicatingdependence but as implying something of inferiority and even ofreproach. And when the American colonial system was being formulated in1783-87 the word "Colony" was not used. The country under considerationwas the region west of the Alleghany Mountains and in particular theterritory north and west of the Ohio River and, being so referred to inthe documents, the word "Territory" became the term applied to all thecolonies. 

The Northwest Territory increased so rapidly in population that in 1800it was divided into two districts, and in 1802 the eastern part wasadmitted into the Union as the State of Ohio. The rest of the territorywas divided in 1805 and again in 1809; Indiana was admitted as a Statein 1816 and Illinois in 1818. So the process has gone on. There werethirteen original States and six more have become members of the Unionwithout having been through the status of territories, making nineteenin all; while twenty-nine States have developed from the colonialstage. The incorporation of the colonies into the Union is not merely apolitical fact; the inhabitants of the colonies become an integral partof the parent nation and in turn become the progenitors of new colonies. If such a process be long continued, the colonies will eventuallyoutnumber the parent States, and the colonists will outnumber thecitizens 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 livingwest of the Alleghany Mountains, and at the present time approximatelyseventy per cent are to be found in the West. 

The importance of the Ordinance of 1787 was hardly overstated by Websterin his famous debate with Hayne when he said: "We are accustomed topraise the lawgivers of antiquity; we help to perpetuate the fame ofSolon and Lycurgus; but I doubt whether one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has produced effects of more distinct, marked andlasting character than the Ordinance of 1787. " While improved meansof communication and many other material ties have served to hold theStates of the Union together, the political bond was supplied by theOrdinance of 1787, which inaugurated the American colonial system. 

CHAPTER V. DARKNESS BEFORE DAWN

John Fiske summed up the prevailing impression of the government ofthe Confederation in the title to his volume, "The Critical Period ofAmerican History. " "The period of five years, " says Fiske, "followingthe peace of 1783 was the most critical moment in all the history of theAmerican people. The dangers from which we were saved in 1788 were evengreater than were the dangers from which we were saved in 1865. " Perhapsthe plight of the Confederation was not so desperate as he would haveus believe, but it was desperate enough. Two incidents occurring betweenthe signing of the preliminary terms of peace and the definitivetreaty reveal the danger in which the country stood. The main bodyof continental troops made up of militiamen and short-termvolunteers--always prone to mutinous conduct--was collected at Newburgon the Hudson, watching the British in New York. Word might come at anyday that the treaty had been signed, and the army did not wish to bedisbanded until certain matters had been settled primarily the questionof their pay. The officers had been promised half-pay for life, butnothing definite had been done toward carrying out the promise. Thesoldiers had no such hope to encourage them, and their pay was sadly inarrears. In December, 1782, the officers at Newburg drew up an addressin behalf of themselves and their men and sent it to Congress. Thereinthey made the threat, thinly veiled, of taking matters into their ownhands unless their grievances were redressed. 

There is reason to suppose that back of this movement--or at least insympathy with it--were some of the strongest men in civil as in militarylife, who, while not fomenting insurrection, were willing to bringpressure to bear on Congress and the States. Congress was unableor unwilling to act, and in March, 1783, a second paper, this timeanonymous, was circulated urging the men not to disband until thequestion of pay had been settled and recommending a meeting of officerson 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 helearned of what had been done he issued general orders calling fora meeting of officers on a later day, thus superseding theirregular meeting that had been suggested. On the day appointed theCommander-in-Chief appeared and spoke with so much warmth and feelingthat his "little address. . . Drew tears from many of the officers. " Heinveighed against the unsigned paper and against the methods that weretalked of, for they would mean the disgrace of the army, and he appealedto the patriotism of the officers, promising his best efforts intheir behalf. The effect was so strong that, when Washington withdrew, resolutions were adopted unanimously expressing their loyalty and theirfaith 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 marchedto Philadelphia and drew up before the State House, where Congress wassitting. Their purpose was to demand better treatment and the payment ofwhat was owed to them. So far it was an orderly demonstration, althoughnot in keeping with military regulations; in fact the men had brokenaway from camp under the lead of noncommissioned officers. But whenthey had been stimulated by drink the disorder became serious. Thehumiliating feature of the situation was that Congress could do nothing, even in self-protection. They appealed, to the Pennsylvania authoritiesand, when assistance was refused, the members of Congress in alarm fledin the night and three days later gathered in the college building inPrinceton. 

Congress became the butt of many jokes, but men could not hide thechagrin they felt that their Government was so weak. The feelingdeepened into shame when the helplessness of Congress was displayedbefore the world. Weeks and even months passed before a quorum could beobtained to ratify the treaty recognizing the independence of the UnitedStates and establishing peace. Even after the treaty was supposed tobe in force the States disregarded its provisions and Congress could donothing more than utter ineffective protests. But, most humiliating ofall, the British maintained their military posts within the northwesternterritory ceded to the United States, and Congress could only requestthem to retire. The Americans' pride was hurt and their pockets weretouched as well, for an important issue at stake was the control of thelucrative fur trade. So resentment grew into anger; but the British heldon, and the United States was powerless to make them withdraw. To makematters worse, the Confederation, for want of power to levy taxes, wasfacing bankruptcy, and Congress was unable to devise ways and means toavert a crisis. 

The Second Continental Congress had come into existence in 1775. It wasmade up of delegations from the various colonies, appointed in more orless irregular ways, and had no more authority than it might assume andthe various colonies were willing to concede; yet it was the centralbody under which the Revolution had been inaugurated and carried throughto a successful conclusion. Had this Congress grappled firmly with thefinancial problem and forced through a system of direct taxation, thesubsequent woes of the Confederation might have been mitigatedand perhaps averted. In their enthusiasm over the Declaration ofIndependence the people--by whom is meant the articulate classconsisting largely of the governing and commercial elements--wouldprobably have accepted such a usurpation of authority. But with theirlack of experience it is not surprising that the delegates to Congressdid not appreciate the necessity of such radical action and so wereunwilling to take the responsibility for it. They counted upon thegoodwill and support of their constituents, which simmered down to areliance upon voluntary grants from the States in response to appealsfrom Congress. These desultory grants proved to be so unsatisfactorythat, in 1781, even before the Articles of Confederation had beenratified, Congress asked for a grant of additional power to levy a dutyof five per cent ad valorem upon all goods imported into the UnitedStates, the revenue from which was to be applied to the discharge ofthe principal and interest on debts "contracted. . . For supportingthe present war. " Twelve States agreed, but Rhode Island, after somehesitation, finally rejected the measure in November, 1782. 

The Articles of Confederation authorized a system of requisitionsapportioned among the "several States in proportion to the value of allland within each State. " But, as there was no power vested in Congressto force the States to comply, the situation was in no way improved whenthe Articles were ratified and put into operation. In fact, matters grewworse as Congress itself steadily lost ground in popular estimation, until it had become little better than a laughing-stock, and with theending of the war its requests were more honored in the breach than inthe observance. In 1782 Congress asked for $8, 000, 000 and the followingyear for $2, 000, 000 more, but by the end of 1783 less than $1, 500, 000had been paid in. 

In the same year, 1783, Congress made another attempt to remedy thefinancial situation by proposing the so-called Revenue Amendment, according to which a specific duty was to be laid upon certain articlesand 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 wasproposed that for the same period of time $1, 500, 000 annually shouldbe raised by requisitions, and the definite amount for each State wasspecified until "the rule of the Confederation" could be carried intopractice: It was then proposed that the article providing for theproportion of requisitions should be changed so as to be based not uponland values but upon population, in estimating which slaves should becounted at three-fifths of their number. In the course of three yearsthereafter only two States accepted the proposals in full, seven agreedto them in part, and four failed to act at all. Congress in despair thenmade a further representation to the States upon the critical conditionof the finances and accompanied this with an urgent appeal, whichresulted in all the States except New York agreeing to the proposedimpost. But the refusal of one State was sufficient to block thewhole measure, and there was no further hope for a treasury that waspractically bankrupt. In five years Congress had received less than twoand one-half million dollars from requisitions, and for the fourteenmonths ending January 1, 1786, the income was at the rate of lessthan $375, 000 a year, which was not enough, as a committee of Congressreported, "for the bare maintenance of the Federal Government on themost economical establishment and in time of profound peace. " In fact, the income was not sufficient even to meet the interest on the foreigndebt. 

In the absence of other means of obtaining funds Congress had resortedearly to the unfortunate expedient of issuing paper money based solelyon the good faith of the States to redeem it. This fiat money held itsvalue for some little time; then it began to shrink and, once startedon the downward path, its fall was rapid. Congress tried to meet theemergency by issuing paper in increasing quantities until the inevitablehappened: the paper money ceased to have any value and practicallydisappeared from circulation. Jefferson said that by the end of 1781one thousand dollars of Continental scrip was worth about one dollar inspecie. 

The States had already issued paper money of their own, and theirexperience ought to have taught them a lesson, but with the coming ofhard times after the war, they once more proposed by issuing paper torelieve the "scarcity of money" which was commonly supposed to be oneof the principal evils of the day. In 1785 and 1786 paper money partiesappeared in almost all the States. In some of these the conservativeelement was strong enough to prevent action, but in others the movementhad to run its fatal course. The futility of what they were doing shouldhave been revealed to all concerned by proposals seriously made that thepaper money which was issued should depreciate at a regular rate eachyear until it should finally disappear. 

The experience of Rhode Island is not to be regarded as typical ofwhat was happening throughout the country but is, indeed, rather to beconsidered as exceptional. Yet it attracted widespread attention andrevealed to anxious observers the dangers to which the country wassubject if the existing condition of affairs were allowed to continue. The machinery of the State Government was captured by the paper-moneyparty in the spring election of 1786. The results were disappointing tothe adherents of the paper-money cause, for when the money was issueddepreciation began at once, and those who tried to pay their billsdiscovered that a heavy discount was demanded. In response to indignantdemands the legislature of Rhode Island passed an act to force theacceptance of paper money under penalty and thereupon tradesmen refusedto make any sales at all some closed their shops, and others tried tocarry on business by exchange of wares. The farmers then retaliated byrefusing to sell their produce to the shopkeepers, and general confusionand acute distress followed. It was mainly a quarrel between the farmersand the merchants, but it easily grew into a division between town andcountry, and there followed a whole series of town meetings and countyconventions. The old line of cleavage was fairly well represented by theexcommunication of a member of St. John's Episcopal Church of Providencefor tendering bank notes, and the expulsion of a member of the Societyof the Cincinnati for a similar cause. 

The contest culminated in the case of Trevett vs. Weeden, 1786, which ismemorable in the judicial annals of the United States. The legislature, not being satisfied with ordinary methods of enforcement, had providedfor the summary trial of offenders without a jury before a court whosejudges were removable by the Assembly and were therefore supposedlysubservient to its wishes. In the case in question the Superior Courtboldly declared the enforcing act to be unconstitutional, and for theircontumacious 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 wholecountry, occurred in Massachusetts. It is doubtful if a satisfactoryexplanation ever will be found, at least one which will be universallyaccepted, as to the causes and origin of Shays' Rebellion in 1786. Somehistorians maintain that the uprising resulted primarily from a scarcityof money, from a shortage in the circulating medium; that, while theeastern counties were keeping up their foreign trade sufficiently atleast to bring in enough metallic currency to relieve the stringency andcould also use various forms of credit, the western counties had nosuch remedy. Others are inclined to think that the difficulties of thefarmers in western Massachusetts were caused largely by the return tonormal conditions after the extraordinarily good times between 1776 and1780, and that it was the discomfort attending the process that drovethem to revolt. Another explanation reminds one of present-day chargesagainst undue influence of high financial circles, when it isinsinuated and even directly charged that the rebellion was fosteredby conservative interests who were trying to create a public opinion infavor of a more strongly organized government. 

Whatever other causes there may have been, the immediate source oftrouble was the enforced payment of indebtedness, which to a largeextent had been allowed to remain in abeyance during the war. Thispostponement of settlement had not been merely for humanitarian reasons;it would have been the height of folly to collect when the currency wasgreatly depreciated. But conditions were supposed to have been restoredto normal with the cessation of hostilities, and creditors weregenerally inclined to demand payment. These demands, coinciding withthe heavy taxes, drove the people of western Massachusetts into revolt. Feeling ran high against lawyers who prosecuted suits for creditors, andthis antagonism was easily transferred to the courts in which the suitswere brought. The rebellion in Massachusetts accordingly took the formof a demonstration against the courts. A paper was carried from townto town in the County of Worcester, in which the signers promised todo their utmost "to prevent the sitting of the Inferior Court of CommonPleas for the county, or of any other court that should attempt to takeproperty by distress. "

The Massachusetts Legislature adjourned in July, 1786, without remedyingthe trouble and also without authorizing an issue of paper money whichthe hardpressed debtors were demanding. In the months following mobsprevented the courts from sitting in various towns. A special session ofthe legislature was then called by the Governor but, when that specialsession had adjourned on the 18th of November, it might just as wellhave never met. It had attempted to remedy various grievances and hadmade concessions to the malcontents, but it had also passed measures tostrengthen the hands of the Governor. This only seemed to inflame therioters, and the disorders increased. After the lower courts a movewas made against the State Supreme Court, and plans were laid for aconcerted movement against the cities in the eastern part of the State. Civil war seemed imminent. The insurgents were led by Daniel Shays, anofficer in the army of the Revolution, and the party of law and orderwas represented by Governor James Bowdoin, who raised some four thousandtroops and placed them under the command of General Benjamin Lincoln. 

The time of year was unfortunate for the insurgents, especially asDecember was unusually cold and there was a heavy snowfall. Shays couldnot provide stores and equipment and was unable to maintain discipline. A threatened attack on Cambridge came to naught for, when preparationswere made to protect the city, the rebels began a disorderly retreat, and in the intense cold and deep snow they suffered severely, and manydied 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, andthe appearance of General Lincoln with his troops completed thedemoralization of Shays' army. The insurgents retreated, but Lincolnpursued relentlessly and broke them up into small bands, which thenwandered about the country preying upon the unfortunate inhabitants. When spring came, most of them had been subdued or had taken refuge inthe neighboring States. 

Shays' Rebellion was fairly easily suppressed, even though it requiredthe shedding of some blood. But it was the possibility of furtheroutbreaks that destroyed men's peace of mind. There were similardisturbances in other States; and there the Massachusetts insurgentsfound sympathy, support, and finally a refuge. When the worst was over, and Governor Bowdoin applied to the neighboring States for help incapturing the last of the refugees, Rhode Island and Vermont failed torespond 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 Governmenthad sufficient excuse for intervention after the attack upon thenational arsenal in Springfield. Congress, indeed, began to raisetroops but did not dare to admit its purpose and offered as a pretextan expedition against the Northwestern Indians. The rebellion was overbefore any assistance could be given. The inefficiency of Congress andits lack of influence were evident. Like the disorders in Rhode Island, Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts helped to bring about a reaction andstrengthened the conservative movement for reform. 

These untoward happenings, however, were only symptoms: the causesof the trouble lay far deeper. This fact was recognized even in RhodeIsland, for at least one of the conventions had passed resolutionsdeclaring that, in considering the condition of the whole country, whatparticularly concerned them was the condition of trade. Paradoxical asit may seem, the trade and commerce of the country were already on theupward grade and prosperity was actually returning. But prosperityis usually a process of slow growth and is seldom recognized by thecommunity at large until it is well established. Farsighted men forecastthe coming of good times in advance of the rest of the community, andprosper accordingly. The majority of the people know that prosperity hascome only when it is unmistakably present, and some are not aware of ituntil it has begun to go. If that be true in our day, much more was ittrue in the eighteenth century, when means of communication were so poorthat it took days for a message to go from Boston to New York andweeks for news to get from Boston to Charleston. It was a period ofadjustment, and as we look back after the event we can see that theAmerican people were adapting themselves with remarkable skill to thenew conditions. But that was not so evident to the men who were feelingthe pinch of hard times, and when all the attendant circumstances, some of which have been described, are taken into account, it is notsurprising that commercial depression should be one of the strongestinfluences in, and the immediate occasion of, bringing men to the pointof willingness to attempt some radical changes. 

The fact needs to be reiterated that the people of the United Stateswere largely dependent upon agriculture and other forms of extractiveindustry, and that markets for the disposal of their goods were anabsolute necessity. Some of the States, especially New England andthe Middle States, were interested in the carrying trade, but all wereconcerned in obtaining markets. On account of jealousy interstate tradecontinued a precarious existence and by no means sufficed to dispose ofthe surplus products, so that foreign markets were necessary. The peoplewere especially concerned for the establishment of the old trade withthe West India Islands, which had been the mainstay of their prosperityin colonial times; and after the British Government, in 1783, restrictedthat trade to British vessels, many people in the United States wereattributing hard times to British malignancy. The only action whichseemed possible was to force Great Britain in particular, but otherforeign countries as well, to make such trade agreements as theprosperity of the United States demanded. The only hope seemed to liein a commercial policy of reprisal which would force other countriesto open their markets to American goods. Retaliation was the dominatingidea in the foreign policy of the time. So in 1784 Congress made a newrecommendation to the States, prefacing it with an assertion of theimportance of commerce, saying: "The fortune of every Citizen isinterested in the success thereof; for it is the constant source ofwealth and incentive to industry; and the value of our produce and ourland must ever rise or fall in proportion to the prosperous or adversestate of trade. "

And after declaring that Great Britain had "adopted regulationsdestructive of our commerce with her West India Islands, " it was furtherasserted: "Unless the United States in Congress assembled shall bevested with powers competent to the protection of commerce, they cannever command reciprocal advantages in trade. " It was thereforeproposed to give to Congress for fifteen years the power to prohibit theimportation or exportation of goods at American ports except in vesselsowned by the people of the United States or by the subjects of foreigngovernments having treaties of commerce with the United States. Thiswas simply a request for authorization to adopt navigation acts. But theindividual States were too much concerned with their own interests anddid not or would not appreciate the rights of the other States or theinterests of the Union as a whole. And so the commercial amendment of1784 suffered the fate of all other amendments proposed to the Articlesof Confederation. In fact only two States accepted it. 

It usually happens that some minor occurrence, almost unnoticed at thetime, leads directly to the most important consequences. And an incidentin domestic affairs started the chain of events in the United Statesthat ended in the reform of the Federal Government. The rivalry andjealousy among the States had brought matters to such a pass that eitherCongress must be vested with adequate powers or the Confederation mustcollapse. But the Articles of Confederation provided no remedy, and ithad 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 alliancesbetween the States unless approved by Congress. Yet Virginia andMaryland, in 1785, had come to a working agreement regarding the useof the Potomac River, which was the boundary line between them. Commissioners representing both parties had met at Alexandria and soonadjourned to Mount Vernon, where they not only reached an amicablesettlement of the immediate questions before them but also discussed thelarger subjects of duties and commercial matters in general. Whenthe Maryland legislature came to act on the report, it proposed thatPennsylvania and Delaware should be invited to join with them informulating a common commercial policy. Virginia then went one stepfarther and invited all the other States to send commissioners to ageneral trade convention and later announced Annapolis as the place ofmeeting and set the time for September, 1786. 

This action was unconstitutional and was so recognized, for JamesMadison notes that "from the Legislative Journals of Virginia itappears, that a vote to apply for a sanction of Congress was followedby a vote against a communication of the Compact to Congress, " and hementions other similar violations of the central authority. That thisdid not attract more attention was probably due to the public interestbeing 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 deVergennes, Minister for Foreign Affairs, though their motives may besomewhat misinterpreted. 

"Although there are no nobles in America, there is a class of mendenominated "gentlemen, " who, by reason of their wealth, their talents, their education, their families, or the offices they hold, aspire to apreeminence which the people refuse to grant them; and, although many ofthese men have betrayed the interests of their order to gain popularity, there reigns among them a connection so much the more intimate as theyalmost all of them dread the efforts of the people to despoil them oftheir possessions, and, moreover, they are creditors, and thereforeinterested in strengthening the government, and watching over theexecution of the laws. 

"These men generally pay very heavy taxes, while the small proprietorsescape the vigilance of the collectors. The majority of them beingmerchants, it is for their interest to establish the credit of theUnited States in Europe on a solid foundation by the exact payment ofdebts, and to grant to congress powers extensive enough to compel thepeople to contribute for this purpose. The attempt, my lord, has beenvain, by pamphlets and other publications, to spread notions of justiceand integrity, and to deprive the people of a freedom which they have somisused. By proposing a new organization of the federal government allminds would have been revolted; circumstances ruinous to the commerce ofAmerica have happily arisen to furnish the reformers with a pretext forintroducing innovations. 

"They represented to the people that the American name had becomeopprobrious among all the nations of Europe; that the flag of the UnitedStates was everywhere exposed to insults and annoyance; the husbandman, no longer able to export his produce freely, would soon be reduced towant; it was high time to retaliate, and to convince foreign powers thatthe United States would not with impunity suffer such a violation of thefreedom of trade, but that strong measures could be taken only withthe consent of the thirteen states, and that congress, not having thenecessary powers, it was essential to form a general assembly instructedto present to congress the plan for its adoption, and to point out themeans of carrying it into execution. 

"The people, generally discontented with the obstacles in the way ofcommerce, and scarcely suspecting the secret motives of their opponents, ardently embraced this measure, and appointed commissioners, who were toassemble at Annapolis in the beginning of September. 

"The authors of this proposition had no hope, nor even desire, to seethe success of this assembly of commissioners, which was only intendedto prepare a question much more important than that of commerce. Themeasures were so well taken that at the end of September no more thanfive states were represented at Annapolis, and the commissioners fromthe northern states tarried several days at New York in order to retardtheir arrival. 

"The states which assembled, after having waited nearly three weeks, separated under the pretext that they were not in sufficient numbers toenter on business, and, to justify this dissolution, they addressed tothe different legislatures and to congress a report, the translation ofwhich I have the honor to enclose to you. "*

 * Quoted by Bancroft, "History of the Formation of theConstitution, " vol. Ii, Appendix, pp. 399-400. 

Among these "men denominated 'gentlemen'" to whom the French Charged'Affaires alludes, was James Madison of Virginia. He was one of theyounger men, unfitted by temperament and physique to be a soldier, whoyet had found his opportunity in the Revolution. Graduating in 1771from Princeton, where tradition tells of the part he took in patrioticdemonstrations on the campus--characteristic of students then as now--hehad thrown himself heart and soul into the American cause. He was amember of the convention to frame the first State Constitution forVirginia in 1776, and from that time on, because of his ability, he wasan important figure in the political history of his State and of hiscountry. He was largely responsible for bringing about the conferencebetween Virginia and Maryland and for the subsequent steps resultingin the trade convention at Annapolis. And yet Madison seldom took aconspicuous part, preferring to remain in the background and toallow others to appear as the leaders. When the Annapolis Conventionassembled, for example, he suffered Alexander Hamilton of New York toplay the leading role. 

Hamilton was then approaching thirty years of age and was one of theablest men in the United States. Though his best work was done inlater years, when he proved himself to be perhaps the most brilliantof American statesmen, with an extraordinary genius for administrativeorganization, the part that he took in the affairs of this period wasimportant. He was small and slight in person but with an expressiveface, fair complexion, and cheeks of "almost feminine rosiness. " Theusual aspect of his countenance was thoughtful and even severe, but inconversation his face lighted up with a remarkably attractive smile. Hecarried himself erectly and with dignity, so that in spite of his smallfigure, when he entered a room "it was apparent, from the respectfulattention of the company, that he was a distinguished person. " Acontemporary, speaking of the opposite and almost irreconcilable traitsof Hamilton's character, pronounced a bust of him as giving a completeexposition of his character: "Draw a handkerchief around the mouth ofthe bust, and the remnant of the countenance represents fortitude andintrepidity 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 onlydiscernible, and all this fortitude melts and vanishes into almostfeminine softness. "

Hamilton was a leading spirit in the Annapolis Trade Convention andwrote the report that it adopted. Whether or not there is any truth inthe assertion of the French charge that Hamilton and others thoughtit advisable to disguise their purposes, there is no doubt that theAnnapolis Convention was an all-important step in the progress ofreform, and its recommendation was the direct occasion of the calling ofthe great convention that framed the Constitution of the United States. 

The recommendation of the Annapolis delegates was in the form of areport to the legislatures of their respective States, in which theyreferred to the defects in the Federal Government and called for "aconvention of deputies from the different states for the special purposeof entering into this investigation and digesting a Plan for supplyingsuch defects. " Philadelphia was suggested as the place of meeting, andthe time was fixed for the second Monday in May of the next year. 

Several of the States acted promptly upon this recommendation and inFebruary, 1787, Congress adopted a resolution accepting the proposal andcalling the convention "for the sole and express purpose of revisingthe Articles of Confederation and reporting. . . Such alterations. . . Asshall. . . Render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies ofGovernment and the preservation of the Union. " Before the time fixed forthe meeting of the Philadelphia Convention, or shortly after thatdate, all the States had appointed deputies with the exception of NewHampshire and Rhode Island. New Hampshire was favorably disposed towardthe meeting but, owing to local conditions, failed to act before theConvention was well under way. Delegates, however, arrived in time toshare in some of the most important proceedings. Rhode Island alonerefused to take part, although a letter signed by some of the prominentmen was sent to the Convention pledging their support. 

CHAPTER VI. THE FEDERAL CONVENTION

The body of delegates which met in Philadelphia in 1787 was themost important convention that ever sat in the United States. TheConfederation was a failure, and if the new nation was to be justifiedin the eyes of the world, it must show itself capable of effectiveunion. The members of the Convention realized the significance of thetask before them, which was, as Madison said, "now to decide foreverthe fate of Republican government. " Gouverneur Morris, with unwontedseriousness, declared: "The whole human race will be affected by theproceedings of this Convention. " James Wilson spoke with equal gravity:"After the lapse of six thousand years since the creation of the worldAmerica now presents the first instance of a people assembled to weighdeliberately and calmly and to decide leisurely and peaceably uponthe form of government by which they will bind themselves and theirposterity. "

Not all the men to whom this undertaking was entrusted, and who weretaking themselves and their work so seriously, could pretend to socialdistinction, but practically all belonged to the upper ruling class. Atthe 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 StateHouse. The sessions were secret; sentries were placed at the door tokeep away all intruders; and the pavement of the street in front ofthe building was covered with loose earth so that the noises of passingtraffic should not disturb this august assembly. It is not surprisingthat a tradition grew up about the Federal Convention which hedged itround with a sort of awe and reverence. Even Thomas Jefferson referredto it as "an assembly of demigods. " If we can get away from the glamourwhich has been spread over the work of the Fathers of the Constitutionand understand that they were human beings, even as we are, andinfluenced by the same motives as other men, it may be possible toobtain a more faithful impression of what actually took place. 

Since representation in the Convention was to be by States, just as ithad been in the Continental Congress, the presence of delegations froma majority of the States was necessary for organization. It is acommentary upon the times, upon the difficulties of travel, and upon theleisurely habits of the people, that the meeting which had been calledfor the 14th of May could not begin its work for over ten days. The 25thof May was stormy, and only twenty-nine delegates were on hand whenthe Convention organized. The slender attendance can only partially beattributed to the weather, for in the following three months and a halfof the Convention, at which fifty-five members were present at one timeor another, the average attendance was only slightly larger than thatof the first day. In such a small body personality counted for much, in ways that the historian can only surmise. Many compromises ofconflicting interests were reached by informal discussion outside ofthe formal sessions. In these small gatherings individual character wasoften as decisive as weighty argument. 

George Washington was unanimously chosen as the presiding officer of theConvention. He sat on a raised platform; in a large, carved, high-backedchair, from which his commanding figure and dignified bearing exerteda potent influence on the assembly; an influence enhanced by the formalcourtesy and stately intercourse of the times. Washington was the greatman of his day and the members not only respected and admired him; someof them were actually afraid of him. When he rose to his feet he wasalmost the Commander-in-Chief again. There is evidence to show thathis support or disapproval was at times a decisive factor in thedeliberations of the Convention. 

Virginia, which had taken a conspicuous part in the calling of theConvention, was looked to for leadership in the work that was to bedone. James Madison, next to Washington the most important member ofthe Virginia delegation, was the very opposite of Washington in manyrespects--small and slight in stature, inconspicuous in dress as infigure, modest and retiring, but with a quick, active mind and wideknowledge obtained both from experience in public affairs and fromextensive reading. Washington was the man of action; Madison, thescholar in politics. Madison was the younger by nearly twenty years, but Washington admired him greatly and gave him the support of hisinfluence--a matter of no little consequence, for Madison was theleading expert worker of the Convention in the business of framing theConstitution. Governor Edmund Randolph, with his tall figure, handsomeface, and dignified manner, made an excellent impression in the positionaccorded to him of nominal leader of the Virginia delegation. Amongothers from the same State who should be noticed were the famouslawyers, 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 toMadison and Washington. He had come to America as a young man justwhen the troubles with England were beginning and by sheer ability hadattained a position of prominence. Several times a member of Congress, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, he was now regarded as oneof the ablest lawyers in the United States. A more brilliant memberof the Pennsylvania delegation, and one of the most brilliant of theConvention, was Gouverneur Morris, who shone by his cleverness and quickwit as well as by his wonderful command of language. But Morris wasadmired more than he was trusted; and, while he supported the effortsfor a strong government, his support was not always as great a help asmight have been expected. A crippled arm and a wooden leg might detractfrom his personal appearance, but they could not subdue his spirit andaudacity. *

 * There is a story which illustrates admirably the audacity ofMorris and the austere dignity of Washington. The story runs that Morrisand several members of the Cabinet were spending an evening at thePresident's house in Philadelphia, where they were discussing theabsorbing question of the hour, whatever it may have been. "ThePresident, " Morris is said to have related on the following day, "wasstanding with his arms behind him--his usual position--his back to thefire. I started up and spoke, stamping, as I walked up and down, with mywooden leg; and, as I was certain I had the best of the argument, asI finished I stalked up to the President, slapped him on the back, andsaid. "Ain't I right, General?" The President did not speak, but themajesty of the American people was before me. Oh, his look! How I wishedthe floor would open and I could descend to the cellar! You know me, "continued Mr. Morris, "and you know my eye would never quail beforeany other mortal. "--W. T. Read, Life and Correspondence of George Read(1870) p. 441. 

There were other prominent members of the Pennsylvania delegation, butnone of them took an important part in the Convention, not even the agedBenjamin Franklin, President of the State. At the age of eighty-one hispowers were failing, and he was so feeble that his colleague Wilson readhis speeches for him. His opinions were respected, but they do not seemto have carried much weight. 

Other noteworthy members of the Convention, though hardly in the firstclass, were the handsome and charming Rufus King of Massachusetts, one of the coming men of the country, and Nathaniel Gorham of the sameState, who was President of Congress--a man of good sense rather than ofgreat ability, but one whose reputation was high and whose presence wasa distinct asset to the Convention. Then, too, there were the delegatesfrom South Carolina: John Rutledge, the orator, General CharlesCotesworth Pinckney of Revolutionary fame, and his cousin, CharlesPinckney. The last named took a conspicuous part in the proceedings inPhiladelphia but, so far as the outcome was concerned, left his mark onthe Constitution mainly in minor matters and details. 

The men who have been named were nearly all supporters of the plan fora centralized government. On the other side were William Paterson of NewJersey, who had been Attorney-General of his State for eleven yearsand who was respected for his knowledge and ability; John Dickinsonof Delaware, the author of the "Farmer's Letters" and chairman ofthe committee of Congress that had framed the Articles ofConfederation--able, scholarly, and sincere, but nervous, sensitive, and conscientious to the verge of timidity--whose refusal to sign theDeclaration of Independence had cost him his popularity, though he wasafterward returned to Congress and became president successivelyof Delaware and of Pennsylvania; Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, asuccessful merchant, prominent in politics, and greatly interestedin questions of commerce and finance; and the Connecticut delegates, forming an unusual trio, Dr. William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman, andOliver Ellsworth. These men were fearful of establishing too strong agovernment and were at one time or another to be found in opposition toMadison and his supporters. They were not mere obstructionists, however, and while not constructive in the same way that Madison and Wilsonwere, they must be given some credit for the form which the Constitutionfinally assumed. Their greatest service was in restraining the tendencyof the majority to overrule the rights of States and in modifying thedesires of individuals for a government that would have been too strongto work well in practice. 

Alexander Hamilton of New York, as one of the ablest members of theConvention, was expected to take an important part, but he was out oftouch with the views of the majority. He was aristocratic rather thandemocratic and, however excellent his ideas may have been, they were tooradical for his fellow delegates and found but little support. He threwhis strength in favor of a strong government and was ready to aid themovement in whatever way he could. But within his own delegation he wasoutvoted by Robert Yates and John Lansing, and before the sessions werehalf over he was deprived of a vote by the withdrawal of his colleagues. Thereupon, finding himself of little service, he went to New York andreturned to Philadelphia only once or twice for a few days at a time, and finally to sign the completed document. Luther Martin of Marylandwas an able lawyer and the Attorney-General of his State; but he wassupposed to be allied with undesirable interests, and it was said thathe had been sent to the Convention for the purpose of opposing a stronggovernment. He proved to be a tiresome speaker and his prosiness, whenadded to the suspicion attaching to his motives, cost him much of theinfluence which he might otherwise have had. 

All in all, the delegates to the Federal Convention were a remarkablebody of men. Most of them had played important parts in the drama ofthe Revolution; three-fourths of them had served in Congress, andpractically all were persons of note in their respective States and hadheld important public positions. They may not have been the "assembly ofdemigods" which Jefferson called them, for another contemporary insisted"that twenty assemblies of equal number might be collected equallyrespectable both in point of ability, integrity, and patriotism. "Perhaps it would be safer to regard the Convention as a fairlyrepresentative body, which was of a somewhat higher order than wouldbe gathered together today, because the social conditions of thosedays tended to bring forward men of a better class, and because theseriousness of the crisis had called out leaders of the highest type. 

Two or three days were consumed in organizing the Convention--electingofficers, considering the delegates' credentials, and adopting rules ofprocedure; and when these necessary preliminaries had been accomplishedthe main business was opened with the presentation by the Virginiadelegation of a series of resolutions providing for radical changesin the machinery of the Confederation. The principal features were theorganization of a legislature of two houses proportional to populationand with increased powers, the establishment of a separate executive, and the creation of an independent judiciary. This was in realityproviding for a new government and was probably quite beyond the ideasof most of the members of the Convention, who had come there underinstructions and with the expectation of revising the Articles ofConfederation. But after the Virginia Plan had been the subject ofdiscussion for two weeks so that the members had become a little moreaccustomed to its proposals, and after minor modifications had been madein the wording of the resolutions, the Convention was won over to itssupport. To check this drift toward radical change the opposition headedby New Jersey and Connecticut presented the so-called New JerseyPlan, which was in sharp contrast to the Virginia Resolutions, for itcontemplated only a revision of the Articles of Confederation, but aftera relatively short discussion, the Virginia Plan was adopted by a voteof seven States against four, with one State divided. 

The dividing line between the two parties or groups in the Conventionhad quickly manifested itself. It proved to be the same line that haddivided the Congress of the Confederation, the cleavage between thelarge States and the small States. The large States were in favorof representation in both houses of the legislature according topopulation, while the small States were opposed to any change whichwould deprive them of their equal vote in Congress, and though outvoted, they were not ready to yield. The Virginia Plan, and subsequently theNew Jersey Plan, had first been considered in committee of the whole, and the question of "proportional representation, " as it was thencalled, would accordingly come up again in formal session. Several weekshad been occupied by the proceedings, so that it was now near the end ofJune, and in general the discussions had been conducted with remarkablygood temper. But it was evidently the calm before the storm. And theissue was finally joined when the question of representation in the twohouses again came before the Convention. The majority of the States onthe 29th of June once more voted in favor of proportional representationin the lower house. But on the question of the upper house, owing to apeculiar combination of circumstances--the absence of one delegate andanother's change of vote causing the position of their respective Statesto be reversed or nullified--the vote on the 2d of July resulted in atie. This brought the proceedings of the Convention to a standstill. Acommittee of one member from each State was appointed to consider thequestion, and, "that time might be given to the Committee, and tosuch as chose to attend to the celebration on the anniversary ofIndependence, the Convention adjourned" over the Fourth. The committeewas chosen by ballot, and its composition was a clear indication thatthe small-State men had won their fight, and that a compromise would beeffected. 

It was during the debate upon this subject, when feeling was runninghigh and when at times it seemed as if the Convention in default of anysatisfactory solution would permanently adjourn, that Franklin proposedthat "prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven. . . Be held in thisAssembly every morning. " Tradition relates that Hamilton opposed themotion. The members were evidently afraid of the impression which wouldbe created outside, if it were suspected that there were dissensions inthe Convention, and the motion was not put to a vote. 

How far physical conditions may influence men in adopting any particularcourse of action it is impossible to say. But just when the discussionin the Convention reached a critical stage, just when the compromisepresented by the committee was ready for adoption or rejection, theweather turned from unpleasantly hot to being comfortably cool. And, after some little time spent in the consideration Of details, on the16th of July, the great compromise of the Constitution was adopted. There was no other that compared with it in importance. Its mostsignificant features were that in the upper house each State shouldhave an equal vote and that in the lower house representation shouldbe apportioned on the basis of population, while direct taxation shouldfollow the same proportion. The further proviso that money bills shouldoriginate in the lower house and should not be amended in the upperhouse was regarded by some delegates as of considerable importance, though others did not think so, and eventually the restriction uponamendment by the upper house was dropped. 

There has long been a prevailing belief that an essential feature of thegreat compromise was the counting of only three-fifths of the slaves inenumerating the population. This impression is quite erroneous. It wasone of the details of the compromise, but it had been a feature of therevenue amendment of 1783, and it was generally accepted as a happysolution of the difficulty that slaves possessed the attributes bothof persons and of property. It had been included both in the amendedVirginia Plan and in the New Jersey Plan; and when it was embodied inthe compromise it was described as "the ratio recommended by Congress intheir resolutions of April 18, 1783. " A few months later, in explainingthe matter to the Massachusetts convention, Rufus King said that, "Thisrule. . . Was adopted because it was the language of all America. " Inreality the three-fifths rule was a mere incident in that part ofthe great compromise which declared that "representation should beproportioned according to direct taxation. " As a further indication ofthe attitude of the Convention upon this point, an amendment to have theblacks counted equally with the whites was voted down by eight Statesagainst two. 

With the adoption of the great compromise a marked difference wasnoticeable in the attitude of the delegates. Those from the large Stateswere deeply disappointed at the result and they asked for an adjournmentto give them time to consider what they should do. The next morning, before the Convention met, they held a meeting to determine upontheir course of action. They were apparently afraid of taking theresponsibility for breaking up the Convention, so they finally decidedto let the proceedings go on and to see what might be the ultimateoutcome. Rumors of these dissensions had reached the ears of the public, and it may have been to quiet any misgivings that the following inspireditem appeared in several local papers: "So great is the unanimity, wehear, that prevails in the Convention, upon all great federal subjects, that it has been proposed to call the room in which they assembleUnanimity Hall. "

On the other hand the effect of this great compromise upon the delegatesfrom the small States was distinctly favorable. Having obtained equalrepresentation in one branch of the legislature, they now proceeded withmuch greater willingness to consider the strengthening of the centralgovernment. Many details were yet to be arranged, and sharp differencesof opinion existed in connection with the executive as well as with thejudiciary. But these difficulties were slight in comparison with thosewhich they had already surmounted in the matter of representation. Bythe end of July the fifteen resolutions of the original VirginiaPlan had been increased to twenty-three, with many enlargements andamendments, and the Convention had gone as far as it could effectivelyin determining the general principles upon which the government shouldbe formed. There were too many members to work efficiently when it cameto the actual framing of a constitution with all the inevitable detailsthat were necessary in setting up a machinery of government. Accordinglythis task was turned over to a committee of five members who had alreadygiven evidence of their ability in this direction. Rutledge was made thechairman, and the others were Randolph, Gorham, Ellsworth, and Wilson. To give them time to perfect their work, on the 26th of July theConvention adjourned for ten days. 

CHAPTER VII. FINISHING THE WORK

Rutledge and his associates on the committee of detail accomplished somuch in such a short time that it seems as if they must have worked dayand night. Their efforts marked a distinct stage in the development ofthe Constitution. The committee left no records, but some of the membersretained among their private papers drafts of the different stages ofthe report they were framing, and we are therefore able to surmise theway in which the committee proceeded. Of course the members were boundby the resolutions which had been adopted by the Convention and theyheld themselves closely to the general principles that had been laiddown. But in the elaboration of details they seem to have begun with theArticles of Confederation and to have used all of that document that wasconsistent with the new plan of government. Then they made use of theNew Jersey Plan, which had been put forward by the smaller States, andof a third plan which had been presented by Charles Pinckney; for therest they drew largely upon the State Constitutions. By a combinationof these different sources the committee prepared a document bearing aclose resemblance to the present Constitution, although subjects were ina different order and in somewhat different proportions, which, at theend of ten days, by working on Sunday, they were able to present tothe Convention. This draft of a constitution was printed on seven foliopages with wide margins for notes and emendations. 

The Convention resumed its sessions on Monday, the 6th of August, andfor five weeks the report of the committee of detail was the subject ofdiscussion. For five hours each day, and sometimes for six hours, thedelegates kept persistently at their task. It was midsummer, and we readin the diary of one of the members that in all that period only fivedays were "cool. " Item by item, line by line, the printed draft of theConstitution was considered. It is not possible, nor is it necessary, tofollow that work minutely; much of it was purely formal, and yet any onewho has had experience with committee reports knows how much importanceattaches to matters of phrasing. Just as the Virginia Plan was mademore acceptable to the majority by changes in wording that seem to usinsignificant, so modifications in phrasing slowly won support for thedraft of the Constitution. 

The adoption of the great compromise, as we have seen, changed the wholespirit of the Convention. There was now an expectation on the part ofthe members that something definite was going to be accomplished, andall were concerned in making the result as good and as acceptableas possible. In other words, the spirit of compromise pervaded everyaction, and it is essential to remember this in considering what wasaccomplished. 

One of the greatest weaknesses of the Confederation was the inefficiencyof Congress. More than four pages, or three-fifths of the whole printeddraft, were devoted to Congress and its powers. It is more significant, however, that in the new Constitution the legislative powers of theConfederation were transferred bodily to the Congress of the UnitedStates, and that the powers added were few in number, although of courseof the first importance. The Virginia Plan declared that, in addition tothe powers under the Confederation, Congress should have the right "tolegislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent. "This statement was elaborated in the printed draft which grantedspecific powers of taxation, of regulating commerce, of establishinga uniform rule of naturalization, and at the end of the enumeration ofpowers two clauses were added giving to Congress authority:

"To call forth the aid of the militia, in order to execute the lawsof the Union, enforce treaties, suppress insurrections, and repelinvasions;

"And to make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carryinginto execution the foregoing powers. "

On the other hand, it was necessary to place some limitations uponthe power of Congress. A general restriction was laid by giving tothe executive a right of veto, which might be overruled, however, by atwo-thirds vote of both houses. Following British tradition yieldingas it were to an inherited fear--these delegates in America were led toplace the first restraint upon the exercise of congressional authorityin connection with treason. The legislature of the United States wasgiven the power to declare the punishment of treason; but treason itselfwas defined in the Constitution, and it was further asserted thata person could be convicted of treason only on the testimony of twowitnesses, and that attainder of treason should not "work corruption ofblood nor forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. "Arising more nearly out of their own experience was the prohibitionof export taxes, of capitation taxes, and of the granting of titles ofnobility. 

While the committee of detail was preparing its report, the Southernmembers of that committee had succeeded in getting a provision insertedthat navigation acts could be passed only by a two-thirds vote ofboth houses of the legislature. New England and the Middle States werestrongly in favor of navigation acts for, if they could require allAmerican products to be carried in American-built and American-ownedvessels, they would give a great stimulus to the ship-building andcommerce of the United States. They therefore wished to give Congresspower in this matter on exactly the same terms that other powers weregranted. The South, however, was opposed to this policy, for it wantedto encourage the cheapest method of shipping its raw materials. TheSouth also wanted a larger number of slaves to meet its labor demands. To this need New England was not favorably disposed. To reconcile theconflicting interests of the two sections a compromise was finallyreached. The requirement of a two-thirds vote of both houses for thepassing of navigation acts which the Southern members had obtained wasabandoned, and on the other hand it was determined that Congress shouldnot be allowed to interfere with the importation of slaves for twentyyears. This, again, was one of the important and conspicuous compromisesof the Constitution. It is liable, however, to be misunderstood, for oneshould not read into the sentiment of the members of the Conventionany of the later strong prejudice against slavery. There were somewho objected on moral grounds to the recognition of slavery in theConstitution, and that word was carefully avoided by referring to "suchPersons as any States now existing shall think proper to admit. " Andthere were some who were especially opposed to the encouragement ofthat institution by permitting the slave trade, but the majority of thedelegates regarded slavery as an accepted institution, as a part of theestablished order, and public sentiment on the slave trade was not muchmore emphatic and positive than it is now on cruelty to animals. AsEllsworth said, "The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerationsbelonging to the States themselves, " and the compromise was nothing moreor less than a bargain between the sections. 

The fundamental weakness of the Confederation was the inability of theGovernment to enforce its decrees, and in spite of the increased powersof Congress, even including the use of the militia "to execute thelaws of the Union, " it was not felt that this defect had been entirelyremedied. Experience under the Confederation had taught men thatsomething more was necessary in the direction of restricting theStates in matters which might interfere with the working of the centralGovernment. As in the case of the powers of Congress, the Articles ofConfederation were again resorted to and the restrictions which hadbeen placed upon the States in that document were now embodied in theConstitution with modifications and additions. But the final touch wasgiven in connection with the judiciary. 

There was little in the printed draft and there is comparatively littlein the Constitution on the subject of the judiciary. A Federal SupremeCourt was provided for, and Congress was permitted, but not required, toestablish inferior courts; while the jurisdiction of these tribunals wasdetermined upon the general principles that it should extend to casesarising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, totreaties and cases in which foreigners and foreign countries wereinvolved, and to controversies between States and citizens of differentStates. Nowhere in the document itself is there any word as to thatgreat power which has been exercised by the Federal courts ofdeclaring null and void laws or parts of laws that are regarded as incontravention to the Constitution. There is little doubt that the moreimportant men in the Convention, such as Wilson, Madison, GouverneurMorris, King, Gerry, Mason, and Luther Martin, believed that thejudiciary would exercise this power, even though it should not bespecifically granted. The nearest approach to a declaration of thispower is to be found in a paragraph that was inserted toward the endof the Constitution. Oddly enough, this was a modification of a clauseintroduced by Luther Martin with quite another intent. As adopted itreads: "That this Constitution and the Laws of the United States. . . Andall Treaties. . . Shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judgesin every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution orLaws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. " This paragraph maywell be regarded as the keystone of the constitutional arch of nationalpower. Its significance lies in the fact that the Constitution isregarded not as a treaty nor as an agreement between States, but as alaw; and while its enforcement is backed by armed power, it is a lawenforceable in the courts. 

One whole division of the Constitution has been as yet barely referredto, and it not only presented one of the most perplexing problems whichthe Convention faced but one of the last to be settled--that providingfor an executive. There was a general agreement in the Convention thatthere should be a separate executive. The opinion also developed quiteearly that a single executive was better than a plural body, but thatwas as far as the members could go with any degree of unanimity. At theoutset they seemed to have thought that the executive would be dependentupon the legislature, appointed by that body, and therefore more orless subject to its control. But in the course of the proceedings thetendency was to grant greater and greater powers to the executive; inother words, he was becoming a figure of importance. No such office asthat of President of the United States was then in existence. It was anew position which they were creating. We have become so accustomed toit that it is difficult for us to hark back to the time when there wasno such officer and to realize the difficulties and the fears of the menwho were responsible for creating that office. 

The presidency was obviously modeled after the governorship of theindividual States, and yet the incumbent was to be at the head of theThirteen States. Rufus King is frequently quoted to the effect that themen of that time had been accustomed to considering themselves subjectsof the British king. Even at the time of the Convention there is goodevidence to show that some of the members were still agitating thedesirability of establishing a monarchy in the United States. It was acommon 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 theConvention met Prince Henry of Prussia was approached by prominentpeople in this country to see if he could be induced to accept theheadship of the States, that is, to become the king of the UnitedStates. The members of the Convention evidently thought that they wereestablishing something like a monarchy. As Randolph said, the peoplewould see "the form at least of a little monarch, " and they did not wanthim to have despotic powers. When the sessions were over, a lady askedFranklin: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "Arepublic, " replied the doctor, "if you can keep it. "

The increase of powers accruing to the executive office necessitatedplacing a corresponding check upon the exercise of those powers. Theobvious method was to render the executive subject to impeachment, and it was also readily agreed that his veto might be overruled by atwo-thirds vote of Congress; but some further safeguards were necessary, and the whole question accordingly turned upon the method of hiselection and the length of his term. In the course of the proceedings ofthe Convention, at several different times, the members voted in favorof an appointment by the national legislature, but they also votedagainst it. Once they voted for a system of electors chosen by the Statelegislatures and twice they voted against such a system. Three timesthey voted to reconsider the whole question. It is no wonder that Gerryshould say: "We seem to be entirely at a loss. "

So it came to the end of August, with most of the other matters disposedof and with the patience of the delegates worn out by the long strainof four weeks' close application. During the discussions it had becomeapparent to every one that an election of the President by the peoplewould give a decided advantage to the large States, so that again therewas arising the divergence between the large and small States. In orderto hasten matters to a conclusion, this and all other vexing detailsupon which the Convention could not agree were turned over to acommittee made up of a member from each State. It was this committeewhich pointed the way to a compromise by which the choice of theexecutive was to be entrusted to electors chosen in each State as itslegislature might direct. The electors were to be equal in number tothe State's representation in Congress, including both senators andrepresentatives, and in each State they were to meet and to vote fortwo persons, one of whom should not be an inhabitant of that State. Thevotes were to be listed and sent to Congress, and the person who hadreceived the greatest number of votes was to be President, provided sucha number was a majority of all the electors. In case of a tie the Senatewas to choose between the candidates and, if no one had a majority, theSenate was to elect "from the five highest on the list. "

This method of voting would have given the large States a decidedadvantage, of course, in that they would appoint the greater numberof electors, but it was not believed that this system would ordinarilyresult in a majority of votes being cast for one man. Apparently no oneanticipated the formation of political parties which would concentratethe votes upon one or another candidate. It was rather expected thatin the great majority of cases--"nineteen times in twenty, " one of thedelegates said--there would be several candidates and that the selectionfrom those candidates would fall to the Senate, in which all the Stateswere equally represented and the small States were in the majority. Butsince the Senate shared so many powers with the executive, it seemedbetter to transfer the right of "eventual election" to the House ofRepresentatives, where each State was still to have but one vote. Hadthis scheme worked as the designers expected, the interests of largeStates and small States would have been reconciled, since in effect thelarge 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 thedelegates in the Convention. The chief problem before them wasthe method of election. If the President was to be chosen by thelegislature, he should not be eligible to reelection. On the other hand, if there was to be some form of popular election, an opportunity forreelection was thought to be a desirable incentive to good behavior. Sixor seven years was taken as an acceptable length for a single term andfour years a convenient tenure if reelection was permitted. It was uponthese considerations that the term of four years was eventually agreedupon, with no restriction placed upon reelection. 

When it was believed that a satisfactory method of choosing thePresident had been discovered--and it is interesting to notice themembers of the Convention later congratulated themselves that at leastthis feature of their government was above criticism--it was decidedto give still further powers to the President, such as the making oftreaties and the appointing of ambassadors and judges, although theadvice and consent of the Senate was required, and in the case oftreaties two-thirds of the members present must consent. 

The presidency was frankly an experiment, the success of which woulddepend largely upon the first election; yet no one seems to have beenanxious about the first choice of chief magistrate, and the reason isnot far to seek. From the moment the members agreed that there should bea single executive they also agreed upon the man for the position. Just as Washington had been chosen unanimously to preside over theConvention, so it was generally accepted that he would be the first headof the new state. Such at least was the trend of conversation and evenof debate on the floor of the Convention. It indicates something of theconception of the office prevailing at the time that Washington, whenhe became President, is said to have preferred the title, "His HighMightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of theirLiberties. "

The members of the Convention were plainly growing tired and thereare evidences of haste in the work of the last few days. There was atendency to ride rough-shod over those whose temperaments forced themto demand modifications in petty matters. This precipitancy gave rise toconsiderable dissatisfaction and led several delegates to declarethat they would not sign the completed document. But on the whole thesentiment of the Convention was overwhelmingly favorable. Accordinglyon Saturday, the 8th of September, a new committee was appointed, toconsist of five members, whose duty it was "to revise the stile ofand arrange the articles which had been agreed to by the House. " Thecommittee was chosen by ballot and was made up exclusively of friends ofthe 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 thetwelfth, the Committee made its report, the greatest credit for whichis probably to be given to Morris, whose powers of expression were sogreatly admired. Another day was spent in waiting for the report to beprinted. But on Thursday this was ready, and three days were devoted togoing over carefully each article and section and giving the finishingtouches. By Saturday the work of the Convention was brought to a close, and the Constitution was then ordered to be engrossed. On Monday, the17th of September, the Convention met for the last time. A few ofthose present being unwilling to sign, Gouverneur Morris again cleverlydevised 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-ninedelegates, representing twelve States, then signed the Constitution. 

When Charles Biddle of Philadelphia, who was acquainted with most ofthe members of the Convention, wrote his "Autobiography, " which waspublished in 1802, he declared that for his part he considered thegovernment established by the Constitution to be "the best in the world, and as perfect as any human form of government can be. " But he prefacedthat declaration with a statement that some of the best informed membersof the Federal Convention had told him "they did not believe a singlemember was perfectly satisfied with the Constitution, but they believedit was the best they could ever agree upon, and that it was infinitelybetter to have such a one than break up without fixing on some form ofgovernment, which I believe at one time it was expected they would havedone. "

One of the outstanding characteristics of the members of the FederalConvention was their practical sagacity. They had a very definite objectbefore them. No matter how much the members might talk about democracyin theory or about ancient confederacies, when it came to action theydid not go outside of their own experience. The Constitution was devisedto correct well-known defects and it contained few provisions which hadnot been tested by practical political experience. Before the Conventionmet, some of the leading men in the country had prepared lists of thedefects which existed in the Articles of Confederation, and in theConstitution practically every one of these defects was corrected and bymeans which had already been tested in the States and under the Articlesof Confederation. 

CHAPTER VIII. THE UNION ESTABLISHED

The course of English history shops that Anglo-Saxon tradition isstrongly in favor of observing precedents and of trying to maintainat least the form of law, even in revolutions. When the English peoplefound it impossible to bear with James II and made it so uncomfortablefor him that he fled the country, they shifted the responsibility fromtheir own shoulders by charging him with "breaking the original Contractbetween King and People. " When the Thirteen Colonies had reached thepoint where they felt that they must separate from England, theirspokesman, Thomas Jefferson, found the necessary justification in thefundamental compact of the first settlers "in the wilds of America"where "the emigrants thought proper to adopt that system of lawsunder which they had hitherto lived in the mother country"; and in theDeclaration of Independence he charged the King of Great Britain with"repeated injuries and usurpations all having in direct object theestablishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. "

And so it was with the change to the new form of government in theUnited States, which was accomplished only by disregarding the formsprescribed in the Articles of Confederation and has been called, therefore, "the Revolution of 1789. " From the outset the newconstitution was placed under the sanction of the old. The movementbegan with an attempt, outwardly at least, to revise the Articles ofConfederation and in that form was authorized by Congress. The firstbreach with the past was made when the proposal in the VirginiaResolutions was accepted that amendments made by the Convention in theArticles of Confederation should be submitted to assemblies chosen bythe people instead of to the legislatures of the separate States. Thiswas the more readily accepted because it was believed that ratificationby the legislatures would result in the formation of a treaty ratherthan in a working instrument of government. The next step was toprevent the work of the Convention from meeting the fate of all previousamendments to the Articles of Confederation, which had required theconsent of every State in the Union. At the time the committee of detailmade its report, the Convention was ready to agree that the consent ofall the States was not necessary, and it eventually decided that, whenratified by the conventions of nine States, the Constitution should gointo effect between the States so ratifying. 

It was not within the province of the Convention to determine what thecourse of procedure should be in the individual States; so it simplytransmitted the Constitution to Congress and in an accompanyingdocument, which significantly omitted any request for the approval ofCongress, strongly expressed the opinion that the Constitution should"be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each state by thepeople thereof. " This was nothing less than indirect ratification by thepeople; and, since it was impossible to foretell in advance which of theStates would or would not ratify, the original draft of "We, the Peopleof the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, . . . " waschanged to the phrase "We, the People of the United States. " No man ofthat day could imagine how significant this change would appear in thelight of later history. 

Congress did not receive the new Constitution enthusiastically, yetafter a few days' discussion it unanimously voted, eleven States beingpresent, that the recommendations of the Convention should be followed, and accordingly sent the document to the States, but without a word ofapproval or disapproval. On the whole the document was well received, especially as it was favored by the upper class, who had the ability andthe opportunity for expression and were in a position to make themselvesheard. For a time it looked as if the Constitution would be readilyadopted. 

The contest over the Constitution in the States is usually taken asmarking the beginning of the two great national political parties inthe United States. This was, indeed, in a way the first great nationalquestion that could cause such a division. There had been, to be sure, Whigs and Tories in America, reproducing British parties, but when thetrouble with the mother country began, the successive congresses ofdelegates were recognized and attended only by the so-called AmericanWhigs, and after the Declaration of Independence the name of Tory, became a reproach, so that with the end of the war the Tory partydisappeared. After the Revolution there were local parties in thevarious States, divided on one and another question, such as that ofhard and soft money, and these issues had coincided in differentStates; but they were in no sense national parties with organizations, platforms, and leaders; they were purely local, and the followers of oneor 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, newleaders appeared, and the elements gathered in two main divisions--theFederalists advocating, and the Anti-Federalists opposing, the adoptionof the new Constitution. 

There were differences of opinion over all the questions which hadled to the calling of the Federal Convention and the framing of theConstitution and so there was inevitably a division upon the result ofthe Convention's work. There were those who wanted national authorityfor the suppression of disorder and of what threatened to be anarchythroughout the Union; and on the other hand there were those who opposeda strongly organized government through fear of its destroying liberty. Especially debtors and creditors took opposite sides, and most of thepeople in the United States could have been brought under one orthe other category. The former favored a system of government andlegislation which would tend to relieve or postpone the payment ofdebts; and, as that relief would come more readily from the StateGovernments, they were naturally the friends of State rights and Stateauthority and were opposed to any enlargement of the powers of theFederal Government. On the other hand, were those who felt the necessityof preserving inviolate every private and public obligation and whosaw that the separate power of the States could not accomplish what wasnecessary to sustain both public and private credit; they weredisposed to use the resources of the Union and accordingly to favor thestrengthening of the national government. In nearly every State therewas a struggle between these classes. 

In Philadelphia and the neighborhood there was great enthusiasm for thenew Constitution. Almost simultaneously with the action by Congress, andbefore notification of it had been received, a motion was introducedin the Pennsylvania Assembly to call a ratifying convention. TheAnti-Federalists were surprised by the suddenness of this proposal andto prevent action absented themselves from the session of the Assembly, leaving that body two short of the necessary quorum for the transactionof business. The excitement and indignation in the city were so greatthat early the next morning a crowd gathered, dragged two of theabsentees from their lodgings to the State House, and held them firmlyin their places until the roll was called and a quorum counted, when theHouse proceeded to order a State convention. As soon as the news of thisvote got out, the city gave itself up to celebrating the event bythe suspension of business, the ringing of church bells, and otherdemonstrations. The elections were hotly contested, but the Federalistswere generally successful. The convention met towards the end ofNovember and, after three weeks of futile discussion, mainly upontrivial matters and the meaning of words, ratified the Constitution onthe 12th of December, by a vote of forty-six to twenty-three. Again thecity of Philadelphia celebrated. 

Pennsylvania was the first State to call a convention, but its finalaction was anticipated by Delaware, where the State convention met andratified the Constitution by unanimous vote on the 7th of December. TheNew Jersey convention spent only a week in discussion and then voted, also unanimously, for ratification on the 18th of December. The nextState to ratify was Georgia, where the Constitution was approved withouta dissenting vote on January 2, 1788. Connecticut followed immediatelyand, after a session of only five days, declared itself in favor of theConstitution, on the 9th of January, by a vote of over three to one. 

The results of the campaign for ratification thus far were mostgratifying to the Federalists, but the issue was not decided. With theexception of Pennsylvania, the States which had acted were of lesserimportance, and, until Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia shoulddeclare themselves, the outcome would be in doubt. The conventionof Massachusetts met on the same day that the Connecticut conventionadjourned. The sentiment of Boston, like that of Philadelphia, wasstrongly Federalist; but the outlying districts, and in particular thewestern part of the State, where Shays' Rebellion had broken out, wereto be counted in the opposition. There were 355 delegates who took partin the Massachusetts convention, a larger number than was chosen inany of the other States, and the majority seemed to be opposed toratification. The division was close, however, and it was believed thatthe attitude of two men would determine the result. One of these wasGovernor John Hancock, who was chosen chairman of the convention butwho did not attend the sessions at the outset, as he was confined tohis house by an attack of gout, which, it was maliciously said, would disappear as soon as it was known which way the majority of theconvention would vote. The other was Samuel Adams, a genuine friendof liberty, who was opposed on principle to the general theory of thegovernment set forth in the Constitution. "I stumble at the threshold, "he wrote. "I meet with a national government, instead of a federal unionof sovereign states. " But, being a shrewd politician, Adams did notcommit himself openly and, when the tradesmen of Boston declaredthemselves in favor of ratification, he was ready to yield his personalopinion. 

There were many delegates in the Massachusetts convention who felt thatit was better to amend the document before them than to try anotherFederal Convention, when as good an instrument might not be devised. Ifthis group were added to those who were ready to accept the Constitutionas 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 wasargued that, as the Constitution made ample provision for changes, itwould be safer and wiser to rely upon that method. The question was one, therefore, of immediate or future amendment. Pressure was accordinglybrought to bear upon Governor Hancock and intimations were made tohim of future political preferment, until he was persuaded topropose immediate ratification of the Constitution, with an urgentrecommendation of such amendments as would remove the objections ofthe Massachusetts people. When this proposal was approved by Adams, itssuccess was assured, and a few days later, on the 6th of February, theconvention voted 187 to 168 in favor of ratification. Nine amendments, largely in the nature of a bill of rights, were then demanded, andthe Massachusetts representatives in Congress were enjoined "at alltimes, . . . To exert all their influence, and use all reasonable andlegal methods, To obtain a ratification of the said alterations andprovisions. " On the very day this action was taken, Jefferson wrotefrom Paris to Madison: "I wish with all my soul that the nine firstconventions may accept the new Constitution, to secure to us the goodit contains; but I equally wish that the four latest, whichever they maybe, may refuse to accede to it till a declaration of rights be annexed. "

Boston proceeded to celebrate as Philadelphia, and Benjamin Lincolnwrote to Washington, on the 9th of February, enclosing an extract fromthe local paper describing the event:

"By the paper your Excellency will observe some account of the paradeof the Eighth the printer had by no means time eno' to do justice tothe subject. To give you some idea how far he has been deficient I willmention an observation I heard made by a Lady the last evening who sawthe whole that the description in the paper would no more compare withthe original than the light of the faintest star would with that of theSun fortunately for us the whole ended without the least disorderand the town during the whole evening was, so far as I could observeperfectly quiet. "*

 *Documentary History, vol. IV, pp. 488-490. 

He added another paragraph which he later struck out as being of littleimportance; but it throws an interesting sidelight upon the customs ofthe time. 

"The Gentlemen provided at Faneul Hall some biscuit & cheese four qrCasks of wine three barrels & two hogs of punch the moment they foundthat the people had drank sufficiently means were taken to overset thetwo hogspunch this being done the company dispersed and the day endedmost agreeably"*

 * Ibid. 

Maryland came next. When the Federal Convention was breaking up, LutherMartin was speaking of the new system of government to his colleague, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, and exclaimed: "I'll be hanged if everthe people of Maryland agree to it!" To which his colleague retorted:"I advise you to stay in Philadelphia, lest you should be hanged. " AndJenifer proved to be right, for in Maryland the Federalists obtainedcontrol of the convention and, by a vote of 63 to 11, ratified theConstitution on the 26th of April. 

In South Carolina, which was the Southern State next in importance toVirginia, the compromise on the slave trade proved to be one of thedeciding factors in determining public opinion. When the elections wereheld, they resulted in an overwhelming majority for the Federalists, sothat after a session of less than two weeks the convention ratified theConstitution, on the 28th of May, by a vote of over two to one. 

The only apparent setback which the adoption of the Constitution hadthus far received was in New Hampshire, where the convention met earlyin February and then adjourned until June to see what the other Statesmight do. But this delay proved to be of no consequence for, when thetime came for the second meeting of the New Hampshire delegates, eightStates had already acted favorably and adoption was regarded as acertainty. This was sufficient to put a stop to any further waiting, andNew Hampshire added its name to the list on the 21st of June; but thedivision of opinion was fairly well represented by the smallness of themajority, the vote standing 57 to 46. 

Nine States had now ratified the Constitution and it was to go intoeffect among them. But the support of Virginia and New York was of somuch importance that their decisions were awaited with uneasiness. InVirginia, in spite of the support of such men as Washington and Madison, the sentiment for and against the Constitution was fairly evenlydivided, and the opposition numbered in its ranks other names of almostequal influence, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason. Feeling ranhigh; the contest was a bitter one and, even after the elections hadbeen held and the convention had opened, early in June, the decision wasin doubt and remained in doubt until the very end. The situation was, in one respect at least, similar to that which had existed inMassachusetts, in that it was possible to get a substantial majorityin favor of the Constitution provided certain amendments were made. Thesame arguments were used; strengthened on the one side by what otherStates had done, and on the other side by the plea that now was the timeto hold out for amendments. The example of Massachusetts, however, seemsto have been decisive, and on the 25th of June, four days later thanNew Hampshire, the Virginia convention voted to ratify, "under theconviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitutionought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, thanto bring the Union into danger by delay, with a hope of obtainingamendments previous to the ratification. "

When the New York convention began its sessions on the 17th of June, itis said that more than two-thirds of the delegates were Anti-Federalistin sentiment. How a majority in favor of the Constitution was obtainedhas never been adequately explained, but it is certain that the maincredit for the achievement belongs to Alexander Hamilton. He had earlyrealized how greatly it would help the prospects of the Constitution ifthinking people could be brought to an appreciation of the importanceand value of the new form of government. In order to reach theintelligent public everywhere, but particularly in New York, heprojected a series of essays which should be published in thenewspapers, setting forth the aims and purposes of the Constitution. He secured the assistance of Madison and Jay, and before the end ofOctober, 1787, published the first essay in "The Independent Gazetteer. "From that time on these papers continued to be printed over thesignature of "Publius, " sometimes as many as three or four in a week. There were eighty-five numbers altogether, which have ever since beenknown as "The Federalist. " Of these approximately fifty were the work ofHamilton, Madison wrote about thirty and Jay five. Although the essayswere widely copied in other journals, and form for us the most importantcommentary on the Constitution, making what is regarded as one ofAmerica's greatest books, it is doubtful how much immediate influencethey had. Certainly in the New York convention itself Hamilton'spersonal influence was a stronger force. His arguments were botheloquent and cogent, and met every objection; and his efforts to winover the opposition were unremitting. The news which came by expressriders from New Hampshire and then from Virginia were also decidingfactors, for New York could not afford to remain out of the new Union ifit was to embrace States on either side. And yet the debate continued, as the opposition was putting forth every effort to make ratificationconditional upon certain amendments being adopted. But Hamiltonresolutely refused to make any concessions and at length was successfulin persuading the New York convention, by a vote of 30 against 27, onthe 26th of July, to follow the example of Massachusetts and Virginiaand to ratify the Constitution with merely a recommendation of futureamendments. 

The satisfaction of the country at the outcome of the long and momentousstruggle over the adoption of the new government was unmistakable. Evenbefore the action of New York had been taken, the Fourth of July wasmade the occasion for a great celebration throughout the United States, both as the anniversary of independence and as the consummation of theUnion by the adoption of the Constitution. 

The general rejoicing was somewhat tempered, however, by the reluctanceof North Carolina and Rhode Island to come under "the new roof. " Hadthe convention which met on the 21st of July in North Carolina reacheda vote, it would probably have defeated the Constitution, but it wasdoubtless restrained by the action of New York and adjourned withoutcoming to a decision. A second convention was called in September, 1789, and in the meantime the new government had come into operation and wasbringing pressure to bear upon the recalcitrant States which refused toabandon the old union for the new. One of the earliest acts passed byCongress was a revenue act, levying duties upon foreign goods imported, which were made specifically to apply to imports from Rhode Island andNorth Carolina. This was sufficient for North Carolina, and on November21, 1789, the convention ratified the Constitution. But Rhode Islandstill held out. A convention of that State was finally called to meetin March, 1790, but accomplished nothing and avoided a decision byadjourning until May. The Federal Government then proceeded to threatendrastic measures by taking up a bill which authorized the President tosuspend all commercial intercourse with Rhode Island and to demand ofthat State the payment of its share of the Federal debt. The bill passedthe Senate but stopped there, for the State gave in and ratified theConstitution on the 29th of May. Two weeks later Ellsworth, who was nowUnited States Senator from Connecticut, wrote that Rhode Island had been"brought into the Union, and by a pretty cold measure in Congress, whichwould have exposed me to some censure, had it not produced the effectwhich I expected it would and which in fact it has done. But 'all iswell that ends well. ' The Constitution is now adopted by all the Statesand I have much satisfaction, and perhaps some vanity, in seeing, at length, a great work finished, for which I have long laboredincessantly. "*

 * "Connecticut's Ratification of the Federal Constitution, " by B. C. Steiner, in "Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, " April1915, pp. 88-89. 

Perhaps the most striking feature of these conventions is the trivialcharacter of the objections that were raised. Some of the argumentsit is, true, went to the very heart of the matter and considered thefundamental principles of government. It is possible to tolerate andeven to sympathize with a man who declared:

"Among other deformities the Constitution has an awful squinting. Itsquints toward monarchy;. . . Your president may easily become a king. . . . If your American chief be a man of ambition and ability how easy it isfor him to render himself absolute. We shall have a king. The army willsalute him monarch. "*

 * "Connecticut's Ratification of the Federal Constitution, " by B. C. Steiner, in "Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, " April1915 pp. 88-89. 

But it is hard to take seriously a delegate who asked permission "tomake a short apostrophe to liberty, " and then delivered himself of thisbathos:

"O liberty!--thou greatest good--thou fairest property--with thee I wishto live--with thee I wish to die!--Pardon me if I drop a tear on theperil to which she is exposed; I cannot, sir, see this brightest ofjewels tarnished! a jewel worth ten thousand worlds! and shall we partwith 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 vestedin Congress; but what is one to think of the fear that imagined thegreatest point of danger to lie in the ten miles square which laterbecame the District of Columbia, because the Government might erect afortified stronghold which would be invincible? Again, in the light ofsubsequent events it is laughable to find many protesting that, althougheach house was required to keep a journal of proceedings, it was onlyrequired "FROM TIME TO TIME to publish the same, excepting such partsas may in their judgment require secrecy. " All sorts of personal chargeswere made against those who were responsible for the framing of theConstitution. Hopkinson wrote to Jefferson in April, 1788:

"You will be surprised when I tell you that our public News Papers haveannounced General Washington to be a Fool influenced & lead by that KnaveDr. Franklin, who is a public Defaulter for Millions of Dollars, thatMr. Morris has defrauded the Public out of as many Millions as youplease & 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 suchcritics and detractors were trying to find excuses for their opposition. 

The majorities in the various conventions can hardly be said really torepresent the people of their States, for only a small percentage of thepeople had voted in electing them; they were representative rather ofthe propertied upper class. This circumstance has given rise to thecharge that the Constitution was framed and adopted by men who wereinterested in the protection of property, in the maintenance of thevalue of government securities, and in the payment of debts which hadbeen incurred by the individual States in the course of the Revolution. Property holders were unquestionably assisted by the mere establishmentof a strong government. The creditor class seemed to require somespecial provision and, when the powers of Congress were underconsideration in the Federal Convention, several of the members arguedstrongly for a positive injunction on Congress to assume obligationsof the States. The chief objection to this procedure seemed to be basedupon the fear of benefiting speculators rather than the legitimatecreditors, and the matter was finally compromised by providing thatall debts should be "as valid against the United States underthis Constitution asunder the Confederation. " The charge that theConstitution was framed and its adoption obtained by men of property andwealth is undoubtedly true, but it is a mistake to attribute unworthymotives to them. The upper classes in the United States were generallypeople of wealth and so would be the natural holders of governmentsecurities. They were undoubtedly acting in self-protection, but theresponsibility rested upon them to take the lead. They were actingindeed for the public interest in the largest sense, for conditions inthe United States were such that every man might become a landownerand the people in general therefore wished to have property rightsprotected. 

In the autumn of 1788 the Congress of the old Confederation madetestamentary provision for its heir by voting that presidential electorsshould be chosen on the first Wednesday in January, 1789; that theseelectors should meet and cast their votes for President on the firstWednesday in February; and that the Senate and House of Representativesshould assemble on the first Wednesday in March. It was also decidedthat the seat of government should be in the City of New York untilotherwise ordered by Congress. In accordance with this procedure, the requisite elections were held, and the new government was dulyinstalled. It happened in 1789 that the first Wednesday in March wasthe fourth day of that month, which thereby became the date for thebeginning of each subsequent administration. 

The acid test of efficiency was still to be applied to the new machineryof government. But Americans then, as now, were an adaptable people, with political genius, and they would have been able to make almost anyform 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 thenew government was therefore in a large measure dependent upon the favorof the people. If they wished to do so, they could make it win out inspite of obstacles. In other words, the new government would succeedexactly to the extent to which the people stood back of it. This was thecritical moment when the slowly growing prosperity, described at lengthand emphasized in the previous chapters, produced one of its mostimportant 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 intothe practice of which the people have been forced from necessity. Ireally believe that there never was so much labour and economy to befound before in the country as at the present moment. If they persistin the habits they are acquiring, the good effects will soon bedistinguishable. When the people shall find themselves secure under anenergetic government, when foreign Nations shall be disposed to give usequal advantages in commerce from dread of retaliation, when the burdensof 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 expandthemselves, and when every one (under his own vine and fig-tree) shallbegin to taste the fruits of freedom--then all these blessings (for allthese blessings will come) will be referred to the fostering influenceof the new government. Whereas many causes will have conspired toproduce them. "

A few months later a similar opinion was expressed by Crevecoeur inwriting to Jefferson:

"Never was so great a change in the opinion of the best people as hashappened these five years; almost everybody feels the necessity ofcoercive laws, government, union, industry, and labor. . . . The exports ofthis country have singularly increased within these two years, and theimports have decreased in proportion. "

The new Federal Government was fortunate in beginning its career at themoment when returning prosperity was predisposing the people to thinkwell of it. The inauguration of Washington marked the opening of a newera for the people of the United States of America. 

APPENDIX*

 *The documents in this Appendix follow the text of the "RevisedStatutes 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 peopleto dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equalstation to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they shoulddeclare 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. Thatto secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, derivingtheir just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever anyForm of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right ofthe People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers insuch form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safetyand Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments longestablished should not be changed for light and transient causes; andaccordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposedto suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves byabolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long trainof abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces adesign to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it istheir duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards fortheir future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of theseColonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to altertheir former Systems of Government. The history of the present King ofGreat Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, allhaving in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny overthese States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary forthe public good. 

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressingimportance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent shouldbe obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attendto them. 

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of largedistricts of people, unless those people would relinquish the rightof Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them andformidable 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 hismeasures. 

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing withmanly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. 

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to causeothers to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable ofAnnihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers ofinvasion from without, and convulsions within. 

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for thatpurpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusingto pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising theconditions of new Appropriations of Lands. 

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assentto Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. 

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of theiroffices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. 

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms ofOfficers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance. 

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without theConsent of our legislature. 

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superiorto the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to ajurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by ourlaws; 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 Murderswhich 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 neighbouringProvince, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlargingits Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrumentfor introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, andaltering fundamentally the Forms of our Government:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves investedwith Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. 

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protectionand waging War against us. 

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, anddestroyed the lives of our people. 

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries tocompleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begunwith circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the mostbarbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. 

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seasto bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of theirfriends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured tobring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of allages, sexes and conditions. 

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress inthe most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only byrepeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every actwhich 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 havewarned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extendan unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of thecircumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed totheir native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by theties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, wouldinevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence[. ] They toohave 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 PeaceFriends. 

We, therefore, the Representative of the united States of America, inGeneral Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the worldfor the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authorityof the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, Thatthese United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and IndependentStates; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of GreatBritain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free andIndependent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts andThings which Independent States may of right do. And for the supportof this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of DivineProvidence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes andour sacred Honor. 

JOHN HANCOCK. 

New Hampshire. JOSIAH BARTLETT, WM. WHIPPLE, MATTHEW THORNTON. 

Massachusetts Bay. SAML. ADAMS, JOHN ADAMS, ROBT. TREAT PAINE, ELBRIDGEGERRY. 

Rhode Island. STEP. HOPKINS, WILLIAM ELLERY. 

Connecticut. ROGER SHERMAN, SAM'EL HUNTINGTON, WM. WILLIAMS, OLIVERWOLCOTT. 

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 ofCarrollton. 

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 ofState, at Washington, says: "The names of the signers are spelt aboveas in the fac-simile of the original, but the punctuation of them isnot always the same; neither do the names of the States appear in thefac-simile of the original. The names of the signers of each State aregrouped together in the fac-simile of the original, except the name ofMatthew Thornton, which follows that of Oliver Wolcott. "

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION -- 1777. 

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegatesof the States affixed to our Names send greeting. 

WHEREAS the Delegates of the United States of America in Congressassembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our LordOne Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventyseven, and in the Second Year ofthe Independence of America agree to certain articles ofConfederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, NorthCarolina, South-Carolina and Georgia in the Words following, viz. 

"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States ofNewhampshire, 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 ofAmerica. "

ARTICLE II. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom andindependence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not bythis confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congressassembled. 

ARTICLE III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm leagueof friendship with each other, for their common defence, the securityof their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, bindingthemselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, orattacks 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 andintercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds andfugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privilegesand immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the peopleof each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any otherState, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as theinhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shallnot extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported intoany State, to any other State of which the owner is an inhabitant;provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid byany State, on the property of the United States, or either of them. 

If any person guilty of, or charged with treason, felony, or other highmisdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in anyof the United States, he shall upon demand of the Governor or Executivepower, of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed tothe State having jurisdiction of his offence. 

Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to therecords, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates ofevery other State. 

ARTICLE V. For the more convenient management of the general interestsof the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in suchmanner as the legislature of each State shall direct, to meet inCongress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a powerreserved to each State, to recall its delegates, or any of them, atany time within the year, and to send others in their stead, for theremainder of the year. 

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by morethan seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegatefor more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall anyperson, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under theUnited States, for which he, or another for his benefit receives anysalary, 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 orquestioned in any court, or place out of Congress, and the membersof Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests andimprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, andattendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of thepeace. 

ARTICLE VI. No State without the consent of the United States inCongress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassyfrom, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty withany king prince or state; nor shall any person holding any office ofprofit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept of anypresent, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from anyking, prince or foreign state; nor shall the United States in Congressassembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility. 

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation oralliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United Statesin Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which thesame is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue. 

No state shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with anystipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congressassembled, with any king, prince or state, in pursuance of any treatiesalready 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, exceptsuch number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States inCongress assembled, for the defence of such State, or its trade; norshall 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, inCongress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the fortsnecessary for the defence of such State; but every State shall alwayskeep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armedand accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a properquantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. 

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the UnitedStates in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded byenemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution beingformed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the dangeris so imminent as not to admit of a delay, till the United Statesin Congress assembled can be consulted: nor shall any State grantcommissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque orreprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United Statesin Congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state andthe subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, andunder such regulations as shall be established by the United States inCongress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in whichcase vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and keptso long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States inCongress assembled shall determine otherwise. 

ARTICLE VII. When land-forces are raised by any State for the commondefence, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall beappointed by the Legislature of each State respectively by whom suchforces 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 theappointment. 

ARTICLE VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall beincurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by theUnited States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a commontreasury, which shall be supplied by the several States, in proportionto the value of all land within each State, granted to or surveyed forany person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereonshall be estimated according to such mode as the United States inCongress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint. 

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by theauthority and direction of the Legislatures of the several States withinthe time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled. 

ARTICLE IX. The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the soleand exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, exceptin the cases mentioned in the sixth article--of sending and receivingambassadors--entering into treaties and alliances, provided that notreaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of therespective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts andduties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or fromprohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods orcommodities whatsoever--of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizestaken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shallbe divided or appropriated--of granting letters of marque and reprisalin times of peace--appointing courts for the trial of piracies andfelonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts forreceiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any ofthe said courts. 

The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort onappeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereaftermay arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdictionor any other cause whatever; which authority shall always be exercisedin the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authorityor lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall presenta petition to Congress, stating the matter in question and praying fora hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to thelegislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawfulagents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing anddetermining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congressshall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from thelist of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, thepetitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen;and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names asCongress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out bylot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine thecontroversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hearthe cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shallneglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, whichCongress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse tostrike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out ofeach State, and the Secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of suchparty absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the courtto be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final andconclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to theauthority 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 orsentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted toCongress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of theparties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits injudgment, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judgesof the supreme or superior court of the State where the cause shall betried, "well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favour, affection or hopeof reward:" provided also that no State shall be deprived of territoryfor the benefit of the United States. 

All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed underdifferent grants of two or more States, whose jurisdiction as theymay respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants areadjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the sametime claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement ofjurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress ofthe United States, be finally determined as near as may be in thesame manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respectingterritorial jurisdiction between different States. 

The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole andexclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value ofcoin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respectiveStates. --fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout theUnited States. --regulating the trade and managing all affairs with theIndians, not members of any of the States, provided that thelegislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringedor violated--establishing and regulating post-offices from one State toanother, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postageon the papers passing thro' the same as may be requisite to defray theexpenses of the said office--appointing all officers of the landforces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimentalofficers--appointing all the officers of the naval forces, andcommissioning all officers whatever in the service of the UnitedStates--making rules for the government and regulation of the said landand naval forces, and directing their operations. 

The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appointa committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated "aCommittee of the States, " and to consist of one delegate from eachState; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as maybe necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States undertheir direction--to appoint one of their number to preside, providedthat no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more thanone year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sumsof money to be raised for the service of the United States, and toappropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses--toborrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half year to the respective States an account of thesums of money so borrowed or emitted, --to build and equip a navy--toagree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from eachState for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitantsin such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon theLegislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raisethe men and cloath, arm and equip them in a soldier like manner, atthe expense of the United States; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within thetime agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled: but ifthe United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration ofcircumstances judge proper that any State should not raise men, orshould raise a smaller number than its quota, and that any other Stateshould raise a greater number of men than the quota thereof, such extranumber shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in thesame manner as the quota of such State, unless the legislature of suchState shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spared out ofthe same, in which case they shall raise officer, cloath, arm and equipas many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. Andthe officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped, shall march to theplace appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States inCongress assembled. 

The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, norgrant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter intoany treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the valuethereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defenceand welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, norborrow 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 acommander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent tothe same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourningfrom day to day be determined, unless by the votes of a majority of theUnited States in Congress assembled. 

The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to anytime within the year, and to any place within the United States, so thatno period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space ofsix months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or militaryoperations, as in their judgment require secresy; and the yeas and naysof the delegates of each State on any question shall be entered on thejournal, when it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates of aState, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with atranscript 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 beauthorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers ofCongress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent ofnine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with;provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for theexercise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nineStates in the Congress of the United States assembled is requisite. 

ARTICLE XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in themeasures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled toall the advantages of this Union: but no other colony shall be admittedinto the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States. 

ARTICLE XII. All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed and debtscontracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assemblingof the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shallbe deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, forpayment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the publicfaith are hereby solemnly pledged. 

ARTICLE XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of theUnited States in Congress assembled, on all questions which bythis confederation are submitted to them. And the articles of thisconfederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Unionshall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter bemade in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congressof the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures ofevery State. 

And whereas it has pleased the Great Governor of the world to inclinethe hearts of the Legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles ofconfederation and perpetual union. Know ye that we the undersigneddelegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given forthat purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of ourrespective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each andevery of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and alland singular the matters and things therein contained: and we do furthersolemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States inCongress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederationare submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolablyobserved by the States we re[s]pectively represent, and that the Unionshall be perpetual. 

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done atPhiladelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in theyear of our Lord one thousand s even hundred and seventy-eight, and inthe third year of the independence of America. *

 * From the circumstances of delegates from the same State havingsigned the Articles of Confederation at different times, as appears bythe dates, it is probable they affixed their names as they happenedto be present in Congress, after they had been authorized by theirconstituents. 

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, SAMUELHOLTEN. 

On the part and behalf of the State of Rhode Island and ProvidencePlantations. 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, 22dJuly, 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, July21st, 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 Statesnorthwest 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 onedistrict, subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as futurecircumstances may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient. 

SEC. 2. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the estates bothof resident and non-resident proprietors in the said territory, dyingintestate, shall descend to, and be distributed among their childrenand the descendants of a deceased child in equal parts, the descendantsof a deceased child or grandchild to take the share of their deceasedparent in equal parts among them; and where there shall be no childrenor descendants, then in equal parts to the next of kin, in equal degree;and among collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or sisterof the intestate shall have, in equal parts among them, their deceasedparent's share; and there shall, in no case, be a distinction betweenkindred of the whole and half blood; saving in all cases to the widow ofthe intestate, her third part of the real estate for life, and one-thirdpart of the personal estate; and this law relative to descents anddower, shall remain in full force until altered by the legislature ofthe district. And until the governor and judges shall adopt laws ashereinafter mentioned, estates in the said territory may be devised orbequeathed by wills in writing, signed and sealed by him or her in whomthe estate may be, (being of full age, ) and attested by three witnesses;and real estates may be conveyed by lease and release, or bargain andsale, signed, sealed, and delivered by the person, being of full age, in whom the estate may be, and attested by two witnesses, providedsuch wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be acknowledged, or theexecution thereof duly proved, and be recorded within one year afterproper magistrates, courts, and registers, shall be appointed for thatpurpose; and personal property may be transferred by delivery, saving, however, to the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers ofthe Kaskaskias, Saint Vincents, and the neighboring villages, who haveheretofore professed themselves citizens of Virginia, their laws andcustoms now being in force among them, relative to the descent andconveyance of property. 

SEC. 3. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That there shall beappointed, from time to time, by Congress, a governor, whose commissionshall continue in force for the term of three years, unless soonerrevoked by Congress; he shall reside in the district, and have afreehold estate therein, in one thousand acres of land, while in theexercise of his office. 

SEC. 4. There shall be appointed from time to time, by Congress, asecretary, whose commission shall continue in force for four years, unless sooner revoked; he shall reside in the district, and have afreehold estate therein, in five hundred acres of land, while in theexercise of his office. It shall be his duty to keep and preserve theacts and laws passed by the legislature, and the public records ofthe district, and the proceedings of the governor in his executivedepartment, and transmit authentic copies of such acts and proceedingsevery six months to the Secretary of Congress. There shall also beappointed a court, to consist of three judges, any two of whom to forma court, who shall have a common-law jurisdiction, and reside in thedistrict, and have each therein a freehold estate, in five hundred acresof land, while in the exercise of their offices; and their commissionsshall continue in force during good behavior. 

SEC. 5. The governor and judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt andpublish in the distric[t] such laws of the original States, criminal andcivil, as may be necessary, and best suited to the circumstances ofthe district, and report them to Congress from time to time, which lawsshall be in force in the district until the organization of the generalassembly therein, unless disapproved of by Congress; but afterwards thelegislature shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit. 

SEC. 6. The governor, for the time being, shall be commander-in-chief ofthe militia, appoint and commission all officers in the same below therank of general officers; all general officers shall be appointed andcommissioned by Congress. 

SEC. 7. Previous to the organization of the general assembly thegovernor shall appoint such magistrates, and other civil officers, ineach county or township, as he shall find necessary for the preservationof the peace and good order in the same. After the general assemblyshall be organized the powers and duties of magistrates and other civilofficers shall be regulated and defined by the said assembly; but allmagistrates and other civil officers, not herein otherwise directed, shall, during the continuance of this temporary government, be appointedby the governor. 

SEC. 8. For the prevention of crimes and injuries, the laws to beadopted or made shall have force in all parts of the district, and forthe execution of process, criminal and civil, the governor shall makeproper divisions thereof; and he shall proceed, from time to time, ascircumstances may require, to lay out the parts of the district inwhich the Indian titles shall have been extinguished, into counties andtownships, subject, however, to such alterations as may thereafter bemade 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 thegovernor, they shall receive authority, with time and place, to electrepresentatives from their counties or townships, to represent them inthe general assembly: Provided, That for every five hundred free maleinhabitants there shall be one representative, and so on, progressively, with the number of free male inhabitants, shall the right ofrepresentation increase, until the number of representatives shallamount to twenty-five; after which the number and proportion ofrepresentatives shall be regulated by the legislature: Provided, Thatno person be eligible or qualified to act as a representative, unless heshall have been a citizen of one of the United States three years, andbe a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in thedistrict three years; and, in either case, shall likewise hold in hisown 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 thedistrict, 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 oftwo years; and in case of the death of a representative, or removal fromoffice, the governor shall issue a writ to the county or township, forwhich he was a member, to elect another in his stead, to serve for theresidue of the term. 

SEC. 11. The general assembly, or legislature, shall consist of thegovernor, legislative council, and a house of representatives. Thelegislative council shall consist of five members, to continue in officefive years, unless sooner removed by Congress; any three of whom to be aquorum; and the members of the council shall be nominated and appointedin the following manner, to wit: As soon as representatives shall beelected the governor shall appoint a time and place for them to meettogether, and when met they shall nominate ten persons, resident inthe district, and each possessed of a freehold in five hundred acres ofland, and return their names to Congress, five of whom Congress shallappoint and commission to serve as aforesaid; and whenever a vacancyshall happen in the council, by death or removal from office, the houseof representatives shall nominate two persons, qualified as aforesaid, for each vacancy, and return their names to Congress, one of whomCongress shall appoint and commission for the residue of the term; andevery five years, four months at least before the expiration of the timeof service of the members of the council, the said house shall nominateten persons, qualified as aforesaid, and return their names to Congress, five of whom Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as membersof the council five years, unless sooner removed. And the governor, legislative council, and house of representatives shall have authorityto make laws in all cases for the good government of the district, notrepugnant to the principles and articles in this ordinance establishedand 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 forhis assent; but no bill, or legislative act whatever, shall be of anyforce without his assent. The governor shall have power to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the general assembly when, in his opinion, itshall be expedient. 

SEC. 12. The governor, judges, legislative council, secretary, and suchother officers as Congress shall appoint in the district, shall take anoath or affirmation of fidelity, and of office; the governor before thePresident of Congress, and all other officers before the governor. Assoon as a legislature shall be formed in the district, the council andhouse assembled, in one room, shall have authority, by joint ballot, toelect a delegate to Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with aright of debating, but not of voting, during this temporary government. 

SEC. 13. And for extending the fundamental principles of civil andreligious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions, are erected; to fix and establish thoseprinciples as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory; toprovide, also, for the establishment of States, and permanent governmenttherein, and for their admission to a share in the Federal councils onan equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may beconsistent 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 saidterritory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, towit:

ARTICLE I. 

No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shallever be molested on account of his mode of worship, or religioussentiments, in the said territories. 

ARTICLE II. 

The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to thebenefits of the writs of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of apropo[r]tionate representation of the people in the legislature, andof judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. Allpersons shall be bailable, unless for capital offences, where the proofshall be evident, or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate;and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall bedeprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land, and should the public exigencies make itnecessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be madefor the same. And, in the just preservation of rights and property, itis understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made orhave 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 governmentand the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shallforever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observedtowards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken fromthem without their consent; and in their property, rights, and libertythey never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful warsauthorized 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 formedtherein, shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of the UnitedStates of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to suchalterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to allthe acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto. The inhabitants and settlers in the said territoryshall be subject to pay a part of the Federal debts, contracted, or tobe contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of government tobe apportioned on them by Congress, according to the same common ruleand measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the otherStates; and the taxes for paying their proportion shall be laid andlevied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of thedistrict, or districts, or new States, as in the original States, withinthe time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled. Thelegislatures of those districts, or new States, shall never interferewith the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congressassembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary forsecuring the title in such soil to the bona-fide purchasers. No taxshall be imposed on lands the property of the United States; and in nocase shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. Thenavigable waters leading into the Mississippi and Saint Lawrence, andthe carrying places between the same, shall be common highways, andforever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory as to thecitizens of the United States, and those of any other States that maybe admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or dutytherefor. 

ARTICLE V. 

There shall be formed in the said territory not less than three nor morethan five States; and the boundaries of the States, as soon as Virginiashall alter her act of cession and consent to the same, shall becomefixed and established as follows, to wit: The western State, in the saidterritory, shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the WabashRivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post Vincents, duenorth, to the territorial line between the United States and Canada; andby the said territorial line to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle State shall be bounded by the said direct line, the Wabashfrom Post Vincents to the Ohio, by the Ohio, by a direct line drawn duenorth from the mouth of the Great Miami to the said territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The eastern State shall be boundedby the last-mentioned direct line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the saidterritorial line: Provided, however, And it is further understood anddeclared, that the boundaries of these three States shall be subject sofar 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 thesaid territory which lies north of an east and west line drawn throughthe southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan. And whenever any of thesaid States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, suchState shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of theUnited States, on an equal footing with the original States, inall respects whatever; and shall be at liberty to form a permanentconstitution and State government: Provided, The constitution andgovernment, so to be formed, shall be republican, and in conformity tothe principles contained in these articles, and, so far as it can beconsistent with the general interest of the confederacy, such admissionshall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a lessnumber of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand. 

ARTICLE VI. 

There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the saidterritory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof theparty shall have been duly convicted: Provided always, That any personescaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimedin any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfullyreclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor orservice as aforesaid. 

Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the resolutions of the23d of April, 1784, relative to the subject of this ordinance, be, andthe 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 independencethe twelfth. 

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES -- 1787. 

WE THE PEOPLE Of the United States, in Order to form a more perfectUnion, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for thecommon defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessingsof Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish thisCONSTITUTION for the United States of America. 

ARTICLE I. 

SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in aCongress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and Houseof Representatives. 

SECTION. 2. 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Memberschosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and theElectors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite forElectors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. 

2. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained tothe Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of theUnited States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of thatState in which he shall be chosen. 3. [Representatives and direct Taxesshall be apportioned among the several States which may be includedwithin this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shallbe determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, includingthose bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians nottaxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ] The actual Enumeration shallbe made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress ofthe United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, insuch Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representativesshall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shallhave at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shallbe 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, SouthCarolina five, and Georgia three. 

4. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, theExecutive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill suchVacancies. 

5. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and otherOfficers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. 

SECTION. 3. 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of twoSenators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for sixYears; and each Senator shall have one Vote. 

2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the firstElection, 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 theExpiration of the second year, of the second Class at the Expiration ofthe fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of thesixth Year, so that one-third may be chosen every second Year; and ifVacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess ofthe Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporaryAppointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall thenfill such Vacancies. 

3. No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Ageof 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 forwhich he shall be chosen. 

4. The Vice President of the United States shall be President of theSenate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. 

5. The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President protempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercisethe Office of President of the United States. 

6. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. Whensitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. Whenthe President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shallpreside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of twothirds of the Members present. 

7. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than toremoval from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Officeof honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Partyconvicted 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 forSenators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by theLegislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make oralter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. 

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and suchMeeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall byLaw appoint a different Day. 

SECTION. 5. 1. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returnsand Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shallconstitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjournfrom day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance ofabsent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each Housemay provide. 

2. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish itsMembers for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of twothirds, expel a Member. 

3. Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from timeto time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgmentrequire Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either Houseon any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those present, beentered on the Journal. 

4. Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without theConsent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any otherPlace than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. 

SECTION. 6. 1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive aCompensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid outof the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, exceptTreason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrestduring their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, andin going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate ineither House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. 

2. No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he waselected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of theUnited States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereofshall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding anyOffice under the United States, shall be a Member of either House duringhis Continuance in Office. 

SECTION. 7. 1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in theHouse of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur withAmendments as on other Bills. 

2. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives andthe Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the Presidentof the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not heshall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shallhave originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on theirJournal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsiderationtwo 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 shalllikewise 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 Housesshall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Personsvoting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of eachHouse respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the Presidentwithin ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presentedto 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 whichCase it shall not be a Law. 

3. Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of theSenate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on aquestion of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of theUnited States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approvedby him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirdsof the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules andLimitations 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 thecommon 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 severalStates, and with the Indian Tribes;

4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws onthe subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, andfix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities andcurrent 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 forlimited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to theirrespective Writings and Discoveries;

9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the highSeas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rulesconcerning Captures on Land and Water;

12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to thatUse 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 andnaval Forces;

15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of theUnion, 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 ofthe United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointmentof the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according tothe discipline prescribed by Congress;

17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, oversuch District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession ofparticular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat ofthe Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority overall places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State inwhich 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 carryinginto Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested bythis Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in anyDepartment or Officer thereof. 

SECTION. 9. 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as anyof the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not beprohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundredand eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, notexceeding 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 mayrequire it. 

3. No Bill of Attainder or expost facto Law shall be passed. 

4. No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless inProportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to betaken. 

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 Revenueto the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels boundto, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties inanother. 

7. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence ofAppropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of theReceipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published fromtime to time. 

8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And noPerson holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, withoutthe 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, orConfederation; grant Letters of Marque or Reprisal; coin Money; emitBills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender inPayment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Lawimpairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. 

2. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Impostsor Duties on imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessaryfor executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties andImposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Useof the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subjectto the Revision and Controul of the Congress. 

3. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty ofTonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into anyAgreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, orengage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger aswill not admit of delay. 

ARTICLE. II. 

SECTION. 1. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of theUnited States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term offour Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the sameTerm, be elected, as follows

2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereofmay direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senatorsand Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trustor Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. 

3. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and theDay on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the samethroughout the United States. 

4. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the UnitedStates, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall beeligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person beeligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirtyfive 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 saidOffice, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congressmay by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation, orInability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring whatOfficer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall actaccordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall beelected. 

6. The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, aCompensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during thePeriod for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receivewithin that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any ofthem. 

7. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take thefollowing Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) thatI will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the UnitedStates, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defendthe Constitution of the United States. "

SECTION. 2. 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Armyand Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he mayrequire the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of theexecutive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of theirrespective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves andPardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases ofImpeachment. 

2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of theSenate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators presentconcur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consentof the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers andConsuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of theUnited States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vestthe Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in thePresident alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. 

3. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that mayhappen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions whichshall expire at the End of their next Session. 

SECTION. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Informationof the State of the Union, and recommend to their Considerationsuch Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, onextraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, andin Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time ofAdjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall takeCare that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all theOfficers of the United States. 

SECTION. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers ofthe United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, andConviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

ARTICLE III. 

SECTION. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested inone supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may fromtime to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme andinferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, andshall, 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 andEquity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--toall Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--toall Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies towhich the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between twoor more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State--betweenCitizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same Stateclaiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, orthe Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects;

2. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers andConsuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supremeCourt shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases beforementioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both asto Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as theCongress shall make. 

3. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be byJury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimesshall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, theTrial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law havedirected. 

SECTION. 3. 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only inlevying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving themAid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on theTestimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession inopen Court. 

2. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, orForfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. 

ARTICLE IV. 

SECTION. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to thepublic Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which suchActs, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. 

SECTION. 2. 1. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to allPrivileges 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 onDemand of the Executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of theCrime. 

3. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Lawsthereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law orRegulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shallbe delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour maybe due. 

SECTION. 3. 1. New States may be admitted by the Congress intothis Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within theJurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junctionof two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of theLegislature of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. 

2. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needfulRules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Propertybelonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shallbe so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or ofany particular State. 

SECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in thisUnion a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of themagainst Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of theExecutive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domesticViolence. 

ARTICLE V. 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem itnecessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on theApplication of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in eitherCase, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of thisConstitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of theseveral States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as theone or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year Onethousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the firstand fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and thatno State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffragein the Senate. 

ARTICLE. VI. 

1. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before theAdoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the UnitedStates under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. 

2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shallbe made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall bemade, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Lawof the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any States to the Contrarynotwithstanding. 

3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members ofthe several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound byOath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Testshall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trustunder the United States. 

ARTICLE VII. 

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficientfor the Establishment of this Constitution between the States soratifying the Same. 

DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present theSeventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand sevenhundred and Eighty seven, and of the Independance of the United Statesof America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribedour 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, RICHARDBASSETT, 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, CHARLESPINCKNEY, PIERCE BUTLER

Georgia. WILLIAM FEW, ABR BALDWIN

Attest WILLIAM JACKSON Secretary

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

There are many comprehensive histories which include the periodcovered by the present volume, of which a few--without disparagingthe other--are deserving of mention for some particular reason. DavidRamsay's "History of the American Revolution, " 2 vols. (1789, andsubsequently reprinted), gives but little space to this particularperiod, but it reveals the contemporary point of view. RichardHildreth's "History of the United States, " 6 vols. (1849-1852), isanother early work that is still of value, although it is written witha Federalist bias. J. B. McMaster's "History of the People of the UnitedStates from the Revolution to the Civil War, " 8 vols. (1883-1913), presents a kaleidoscopic series of pictures gathered largely fromcontemporary newspapers, throwing light upon, and adding color to thestory. E. M. Avery's "History of the United States, " of which sevenvolumes have been published (1904-1910), is remarkable for itsillustrations and reproductions of prints, documents, and maps. EdwardChanning's "History of the United States, " of which four volumes haveappeared (1905-1917), is the latest, most readable, and probably thebest of these comprehensive histories. 

Although it was subsequently published as Volume VI in a revised editionof his "History of the United States of America, " George Bancroft's"History of the Formation of the Constitution, " 2 vols. (1882), isreally a separate work. The author appears at his best in these volumesand 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 "ConstitutionalHistory of the United States, " is one of the standard works, but doesnot retain quite the same hold that Bancroft's volumes do. 

Of the special works more nearly covering the same field as the presentvolume, 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 clearnessof presentation and charm of style which are characteristic of theauthor, is an interesting and readable comprehensive account. RichardFrothingham's "Rise of the Republic of the United States" (1872; 6thed. 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 Policyand the American Alliance" (1916) should be mentioned as the latest andbest work, although it lays more stress upon the phases indicated by thetitle. C. H. Van Tyne's "Loyalists in the American Revolution" (1902)remains the standard work on this subject, but special studies areappearing from time to time which are changing our point of view. 

The following books on economic and industrial aspects are not forpopular reading, but are rather for reference: E. R. Johnson et al. , "History of the Domestic and Foreign Commerce of the United States" 2vols. (1915); V. S. Clark, "History of the Manufactures of theUnited States, 1607-1860" (1916). G. S. Callender has written shortintroductions to the various chapters of his "Selections from theEconomic History of the United States" (1909), which are brilliantinterpretations of great value. P. J. Treat's "The National Land System, 1785-1820" (1910), gives the most satisfactory account of the subjectindicated by the title. Of entirely different character is TheodoreRoosevelt's "Winning of the West, " 4 vols. (1889-96; publishedsubsequently in various editions), which is both scholarly and offascinating interest on the subject of the early expansion into theWest. 

On the most important subject of all, the formation of the Constitution, the material ordinarily wanted can be found in Max Farrand's "Records ofthe Federal Convention, " 3 vols. (1910), and the author has summarizedthe results of his studies in "The Framing of the Constitution" (1913). C. A. Beard's "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution ofthe United States" (1913) gives some interesting and valuable factsregarding economic aspects of the formation of the Constitution, andparticularly 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 inJonathan 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 theindividual States may be mentioned: H. B. Grigsby's "History of theVirginia Federal Convention of 1788, " Virginia Historical SocietyCollections, 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 Constitutionin the State of Massachusetts"(1896); O. G. Libby's "The GeographicalDistribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the FederalConstitution, 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 foundin P. L. Ford's "Pamphlets on the Constitution, " etc. (1888). The mostvaluable commentary on the Constitution, "The Federalist, " is to befound 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 sourcesof information is to be found in letters and private papers of prominentmen. For most readers there is nothing better than the "AmericanStatesmen 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 GeorgeWashington" (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 "TheIntimate Life of Alexander Hamilton" (1910); James Schouler's "ThomasJefferson" (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, ColonialCharters, etc. , " 2 vols. (1877); F. N. Thorpe's "The Federal and StateConstitutions, 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 byWorthington C. Ford and Gaillard Hunt, of which 23 volumes haveappeared, bringing the records down through 1782. 

NOTES ON THE PORTRAITS OF MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION WHO SIGNEDTHE CONSTITUTION

BY VICTOR HUGO PALTSITS

Forty signatures were attached to the Constitution of the UnitedStates in the Federal Convention on September 17, 1787, by thirty-ninedelegates, representing twelve States, and the secretary of theConvention, as the attesting officer. George Washington, who signed aspresident of the Convention, was a delegate from Virginia. Thereare reproduced in this volume the effigies or pretended effigiesof thirty-seven of them, from etchings by Albert Rosenthal in anextra-illustrated volume devoted to the Members of the FederalConvention, 1787, in the Thomas Addis Emmet Collection owned by theNew York Public Library. The autographs are from the same source. Thisseries presents no portraits of David Brearley of New Jersey, ThomasFitzsimons of Pennsylvania, and Jacob Broom of Delaware. With respectto the others we give such information as Albert Rosenthal, thePhiladelphia artist, inscribed on each portrait and also such other dataas have been unearthed from the correspondence of Dr. Emmet, preservedin 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 producednearly a generation ago, and in particular respecting portraits whichwere hung in Independence Hall, Philadelphia. Statements in the case byRosenthal and by the late Charles Henry Hart are in the "American ArtNews, " March 3, 1917, p. 4. See also Hart's paper on bogus Americanportraits in "Annual Report, 1913, " of the American HistoricalAssociation. To these may be added some interesting facts which are notsufficiently known by American students. 

In the ninth decade of the nineteenth century, principally from 1885to 1888, a few collectors of American autographs united in an informalassociation which was sometimes called a "Club, " for the purpose ofprocuring portraits of American historical characters which they desiredto associate with respective autographs as extra-illustrations. Theywere pioneers in their work and their purposes were honorable. Theycooperated in effort and expenses, 'in a most commendable mutuality. Prime movers and workers were the late Dr. Emmet, of New York, and SimonGratz, Esq. , still active in Philadelphia. These men have done muchto stimulate appreciation for and the preservation of the fundamentalsources of American history. When they began, and for many yearsthereafter, not the same critical standards reigned among Americanhistorians, much less among American collectors, as the canonsnow require. The members of the "Club" entered into an extensivecorrespondence with the descendants of persons whose portraits theywished to trace and then have reproduced. They were sometimes misledby these descendants, who themselves, often great-grandchildren or moreremoved by ties and time, assumed that a given portrait represented theparticular person in demand, because in their own uncritical minds atradition was as good as a fact. 

The members of the "Club, " then, did the best they could with theassistance and standards of their time. The following extract from aletter written by Gratz to Emmet, November 10, 1885, reveals much thatshould be better known. He wrote very frankly as follows: "What you sayin regard to Rosenthal's work is correct: but the fault is not his. Manyof the photographs are utterly wanting in expression or character; andif the artist were to undertake to correct these deficiencies by makingthe portrait what he may SUPPOSE it should be, his production (whilepresenting a better appearance ARTISTICALLY) might be very much lessof a LIKENESS than the photograph from which he works. Rosenthal alwaysshows me a rough proof of the unfinished etching, so that I may advisehim as to corrections & additions which I may consider justifiable &advisable. "

Other correspondence shows that Rosenthal received about twenty dollarsfor each plate which he etched for the "Club. "

The following arrangement of data follows the order of the names assigned to the Constitution. The Emmet numbers identify the etchings inthe bound volume from which they have been reproduced. 

1. George Washington, President (also delegate from Virginia), Emmet9497, inscribed "Joseph Wright Pinxit Phila. 1784. Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888. Aqua fortis. "

NEW HAMPSHIRE

2. John Langdon, Emmet 9439, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 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 oilminiature painted on wood by Col. John Trumbull, in 1792, is in the YaleSchool of Fine Arts. There is also painting of Langdon in IndependenceHall, by James Sharpless. 

3. Nicholas Gilman, Emmet 9441, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888. " A drawing by the same artist formerly hung in IndependenceHall. The two are not at all alike. No contemporary attribution is madeand the Emmet correspondence reveals nothing. 

MASSACHUSETTS

4. Nathaniel Gorham, Emmet 9443. It was etched by Albert Rosenthal butwithout inscription of any kind or date. A painting by him, in likenessidentical, formerly hung in Independence Hall. No evidence in Emmetcorrespondence. 

5. Rufus King, Emmet 9445, inscribed "Etched by Albert Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after Painting by Trumbull. " King was painted by Col. John Trumbullfrom life and the portrait is in the Yale School of Fine Arts. GilbertStuart painted a portrait of King and there is one by Charles WillsonPeale in Independence Hall. 

6. William Samuel Johnson, Emmet 9447, inscribed "Etched by AlbertRosenthal Phila. 1888 from Painting by Gilbert Stuart. " A painting byRosenthal after Stuart hung in Independence Hall. Stuart's portrait ofDr. Johnson "was one of the first, if not the first, painted by Stuartafter his return from England. " Dated on back 1792. Also copied byGraham Mason, Life of Stuart, 208. 

7. Roger Sherman, Emmet 9449, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888 after Painting by Earle. " The identical portrait copied byThomas Hicks, after Ralph Earle, is in Independence Hall. 

NEW YORK

8. Alexander Hamilton, Emmet 9452, inscribed "Etched by Albert Rosenthal1888 after Trumbull. " A full length portrait, painted by Col. JohnTrumbull, is in the City Hall, New York. Other Hamilton portraits byTrumbull are in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, the BostonMuseum of Art, and in private possession. 

NEW JERSEY

9. William Livingston, Emmet 9454, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. , 1888. " A similar portrait, painted by Rosenthal, formerly hungin Independence Hall. No correspondence relating to it is in the EmmetCollection. 

10. David Brearley. There is no portrait. Emmet 9456 is a drawing of aBrearley 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 IndependenceHall. The Emmet correspondence reveals nothing. 

12. Jonathan Dayton, Emmet 9460, inscribed "Albert Rosenthal. " Apainting by Rosenthal also formerly hung in Independence Hall. The twoare dissimilar. The etching is a profile, but the painting is nearly afull-face portrait. The Emmet correspondence reveals no evidence. 

PENNSYLVANIA

13. Benjamin Franklin, Emmet 9463, inscribed "C. W. Peale Pinxit. AlbertRosenthal Sc. "

14. Thomas Mifflin, Emmet 9466, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888 after Painting by Gilbert Stuart. " A portrait by CharlesWillson Peale, in civilian dress, is in Independence Hall. The Stuartportrait shows Mifflin in military uniform. 

15. Robert Morris, Emmet 9470, inscribed "Gilbert Stuart Pinxit. AlbertRosenthal Sc. " The original painting is in the Historical Society ofPennsylvania. Stuart painted Morris in 1795. A copy was owned by thelate Charles Henry Hart; a replica also existed in the possession ofMorris's granddaughter. --Mason, "Life of Stuart, " 225. 

16. George Clymer, Emmet 9475, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888 after Painting by C. W. Peale. " There is a similar typeportrait, yet not identical, in Independence Hall, where the copy wasattributed to Dalton Edward Marchant. 

17. Thomas Fitzsimons. There is no portrait and the Emmet correspondenceoffers no information. 

18. Jared Ingersoll, Emmet 9468, inscribed "Etched by Albert Rosenthalafter Painting by C. W. Peale. " A portrait of the same origin, said tohave been copied by George Lambdin, "after Rembrandt Peale, " hung inIndependence Hall. 

19. James Wilson, Emmet 9472, inscribed "Etched by Albert Rosenthal1888. " Seems to have been derived from a painting by Charles WillsonPeale in Independence Hall. 

20. Gouverneur Morris, Emmet 9477, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888 after a copy by Marchant from Painting by T. Sully. " TheEmmet correspondence has no reference to it. 

DELAWARE

21. George Read, Emmet 9479, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 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 portraitthat Rosenthal and others, like H. B. Hall, have depended for theirportrait of Read. 

22. Gunning Bedford, Jr. , Emmet 9483, inscribed "Etched by AlbertRosenthal Phila. 1888. " Rosenthal also painted a portrait, "afterCharles Willson Peale, " for Independence Hall. The etching is the sameportrait. On May 13, 1883, Mr. Simon Gratz wrote to Dr. Emmet: "A veryfair lithograph can, I think, be made from the photograph of GunningBedford, Jun. ; which I have just received from you. I shall call theartist's attention to the excess of shadow on the cravat. " The sourcewas a photograph furnished by the Bedford descendants. 

23. John Dickinson, Emmet 9485, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888 after Painting by C. W. Peale. " The Peale painting is inIndependence Hall. 

24. Richard Bassett, Emmet 9487, inscribed "Albert Rosenthal. " Therewas also a painting by Rosenthal in Independence Hall. While similar intype, they are not identical. They vary in physiognomy and arrangementof hair. There is nothing in the Emmet correspondence about thisportrait. 

25. Jacob Broom. There is no portrait and no information in the Emmetcorrespondence. 

MARYLAND

26. James McHenry, Emmet 9490, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888. " Rosenthal also painted a portrait for IndependenceHall "after Saint-Memin. " They are not alike. The etching facesthree-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 McHenryand John E. Howard from their grandson J. Howard McHenry whose addressis No. 48 Mount Vernon Place, Baltimore. "

27. Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Emmet 9494, inscribed "Etched byAlbert Rosenthal Phila. 1888 after Trumbull. " Rosenthal also painted aportrait for Independence Hall. They are not identical. A drawn visageis presented in the latter. In January, 1885, Henry F. Thompson ofBaltimore, wrote to Dr. Emmet: "Mr. Daniel Jenifer has a Portrait ofhis Grand Uncle Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer and will be glad to makearrangements for you to get a copy of it. . . . His address is No. 281Linden Ave, Baltimore. " In June, of the same year, Simon Gratz wrote toEmmet: "The Dan. Of St. Thos. Jenifer is so bad, that I am almost afraidto give it to Rosenthal. Have you a better photograph of this man (fromthe 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, wroteto Dr. Emmet: "If you will write to Genl. John Carroll No. 61 MountVernon Place you can get a copy of Mr. Carroll's (generally known asBarrister Carroll) Portrait. "

VIRGINIA

29. John Blair, Emmet 9500, inscribed "Albert Rosenthal Etcher. " He alsopainted a portrait for Independence Hall. The two are of the same typebut not alike. The etching is a younger looking picture. There is noevidence in the Emmet correspondence. 

30. James Madison, Jr. , Emmet 9502, inscribed "Etched by AlbertRosenthal Phila. 1888 after Painting by G. Stuart. " Stuart paintedseveral paintings of Madison, as shown in Mason, Life of Stuart, pp. 218-9. Possibly the Rosenthal etching was derived from the picture inthe possession of the Coles family of Philadelphia. 

NORTH CAROLINA

31. William Blount, Emmet 9504, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888. " He also painted a portrait for Independence Hall. The twoare alike. In November, 1885, Moses White, of Knoxville, Tenn. , wrotethus: "Genl. Marcus J. Wright, published, last year, a life of Win. Blount, which contains a likeness of him. . . . This is the only likenessof Gov. Blount that I ever saw. " This letter was written to Mr. BathurstL. Smith, who forwarded it to Dr. Emmet. 

32. Richard Dobbs Spaight, Emmet 9506, inscribed "Etched by AlbertRosenthal Phila. 1887. " In Independence Hall is a portrait painted byJames Sharpless. On comparison these two are of the same type but notalike. The etching presents an older facial appearance. On November 8, 1886, Gen. John Meredith Read, writing from Paris, said he had found inthe possession of his friend in Paris, J. R. D. Shepard, "St. Memin'sengraving of his great-grandfather Governor Spaight of North Carolina. "In 1887 and 1888, Dr. Emmet and Mr. Gratz were jointly interested inhaving Albert Rosenthal engrave for them a portrait of Spaight. OnDecember 9, 1887, Gratz wrote to Emmet: "Spaight is worthy of beingetched; though I can scarcely agree with you that our lithograph isnot a portrait of the M. O. C. Is it taken from the original Sharplessportrait, which hangs in our old State House? . . . However if you aresure you have the right man in the photograph sent, we can afford toignore the lithograph. "

33. Hugh Williamson, Emmet 9508, inscribed "Etched by Albert Rosenthalafter Painting by J. Trumbull Phila. 1888, " Rosenthal also painteda copy "after John Wesley Jarvis" for Independence Hall. The two areundoubtedly from the same original source. The Emmet correspondencepresents no information on this subject. 

SOUTH CAROLINA

34. John Rutledge, Emmet 9510, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888 after J. Trumbull. " The original painting was owned by theMisses Rutledge, of Charleston, S. C. 

35. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Emmet 9519, inscribed "Etched by AlbertRosenthal Phila. 1888. Painting by Trumbull. " An oil miniature on woodwas painted by Col. John Trumbull, in 1791, which is in the Yale Schoolof Fine Arts. Pinckney was also painted by Gilbert Stuart and theportrait was owned by the family at Runnymeade, S. C. Trumbull'sportrait shows a younger face. 

36. Charles Pinckney, Emmet 9514, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888. " He also painted a portrait for Independence Hall. They arealike. In the Emmet correspondence the following information, furnishedto Dr. Emmet, is found: "Chas. Pinckney--Mr. Henry L. Pinckney ofStateburg [S. C. ] has a picture of Gov. Pinckney. " The owner of thisportrait was a grandson of the subject. On January 12, 1885, P. G. De Saussure wrote to Emmet: "Half an hour ago I received from thePhotographer two of the Pictures [one being] Charles Pinckney copiedfrom 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 ofDecember 4, 1884, in which he gave its dimensions as "about 3 ft. Nearlysquare, " and added, "it is very precious to me. "

37. Pierce Butler, Emmet 9516, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888. " He also painted a portrait for Independence Hall. They aredissimilar and dubious. Three letters in the Emmet correspondence referto the Butler portraiture. On January 31, 1887, Mrs. Sarah B. Wister, of Philadelphia, wrote to Dr. Emmet: "I enclose photograph copies oftwo miniatures of Maj. Butler wh. Mr. Louis Butler [a bachelor then overseventy years old living in Paris, France] gave me not long ago: I didnot know of their existence until 1882, & never heard of any likeness ofmy great-grandfather, except an oil-portrait wh. Was last seen morethan 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 twominiatures do not strike you as being of the same person. Yet I believethere 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 Ihave no copy of the other left; but four sets were made of wh. I sentyou one & gave the others to his few living descendants. I regretthis all the more as I am reluctant to trust the miniature again toa photographer. I live out of town so that there is some trouble insending & calling for them; (I went personally last time, & there are noother likenesses of my great grandfather extant. )"

GEORGIA

38. William Few, Emmet 9518, inscribed "Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888. " He also painted a portrait "after John Ramage, " forIndependence Hall. They are identical. 

39. Abraham Baldwin, Emmet 9520, inscribed" Etched by Albert RosenthalPhila. 1888. " There is also a painting "after Fulton" in IndependenceHall. They are of the same type but not exactly alike, yet likely fromthe same original. The variations may be just artist's vagaries. Thereis no information in the Emmet correspondence. 

40. William Jackson, Secretary, Emmet 9436, inscribed "Etched by AlbertRosenthal Phila. 1888 after Painting by J. Trumbull. " Rosenthal alsopainted a copy after Trumbull for Independence Hall. They are identical.