COUNT D'ESTAING.

Charles Henry, Count d'Estaing, admiral and lieutenant-general of the armies of France, before the Revolution, was a native of Ravel, in Auvergne, and was descended from an ancient family in that province. Count d'Estaing commenced his career by serving in the East Indies, under Lally, when he was taken prisoner, and sent home on his parole. Having engaged in hostilities again before he was regularly exchanged, he was taken a second time, and imprisoned at Portsmouth. During the American war, he was employed as vice-admiral.

At the capture of the isle of Grenada, he distinguished himself; but on every occasion he showed more courage than conduct or professional skill. He promoted the Revolution, and in 1789, he was appointed a commander of the National Guards at Versailles. In 1791, he addressed to the national assembly a letter full of protestations of attachment to the constitution, on the occasion of the approaching trial of the king. He suffered under the guillotine in 1793, as a counter-revolutionist, at the age of sixty-five.

[V. FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.]

Original Governments of the Colonies—Union between them—Plan proposed by Dr. Franklin—First Congress—Congress of '74—Confederation—Defects of it—Convention of States proposed by Virginia—Commissioners from five States meet at Annapolis—Powers too limited to act—Recommend a General Convention of States—Delegates appointed—Convention meets at Philadelphia—Decides to form a new Constitution—Draft prepared—Discussed—Adopted—Speech of Dr. Franklin—Constitution signed—Adopted by the several States—Amendments—States admitted since the adoption—Remarks on the Constitution.

The several colonies established in America had governments which varied according as they were charter, proprietary, or royal, which were the three forms of government existing in America prior to the Revolution. In certain particulars, they differed from each other as classes, and the classes differed as individuals. But for a series of years there existed no general political association, or bond of union among them. As early, however, as 1643, the New England colonies, Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, entered into a perpetual alliance, offensive and defensive, for mutual protection against the claims of their Dutch neighbors, and the assaults of their Indian foes. By the articles of this confederation, the jurisdiction of each colony within its own borders was to be exclusive; on the occurrence of war, each one was to furnish its quota of men and provisions, according to its population; and two commissioners from each colony were to hold an annual meeting to decide on all matters of general interest. With some alterations, this confederacy existed more than forty years; it was dissolved only in 1686, when the charters of the New England colonies were vacated by a commissioner from James II. This union was productive of many advantages to the colonies. Besides preserving a mutual good understanding among them, and thus preventing encroachments upon one another's rights, assistance was rendered in their wars with the Indians; without which, it is probable that the more feeble would have been broken up.

In 1754, an attempt at union was made on a more extensive scale. The plan originated in a call from the lords commissioners for trade and the plantations, and consisted of deputies from the New England provinces, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The congress met at Albany. The object proposed by the commissioners was to consider the best means of defence in case of a war with France, and particularly to form an alliance with the Six Nations. Governor Shirley, of Massachusetts, availing himself of the occasion, proposed to the several governors that the delegates should be instructed on the subject of a general union or confederation. This meeting with general approbation, the delegates were so instructed. A plan of union, prepared by Dr. Franklin, was discussed, and substantially adopted—the delegates from Connecticut dissenting.[54] But it received the approbation neither of the colonies nor of the king's council; not by the first, because it was supposed to give too much power to the president-general, who was to be the king's representative; nor by the latter, because too much power was supposed to be given to the representatives of the people.

The foregoing plan having failed, no other attempt at union was made for several years. At length, in 1765, in consequence of the passing of the stamp act by parliament, and other grievances, the assembly of Massachusetts in June of that year adopted the following resolution: "That it is highly expedient there should be a meeting, as soon as may be, of committees from the houses of representatives or burgesses, in the several colonies, to consult on the present circumstances of the colonies, and the difficulties to which they are and must be reduced, and to consider of a general congress, to be held at New York, the first Tuesday of October. A letter was prepared, to be sent to the several speakers, and a committee was chosen for Massachusetts."

In consequence of the proceedings under this recommendation, "on the 7th of October, a congress, consisting of twenty-eight delegates from the assemblies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the Delaware counties, Maryland, and South Carolina, convened in the city of New York, and Timothy Ruggles, of Massachusetts, was chosen president. The first measure of the congress was a declaration of the rights and grievances of the colonists. They were declared to be entitled to all the rights and liberties of natural-born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain; among the most essential of which are, the exclusive power to tax themselves, and the privileges of a trial by jury. The grievance chiefly complained of was the act granting certain stamp duties and other duties in the British colonies, which, by taxing the colonies without their consent, and by extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, was declared to have a direct tendency to subvert their rights and liberties. A petition to the king, and a memorial to each house of parliament, were also agreed on; and it was recommended to the several colonies to appoint special agents, who should unite their utmost endeavors in soliciting redress of grievances. The assemblies of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, were prevented, by their governors, from sending representatives to the congress; but they forwarded petitions to England, similar to those appointed by that body."[55]

In 1774, the grievances of the colonies still continuing, and having been increased by the open assertion of Great Britain of the justice of her pretensions, another congress was assembled at Philadelphia, which consisted of delegates from eleven colonies. In this congress, each colony had one vote. Their principal acts consisted of a declaration of rights, and in spirited addresses to the people of British America and Great Britain, together with a recommendation to the colonies to adopt resolutions of non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption.

The resolutions of this congress received the general sanction of the provincial congress and of the colonial assemblies. Their power was merely advisory; "yet their recommendations," says Dr. Holmes, "were more generally and more effectually carried into execution by the colonies than the laws of the best-regulated state."

But the dissuasive measures adopted by this congress having no effect on the king and his ministers, another congress followed in 1775, "whose pacific efforts to bring about a change in the views of the other party being equally unavailing, and the commencement of actual hostilities having, at length, put an end to all hope of reconciliation, the congress finding, moreover, that the popular voice began to call for an entire and perpetual dissolution of the political ties which had connected them with Great Britain, proceeded on the memorable 4th of July, 1776, to declare the thirteen colonies independent states.

"During the discussions of this solemn act, a committee, consisting of a member from each colony, had been appointed to prepare and digest a form of confederation for the future management of the common interest, which had, hitherto, been left to the discretion of congress, guided by the exigencies of the contest, and by the known intentions, or occasional instructions of the colonial legislatures.

"It appears that as early as the 21st of July, 1775, a plan, entitled 'Articles of Confederation and perpetual union of the Colonies,' had been sketched by Dr. Franklin, the plan being on that day submitted by him to congress; and though not copied into their journals, remaining on their files in his hand-writing. But, notwithstanding the term 'perpetual,' observed in the title, the articles provided expressly for the event of a return of the colonies to a connection with Great Britain.

"This sketch became a basis for the plan reported by the committee on the 12th of July, now also remaining on the files of congress, in the hand-writing of Mr. Dickinson. The plan, though dated after the Declaration of Independence, was probably drawn up before that event; since the name of colonies, not states, is used throughout the draught. The plan reported was debated and amended from time to time, till the 17th of November, 1777, when it was agreed to by congress, and proposed to the legislatures of the states, with an explanatory and recommendatory letter. The ratifications of these, by their delegates in congress, duly authorized, took place at successive dates; but were not completed till the 1st of March, 1781; when Maryland, who had made it a prërequisite that the vacant lands acquired from the British crown should be a common fund, yielded to the persuasion that a final and formal establishment of the federal union and government would make a favorable impression, not only on other foreign nations, but on Great Britain herself."[56]

Under this confederation, the country went through the war. Fortunate it was, however, that the war terminated when it did, as the "rope of sand," as the confederation was called, would probably have served as a bond of union but a few years longer. Indeed, it had received the cordial approbation of none of the colonies—while some of them had, at length, acceded to it rather from necessity than choice.

"The principal difficulties which embarrassed the progress and retarded the completion of the plan of confederation," says Mr. Madison, "may be traced to—first, the natural repugnance of the parties to a relinquishment of power; secondly, a natural jealousy of its abuse in other than hands their own; thirdly, the rule of suffrage among parties whose inequality in size did not correspond with that of their wealth, or of their military or free population; fourthly, the selection and definition of the powers, at once necessary to the federal head, and safe to the several members.

"To these sources of difficulty, incident to the formation of all such confederacies, were added two others, one of a temporary, the other of a permanent nature. The first, was the case of the crown-lands, so called, because they had been held by the British crown; and being ungranted to individuals, when its authority ceased, were considered by the states within whose charters or asserted limits they lay, as devolving on them; while it was contended by the others, that, being wrested from the dethroned authority by the equal exertions of all, they resulted of right and in equity to the benefit of all. The lands, being of vast extent, and of growing value, were the occasion of much discussion and heart-burning, and proved the most obstinate of the impediments to an earlier consummation of the plan of the federal government. The state of Maryland, the last that acceded to it, firmly withheld her assent, till the 1st of March, 1781; and then yielded only in the hope that, by giving a stable and authoritative character to the confederation, a successful termination of the contest might be accelerated. The dispute was happily compromised, by successive surrenders of portions of the territory by the states having exclusive claims to it, and acceptances of them by congress.

"The other source of dissatisfaction was the peculiar situation of some of the states, which, having no convenient ports for foreign commerce, were subject to be taxed by their neighbors, through whose ports their commerce was carried on. New Jersey, placed between Philadelphia and New York, was likened to a cask tapped at both ends; and North Carolina, between Virginia and South Carolina, to a patient bleeding at both arms. The Articles of Confederation provided no remedy for the complaint; which produced a strong protest on the part of New Jersey, and never ceased to be a source of discord, until the new constitution superseded the old.

"But the radical infirmity of the Articles of Confederation was the dependence of congress on the voluntary and simultaneous compliance with its requisitions by so many independent communities, each consulting, more or less, its particular interests and convenience, and distrusting the compliance of the others. While the paper emissions of congress continued to circulate, they were employed as a sinew of war, like gold and silver. When that ceased to be the case, and the fatal defect of the political system was felt in its alarming force, the war was merely kept alive, and brought to a successful conclusion, by such foreign aids and temporary expedients as could be applied; a hope prevailing with many, and a wish with all, that a state of peace, and the sources of prosperity opened by it, would give to the confederacy, in practice, the efficiency which had been inferred in theory."

The close of the war brought no adequate relief. The wealth of the country was exhausted. Congress had no funds, and no means of raising money for the discharge of arrears of pay due to the soldiers of the Revolution, but by an appeal to the legislative assemblies of the several states. Even for their own maintenance, they were dependent upon the assemblies. The legislatures themselves often knew not what to do.

"The distress of the inhabitants was continually on the increase; and in Massachusetts, where it was most felt, an insurrection of a serious character was the consequence. Near the close of the year 1786, the populace assembled, to the number of two thousand, in the north-western part of the state, and, choosing Daniel Shays their leader, demanded that the collection of debts should be suspended, and that the legislature should authorize the emission of paper money for general circulation. Two bodies of militia, drawn from those parts where dissatisfaction did not prevail, were immediately dispatched against them, one under command of General Lincoln, the other of General Shepard. The disaffected were dispersed with less difficulty than had been apprehended, and, abandoning their seditious purposes, adopted the proffered indemnity of the government.

"The time, at length, came, when the public mind gave tokens of being prepared for a change in the constitution of the general government—an occurrence, the necessity of which had long been foreseen by Washington and most of the distinguished patriots of that period. Evil had accumulated upon evil, till the mass became too oppressive to be endured, and the voice of the nation cried out for relief. The first decisive measures proceeded from the merchants, who came forward almost simultaneously in all parts of the country, with representations of the utter prostration of the mercantile interests, and petitions for a speedy and efficient remedy. It was shown, that the advantages of this most important source of national prosperity were flowing into the hands of foreigners, and that the native merchants were suffering for the want of a just protection and a uniform system of trade. The wise and reflecting were convinced that some decided efforts were necessary to strengthen the general government, or that a dissolution of the union, and perhaps a devastating anarchy, would be inevitable."[57]

The first step, which led to the convention of 1787, was taken by Virginia, in a proposition of her legislature, in January, 1786, for a convention of delegates to establish such a system of commercial relations as would promote general harmony and prosperity. The above proposal was cordially approved by Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, and delegates were accordingly appointed by them, in addition to Virginia. These convened at Annapolis, September, 1786; but they had scarcely entered into a discussion of topics, which naturally forced themselves into view, before they discovered the powers with which they were intrusted to be so limited, as to tie up their hands from effecting any purpose that could be of essential utility. On this account, as well as from the circumstance that so few states were represented, they wisely declined deciding on any important measures in reference to the particular subject for which they had come together. This convention is memorable, however, as having been the prelude to the one which followed. Before the commissioners adjourned, a report was agreed upon, in which the necessity of a revision and reform of the articles of the old federal compact was strongly urged, and which contained a recommendation to all the state legislatures "for the appointment of deputies, to meet at Philadelphia, with more ample powers and instructions." This report was sent to congress, as well as to the several states.

In the appointment of delegates, agreeably to the foregoing recommendation, Virginia took the lead. February, 1787, the subject claimed the attention of congress, and the following preamble and resolution were adopted:

"Whereas, there is provision, in the articles of confederation and perpetual union, for making alterations therein, by the assent of a congress of the United States, and of the legislatures of the several states; and whereas experience hath evinced that there are defects in the present confederation, as a means to remedy which, several of the states, and particularly the state of New York, by express instruction to their delegates in congress, have suggested a convention for the purpose expressed in the following resolution, and such convention appearing to be the most probable means of establishing in these states a firm national government—

"Resolved, That, in the opinion of congress, it is expedient, that, on the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, and reporting to congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in congress, and confirmed by the states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of the union."

In consequence of this recommendation, all the states appointed delegates to the convention, excepting Rhode Island.

On the day fixed for the meeting of the deputies in convention, Monday, May 14th, 1787, a small number only had assembled. May 25th, seven states were represented. The deputation from Pennsylvania, proposed George Washington, Esq., late commander-in-chief, for president of the convention,[58] and he was unanimously elected.

Tuesday, March 29th, the convention entered upon the solemn duties of their commission. A question of serious magnitude early engrossed their attention, viz: whether they should amend the old system, or form a new one. For the former object, they had been appointed, congress having limited their power to a revision of the articles of the confederation. But the defects of the old system were so many, and of such magnitude, that, at the session of the convention the above day, Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, submitted fifteen resolutions, as the basis of a new constitution. These resolutions, denominated the Virginia plan, were debated and amended until the 15th of June, when Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey, presented a project for revising the articles of confederation. This was called the Jersey plan,[59] and, on motion of Mr. Patterson, was taken up—the Virginia plan, meanwhile, being postponed.

On the 18th, Mr. Dickinson moved, in committee of the whole, to "postpone the first resolution in Mr. Patterson's plan, in order to take up the following, viz: 'that the Articles of Confederation ought to be revised and amended, so as to render the government of the United States adequate to the exigencies, the preservation, and the prosperity of the union'—the postponement was agreed to by ten states; Pennsylvania, divided." The following day, this substitute was rejected by a vote of six states to four, and one divided. Mr. Patterson's plan was again at large before the committee. Towards the close of the session of the same day, the question was taken upon postponing this latter plan, and carried by a vote of seven states to three, and one divided. Mr. Randolph's, or the Virginia plan, came again under consideration. This was now further discussed to the 23d of June, when, on motion of Mr. Gerry, the proceedings of the convention for the establishment of a national government, except the part relating to an executive, were referred to a committee, to prepare and report a constitution conformable thereto. This committee consisted of Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Gorham, Mr. Ellsworth, and Mr. Wilson. "On the 26th of the same month, those relating to the executive having been adopted, they, with various other propositions submitted by individuals, were referred to the same committee, and the committee adjourned to the 6th of August, when the committee reported a draft of a constitution. This was under debate until the 9th of September, and underwent many material alterations. A committee, consisting of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hamilton, G. Morris, Mr. Madison, and Mr. King, was then selected 'to revise the style and arrange the articles.' The manner in which these eminent scholars and statesmen performed the duty assigned them, appears from the great precision and accuracy of the language of the constitution, as well as the happy arrangement of its various articles."

The report of this committee was made on the 12th of September, and further debated till the 16th, when the constitution as amended was agreed to by all states, and ordered to be engrossed.

On the following day, September 17th, after the reading of the constitution as engrossed, the venerable Franklin rose, and putting a written speech into the hands of Mr. Wilson, requested him to read it:

"Mr. President: I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them; for having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men, indeed, as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. Steele, a protestant, in a dedication, tells the pope, that the only difference between our churches, in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines, is, 'the church of Rome is infallible, and the church of England is never in the wrong.' But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who, in a dispute with her sister, said, 'I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.'

"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this constitution, with all its faults, if they are such, because I think a general government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. I doubt, too, whether any other convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better constitution. For when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble, with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly, can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded, like those of the builders of Babel; and that our states are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, sir, to this constitution, because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us, in returning to our constituents, were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partisans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all its salutary effects and great advantages, resulting naturally in our favor among foreign nations, as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength and efficiency of any government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends on opinion—on the general opinion of the goodness of the government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its governors. I hope, therefore, that for our own sakes, as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this constitution (if approved by congress and confirmed by the conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts and endeavors to the means of having it well administered.

"On the whole, sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the convention, who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." He then moved that the constitution be signed by the members, and offered the following as a convenient form, viz: "Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the states present, the 17th of September, &c. In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names."

The motion of Dr. Franklin to sign by states was objected to by several of the members, but was agreed to—all the states answering "ay."

While the last members were signing their names, Dr. Franklin, looking towards the president's chair, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that painters had found it difficult to distinguish, in their art, a rising from a setting sun. I have, said he, often and often, in the course of the session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the president, without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting; but now, at length, I have the happiness to know that it is a rising, and not a setting sun.[60]

Franklin.

During the deliberations of the convention, several questions of deep interest arose; but none, perhaps, more exciting than that which related to the relative weight of the states in the two branches of the national legislature. The small states, at length, consented that the right of suffrage in the house should be in proportion to the whole number of white or other free citizens in each, including those bound to service for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons. While they yielded this point, they insisted on an equal vote in the senate.

To this, the larger states objected; and, on this question, they remained for a time about equally divided. "On the first trial, in committee of the whole, six states against five decided that the right of suffrage in the senate should be the same as in the house; the states of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, being in the affirmative, and Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland in the negative.

"On the 29th of June, the question was again presented to the consideration of the convention, in a motion made by Mr. Ellsworth, "that in the second branch, each state should have an equal vote." We cannot pretend to give even an outline of the arguments in favor and against this motion. The debate was warm and exciting. For several days, the powers of mighty minds were in animated collision; and from the strong ramparts behind which the respective parties had apparently entrenched themselves, there was, for a time, little prospect of union on the question.

"On the 23d of July, the question was taken, on the motion of Mr. Ellsworth, that in the senate each state should have one vote; and five states were in favor of it, five against it, and one divided; and the motion was lost. This equal division on a subject of such importance, accompanied with so much warmth on both sides, seemed to present an insurmountable obstacle to further proceedings of the convention, without some compromise. To effect this, Charles C. Pinckney, of South Carolina, moved for the appointment of a committee, to take into consideration the subject of both branches of the legislature. This motion prevailed, though not without opposition. Some of the members were in favor of appointing a committee, though they had little expectation of a favorable result. Mr. Martin, of Maryland, declared that each state must have an equal vote, or the business of the convention was at an end.

"Mr. Sherman said, we have got to a point that we cannot move one way or the other; a committee is necessary to set us right. Mr. Gerry observed, that the world expected something from them: if we do nothing, we must have war and confusion—the old confederation would be at an end. Let us see if concessions cannot be made—accommodation is absolutely necessary, and defects may be amended by a future convention.

"Thus the convention was at a stand. Hopes were indeed entertained that unanimity of views might on some basis prevail; but the longer continuance of the debate, in the then existing state of the convention, it was apparent, was engendering no good."

Fully sensible that nothing could be effected but upon a principle of compromise, the convention proceeded to elect, by ballot, a committee[61] of one from each state, to report on this exciting subject, and adjourned for three days. The interval was one of great anxiety; neither party appeared inclined to recede from the position it had taken, and the great objects for which the convention had assembled were apparently to be lost. And who could foresee the result? But at this most critical juncture, God did not forsake the nation. He had borne her forward, and now his spirit was felt in his becalming influence upon the convention. On rëassembling, the above committee made a report, which being accepted, the deliberations of the convention proceeded with greater unanimity, until, at length, a constitution was agreed upon.

The convention recommended that the constitution should be submitted to state conventions, and that as soon as the same should have been ratified by a constitutional majority, congress should take measures for the election of a president, and fix the time for commencing proceedings under it. Among the states, great diversity of opinion prevailed respecting this constitution; and, for a time, it was doubtful whether it would receive the approbation of a majority. But, at length, not only this number was obtained, but all gave their assent, and in the following order:

By convention ofDelaware,December 7, 1787
 "   " Pennsylvania,December 12, 1787
 "   " New Jersey,December 18, 1787
 "   " Georgia,January2, 1788
 "   " Connecticut,January 9, 1788
 "   " Massachusetts,February 6, 1788
 "   " Maryland,April 28, 1788
 "   " South Carolina,May 23, 1788
 "   " New Hampshire,June 21, 1788
 "   " Virginia,June 26, 1788
 "   " New York,July 26, 1788
 "   " North Carolina,November 21, 1789
 "   " Rhode Island,May 29, 1790

"At the first session of the first congress, the senate and house of representatives, two-thirds concurring, recommended to the states the adoption of twelve amendments to the constitution, chiefly relating to the freedom of speech and of the press—the right of petition—trial by jury—bail—election of president, &c. Ten of these amendments were adopted by three-fourths of the legislatures of the states, and became a part of the constitution. Subsequently, two other amendments were added."

"The peaceable adoption of this government," says Chancellor Kent, "under all the circumstances which attended it, presented the case of an effort of deliberation, combined with a spirit of amity and mutual concession, which was without example. It must be a source of just pride, and of the most grateful recollection to every American who reflects seriously on the difficulty of the experiment, the manner in which it was conducted, the felicity of its issue, and the fate of similar trials in other nations of the earth."

The opinions which prevailed in the convention of 1787, as to the addition of new states, are worthy of notice. On one occasion, Mr. Sherman said, "there is no probability that the number of future states will exceed that of the existing states. If the event should ever happen, it is too remote to be taken into consideration at this time." But little more than half a century has elapsed, and the original number has more than doubled, as may be seen by the following account of the states admitted:

Vermont,March4,1791.
Kentucky,June1,1791.
Tennessee,June1,1796.
Ohio,November29,1802.
Louisiana,April8,1812.
Indiana,December11,1816.
Mississippi,December10,1817.
Illinois,December3,1818.
Alabama,December14,1819.
Maine,March15,1820.
Missouri,August10,1821.
Arkansas,June15,1836.
Michigan,January26,1837.
Florida,March3,1845.
Texas,December29,1845.
Iowa,December28,1846.
Wisconsin,May29,1848.
Congress assumed jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, Feb. 27, 1801.

The constitution, of the formation and adoption of which we have thus given an account, has been in existence more than sixty years. Meanwhile, what changes in empires and governments have been effected in other portions of the globe! Monarchs have been hurled from their thrones—or have waged war, and expended millions to retain them. Their subjects, degraded and oppressed, have sighed and struggled for liberty, but only to find the chains of servitude drawn more closely around them. Not until recently, have the nations of Europe seemed to realize that an improvement in their political condition was possible. They are, indeed, just now making an effort to throw off the yoke and fetters; but what will be the result of their experiments, no sagacity can well foresee.

The American people may well congratulate themselves upon the realization of so many of their early hopes. God has helped them; and never should his kind and protecting care be overlooked; nor his interpositions in days of darkness and perplexity be forgotten. That was a glorious struggle, through which they passed, and which resulted in their emancipation from British oppression. But I know not whether the intervening hand of Providence was more conspicuous in that contest, than in leading our statesmen to the formation of the constitution, or so many independent states, whose interests were apparently so conflictive, or whose minds were so diverse, to its unanimous adoption.

And why has it lasted? Why have we not presented to the world, the same feverish and changeful disposition, which has characterized our sister republics of the South? Not one of the latter, scarcely, has passed a single ten years, without intestine commotions—or some change of their constitutions—or some radical alteration of their political principles. And their people—what portions of them have dwelt securely—or experienced a moiety of the advantages and prosperity that have blessed this Northern confederacy?

The constitution of the United States has been, and is, the wonder and admiration of the civilized world. How is such a national sovereignty as that constitution contemplates and creates, compatible with so many independent state sovereignties! Who could imagine that there could exist such efficiency in the one, and yet such harmony among the others! To the friends of monarchy, the mystery is nearly inexplicable; and it seems quite impossible for the statesmen of other countries, however desirous they may be, so to understand the theory and practice of our national and state governments, as to conform them to the circumstances of any other people on the globe.

If it be inquired how the framers of our constitution should have devised such a government, and shaped it to meet the wants of a people in some respects one, and in other respects so diverse, the most intelligent and truthful answer is—God superintended and guided them; not by immediate inspiration, but they served a long training; from the very settlement of the country, and in the circumstances which led our fathers to these shores, there was a work of preparation. And when the time came, there was the patriotism—the self-denial—the intelligence—the political wisdom—which were necessary to devise and perfect our glorious constitution.

But will it last?—Last! Should an American citizen ever indulge a thought to the contrary? But such thoughts will crowd in, and cause anxiety to the patriot. When he looks over the pages of past history, and reads the rise and fall of ancient republics—and by what means they perished—by their own hands—and by means of their prosperity—and then casts his eyes over his own country, and witnesses the thrift, the wealth, the expanding strength and glory of that country—he will ask, will our constitution stand?—will it continue to unite a people separated into so many and so distant states? Especially will he have reason for solicitude and doubt, when he dwells upon the great and grave questions which are rising up, and are dividing the North and the South—the East and the West. Our congress is already nearly a battle-field. Our presses, in different sections, are waging war upon one another, fierce and vindictive; our whole people are divided up into parties—with sectional interests and sectional jealousies.

Will the constitution, then, stand? We cannot say that there is no danger; but there is ground of hope and courage. Let the religion and patriotism of our fathers, be cultivated—let our unquenchable love of liberty, and a profound reverence for the constitution and the union, be instilled into the minds of our children from their earliest days of thought and reflection, and that noble instrument, and that glorious union, will continue for generations to come.

I cannot better close these observations than by citing some forcible and eloquent remarks of the late Judge Story, addressed to the American youth.—"Let the American youth," says he, "never forget that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of our ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and safely guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life—the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, of property, of religion, and of independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments are beautiful, as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order; and its defences are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may justly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour, by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, the people. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are banished from the public councils because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."

[VI. GEORGE WASHINGTON, PRESIDENT.]