FOOTNOTES:
[1111] Though "practical," these methods were honorable, as far as the improper use of money was concerned.
[1112] King to Langdon, June 10, 1788; King, i, 331.
[1113] Hamilton to Madison, May 19, 1788; Works: Lodge, ix, 430. See also ib., 432.
[1114] Knox to King, June 19, 1788; King, i, 335.
[1115] Hill to Thatcher, Jan. 1, 1788; Hist. Mag. (2d Series), vi, 261.
[1116] King to Madison, May 25, 1788; King, i, 329.
[1117] Hamilton to Madison, June 27, 1788; Works: Lodge, ix, 436. Virginia had ratified the Constitution two days before Hamilton wrote this letter, but the news did not reach New York until long afterward.
[1118] Hamilton to Madison, June 8, 1788; Works: Lodge, ix, 432-34.
[1119] Grigsby, i, 8. About three eighths of Virginia's population were slaves valued at many millions of dollars.
[1120] Grigsby, i, footnote to 50; also 32; and see examples given by Judge Scott, in Scott, 235-38.
[1121] Grigsby, i, footnote to 36; and see 29, 62, 339.
[1122] Henry, ii, 339; and Rowland, ii, 223 et seq.
[1123] Rives, ii, 549.
[1124] Randolph to the Speaker of the House of Delegates, Oct. 10, 1787; Elliott, i, 482-91; also Ford: P. on C., 261-76.
[1125] Randolph to Page and others, Dec. 2, 1787; American Museum, iii, 61 et seq.
[1126] Ib.
[1127] Lee to Randolph, Oct. 16, 1787; Elliott, i, 503. Upon the publication of this correspondence a young Richmond attorney, Spencer Roane, the son-in-law of Patrick Henry, in an article signed "Plain Dealer," published in the Virginia Gazette, attacked Randolph for inconsistency. "Good God! How can the first magistrate and father of a pure republican government ... before his proposed plan of amendment has been determined upon, declare that he will accept a Constitution which is to beget a monarchy or an aristocracy?... Can he foretell future events? How else can he at this time discover what the 'spirit of America' is?... How far will this principle carry him? Why, ... if the dominion of Shays, instead of that of the new Constitution, should be generally accepted, and become 'the spirit of America,' his Excellency would turn Shayite." (Plain Dealer to Randolph, Feb. 13, 1788; Ford: Essays on the Constitution, 385; also Branch Hist. Papers, 47.) Roane's letter is important as the first expression of his hostility to the Constitution. He was to become the determined enemy of Marshall; and, as the ablest judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals, the chief judicial foe of Marshall's Nationalism. (See vol. III of this work.)
[1128] "The importunities of some to me in public and private are designed to throw me unequivocally and without condition, into the opposition." (Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; Conway, 101.)
[1129] Washington to Randolph, Jan. 8, 1788; Writings: Ford, xi, 204-06.
[1130] Madison to Randolph, Jan. 10, 1788; Writings: Hunt, v, 79-84; and see same to same, Jan. 20, 1788 (ib., 86-88); and March 3, 1788 (ib., 113-14).
[1131] "If he [Randolph] approves it at all, he will do it feebly." (Washington to Lafayette, April 28, 1788; Writings: Ford, xi, 255; and see Madison to Jefferson, April 22, 1788; Writings: Hunt, v, 121.)
[1132] Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; quoted in Conway, 101.
[1133] "Randolph was still looked upon as an Anti-Federalist by the uninitiated." But his "position ... was evidently no secret to Washington." (Rowland, ii, 210. See also ib., 225, 227, 231.)
[1134] Ib.
[1135] Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; Conway, 101.
[1136] Scott, 160.
[1137] Washington to Carter, Dec. 14, 1787; Writings: Ford, xi, footnote to 210.
[1138] Smith to Madison, June 12, 1788; Rives, ii, footnote to p. 544.
[1139] Ib. "The Baptist interest ... are highly incensed by Henry's opinions and public speeches." (Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; Conway, 101.)
[1140] Smith to Madison, June 12, 1788; Rives, ii, 544.
[1141] Washington to Hamilton, Nov. 10, 1787; Writings: Ford, xi, footnote to p. 181.
[1142] Washington to Trumbull, Feb. 5, 1788; Writings: Ford, 212. From the first Washington attributed much of the opposition throughout the country to the fact that popular leaders believed that the new National Government would lessen their importance in their respective States. "The governors elect or to be elected, the legislators, with a long tribe of others whose political importance will be lessened if not annihilated" were, said Washington, against a strong central Government. (Washington to Knox, Feb. 3, 1787; Sparks, ix, 230; and see Graydon, 340.)
[1143] Washington to Lincoln, April 2, 1788; ib., xi, footnote to 239-40.
[1144] "Letters of a Federal Farmer," no. 3; Ford: P. on C., 301.
[1145] Ib., no. 5, 319.
[1146] Washington to Armstrong, April 25, 1788; Writings: Ford, xi, 252; and to Petit, Aug. 16, 1788; ib., 300.
[1147] Madison to Jefferson, April 22, 1788; Writings: Hunt, v, 120-22.
[1148] Grigsby, i, 34-35; and footnote to 49.
[1149] Grigsby, i, 64-66; and Elliott, iii, 1.
[1150] Rowland, ii, 222.
[1151] Henry, ii, 345. So angered were the Anti-Constitutionalists that they would not correct or revise Robertson's reports of their speeches. (Ib.)
[1152] Elliott, iii, 1.
[1153] Ib., 5-6; also, Journal of the Convention, 7-11.
[1154] Grigsby, i, 69-70. In the descriptions of the dress, manners, and appearance of those who took part in the debate, Grigsby's account has been followed. Grigsby took infinite pains and gave many years to the gathering and verifying of data on these picturesque subjects; he was personally intimate with a large number of the immediate descendants of the members of the Convention and with a few who were eye-witnesses; and his reconstruction of the scenes in the Convention is believed to be entirely accurate.
[1155] Elliott, iii, 3.
[1156] Mason's clause-to-clause resolve was, "contrary to his expectations, concurred in by the other side." (Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788; Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to 124.) And see Washington's gleeful report to the New York Constitutionalists of Mason's error: "This [Mason's resolve] was as unexpected as acceptable to the federalists, and their ready acquiescence seems to have somewhat startled the opposite side for fear they had committed themselves." (Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788; Writings: Ford, xi, 271.)
[1157] Elliott, iii, 4.
[1158] Grigsby, i, 77.
[1159] For a discussion of this tactical blunder of the opponents of the Constitution, see Grigsby, i, 72.
[1160] Elliott, iii, 4.
[1161] Grigsby, i, 75.
[1162] Elliott, iii, 6.
[1163] Ib.
[1164] Grigsby, i, 77.
[1165] Ib., 79.
[1166] Ib., 78, 79, 140, 141, 246, 247.
[1167] Elliott, iii, 7-21.
[1168] Grigsby, i, 76.
[1169] Elliott, iii, 21-23.
[1170] Grigsby, i, 83-84.
[1171] Madison was the real designer of the Virginia plan. (Rives, ii, chap. xxvii.)
[1172] This was the point Washington had made to Randolph. It is interesting that, throughout the debate, Randolph, over and over again, used almost the exact language of Washington's letter.
[1173] Elliott, iii, 23-29. Randolph's speech was apologetic for his change of heart. He was not "a candidate for popularity": he had "satisfied his conscience," etc.
[1174] Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788; Writings: Hunt, v, 124.
[1175] Jefferson to Short, Sept. 20, 1788; quoting a private letter from Virginia of July 12; Works: Ford, v, 431.
[1176] Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788; Writings: Ford, xi, 271.
[1177] Bland to Lee, June 13, 1788; Rowland, ii, 243-44. Evidently the opposition was slow to believe that Randolph had irrevocably deserted them; for Bland's letter was not written until Randolph had made his fourth extended speech ten days later.
[1178] Scott, 160.
[1179] Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788; Writings: Ford, xi, 271.
[1180] From this delay Randolph's enemies have charged that his letter to Clinton was not posted in time. Much as Randolph had to answer for, this charge is unjust. Letters between Richmond and New York sometimes were two or three months on the way. (See supra, chap. VII.)
[1181] Clinton to Randolph, May 8, 1788; Conway, 110-12.
[1182] Clinton to Randolph, May 8, 1788; Conway, 110-12; Henry, ii, 363; Rowland, ii, 276-79; and see infra, chap. XII.
[1183] Randolph's change was ascribed to improper motives. Mason was almost offensive in his insinuations during the debate and Henry openly so, as will appear. Randolph's last words to the Convention were explanatory and defensive.
Washington made Randolph his first Attorney-General and he exercised great power for a time. "The Government is now solely directed by Randolph," complained Jefferson. (Conway, 140.) While Washington certainly did not appoint Randolph as a reward for his conduct in the struggle over the Constitution, it is a reasonable inference that he would not have been made a member of the Cabinet if he had not abandoned his opposition, supported the Constitution, and suppressed Clinton's letter.
Virginia had the head of the Cabinet in Jefferson as Secretary of State; Washington himself was from Virginia; and since there were numerous men from other States as well as or better equipped than Randolph for the Attorney-Generalship, his selection for that place is, at least, noteworthy. It gave Virginia the Presidency and two members of a Cabinet which numbered only four in all.
When the Attorney-Generalship was tendered to Randolph, he wrote to Madison bitterly resenting "the load of calumny which would be poured upon" him if he should accept. "For," writes Randolph, "it has been insinuated ... that my espousal of the Constitution had alienated even its friends from me, who would not elect me to the house of representatives. The insinuation has been carried so far as to apply it to the disposal of offices under the government." (Randolph to Madison, July 19, 1789; Conway, 127-28.)
[1184] Rowland, ii, 308.
[1185] Elliott, iii, 29-34.
[1186] Elliott, iii, 34-35.
[1187] Grigsby, i, 99.
[1188] Those who supported the Constitution were called "Federalists" and its opponents "Anti-Federalists"; but, for sake of clearness, the terms "Constitutionalists" and "Anti-Constitutionalists" are employed in these chapters.
[1189] Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788; Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to 123-24.
[1190] Grigsby, i, footnote to 46.
[1191] Grigsby, i, 101-02. Scenes of a similar character occurred several times in both Senate and House between 1900 and 1911, when one of our elder statesmen, who plainly was nearing the end of life, rose to speak. More than one notable contest, during that decade, was decided by the sympathetic votes of aged friends who answered the call of long years of affection.
[1192] Elliott, iii, 35-41.
[1193] See infra, chap, III; also Grigsby, i, 105-06.
[1194] Ib., 106-09.
[1195] Elliott, iii, 41-43.
[1196] Elliott, iii, 44. The word "revolution" is printed "resolution" in Elliott's Debates. This is a good example of the inaccuracy of Elliott's reprint of Robertson's stenographic report. In Robertson's Debates, published in 1805, the word is correctly printed "revolution." I have cited Elliott only because it is accessible. Even Robertson's report is admittedly meager and unsatisfactory; all the more, therefore, is it to be regretted that Elliott's reprint should be so inaccurate.
[1197] At this point the reporter, unable to follow Henry's speech, notes that he "strongly and pathetically expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America and the horrid consequences that must result." (Elliott, iii, 60.)
[1198] Henry had not heard of the Constitutionalists' bargain with Hancock in Massachusetts.
[1199] Elliott, iii, 43-64.
[1200] General Posey, a Revolutionary officer, who was for the Constitution, afterwards said that Henry's speech made him believe that the Constitution would destroy liberty. Another intelligent man who heard Henry's speech said that when the great orator pictured the President at the head of the army, he felt his own wrists for the shackles, and that his place in the gallery suddenly seemed like a dungeon. (Grigsby, i, 118-19.)
[1201] Grigsby, i, 121.
[1202] Elliott, iii, 64-86. In the debate, much was made of this famous case. Yet Philips was not executed under the provisions of the law Randolph referred to. When arrested, he was indicted, tried, and convicted in the General Court; and he was hanged by sentence of the court, December 4, 1778.
Although, at that time, Randolph was Attorney-General of Virginia and actually prosecuted the case; and although Henry was Governor and ordered the arrest of Philips (Henry, i, 611-13), yet, ten years later, both had forgotten the facts, and Randolph charged, and Henry in reply admitted, that Philips had been executed under the bill of attainder without trial. (Jefferson to Wirt, Oct. 14, 1814; Works: Ford, xi, 407.) The bill of attainder was drawn by Jefferson. It appears in ib., ii, 330-36.
[1203] Again, Randolph's speech was marred by the note of personal explanation that pervaded it. "The rectitude of my intentions"; "ambition and popularity are no objects with me"; "I expect, in the course of a year, to retire to that private station which I most sincerely and cordially prefer to all others,"—such expressions gave to his otherwise aggressive and very able appeal a defensive tone.
[1204] Grigsby, i, 130. Madison's apparel at this Convention was as ornate as his opinions were, in his opponents' eyes, "aristocratic."
[1205] Elliott, iii, 86. See entire speech, ib., 86-96.
[1206] Bushrod Washington to Washington, June 6, 1788; Writings: Sparks, ix, 378. But Madison gave Henry an opening through which that veteran orator drove like a troop of horse, as far as practical and momentary effect was concerned. Madison described the new government as partly National and partly Federal. (Elliott, iii, 94; and see Henry's use of this, ib., 171; also infra.)
[1207] Elliott, iii, 97-103.
[1208] Elliott, iii, 104-14.
[1209] Elliott, iii, 114.
[1210] Ib., 114-28.
[1211] Madison was equaled only by Hamilton in sheer intellectuality, but he was inferior to that colossus in courage and constructive genius.
[1212] Ib., 128-37.
[1213] Madison to Hamilton, June 9, 1788; Hamilton MSS., Lib. Cong. Madison's four famous speeches in this Convention, are properly parts of one comprehensive exposition. (See Madison's own notes for the third of these speeches in Writings: Hunt, v, 148.) Mr. Hunt also prints accurately Robertson's report of the speeches themselves in that volume. They cannot be summarized here, but should be read in full.
[1214] See supra, footnote to 393.
[1215] Elliott, iii, 137-50.