History of the Origin, Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 1 / With Notices of Its Principle Framers

by George Ticknor Curtis

FOOTNOTES:

[1] In citing the "Madison Papers," I have constantly referred to the edition contained in the fifth (supplementary) volume of Mr. Jonathan Elliot's "Debates," &c., because it is more accessible to general readers. The accuracy of that publication, and its full and admirable Index, make it a very important volume to be consulted in connection with the subject of this work. In this relation, I may suggest the desirableness of a new and carefully revised edition of the Journals of the old Congress;—an enterprise that should be the care of the national government. A great magazine of materials for our national history, from the first Continental Congress to the adoption of the Constitution, exists in those Journals.

[2] Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, § 160.

[3] That a union of the colonies into one general government, for any purpose, could not take place without the sanction of Parliament, was always assumed in both countries. The sole instance in which a plan of union was publicly proposed and acted upon, before the Revolution, was in 1753-4, when the Board of Trade sent instructions to the Governor of New York to make a treaty with the Six Nations of Indians; and the other colonies were also instructed to send commissioners to be present at the meeting, so that all the provinces might be comprised in one general treaty, to be made in the King's name. It was also recommended by the home government, that the commissioners at this meeting should form a plan of union among the colonies for their mutual protection and defence against the French. Twenty-five commissioners assembled at Albany in May, 1754, from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. In this body, a plan of union was digested and adopted, which was chiefly the work of Dr. Franklin. It was agreed that an act of Parliament was necessary to authorize it to be carried into effect. It was rejected by all the colonial Assemblies before which it was brought, and in England it was not thought proper by the Board of Trade to recommend it to the King. In America it was considered to have too much of prerogative in it, and in England to be too democratic. It was a comprehensive scheme of government, to consist of a Governor-General, or President-General, who was to be appointed and supported by the crown, and a Grand Council, which was to consist of one member chosen by each of the smaller colonies, and two or more by each of the larger. Its duties and powers related chiefly to defence against external attacks. It was to have a general treasury, to be supplied by an excise on certain articles of consumption. See the history and details of the scheme, in Sparks's Life and Works of Franklin, I. 176, III. 22-55; Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, III. 23; Trumbull's History of Connecticut, II. 355; Pitkin's History of the United States, I. 140-146. In 1788, Franklin said of it: "The different and contradictory reasons of dislike to my plan make me suspect that it was really the true medium; and I am still of opinion it would have been happy for both sides, if it had been adopted. The colonies so united would have been sufficiently strong to have defended themselves: there would have been no need of troops from England: of course the subsequent pretext for taxing America, and the bloody contest it occasioned, would have been avoided. But such mistakes are not new: history is full of the errors of states and princes." (Life, by Sparks, I. 178.) We may not join in his regrets now.

[4] It is not certain by whom the first suggestion of a Continental Congress was made. Thomas Cushing, Speaker of the Massachusetts Assembly, and a correspondent of Dr. Franklin, appears to have expressed to him the opinion, previously to the date of Franklin's official letter quoted in the text, that a congress would grow out of the committees of correspondence which had been recommended by the Virginia House of Burgesses. But Mr. Sparks thinks that no other direct and public recommendation of the measure can be found before the date of Franklin's letter to the Massachusetts Assembly. Sparks's Life of Franklin, I. 350, note. In the early part of the year 1774, the necessity of such a congress began to be popularly felt throughout all the colonies. Sparks's Washington, II. 326.

[5] These delegates were Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison, and Edmund Pendleton.

[6] Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, Robert Treat Paine, James Bowdoin, and John Adams.

[7] The delegates in the Congress of 1774 from New Hampshire were appointed by a Convention of Deputies chosen by the towns, and received their credentials from that Convention. In Rhode Island, they were appointed by the General Assembly, and commissioned by the Governor. In Connecticut, they were appointed and instructed by the Committee of Correspondence for the Colony, acting under authority conferred by the House of Representatives. In New York, the mode of appointment was various. In the city and county of New York, the delegates were elected by popular vote taken in seven wards. The same persons were also appointed to act for the counties of West Chester, Albany, and Duchess, by the respective committees of those counties; and another person was appointed in the same manner for the county of Suffolk. The New York delegates received no other instructions than those implied in the certificates, "to attend the Congress and to represent" the county designated. In New Jersey, the delegates were appointed by the committees of counties, and were simply instructed "to represent" the Colony. In Pennsylvania, they were appointed and instructed by the House of Assembly. In the counties of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex on Delaware, delegates were elected by a convention of the freemen assembled in pursuance of circular letters from the Speaker of the House of Assembly. In Maryland, the appointment was by committees of the counties. In Virginia, it was by a popular convention of the whole Colony. In South Carolina, it was by the House of Commons. Georgia was not represented in this Congress.

[8] Journals, I. 1, 12.

[9] The President and Secretary appear to have been chosen viva voce or by a hand vote. John Adam's Works, II. 365.

[10] Adams, II. 366.

[11] This opinion, we are told by Mr. Adams, was advanced by Patrick Henry. See notes of the debate, in Adams, II. 366, 368.

[12] See the very interesting notes of their debates in Adams's Works, II. 366, 370-377.

[13] Journals, I. 10.

[14] The instructions embraced in the credentials of the delegates to the first Congress were as follows:—New Hampshire,—"to devise, consult, and adopt such measures as may have the most likely tendency to extricate the colonies from their present difficulties; to secure and perpetuate their rights, liberties, and privileges; and to restore that peace, harmony, and mutual confidence which once happily subsisted between the parent country and her colonies." Massachusetts,—"to deliberate and determine upon wise and proper measures, to be by them recommended to all the colonies, for the recovery and establishment of their just rights and liberties, civil and religious, and the restoration of union and harmony between Great Britain and the colonies, most ardently desired by all good men." Rhode Island,—"to meet and join with the other commissioners or delegates from the other colonies in consulting upon proper measures to obtain a repeal of the several acts of the British Parliament for levying taxes upon his Majesty's subjects in America without their consent, and particularly the commercial connection of the colonies with the mother country, for the relief of Boston and the preservation of American liberty." Virginia,—"to consider of the most proper and effectual manner of so operating on the commercial connection of the colonies with the mother country, as to procure redress for the much injured Province of Massachusetts Bay, to secure British America from the ravage and ruin of arbitrary taxes, and speedily to procure the return of that harmony and union so beneficial to the whole empire, and so ardently desired by all British America." South Carolina,—"to consider the acts lately passed and bills depending in Parliament with regard to the port of Boston and Colony of Massachusetts Bay, which acts and bills, in the precedent and consequences, affect the whole continent of America;—also the grievances under which America labors by reason of the several acts of Parliament that impose taxes or duties for raising a revenue, and lay unnecessary restraints and burdens on trade;—and of the statutes, parliamentary acts, and royal instructions, which make an invidious distinction between his Majesty's subjects in Great Britain and America; with full power and authority to concert, agree to, and effectually prosecute such legal measures as, in the opinion of the said deputies and of the deputies so to be assembled, shall be most likely to obtain a repeal of the said acts and a redress of these grievances." The delegates from New York and New Jersey were simply instructed "to represent" those colonies in the Congress. Journals, I. 2-9.

[15] Letter of the Congress to Governor Gage, October 10, 1774. Journals, I. 25, 26.

[16] Additions were made to it.

[17] Works of John Adams.

[18] See the origin of these expressions explained, in Adams's Works, II. 373-375.

[19] Journals, I. 29.

[20] Ibid. They adopted also an Address to the People of Great Britain, and a Petition to the King, embodying similar principles with those asserted in the Declaration of Rights. Ibid. 38, 67.

[21] Journals, I. 21.

[22] This association, signed by the delegates, of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, as well as of the other colonies, contained, among other things, the following agreement:—"We will neither import nor purchase any slaves imported after the first day of December next; after which time we will wholly discontinue the slave-trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures, to those who are concerned in it." Journals, I. 33.

[23] Journals, I. 56. Oct. 22, 1774.

[24] Peyton Randolph, President of the first and reëlected President of the second Congress, died very suddenly at Philadelphia on the 22d of October, 1775, and was succeeded in that office by John Hancock. Mr. Randolph was one of the most eminent of the Virginia patriots, and an intimate friend of Washington. Richard Henry Lee wrote to Washington, on the day after his death, that "in him American liberty lost a powerful advocate, and human nature a sincere friend." He was formerly Attorney-General of Virginia, and in 1753 went to England as agent of the House of Burgesses, to procure the abolition of a fee, known as the pistole fee, which it had been the custom of the Governors of Virginia to charge for signing land patents, as a perquisite of their office. He succeeded in getting the fee abolished in cases where the quantity of land exceeded one hundred acres. He was commander of a company of mounted volunteers called the Gentlemen Associators, who served in the French war. He was President of the Virginia Convention, as well as a Delegate in Congress, at the time of his death. Sparks's Washington, II. 58, 161; III. 139, 140; XII. 420.

[25] In Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, they were made in December; in Connecticut, in November; in New Jersey, in January; in South Carolina, in February; in the Lower Counties on Delaware and in Virginia, in March; in North Carolina, on the 5th of April; and in New York, on the 22d of April.

[26] Virginia renewed her delegation for one year from the 11th of August, 1775, and Maryland hers with powers to act until the 25th of March, 1776. These new delegations, as well as that of Georgia, appeared on the 13th of September, 1775. On the 16th of September, a renewed delegation appeared from New Hampshire, without limitation of time; Connecticut sent a new delegation on the 16th of January, 1776, and Massachusetts did the same on the 31st of January, for the year 1776. The persons of the delegates were not often changed.

[27] Journals, I. 81, 82.

[28] May 15, 1775. Journals, I. 162.

[29] Journals, I. 112.

[30] Form of enlistment, Journals, I. 118.

[31] Ibid.

[32] See note at end of the chapter.

[33] Secret Journals of Congress, I. 18; Pitkin's History of the United States, I. 334, 335.

[34] Journals, I. 122.

[35] June 16-July 4, 1775. Journals, I. 112-133.

[36] Journals, I. 125, June 23, 1775. Ibid., I. 185, July 29, 1775.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Journals, I. 186, July 29, 1775. Michael Hillegas and George Clymer, Esquires, were elected Treasurers.

[39] Journals, I. 177, 178, July 26, 1775. Dr. Franklin was elected Postmaster-General for one year, and until another should be appointed by a future Congress.

[40] Journals, I. 106.

[41] Journals, I. 170.

[42] Journals, I. 285.

[43] Journals, I. 161, 162.

[44] Journals, II. 112, 141, 163, 201, 255, 302, 304.

[45] Journals, I. 213; II. 5.

[46] June 9, 1775.

[47] November 3, 1775.

[48] December 4, 1775.

[49] Journals, I. 115.

[50] Journals, I. 231, 235, 279.

[51] Annual Register.

[52] May 10, 1776. Journals, II. 166, 174.

[53] Richard Henry Lee, the mover of this resolution, was born on the 20th of June, 1732, at Stratford, Westmoreland County, Virginia. His earlier education was completed in England, whence he returned in his nineteenth year. Possessed of a good fortune, he devoted himself to public affairs. At the age of twenty-five, he entered the House of Burgesses, where he became a distinguished advocate of republican doctrines, and a strenuous opponent of the right claimed by Parliament to tax the colonies, of the Stamp Act, and of the other arbitrary measures of the home government, coöperating with Patrick Henry in all his great patriotic efforts. He was the author of the plan adopted by the House of Burgesses in 1773, for the formation of committees of correspondence, to be organized by the colonial legislatures, and out of which grew the plan of the Continental Congress. In 1774, he was elected one of the delegates from Virginia to the Congress, in which body, from his known ability as a political writer and his services in the popular cause, he was placed on the committees to prepare the addresses to the King, to the People of Great Britain, and to the People of the Colonies, the last of which he wrote. In the second Congress, he was selected to move the resolution of Independence; and besides serving on other very important committees, he furnished, as chairman of the committee instructed to prepare them, the commission and instructions to General Washington. As mover of the resolution of Independence, he would, according to the usual practice, have been made chairman of the committee to prepare the Declaration; but on the 10th of June, the day when the subject was postponed, he was obliged to leave Congress, and return home for a short time, on account of the illness of some member of his family. He came back to Congress and remained a member until June, 1777, when he went home on account of ill health. In August, 1778, he was again elected a member, and continued to serve until 1780; but from feeble health was compelled to take a less active part than he had taken in former years. He was out of Congress from 1780 until 1784, when he was elected its President, but retired at the end of the year. He was opposed to the Constitution of the United States, but voted in Congress to submit it to the people. After its adoption, he was elected one of the first Senators under it from Virginia, and in that capacity moved and carried several amendments. In 1792, his continued ill health obliged him to retire from public life. He died June 19, 1794.

[54] Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and R. R. Livingston.

[55] See note at the end of the chapter.

[56] On the 24th of June, 1776, the Congress declared, by resolution, that "all persons abiding within any of the United Colonies, and deriving protection from the laws of the same, owed allegiance to the said laws, and were members of such colony; and that all persons passing through or making a temporary stay in any of the colonies, being entitled to the protection of the laws, during the time of such passage, visitation, or temporary stay, owed, during the same, allegiance thereto." Journals, II. 216.

[57] The title of "The United States of America" was formally assumed in the Articles of Confederation, when they came to be adopted. But it was in use, without formal enactment, from the date of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. On the 9th of September, 1776, it was ordered that in all continental commissions and other instruments, where the words "United Colonies" had been used, the style should be altered to the "United States." Journals, II. 349.

[58] Journals, II. 263, 320; III. 123, 502, 513.

[59] From June 11, 1776, to November 17, 1777.

[60] Sparks's Washington, III. 20, note.

[61] Works, III. 20.

[62] Ibid. 46.

[63] Ibid. 47.

[64] Ibid. 55.

[65] Ibid. 56.

[66] Letters of General Washington to the President of Congress, September 21, 1775 (Works, III. 98); October 30, 1775 (Ibid. 137); November 8, 1775 (Ibid. 146).

[67] Letters of General Washington to Joseph Reed, November 8, 1775 (Works, III. 150); November 28, 1775 (Ibid. 177); and to the President of Congress, December 4, 1775 (Ibid. 184); to Governor Cooke of Connecticut, December 5, 1775 (Ibid. 188).

[68] Journals of Congress, II. 208, September 29, 1775.

[69] Writings of Washington, III. 123, note.

[70] February 9, 1776 (Works, III. 278).

[71] Mr. Jefferson once said to my kinsman, Mr. George Ticknor, that when they had any doubtful and difficult measure to carry in this Congress, they counted the four New England colonies, and Virginia, as sure; and then they looked round to see where they could get two more, to make the needful majority.

[72] The General Assembly of New York met on the 10th of January, 1775, and by a small majority refused to approve of the non-importation association formed by the first Congress, and also declined to appoint delegates to the second Congress, which was to assemble in May. They adopted, however, a list of grievances, which was substantially the same with that which had been put forth by the first Congress. Towards the close of the session, in the absence of some of the patriotic members, petitions to the King and to Parliament were adopted, which differed somewhat from the principles contained in their list of grievances, and in which they disapproved "of the violent measures that had been pursued in some of the colonies." But the people of New York generally conformed to the non-importation agreement; and on the 20th of April they met in convention and appointed delegates to the second Congress, "to concert and determine upon such matters as shall be judged most advisable for the preservation and reëstablishment of American rights and privileges." Pitkin's History of the United States, I. 324.

[73] "I do not mean," the orders continued, "that they should be kept in close confinement. If either of these bodies should incline to send them to any interior towns, upon their parole not to leave them until they are released, it will meet with my concurrence. For the present, I shall avoid giving you the like order in respect to the Tories in Portsmouth; but the day is not far off, when they will meet with this, or a worse fate, if there is not a considerable reformation in their conduct." Writings of Washington, III. 158, 159.

[74] Writings of Washington, III. 230, note.

[75] Writings of Washington, III. 230, note. See also Marshall's Life of Washington, II. 285-287.

[76] Writings of Washington, III. 230.

[77] Ibid., note.

[78] Journals of Congress, II. 7-9. January 3, 1776. Congress had, on the 2d of January, passed resolves, recommending to the different assemblies, conventions, and committees or councils of safety, to restrain the Tories, and had declared that they ought to be disarmed, and the more dangerous of them kept in custody. For this purpose, the aid of the continental troops stationed in or near the respective colonies was tendered to the local authorities. Journals, II. 4, 5.

[79] The resolves of the Congress on this subject amounted to an outlawry of the persons against whom they were directed. They were introduced by a preamble, reciting the disaffection of a majority of the inhabitants of Queen's County, evinced by their refusal to elect deputies to the convention of the colony, by their public declaration of a design to remain inactive spectators of the contest, and their general want of public spirit; and declaring, that "those who refuse to defend their country should be excluded from its protection, and prevented from doing it injury." The first resolve then proceeded to declare that all the inhabitants of Queen's County named in a list of delinquents published by the Convention of New York be put out of the protection of the United Colonies, that all trade and intercourse with them cease, and that no inhabitant of that county be permitted to travel or abide in any part of the United Colonies, out of that county, without a certificate from the Convention or Committee of Safety of New York, setting forth that such inhabitant is a friend to the American cause, and not of the number of those who voted against sending deputies to the Convention; and that any inhabitant found out of the county, without such certificate, be apprehended and imprisoned three months. The second resolve declared that any attorney or lawyer who should commence, prosecute, or defend any action at law, for any inhabitant of Queen's County who voted against sending deputies to the Convention, ought to be treated as an enemy to the American cause. The fourth resolve directed that Colonel Nathaniel Heard, of Woodbridge, N. J., should march, with five or six hundred minute-men, to the western part of Queen's County, and that Colonel Waterbury, of Stamford, Connecticut, with the same number of minute-men, march to the eastern side; that they confer together and endeavor to enter the county on the same day, and that they proceed to disarm every person in the county who voted against sending deputies to the Convention, and cause them to deliver up their arms and ammunition on oath, and confine in safe custody, until further orders, all those who should refuse compliance. These resolves were passed on the 3d of January, 1776, and were reported by a committee on the state of New York. On the 10th of January, on account of "the great distance from Colonel Heard to Colonel Waterbury, and the difficulty of coöperating with each other in their expedition into Queen's County," Congress directed Lord Stirling to furnish Colonel Heard with three companies from his command, who were to join Colonel Heard with his minute-men, and proceed immediately on the expedition; and also directed Heard to inform Waterbury that his services would not be required. Journals, II. 21.

[80] He received this impression from General Lee, who wrote on the 16th of January and informed him that Colonel Waterbury had "received orders to disband his regiment, and the Tories are to remain unmolested till they are joined by the King's assassins." Sparks's Life of Gouverneur Morris, I. 75.

[81] Letter to General Lee, January 23, 1776. Writings of Washington, III. 255.

[82] Marshall's Life of Washington, II., Appendix, xvii.

[83] Letter to General Lee, January 31, 1776. Writings of Washington, III. 275.

[84] February 6, 1776. Journals, II. 51.

[85] Sparks's Life of Gouverneur Morris, I. 75, 76. They wished to "save appearances with the [enemy's] ships of war, till at least the month of March."

[86] January 26, 1776. Journals, II. 39.

[87] January 30.

[88] March 14, 1776. Journals, II. 91.

[89] Letter of General Washington to the President of Congress.

[90] Resolve passed October 5, 1775. Journals of Congress, II. 197.

[91] These vessels were fitted out from the ports of Salem, Beverly, Marblehead, and Plymouth. They were officered and manned chiefly by sea-captains and sailors who happened to be at that time in the army. They sailed under instructions from General Washington, to take and seize all vessels in the ministerial service, bound into or out of Boston, having soldiers, arms and ammunition, or provisions on board, and to send them into the nearest port, under a careful prize-master, to wait his further directions. The first person commissioned in this way by the Commander-in-chief was Captain Nicholas Broughton of Marblehead, who sailed in the schooner Hannah, fitted out at Beverly; and in his instructions he was described as "a captain in the army of the United Colonies of North America," and was directed to take the command of "a detachment of said army, and proceed on board the schooner Hannah, lately fitted out, &c. at the continental expense." Another of these vessels, called the Lee, was commanded by Captain John Manly. The names of three others of them were the Harrison, the Washington, and the Lynch. The name of the sixth vessel is not known, but the names of the four other captains were Selman, Martindale, Coit, and Adams. (Writings of Washington, III. 516.) When Washington received directions from the President of Congress to send two vessels to the mouth of the St. Lawrence, he wrote, on the 12th of October, that one of these vessels was then out, and that two of them would be despatched as directed, immediately. (Ibid., III. 124.) In the course of a few weeks, they were all out.

[92] Letter to the President of Congress, November 11, 1775. Writings of Washington, III. 154.

[93] Journals, I. 260.

[94] On the 4th of December, he repeated his former recommendation to the President of Congress. (Writings of Washington, III. 184.) On the 26th of December, he wrote to Richard Henry Lee, in Congress, begging him to use his influence in having a court of admiralty or some power appointed to hear and determine all matters relative to captures; saying, "You cannot conceive how I am plagued on this head, and how impossible it is for me to hear and determine upon matters of this sort, when the facts, perhaps, are only to be ascertained at ports forty, fifty, or more miles distant, without bringing the parties here [Cambridge] at great trouble and expense. At any rate, my time will not allow me to be a competent judge of this business." Ibid., III. 217.

[95] Letter to the President of Congress, February 9, 1776. Ibid., III. 282. Letter to Joseph Reed, February 10, 1776. Ibid., III. 284.

[96] Ibid., III. 370.

[97] This was the emission ordered on the 23d of June, 1775. There were forty-nine thousand bills of each denomination from one dollar to eight dollars, inclusive, and eleven thousand eight hundred bills of the denomination of twenty dollars. The form of the bills was as follows (Journals, I. 126):—

Continental Currency.

No. ________________ Dollars.

This Bill entitles the Bearer to receive ________________ Spanish milled Dollars, or the value thereof in Gold or Silver, according to the Resolutions of the Congress, held at Philadelphia on the 10th day of May, A. D. 1775.

[98] Journals, I. 177.

[99] Journals, I. 126, 177. The signers of the bills were allowed a commission of one dollar and one third of a dollar on each thousand of the bills signed by them. Ibid.

[100] Ante, p. 35.

[101] Writings of Washington, III. 104, 167, 173, 178, 283.

[102] Writings of Washington, III. 278; IV. 115; V. 328. Mr. Sparks has preserved an anecdote, which shows the perpetuation of this feeling about standing armies, and evinces also that Washington possessed more humor than has been generally attributed to him. In the Convention for forming the Constitution of the United States, some member proposed to insert a clause in the Constitution, limiting the army of the United States to five thousand men. General Washington, who was in the chair, observed that he should not object to such a clause, if it were so amended as to provide that no enemy should ever presume to invade the United States with more than three thousand.

[103] Washington's Writings, III. 403.

[104] Writings of Washington, IV. 72.

[105] Writings of Washington, IV. 100.

[106] Letter to the President of Congress, Washington's Writings, IV. 110. September 24, 1776.

[107] Journals, II. 357.

[108] 500 acres to a colonel; 450 to a lieutenant-colonel; 400 to a major; 300 to a captain; 200 to a lieutenant; and 150 to an ensign.

[109] Journals, II. 357. Subsequently, by a resolve passed November 12 (1776), the option was given to enlist for the war or for three years, taking away the land bounty from those who enlisted for the latter period only. Ibid. 454.

[110] Ibid.

[111] Journals, II. 403. October 8, 1776.

[112] Writings of Washington, IV. 173.

[113] Ibid. 183, 184.

[114] Writings of Washington, IV. 184.

[115] Writings, IV. 190.

[116] Ibid. 197.

[117] Ibid. 202.

[118] Ibid. 206.

[119] Ibid. 211.

[120] Ibid. 225.

[121] Writings, IV. 232.

[122] Journals, II. 475. A committee, at the head of which was Robert Morris, was appointed to transmit this resolve to General Washington, and in their letter they said: "We find by these resolves that your Excellency's hands will be strengthened by very ample powers; and a new reformation of the army seems to have its origin therein. Happy it is for this country, that the general of their forces can safely be intrusted with the most unlimited power, and neither personal security, liberty, nor property be in the least degree endangered thereby." In his reply, the General said to the committee: "Yours of the 31st of last month inclosed to me sundry resolves of Congress, by which I find they have done me the honor to intrust me with powers, in my military capacity, of the highest nature, and almost unlimited in extent. Instead of thinking myself freed from all civil obligations, by this mark of their confidence, I shall constantly bear in mind, that, as the sword was the last resort for the preservation of our liberties, so it ought to be the first thing laid aside when those liberties are firmly established. I shall instantly set about the most necessary reforms in the army; but it will not be in my power to make so great a progress as if I had a little leisure time upon my hands." Writings of Washington, IV. 257, 552.

[123] Writings of Washington, IV. 551.

[124] Writings of Washington, IV. 551.

[125] Journals, III. 35.

[126] "We have now to lament," said Robert Morris, in a private Letter to General Washington, under date of February 27th, 1777 "the absence from the public councils of America of Johnson, Jay, R. R. Livingston, Duane, Deane, W. Livingston, Franklin, Dickinson, Harrison, Nelson, Hooper, Rutledge, and others not less conspicuous, without any proper appointments to fill their places, and this at the very time they are most wanted, or would be so, if they had not very wisely supplied the deficiency by delegating to your Excellency certain powers, that they durst not have intrusted to any other man. But what is to become of America, and its cause, if a constant fluctuation is to take place among its counsellors, and at every change we find reason to view it with regret?" Writings of Washington, IV. 340, note.

[127] Massachusetts, in December, 1776, renewed the credentials of John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Francis Dana, and James Lovell, giving power to any three or more of them, with the delegates from the other American States, to concert, direct, and order such further measures as shall to them appear best calculated for the establishment of right and liberty to the American States, upon a basis permanent and secure against the power and art of the British administration; for prosecuting the present war, concluding peace, contracting alliances, establishing commerce, and guarding against any future encroachments and machinations of their enemies; with power to adjourn, &c. (Journals, IV. 14.) New Hampshire in the same month sent William Whipple, Josiah Bartlett, and Mathew Thornton, making any one of them a full delegation, without any other instructions than "to represent" the State in the Continental Congress for one year, and allowing only two of them to attend at a time. (Ibid. 41.) Virginia in the same month appointed Mann Page, in the room of George Wythe, with the same general instructions "to represent" the State. (Ibid. 42.) North Carolina in the same month appointed William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, and Thomas Burke, and invested them "with such powers as may make any act done by them, or any of them, or consent given in the said Congress in behalf of this State, obligatory upon every inhabitant thereof." (Ibid. 37.) South Carolina chose Arthur Middleton, Thomas Hayward, Jr., and Henry Laurens, with power "to concert, agree to, and execute every measure which one or all of them should judge necessary for the defence, security, or interest of this State in particular, and of America in general." (Ibid. 53.) Connecticut sent Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, Eliphalet Dyer, Oliver Wolcott, Richard Law, and William Williams, "to consult, advise, and resolve upon measures necessary to be taken and pursued for the defence, security, and preservation of the rights and liberties of the said United States, and for their common safety"; but requiring them "of such their proceedings and resolves to transmit authentic copies from time to time to the General Assembly of this state." (Ibid. 5.) Of the other states, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Georgia, which renewed their delegations somewhat later in the year, instructed them simply "to represent" the state in the Continental Congress; and Delaware empowered its delegates, on behalf of the state, "to concert, agree to, and execute any measure which they, together with a majority of the Continental Congress, should judge necessary for the defense, security, interest, and welfare of that State in particular, and America in general." (Ibid. 64, 315, 171, 169, 395, 54, 403, 86.)

[128] This was Mr. Abraham Clark, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Sparks has preserved a curious letter written by this gentleman on the subject. Writings of Washington, IV. 298.

[129] The whole of this alarm evidently arose from the use of the words "oath of allegiance" in General Washington's proclamation. Probably this phrase was used by him as a convenient description of the obligation which he intended to exact. He did not use it as a jurist, but as a general and a statesman. In a letter written by him on the 5th of February (1777) to the President of Congress, desiring that body to urge the States to adopt an oath of fidelity, he said: "From the first institution of civil government, it has been the national policy of every precedent state to endeavor to engage its members to the discharge of their public duty by the obligation of some oath"; and he then observes, with his characteristic wisdom, that "an oath is the only substitute that can be adopted to supply the defect of principle." He advised that every State should fix upon some oath or affirmation of allegiance, to be tendered to all the inhabitants without exception, and to outlaw those that refused it. (Writings, IV. 311, 312.) Afterwards, when the Legislative Council of New Jersey—where some of the people had refused to take the oath required by his proclamation—applied to him to explain the nature of the oath, and to be furnished with a copy of it, that they might know whether it was the oath prescribed by the General Assembly of that State, he informed them that he had prescribed no form, and had reverted to none prescribed by them; that his instructions to the brigadiers who attended to that duty were, to insist on nothing more than an obligation in no manner to injure the States; and that he had left the form to his subordinates; but that if he had known of any form adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants, he would certainly have ordered it. (Ibid. 319, note.) This explanation makes it quite certain, that what General Washington called in his proclamation an oath of allegiance was merely a military exaction of an obligation in favor of a belligerent power against the enemy; and his advice on the subject of a general civil oath of allegiance, to be exacted by the States, shows that he understood the niceties of the subject as well as any casuist in or out of Congress. This topic may be dismissed by reverting here to the fact, that in February, 1778, Congress prescribed an oath or affirmation, to be taken by the officers of the army, and all others holding office under Congress, which was simply a renunciation of allegiance to the King of Great Britain, an acknowledgment of the independence of the United States, and a promise to support, maintain, and defend them against King George III. and his successors, and to serve the United States in the office mentioned with fidelity, and the best skill and understanding of the party taking the oath. Journals, IV. 49.

[130] Ante, p. 100.

[131] Letter to General Knox, February 11, 1777. Writings, IV. 316.

[132] Letter to Governor Trumbull, May 11, 1777. Writings, IV. 413. See also Letter to Major-General Stephen, May 24, 1777. Ibid. 431.

[133] Marshall's Life of Washington, III. 102.

[134] The exact numbers of the troops on both sides, in this battle, are not known. Sir William Howe estimated the American force at 15,000, including militia; and this number is given in the Annual Register. But the effective force of the American army was always, at this period of the war, considerably less than the total number; and Chief Justice Marshall states it to have been, on this occasion, 11,000, including militia. The Annual Register gives the number of the royal army brought into action as 15,000. Marshall supposes it to have been 18,000, when they landed on the shores of the Chesapeake. Marshall's Life of Washington, III. 140, 141. Annual Register for 1777, XX. 127.

[135] Connecticut and Rhode Island.

[136] See John Adams's letter to R. H. Lee.

[137] Three of the colonies, namely, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Virginia, proceeded to form constitutions of government before the Declaration of Independence was adopted, under a special recommendation given to each of them by Congress, in the latter part of the year 1775, addressed to the provincial convention, advising them "to call a full and free representation of the people, to establish such a form of government as in their judgment will best promote the happiness of the people, and most effectually secure good order in the province during the continuance of the present dispute between Great Britain and the colonies." (Journals, I. 231, 235, 279.) In New Hampshire, this suggestion was carried out in January, 1776, by the representatives of the people, who had first met as a Provincial Congress of deputies from the towns, and then assumed the name and authority of a "house of representatives," or "assembly" of the Colony; in which capacity they proceeded to elect twelve persons from the several counties, to form a distinct branch of the legislature, as a council. The council were to elect their own presiding officer. All acts and resolves, to be valid, were required to pass both branches; all public officers, except clerks of courts, were to be appointed by the two houses, and all money bills were to originate in the popular branch. In case the dispute with Great Britain should continue longer than the year 1776, and the general Congress should not give other instructions, it was provided that the council should be chosen by the people of each county, in a mode to be prescribed by the council and house. This form of government continued through the Revolution, and until the year 1790, when a new constitution was formed. (Pitkin's History of the United States, II. 294.) In South Carolina, the Provincial Congress likewise resolved itself a "general assembly," and elected a legislative council, from their own body. By these two bodies, acting jointly, an executive, styled a president, a commander-in-chief, and a vice-president, was chosen. The legislative authority was vested in the president and the two houses. The judiciary were elected by the two houses and commissioned by the president, and were to hold their offices during good behavior, subject to removal on the address of both houses. This form of government remained until June, 1790, when a new constitution was formed by a convention. On the 15th of May, 1776, the Provincial Convention of Virginia proceeded to prepare a declaration of rights and a constitution. The latter declared that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be distinct and separate, and divided the legislative department into two branches, the house of delegates and the senate, to be called "the General Assembly of Virginia." The members of the house of delegates were chosen from each county, and one from the city of Williamsburg and one from the borough of Norfolk. The senate consisted of twenty-four members, chosen from as many districts. A governor and council of state were chosen annually by joint ballot of both houses. The legislature appointed the judges, who were commissioned by the governor, and held their offices during good behavior. Massachusetts was one of the colonies whose situation rendered it necessary to defer the formation of a constitution for several years. The transition in that colony from the government of the King to a government of the people took place in the latter part of the year 1774 and the beginning of 1775. The occurrences which led the House of Representatives to resolve themselves into a Provincial Congress have been stated in the text of a previous chapter (ante, p. 26). This body, which assumed the control of the affairs of the colony in October, 1774, first assembled at Cambridge, where they continued in session until the 10th of December, and then dissolved themselves, having first appointed a Committee of Safety to manage the public concerns, until a new Congress should be assembled. On the 1st of February, 1775, a new Provincial Congress met at Cambridge, adjourned to Concord, and thence to Watertown, and were dissolved on the 23d of May. On the 16th of May, they wrote to the Continental Congress, requesting their advice on "taking up and exercising the powers of civil government." In their letter they said, "As the sword should in all free states be subservient to the civil powers, and as it is the duty of the magistrate to support it for the people's necessary defence, we tremble at having an army, although consisting of our own countrymen, established here, without a civil power to provide for and control them." On the 9th of June, the Continental Congress passed a resolve, recommending the election of a new General Assembly, under the directions of the Provincial Congress, and that the Assembly, when chosen, should exercise the powers of government, until a governor of the King's appointment would consent to govern the Colony according to its charter. (Journals, I. 115.) Meanwhile, a third Provincial Congress met at Watertown, on the 31st of May, and sat until the 19th. The new General Assembly of the Province, called "the General Court," after its ancient usage, met in the mode provided by the charter, and elected a council. These two branches continued to administer the government, as nearly in the spirit of the charter as might be, without a governor, until 1780, when a convention was called and a constitution framed, similar in all its main features to the present constitution of the State. The constitutions of the other States were formed under the general recommendation of the resolve of Congress of May 10th, 1776, addressed to all the colonies, which contemplated the formation of permanent governments, and dissolved the allegiance of the people to the crown of Great Britain. The constitutions of New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and North Carolina were formed in 1776, and that of New York in April, 1777; all having three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, and all having a legislature consisting of two houses. The constitution of Georgia was formed in 1789, after the same general model. That of Pennsylvania was formed in 1776, with a legislature consisting of a single branch, but with the like division of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments.

[138] Hancock retired on the 31st of October, for a short absence, after an unremitted service of two years and five months in the chair. A vote of thanks was moved, as soon as he had concluded his address; but before the question was put, it was moved "to resolve as the opinion of Congress, that it is improper to thank any president for the discharge of the duties of that office"; and it is a curious fact, that on this motion the States were equally divided. The previous motion was then put, and five States voted in the affirmative, three in the negative, and the delegation of one State was divided. Journals, III. 465-467.

[139] Writings of Jefferson, I. 29.

[140] Writings of Washington, V. 326, 327, 350.

[141] "America once had a representation that would do honor to any age or nation. The present falling off is very alarming and dangerous. What is the cause? and How is it to be remedied? are questions that the welfare of these States requires should be well attended to. The great men who composed our first council,—are they dead, have they deserted the cause, or what has become of them? Very few are dead, and still fewer have deserted the cause: they are all, except the few who still remain in Congress, either in the field, or in the civil offices of their respective States; far the greater part are engaged in the latter. The only remedy, then, is to take them out of these employments, and return them to the place where their presence is infinitely more important. Each State, in order to promote its own internal government and prosperity, has selected its best members to fill the offices within itself, and conduct its own affairs. Men have been fonder of the emoluments and conveniences of being employed at home; and local attachment, falsely operating, has made them more provident for the particular interests of the States to which they belonged, than for the common interests of the Confederacy. This is a most pernicious mistake, and must be corrected. However important it is to give form and efficiency to your interior constitutions and police, it is infinitely more important to have a wise general council; otherwise, a failure of the measures of the Union will overturn all your labors for the advancement of your particular good, and ruin the common cause. You should not beggar the councils of the United States to enrich the administration of the several members. Realize to yourself the consequences of having a Congress despised at home and abroad. How can the common force be exerted, if the power of collecting it be put in weak, foolish, and unsteady hands? How can we hope for success in our European negotiations, if the nations of Europe have no confidence in the wisdom and vigor of the great continental government? This is the object on which their eyes are fixed; hence it is, America will derive its importance or insignificance in their estimation." Letter by Hamilton to George Clinton, written from the head-quarters of the army, February 13, 1778. Writings of Washington, V. 508.

[142] Journals, IV. 269, 270. This wise and well-considered document contained many other very important suggestions; among which was that of an oath, test, or declaration to be taken by the delegates in Congress, previous to their admission to their seats. "It is indeed to be presumed," said the memorial, "that the respective States will be careful that the delegates they send to assist in managing the general interests of the Union, take the oaths to the government from which they derive their authority: but as the United States, collectively considered, have interests as well as each particular State, we are of opinion, that some test or obligation, binding upon each delegate while he continues in the trust, to consult and pursue the former as well as the latter, and particularly to assent to no vote or proceeding which may violate the general confederation is necessary. The laws and usages of all civilized nations evince the propriety of an oath on such occasions, and the more solemn and important the deposit, the more strong and explicit ought the obligation to be."

[143] Three States only voted in favor of adopting any of the suggestions made by New Jersey: six voted against them, and one was divided. Journals, IV. 272.

[144] Secret Journals, I. 433.

[145] Secret Journals, I. 440.

[146] Ibid. 442.

[147] Secret Journals, I. 421.

[148] Ibid. 424.

[149] Secret Journals, I. 445.

[150] After the Confederation had thus been formed, by subsequent cessions of their claims by the other States, to use the language of Mr. Justice Story, "this great source of national dissension was at last dried up."

[151] One of the great inducements to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States was to give the general government adequate constitutional power to dispose of the Western territory and to form new States out of it. Congress, under the Confederation, had no express authority to do this, although they proceeded both to dispose of the lands and to erect new States, by the Ordinance of 1787. See The Federalist, No. 38, 42, 43. Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, III. 184-190, 1st edition.

[152] That is to say, that a citizen of any State might go and reside in any other State, and be there entitled to all the privileges of a citizen of that State.

[153] The meaning of this is, that, on the production in any State of a law passed or of a judgment rendered in any other State, properly authenticated, it should be admitted that such a law had been passed or such a judgment rendered in the State whose act it purported to be, and that all the legal consequences should follow.

[154] The armorial bearings of the United States were adopted on the 20th of June, 1782. Journals, VII. 395.

[155] The treaty was concluded at Paris, February 6, 1778, and was ratified by Congress on the 5th of May. Journals, IV. 256, 257.

[156] Resolves of October 30 and November 2, 1781. Journals, VII. 167, 169.

[157] Resolves of December 10, 1781. Journals, VII. 190.

[158] Writings, VIII. 226.

[159] Writings, VIII. 232, 235.

[160] Sparks's Life of Washington, p. 380.

[161] Letter of April 10, 1778. Writings of Washington, V. 312.

[162] Journals, IV. 221.

[163] Ibid. 228, 229. The States which voted in the negative were Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina.

[164] Ibid. 243. The States voting in the negative were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina. The State whose vote was divided was Pennsylvania.

[165] Ibid. 244. Under this resolve, each officer was entitled to receive half-pay annually, for the term of seven years after the conclusion of war, if living.

[166] Ibid. 288.

[167] On the 21st of April, in the resolution reported by a committee, the words "an establishment of half-pay for life" were, on motion, changed to a "provision of half-pay";—an amendment which reveals very plainly the character of the popular objections. Journals, IV. 228.

[168] Journals, V. 312.

[169] Ibid. 316, 317.

[170] Writings of Washington, VII. 165, 246.

[171] Journals, VI. 336.

[172] See General Washington's letter to General Sullivan (in Congress), November 20, 1780. Writings, VII. 297.

[173] See the letter of General Lincoln, Secretary at War, to Washington, cited by Mr. Sparks, VIII. 356.

[174] The "Newburgh Addresses" were written by John Armstrong, (afterwards General Armstrong,) then a young man, and aide-de-camp to General Gates, with the rank of Major. (Sparks's Life of Gouverneur Morris, I. 253. United States Magazine for January 1, 1823, New York.) The style of these papers, considering the period when they appeared, is remarkably good. They are written with great point and vigor of expression and great purity of English. For the purpose for which they were designed,—a direct appeal to feeling,—they show the hand of a master.

[175] March 18, 1783. Writings, VIII. 396.

[176] The resolves gave the option to lines of the respective States, and not to the officers individually in those lines, to accept or refuse the commutation. Journals, VIII. 162.

[177] The debt due to the crown of France was ascertained in 1782 to be eighteen millions of livres; and by the contract entered into by the Unites States with the king of France, on the 16th of July, 1782, the principal of this debt was to be paid in twelve annual instalments of one million five hundred thousand livres each, in twelve years, to commence from the third year after a peace, at the royal treasury in Paris. The interest was payable annually, at the time and place stipulated for the payment of the instalments of the principal, at five per cent. The king generously remitted the arrears of interest due at the date of the contract. There was also due to the King of France ten millions of livres, borrowed by him of the States-General of the Netherlands for the use of the United States, and the payment of which he had guaranteed. This sum was to be paid in Paris in ten annual instalments of one million of livres each, commencing on the 5th of November, 1787. The interest on this loan was payable in Paris immediately, and the first payment of interest became due on the 5th of November, 1782. There was also due to the Farmers-General of France one million of livres, and to the king six millions of livres, on a loan for the year 1783; making in the whole thirty-eight millions of livres, or $7,037,037, due in France. There was also due to money-lenders in Holland $671,000; for money borrowed by Mr. Jay in Spain, $150,000; and a year's interest on the Dutch loan of ten millions of livres, amounting to $26,848;—making the whole foreign debt $7,885,085. The domestic debt amounted to $34,115,290. Five millions of this were due to the army, under the commutation resolves of March, 1783. The residue was held by other citizens, or consisted of arrears of interest. The whole debt of the United States was estimated at $42,000,375, and the annual interest of this sum was $2,415,956.

[178] Mr. Madison (under the date of December 24, 1782) says, that, on the receipt of this intelligence, "the most intelligent members were deeply affected, and prognosticated a failure of the impost scheme, and the most pernicious effects to the character, the duration, and the interests of the Confederacy. It was at length, notwithstanding, determined to persist in the attempt for permanent revenue, and a committee was appointed to report the steps proper to be taken." Debates in the Congress of the Confederation, Elliot, I. 17.

[179] $1,545,818 and 30/90 was the whole amount.

[180] On the final question, as to the revenue system, Hamilton voted against it. His reasons were given in a letter to the Governor of New York, under date of April 14, 1783. They were, "First, that it does not designate the funds (except the impost) on which the whole interest is to arise; and by which (selecting the capital articles of visible property) the collection would have been easy, the funds productive, and necessarily increasing with the increase of the country. Secondly, that the duration of the funds is not coextensive with the debt, but limited to twenty-five years, though there is a moral certainty that in that period the principal will not, by the present provision, be fairly extinguished. Thirdly, that the nomination and appointment of the collectors of the revenue are to reside in each State, instead of, at least, the nomination being in the United States; the consequence of which will be, that those States which have little interest in the funds, by having a small share of the public debt due to their own citizens, will take care to appoint such persons as are the least likely to collect the revenue." Still, he urged the adoption of the plan by his own State, "because it is her interest, at all events, to promote the payment of the public debt in continental funds, independent of the general considerations of union and propriety. I am much mistaken, if the debts due from the United States to the citizens of the State of New York do not considerably exceed its proportion of the necessary funds; of course, it has an immediate interest that there should be a continental provision for them. But there are superior motives that ought to operate in every State,—the obligations of national faith, honor, and reputation. Individuals have been too long already sacrificed to the public convenience. It will be shocking, and, indeed, an eternal reproach to this country, if we begin the peaceable enjoyment of our independence by a violation of all the principles of honesty and true policy. It is worthy of remark, that at least four fifths of the domestic debt are due to the citizens of the States from Pennsylvania, inclusively, northward." Life of Hamilton, II. 185, 186.

[181] Address.

[182] Ibid.

[183] With what success this was attended may be seen from the fact, that, from the year 1782 to the year 1786, Congress made requisitions on the States for the purpose of paying the interest on the public debts, of more than six millions of dollars, and on the 31st of March, 1787, about one million only of this sum had been received. The interest of the debt due to domestic creditors remained wholly unpaid; money was borrowed in Europe to pay the interest on the foreign loans; and the domestic debt sunk to so low a value, that it was often sold for one tenth of its nominal amount.

[184] General Washington's letter to Hamilton, March 31, 1783. Writings, VIII. 409, 410. Circular Letter to the Governors of the States, on disbanding the army. Ibid. 439, 451.

[185] None of the documents, connected with the Address to the People of the United States, issued by Congress in 1783, discussed the question as one of direct interest and advantage, except Hamilton's answer to the objections of Rhode Island. The Address itself appealed entirely to considerations of honor, justice, and good faith. Hamilton's paper, however, showed with great perspicacity, that the proposed impost would not be unfavorable to commerce, but the contrary; that it would not diminish the profits of the merchant, being too moderate in amount to discourage the consumption of imported goods, and therefore that it would not diminish the extent of importations; but that, even if it had this tendency, it was a tendency in the right direction, because it would lessen the proportion of imports to exports, and incline the balance in favor of the country. But the great question of yielding the control of foreign commerce to the Union, for the sake of uniformity of regulation, was not touched in any of these papers. The time for it had not arrived.

[186] See note at the end of this chapter.

[187] See note on page 194.

[188] As it was, the approach of peace had reduced the attendance upon Congress below the constitutional number of States necessary to ratify the treaty, when it was received. On the 23d of December, 1783, a resolve was passed, "That letters be immediately despatched to the executives of New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Georgia, informing them that the safety, honor, and good faith of the United States require the immediate attendance of their delegates in Congress; that there have not been during the sitting of Congress at this place [Annapolis] more than seven States represented, namely, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, and most of those by only two delegates; and that the ratification of the definitive treaty, and several other matters, of great national concern, are now pending before Congress, which require the utmost despatch, and to which the assent of at least nine States is necessary." (Journals, IX. 12.)

[189] Letter to Hamilton, March 31, 1783. Writings, VIII. 409. Letter to Lafayette, April 5, 1783. Ibid. 411. Address to the States, June 8, 1783. Ibid. 439.

[190] These suggestions were made by Hamilton, in a letter of great ability, written in 1780, while he was still in the army, to James Duane, a member of Congress from New York. It was not published until it appeared in his Life, I. 284. At its close, he says: "I am persuaded a solid confederation, a permanent army, a reasonable prospect of subsisting it, would give us treble consideration in Europe, and produce a peace this winter. If a convention is called, the minds of all the States and the people ought to be prepared to receive its determinations by sensible and popular writings, which should conform to the views of Congress. There are epochs in human affairs when novelty is useful. If a general opinion prevails that the old way is bad, whether true or false, and this obstructs or relaxes the operations of the public service, a change is necessary, if it be but for the sake of change. This is exactly the case now. 'T is an universal sentiment, that our present system is a bad one, and that things do not go right on this account. The measure of a convention would revive the hopes of the people, and give a new direction to their passions, which may be improved in carrying points of substantial utility. The Eastern States have already pointed out this mode to Congress: they ought to take the hint, and anticipate the others." What is here said of the action of the Eastern States probably refers, not to any suggestion of a convention to revise the powers of the general government, but to a convention of committees of the Eastern States, which first assembled at Hartford, and afterwards at Boston, in November, 1779, and in August, 1780, for regulating the prices of commodities. Journals of Congress, V. 406; VI. 271, 331, 392. But the writer may have had in his mind the convention which had just assembled in Massachusetts to form the constitution of that State. I am aware of no public proposal, as early as 1780, of a general convention to remodel the Confederacy.

[191] "It is not to be presumed," he said, "that the constitution of any State means to define and fix the precise numbers and descriptions of all officers to be permitted in the State, excluding the creation of any new ones, whatever might be the necessity derived from that variety of circumstances incident to all political institutions. The legislature must always have a discretionary power of appointing officers, not expressly known to the constitution, and this power will include that of authorizing the federal government to make the appointments in cases where the general welfare may require it. The denial of this would prove too much; to wit, that the power given by the Confederation to Congress, to appoint all officers in the post-office, was illegal and unconstitutional. The doctrine advanced by Rhode Island would perhaps prove also that the federal government ought to have the appointment of no internal officers whatever; a position that would defeat all the provisions of the Confederation, and all the purposes of the union. The truth is, that no federal constitution can exist without powers that in their exercise effect the internal police of the component members. It is equally true, that no government can exist without a right to appoint officers for those purposes which proceed from, and concentre in, itself; and therefore the Confederation has expressly declared, that Congress shall have authority to appoint all such 'civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction.' All that can be required is, that the federal government confine its appointments to such as it is empowered to make by the original act of union, or by the subsequent consent of the parties; unless there should be express words of exclusion in the constitution of a State, there can be no reason to doubt that it is within the compass of legislative discretion to communicate that authority. The propriety of doing it upon the present occasion, is founded on substantial reasons. The measure proposed is a measure of necessity. Repeated experiments have shown, that the revenue to be raised within these States is altogether inadequate to the public wants. The deficiency can only be supplied by loans. Our applications to the foreign powers on whose friendship we depend, have had a success far short of our necessities. The next resource is to borrow from individuals. These will neither be actuated by generosity nor reasons of state. 'Tis to their interest alone we must appeal. To conciliate this, we must not only stipulate a proper compensation for what they lend, but we must give security for the performance. We must pledge an ascertained fund, simple and productive in its nature, general in its principle, and at the disposal of a single will. There can be little confidence in a security under the constant revisal of thirteen different deliberatives. It must, once for all, be defined and established on the faith of the States, solemnly pledged to each other, and not revocable by any without a breach of the general compact. 'Tis by such expedients that nations whose resources are understood, whose reputations and governments are erected on the foundation of ages, are enabled to obtain a solid and extensive credit. Would it be reasonable in us to hope for more easy terms, who have so recently assumed our rank among the nations? Is it not to be expected, that individuals will be cautious in lending their money to a people in our circumstances, and that they will at least require the best security we can give? We have an enemy vigilant, intriguing, well acquainted with our defects and embarrassments. We may expect that he will make every effort to instil diffidences into individuals, and in the present posture of our internal affairs he will have too plausible ground on which to tread. Our necessities have obliged us to embrace measures, with respect to our public credit, calculated to inspire distrust. The prepossessions on this article must naturally be against us, and it is therefore indispensable we should endeavor to remove them, by such means as will be the most obvious and striking. It was with these views Congress determined on a general fund; and the one they have recommended must, upon a thorough examination, appear to have fewer inconveniences than any other. It has been remarked as an essential part of the plan, that the fund should depend on a single will. This will not be the case, unless the collection, as well as the appropriation, is under the control of the United States; for it is evident, that, after the duty is agreed upon, it may, in a great measure, be defeated by an ineffectual mode of levying it. The United States have a common interest in a uniform and equally energetic collection; and not only policy, but justice to all the parts of the Union, designates the utility of lodging the power of making it where the interest is common. Without this, it might in reality operate as a very unequal tax." Journals of Congress, VIII. 153.

[192] He said, as an additional reason for the revenue being collected by officers under the appointment of Congress, that, "as the energy of the federal government was evidently short of the degree necessary for pervading and uniting the States, it was expedient to introduce the influence of officers deriving their emoluments from, and consequently interested in supporting the power of Congress." Upon this Mr. Madison observes: "This remark was imprudent, and injurious to the cause it was intended to serve. This influence was the very source of jealousy which rendered the States averse to a revenue under collection, as well as appropriation, of Congress. All the members of Congress who concurred in any degree, with the States in this jealousy, smiled at the disclosure. Mr. Bland, and still more Mr. Lee, who were of this number, took notice, in private conversation, that Mr. Hamilton had let out the secret." Elliot's Debates, I. 35.

[193] March 18 and 23, 1781. Journals, VII. 56, 67.

[194] Life of Hamilton, II. 50-57.

[195] March 20, 1783. Journals, VIII. 157-159.

[196] The census was to be of "the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants, of every age, sex, and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes, in each State; which number shall be triennially taken and transmitted to the United States in Congress assembled, in such mode as they shall direct and appoint." When the Articles of Confederation were framed and adopted in Congress, a valuation of land as the rule of proportion was adopted instead of numbers of inhabitants, in consequence of the impossibility of compromising the different ideas of the Eastern and Southern States as to the rate at which slaves should be counted; the Eastern States of course wishing to have them counted in a near ratio to the whites, and the Southern States wishing to diminish that ratio. Numbers would have been preferred by the Southern States to land, if half their slaves only could have been taken; but the Eastern States were opposed to this estimate. (Elliot's Debates, I. 79.) In 1783, when it was proposed to change the rule of proportion from land to numbers, the first compromise suggested (by Mr. Wolcott of Connecticut) was to include only such slaves as were between the ages of sixteen and sixty; this was found to be impracticable; and it was agreed on all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion by ages, it would be best to fix it in absolute numbers, and the rate of three fifths was agreed upon. (Ibid. 81, 82.)

[197] Life of Hamilton, II. 204-212.

[198] Ibid.

[199] He proposed that the States should transfer to Congress the right to appoint the regimental officers, and that the men should be enlisted under continental direction.

[200] That the subject of a peace establishment originated with Hamilton is certain, from the fact that early in April, soon after the appointment of the committee, he wrote to General Washington, wishing to know his sentiments at large on such institutions of every kind for the interior defence of the States as might be best adapted to their circumstances. (Writings of Washington, VIII. 417.) Washington wrote to all the principal officers of the army then in camp, for their views, and from the memoirs which they presented to him an important document was compiled, which was forwarded by him to the committee of Congress. In one of these memoirs Colonel Pickering suggested the establishment of a military academy at West Point. "If any thing," he said, "like a military academy in America be practicable at this time, it must be grounded on the permanent military establishment of our frontier posts and arsenals, and the wants of the States, separately, of officers to command the defences of their sea-coasts. On this principle, it might be expedient to establish a military school, or academy, at West Point. And that a competent number of young gentlemen might be induced to become students, it might be made a rule, that vacancies in the standing regiments should be supplied from thence; those few instances excepted where it would be just to promote a very meritorious sergeant. For this end, the number which shall be judged requisite to supply vacancies in the standing regiment might be fixed, and that of the students, who are admitted with an exception of filling them, limited accordingly. They might be allowed subsistence at the public expense. If any other youth desired to pursue the same studies at the military academy, they might be admitted, only subsisting themselves. Those students should be instructed in what is usually called military discipline, tactics, and the theory and practice of fortification and gunnery. The commandant and one or two other officers of the standing regiment, and the engineers, making West Point their general residence, would be the masters of the academy; and the inspector-general superintend the whole." (Ibid.) The subject of a peace establishment was made one of the four principal topics on which Washington afterwards enlarged in his circular letter to the States, in June; but his suggestions related chiefly to a uniform organization of the militia throughout the States. He subsequently had several conferences with the committee of Congress, on the whole subject, but nothing was done. (Vide note, infra.)

[201] Life of Hamilton, II. 214-219. The State of New York precipitated the constitutional question, by demanding that the Western posts within her limits should be garrisoned by troops of her own, and by instructing her delegates in Congress to obtain a declaration, conformably to the sixth article of the Confederation, of the number of troops necessary for that purpose. Hamilton forbore to press this application while the general subject of a peace establishment was under consideration. But the doubts that arose as to the constitutional power of Congress to raise an army for the purposes of peace, and the urgency of the case, made it necessary to adopt a temporary measure with regard to the frontier posts, and to direct the commander-in-chief to garrison them with a part of the troops of the United States which had enlisted for three years. This was ordered on the 12th of May. Soon after, the mutiny of a portion of the new levies of the Pennsylvania line occurred, which drove Congress from Philadelphia to Princeton, on the 21st of June. At Princeton, they remained during the residue of the year, but with diminished numbers and often without a constitutional quorum of States. In September, General Washington wrote to Governor Clinton: "Congress have come to no determination yet respecting a peace establishment, nor am I able to say when they will. I have lately had a conference with a committee on this subject, and have reiterated my former opinions: but it appears to me, that there is not a sufficient representation to discuss great national points; nor do I believe there will be, while that honorable body continue their sessions at this place. The want of accommodation, added to a disinclination in the Southern delegates to be farther removed than they formerly were from the centre of the empire, and an aversion in the others to give up what they conceive to be a point gained by the late retreat to this place, keep matters in an awkward situation, to the very great interruption of national concerns. Seven States, it seems, by the Articles of Confederation, must agree, before any place can be fixed upon for the seat of the federal government; and seven States, it is said, never will agree; consequently, as Congress came here, here they are to remain, to the dissatisfaction of the majority and a great let to business, having none of the public offices about them, nor any place to accommodate them, if they were brought up; and the members, from this or some other cause, are eternally absent."

[202] Mr. Madison has given the following account of this occurrence:—"On the 19th of June, Congress received information from the Executive Council of Pennsylvania, that eighty soldiers, who would probably be followed by others, were on the way from Lancaster to Philadelphia, in spite of the expostulations of their officers, declaring that they would proceed to the seat of Congress and demand justice, and intimating designs against the Bank. A committee, of which Colonel Hamilton was chairman, was appointed to confer with the executive of Pennsylvania, and to take such measures as they should find necessary. After a conference, the committee reported that it was the opinion of the executive that the militia of Philadelphia would probably not be willing to take arms before they should be provoked by some actual outrage; that it would hazard the authority of government to make the attempt; and that it would be necessary to let the soldiers come into the city, if the officers who had gone out to meet them could not stop them. The next day the soldiers arrived in the city, led by their sergeants, and professing to have no other object than to obtain a settlement of accounts, which they supposed they had a better chance for at Philadelphia than at Lancaster. On the 21st, they were drawn up in the street before the State-House, where Congress were assembled. The Executive Council of the State, sitting under the same roof, was called on for the proper interposition. The President of the State (Dickinson) came in and explained the difficulty of bringing out the militia of the place for the suppression of the mutiny. He thought that, without some outrages on persons or property, the militia could not be relied on. General St. Clair, then in Philadelphia, was sent for, and desired to use his interposition, in order to prevail on the troops to return to the barracks. But his report gave no encouragement. In this posture of things, it was proposed by Mr. Izard that Congress should adjourn. Colonel Hamilton proposed that General St. Clair, in concert with the Executive Council of the State, should take order for terminating the mutiny. Mr. Reed moved that the General should endeavor to withdraw the mutineers, by assuring them of the disposition of Congress to do them justice. Nothing, however, was done. The soldiers remained in their position, occasionally uttering offensive words and pointing their muskets at the windows of the hall of Congress. At the usual hour of adjournment the members went out, without obstruction; and the soldiers retired to their barracks. In the evening Congress reassembled, and appointed a committee to confer anew with the executive of the State. This conference produced nothing but a repetition of the doubts concerning the disposition of the militia to act, unless some actual outrage were offered to persons or property, the insult to Congress not being deemed a sufficient provocation. On the 24th, the efforts of the State authority being despaired of, Congress were summoned by the President to meet at Trenton." (Elliot's Debates, I. 92-94.) The mutiny was afterwards suppressed by marching troops into Pennsylvania under Major-General Howe. (Journals, VIII. 281.)

[203] Life of Hamilton, II. 230-237.

[204] Life of Hamilton, II. 230-237.

[205] Ibid.

[206] See the Address to the States, accompanying the proposed revenue system, April 26, 1783, from the pen of Mr. Madison. Journals, VIII. 194-201.

[207] The first Continental Congress was called to meet at Philadelphia, that being the nearest to the centre of the Union of any of the principal cities in the United States. Succeeding Congresses had been held there, with the exception of the period when the city was in the possession of the enemy, in the year 1777, until, on the 21st of June, 1783, in consequence of the mutiny of the soldiers, the President was authorized to summon the members to meet at Trenton, or Princeton, in New Jersey, "in order that further and more effectual measures may be taken for suppressing the present revolt, and maintaining the dignity and authority of the United States." On the 30th, Congress assembled at Princeton, in the halls of the college, which were tendered by its officers for their use. In August, a proposition was made to return to Philadelphia, and that, on the second Monday in October, Congress should meet at Annapolis, unless in the mean time it had been ordered otherwise. But this was not agreed to. A committee was then appointed (in September), "to consider what jurisdiction may be proper for Congress in the place of their permanent residence." This seems to have been followed by propositions from several of the States, from New York to Virginia inclusive, respecting a place for the permanent residence of Congress, although the Journal does not state what they were. A question was then taken (October 6), in which State buildings should be provided and erected for the residence of Congress, beginning with New Hampshire and proceeding with all the States in their order. Each State was negatived in its turn. The highest number of votes given (by States) were for New Jersey and Maryland, which had four votes each. A resolution was then carried, "that buildings for the use of Congress be erected on or near the banks of the Delaware, provided a suitable district can be procured on or near the banks of said river, for a federal town; and that the right of soil, and an exclusive or such jurisdiction as Congress may direct, shall be vested in the United States"; and a committee was appointed, to repair to the falls of the Delaware, to view the country, and report a proper district for this purpose. A variety of motions then followed, for the selection of a place of temporary residence, but none was adopted. On the 17th of October, a proposition was made by a delegate of Massachusetts (Mr. Gerry), to have buildings provided for the alternate residence of Congress in two places, with the idea of "securing the mutual confidence and affection of the States, and preserving the federal balance of power"; but the question was lost. Afterwards, the following resolution was agreed to: "Whereas, there is reason to expect that the providing buildings for the alternate residence of Congress in two places will be productive of the most salutary effects, by securing the mutual confidence and affections of the States, Resolved, That buildings be likewise erected, for the use of Congress, at or near the lower falls of the Potomac, or Georgetown, provided a suitable district on the banks of the river can be procured for a federal town, and the right of soil, and an exclusive jurisdiction, or such as Congress may direct, shall be vested in the United States; and that until the buildings to be erected on the banks of the Delaware and Potomac shall be prepared for the reception of Congress, their residence shall be alternately, at equal periods of not more than one year and not less than six months, in Trenton and Annapolis; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to adjourn Congress on the twelfth day of November next, to meet at Annapolis on the twenty-sixth day of the same month, for the despatch of public business." (Journals of Congress from June to November, 1783.)

[208] Report of a committee appointed to devise means for procuring a full representation in Congress, made November 1, 1783. Journals, VIII. 480-482.

[209] Hamilton's proposed Resolutions; Life, II. 230-237.

[210] The Journals give the following account of General Washington's resignation:—

"According to order, his Excellency the Commander-in-chief was admitted to a public audience, and being seated, the President, after a pause, informed him that the United States in Congress assembled were prepared to receive his communications; whereupon he arose and addressed as follows: 'Mr. President,—The great events on which my resignation depended having at length taken place, I have now the honor of offering my sincere congratulations to Congress, and of presenting myself before them to surrender into their hands the trust committed to me, and to claim the indulgence of retiring from the service of my country. Happy in the confirmation of our independence and sovereignty, and pleased with the opportunity afforded the United States of becoming a respectable nation, I resign with satisfaction the appointment I accepted with diffidence; a diffidence in my abilities to accomplish so arduous a task; which, however, was superseded by a confidence in the rectitude of our cause, the support of the supreme power of the Union, and the patronage of Heaven. The successful termination of the war has verified the most sanguine expectations; and my gratitude for the interposition of Providence, and the assistance I have received from my countrymen, increases with every review of the momentous contest. While I repeat my obligations to the army in general, I should do injustice to my own feelings not to acknowledge, in this place, the peculiar services and distinguished merits of the gentlemen who have been attached to my person during the war. It was impossible the choice of confidential officers to compose my family should have been more fortunate. Permit me, sir, to recommend in particular those who have continued in the service to the present moment, as worthy of the favorable notice and patronage of Congress. I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last act of my official life by commending the interests of our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God, and those who have the superintendence of them to his holy keeping. Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theatre of action, and, bidding an affectionate farewell to this august body, under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.' He then advanced and delivered to the President his commission, with a copy of his address, and having resumed his place, the President (Thomas Mifflin) returned him the following answer: 'Sir,—The United States in Congress assembled receive with emotions too affecting for utterance the solemn resignation of the authorities under which you have led their troops with success through a perilous and doubtful war. Called upon by your country to defend its invaded rights, you accepted the sacred charge, before it had formed alliances, and whilst it was without funds or a government to support you. You have conducted the great military contest with wisdom and fortitude, invariably regarding the rights of the civil power through all disasters and changes. You have, by the love and confidence of your fellow-citizens, enabled them to display their martial genius, and transmit their fame to posterity. You have persevered, till these United States, aided by a magnanimous king and nation, have been enabled, under a just Providence, to close the war in freedom, safety, and independence; on which happy event we sincerely join you in congratulations. Having defended the standard of liberty in this New World, having taught a lesson useful to those who inflict and to those who feel oppression, you retire from the great theatre of action with the blessings of your fellow-citizens; but the glory of your virtues will not terminate with your military command; it will continue to animate remotest ages. We feel with you our obligations to the army in general, and will particularly charge ourselves with the interests of those confidential officers who have attended your person to this affecting moment. We join you in commending the interests of our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God, beseeching him to dispose the hearts and minds of its citizens to improve the opportunity afforded them of becoming a happy and respectable nation. And for you we address to him our earnest prayers that a life so beloved may be fostered with all his care; that your days may be happy as they have been illustrious; and that he will finally give you that reward which this world cannot give." Journals, IX. 12, 13. December 22, 1783.

[211] Ibid.

[212] Journals, IX. 30. January 14, 1784.

[213] See Washington's letter to Governor Harrison, of the date of January 18, 1784. Writings, IX. 11.

[214] Twenty-three members voted on the ratification of the Treaty, January 14, 1784. On the 19th of April of the same year, the same number being present, eleven States only being represented, and nine of these having only two members each, the following resolution was passed: "Resolved, That the legislatures of the several States be informed, that, whilst they are respectively represented in Congress by two delegates only, such a unanimity for conducting the most important public concerns is necessary as can be rarely expected; that if each of the thirteen States should be represented by two members, five out of twenty-six, being only a fifth of the whole, may negative any measures requiring the voice of nine States; that of eleven States now on the floor of Congress, nine being represented by only two members from each, it is in the power of three out of twenty-five, making only one eighth of the whole, to negative such a measure, notwithstanding that by the Articles of Confederation the dissent of five out of thirteen, being more than one third of the number, is necessary for such a negative; that in a representation of three members from each State, not less than ten of thirty-nine could so negative a matter requiring the voice of nine States; that, from facts under the observation of Congress, they are clearly convinced that a representation of two members from the several States is extremely injurious, by producing delays, and for this reason is likewise much more expensive than a general representation of three members from each State; that therefore Congress conceive it to be indispensably necessary, and earnestly recommend, that each State, at all times when Congress are sitting, be hereafter represented by three members at least; as the most injurious consequences may be expected from the want of such representation." At the time when the report of the Convention, transmitting the Constitution, was received (September 28, 1787), there were thirty-three members in attendance, from twelve States. Rhode Island was not represented.

[215] The sum reported by a committee, and finally agreed to be necessary, was $3,812,539.33. Journals, IX. 171. April 27, 1784.

[216] Journals, VIII. 129. February 17, 1783.

[217] Ibid. 198. April 26, 1783.

[218] Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.

[219] Of the old requisition of $8,000,000, made October 30, 1781, only $1,486,511.71 had been paid by all the States before December 31, 1783.

[220] Journals, IX. 171-179. April 27, 1784.

[221] Journals, X. 325-334. September 27, 1785.

[222] Journals, XI. 167. August 2, 1786.

[223] Ibid. 224. September 18, 1786. Upon this attempt of Rhode Island and New Jersey to pay their proportions in their own paper currency, the report of a committee declared, "That, to admit the receipt of bills of credit, issued under the authority of an individual State, in discharge of their specie proportions of a requisition, would defeat its object, as the said bills do not circulate out of the limits of the State in which they are emitted, and because a paper medium of any State, however well funded, cannot, either in the extensiveness of its circulation, or in the course of its exchange, be equally valuable with gold and silver. That if the bills of credit of the States of Rhode Island and New Jersey were to be received from those States in discharge of federal taxes, upon the principles of equal justice, bills emitted by any other States must be received from them also in payment of their proportions, and thereby, instead of the requisitions yielding a sum in actual money, nothing but paper would be brought into the federal treasury, which would be wholly inapplicable to the payment of any part of the interest or principal of the foreign debt, or the maintenance of the government of the United States."

[224] Journals, XI. 34-40. February 15, 1786.

[225] Ibid.

[226] Journals, XI. 34-40. February 15, 1786.

[227] New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

[228] Pennsylvania and Delaware.

[229] Delaware and North Carolina.

[230] Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, and Georgia.

[231] The report on this occasion (February 15, 1786), drawn by Rufus King, declared, "that the requisitions of Congress for eight years past have been so irregular in their operation, so uncertain in their collection, and so evidently unproductive, that a reliance on them in future as a source from whence moneys are to be drawn to discharge the engagements of the Confederacy, definite as they are in time and amount, would be not less dishonorable to the understandings of those who entertain such confidence, than it would be dangerous to the welfare and peace of the Union. The committee are therefore seriously impressed with the indispensable obligation that Congress are under, of representing in the immediate and impartial consideration of the several States the utter impossibility of maintaining and preserving the faith of the federal government by temporary requisitions on the States, and the consequent necessity of an early and complete accession of all the States to the revenue system of the 18th of April, 1783."

[232] May 4, 1786.

[233] Life of Hamilton, II. 385.

[234] August 11, 1786.

[235] The ground of his refusal was, "that he had not the power to convene the legislature before the time fixed by law for their stated meeting, except upon 'extraordinary occasions,' and as the present business had already been particularly laid before them, and so recently as at their last session received their determination, it cannot come within that description." Life of Hamilton, II. 389.

[236] August 23, 1786.

[237] Secret Journals of Congress, IV. 186, 187.

[238] Article IV.

[239] Article V.

[240] Article VI.

[241] See the Report made to Congress on this subject by Mr. Jay, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, October, 1786. Secret Journals, IV. 209.

[242] Ibid.

[243] Resolve of June 24, 1776. Journals, II. 216. Ante, p. 52, note.

[244] An act passed by the legislature of Massachusetts, November 9, 1784, suspended judgment for interest on British debts, until Congress should have put a construction upon the Treaty declaring that it was due. An act of the State of New York, of July 12, 1782, restrained the collection of debts due to persons within the enemy's lines. Pennsylvania, soon after the peace, passed a law restraining the levy of executions. Virginia, at the time of the peace, had existing laws inhibiting the recovery of British debts. South Carolina had made land a good payment, in place of money. (See Mr. Jay's Report.)

[245] Passed March 17, 1783. Secret Journals, IV. 267.

[246] Passed May 12, 1784, after the Treaty had been ratified. Secret Journals, IV. 269-274.

[247] This happened in New York, in a case under the "Trespass Act," where a suit was brought in the Mayor's Court of the City of New York, "to recover the rents of property held by the defendant under an order of Sir Henry Clinton." Hamilton, in the defence of this case, contended, with great power, that the act was a violation of the Treaty, and the court sustained his position. But the legislature passed resolves, declaring the decision to be subversive of law and good order, and recommending the appointing power "to appoint such persons Mayor and Recorder of New York as will govern themselves by the known law of the land." Life of Hamilton, II. 244, 245.

[248] Mr. John Adams was sent as the first Minister of the United States to the Court of St. James's in 1785. He received this reply to a memorial which he addressed to the British government, on the subject of the Western posts, in February, 1786. Secret Journals, IV. 187.

[249] Secret Journals, IV. 209.

[250] March 21, 1787.

[251] New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina passed such acts.

[252] Pitkin's History of the United States, II. 198.

[253] Marshall's Life of Washington, V. 67, 68.

[254] Gibbon, with that graceful satire which knew how to hit two objects with the same stroke of his pen, describes hereditary monarchy as "an expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master." The historian of the Decline and Fall began to publish his great work, just as the American Revolution burst upon the world. Since that sentence was penned, the experiment of a system, by which the multitude give to themselves a master, in the constitutional organs of their own will, has had a fair trial. We may not say that its trial is past, or that the system is established beyond the possibility of further dangers. But we may with a just pride point to its escape, in the days of its first establishment and greatest danger, and to the securities which the Constitution of the United States now affords, against similar perils, when they threaten the constitutions of the States.

[255] A power to interfere in the internal concerns of a State would only have been exercised by a broad construction of the third of the Articles of Confederation, which was in these words: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare; binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever." When this is compared with the clear and explicit provision in the Constitution, by which it is declared that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government," there can be no wonder that a doubt was felt in the Congress of 1786-87 as to their powers upon this subject. It is true that the Massachusetts delegation, when they laid before Congress the measures which had been taken by the State government to suppress the insurrection, expressed the confidence of the legislature that the firmest support and most effectual aid would have been afforded by the United States, had it been necessary, and asserted that such support and aid were expressly and solemnly stipulated by the Articles of Confederation. (Journals, XII. 20. March 9, 1787.) But this was clearly not the case; and it was not generally supposed in Congress that the power existed by implication. All that was done by Congress towards raising troops, at the time of the insurrection, was done for the ostensible purpose of protecting the frontiers against an Indian invasion, as we shall see hereafter.

[256] Minot's History of the Insurrection, p. 6.

[257] Ibid.

[258] See the next chapter for some particulars respecting the trade of Massachusetts.

[259] Minot's History of the Insurrection, p. 82 et seq.

[260] Governor Bowdoin's Speech to the Legislature, February 3, 1787.

[261] Minot.

[262] In the spring of 1786, the State had asked the loan from Congress of sixty pieces of field artillery. The application was refused, by the negative vote of six States out of eight, one being divided, and the delegation from Massachusetts alone supporting it. Journals, XI. 65-67. April 19, 1786.

[263] Journals, XI. 258. October 30, 1786.

[264] It was well understood, for instance, in the legislature of Virginia, that this was the real purpose; for Mr. Madison says that this consideration inspired the ardor with which they voted, towards their quota of the funds called for to defray the expenses of this levy, a tax on tobacco, which would scarcely have been granted for any other purpose, as its operation was very unequal. Elliot's Debates, V. 95. February 19, 1787.

[265] Ibid.

[266] Ibid. 127.

[267] This was the estimate of their numbers formed by General Knox, on careful inquiry, and by him given to General Washington. See a letter from General Washington to Mr. Madison. Works, IX. 207.

[268] Washington, writing to Henry Lee in Congress, October 31, 1786, says: "You talk, my good sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found, or, if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is not government. Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once." Works, IX. 204.

[269] Ibid. 208.

[270] Ibid. 221.

[271] Life of Hamilton, II. 233, 234. See also his resolutions on the defects of the federal government, intended to be offered in Congress in 1783, and especially the eighth resolution. Works of Hamilton, II. 269.

[272] Hamilton himself, in some papers which he published in 1781, under the title of The Continentalist, gave the general sum of American statesmanship and its opportunities, down to that period. The events of the next seven years gave it a wonderful development. "It would be the extreme of vanity in us," said he, "not to be sensible that we began this revolution with very vague and confined notions of the practical business of government. To the greater part of us, it was a novelty; of those who under the former constitution had had opportunities of acquiring experience, a large proportion adhered to the opposite side, and the remainder can only be supposed to have possessed ideas adapted to the narrow colonial sphere in which they had been accustomed to move, not of that enlarged kind suited to the government of an independent nation. There were, no doubt, exceptions to these observations;—men in all respects qualified for conducting the public affairs with skill and advantage;—but their number was small; they were not always brought forward in our councils; and when they were, their influence was too commonly borne down by the prevailing torrent of ignorance and prejudice. On a retrospect, however, of our transactions, under the disadvantages with which we commenced, it is perhaps more to be wondered at, that we have done so well, than that we have not done better. There are, indeed, some traits in our conduct, as conspicuous for sound policy as others for magnanimity. But, on the other hand, it must also be confessed, there have been many false steps, many chimerical projects and Utopian speculations, in the management of our civil as well as of our military affairs. A part of these were the natural effects of the spirit of the times, dictated by our situation. An extreme jealousy of power is the attendant on all popular revolutions, and has seldom been without its evils. It is to this source we are to trace many of the fatal mistakes, which have so deeply endangered the common cause; particularly that defect which will be the object of these remarks,—a want of power in Congress." Works, II. 186.

[273] Secret Journals, II. 7, 8.

[274] Ibid. 59.

[275] Articles of Confederation, Art. VI., IX. The expression in the sixth article was: "No State shall lay any imposts, &c. that shall interfere with any stipulations in treaties entered into by the United States with any king, prince, or state, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress to the court of France and Spain." The ninth article saved to the States the general power of levying duties and laying prohibitions.

[276] Secret Journals, II. 65, 66. Art. XIII of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France. The expression employed was, "goods movable and immovable," and the right of succession was given, ab intestato, without first obtaining letters of naturalization.

[277] See a report on this projet of the treaty, made by Mr. Madison, July 17, 1782. Secret Journals, II. 142-144.

[278] Ibid.

[279] Art. VI. of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce with the Netherlands, executed by Mr. Adams at the Hague, October 8, 1782. Journals, VIII. 96.

[280] Ibid., Art. II., III.

[281] April 3, 1783. Journals, VIII. 386-398.

[282] Mr. Pitt's bill was brought in in March, 1783, and he went out of office immediately afterwards.

[283] April, 1783.

[284] July, 1783. Their idea was, that, if the American States should choose to send consuls, they should be received, and consuls sent to them in return that each State would soon enter into all necessary regulations with the consul, and that nothing more was necessary. See Lord Sheffield's Observations on American Commerce.

[285] April 30, 1784.

[286] February 14, 1785. Journals, X. 53.

[287] By an act passed June 22-23, 1785; laid before Congress October 10, 1785. Ibid. 353.

[288] The commission consisted of Mr. John Adams, then at the Hague, Dr. Franklin, then in France, and Mr. Jefferson, then in Congress. Mr. Jefferson sailed from Boston on the 5th of July, and arrived in Paris on the 6th of August, 1784. (Works, I. 49.) The powers with whom they were to negotiate commercial treaties were Russia, Austria, Prussia, Denmark, Saxony, Hamburg, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Genoa, Tuscany, Rome, Naples, Venice, Sardinia, and the Ottoman Porte. Secret Journals, III. 484-489. May 7, 1784.

[289] Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia.

[290] Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

[291] New Hampshire.

[292] Rhode Island.

[293] North Carolina.

[294] Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia.

[295] See a report made in Congress, March 3, 1786. Journals, XI. 41.

[296] The Duke of Dorset, the English Ambassador at Paris, wrote to the commissioners (March 26, 1785) as follows: "Having communicated to my court the readiness you expressed in your letter to me of the 9th of December to remove to London, for the purpose of treating upon such points as may materially concern the interests, both political and commercial, of Great Britain and America; and having at the same time represented that you declared yourselves to be fully authorized and empowered to negotiate, I have been, in answer thereto, instructed to learn from you, gentlemen, what is the real nature of the powers with which you are invested,—whether you are merely commissioned by Congress, or whether you have received separate powers from the respective States. A committee of North American merchants have waited upon his Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to express how anxiously they wished to be informed upon this subject; repeated experience having taught them in particular, as well as the public in general, how little the authority of Congress could avail in any respect, where the interest of any one individual State was even concerned, and particularly so where the concerns of that State might be supposed to militate against such resolutions as Congress might think proper to adopt. The apparent determination of the respective States to regulate their own separate interests renders it absolutely necessary, towards forming a permanent system of commerce, that my court should be informed how far the commissioners can be duly authorized to enter into any engagements with Great Britain, which it may not be in the power of any one of the States to render totally fruitless and ineffectual." Diplomatic Correspondence, II. 297.

[297] Jefferson's Works, I. 50, 51. The whole proceedings of this commission may be found in the Diplomatic Correspondence, II. 193-346.

[298] October 15, 1777. Secret Journals, I. 328.

[299] Ibid.

[300] See the account of the adoption of the Confederation, ante, pp. 131-141.

[301] Ante, pp. 131-136.

[302] October 30, 1779. Journals, V. 401, 402.

[303] September 6, 1780.

[304] February 19, 1780.

[305] October 10, 1780.

[306] The Federalist.

[307] Ibid.

[308] June 20, 1783.

[309] September 13, 1783.

[310] The granting part of the deed of cession, exclusive of its recitals, is as follows: "That we, the said Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Munroe, by virtue of the power and authority committed to us by the act of the said General Assembly of Virginia before recited, and in the name and for and on behalf of the said Commonwealth, do by these presents convey, transfer, assign, and make over unto the United States in Congress assembled, for the benefit of the said States, Virginia inclusive, all right, title, and claim, as well of soil as of jurisdiction, which the said Commonwealth hath to the territory or tract of country within the lines of the Virginia charter, situate, lying, and being to the northwest of the river Ohio, to and for the uses and purposes, and on the conditions, of the said recited act." The cession was made with the reservation of such a portion of the territory ceded, between the rivers Scioto and Little Miami, as might be required to make up the deficiencies of land on the south side of the Ohio, called the Green River lands, reserved for the Virginia troops on continental establishment. (Journals, IX. 47-49.) Subsequently, the act of cession was altered, so as to admit of the formation of not more than five, nor less than three States, of a size more convenient than that described in the act of cession and in the resolve of October 10, 1780. (Journals, XI. 139, 140. July 9, 1786.)

[311] April 23, 1784. Journals, IX. 153.

[312] April 23, 1784. Journals, IX. 153.

[313] April 29, 1784. Journals, IX. 184.

[314] This proposition was introduced by Rufus King, March 16, 1785, and was committed by the votes of eight States against four.

[315] April 19, 1785.

[316] May 20, 1785.

[317] September 14, 1786. Journals, XI. 221-223. The deed of cession, and the act of Connecticut recited in it, do not disclose this reservation. The territory ceded is described by certain lines which include less than the whole claim of Connecticut. It appears from the Journals, under the date of May 22-26, 1786, and from various propositions considered between those dates, that the State of Connecticut claimed to own a larger extent of territory than she proposed to cede; and by way of compromise, her claim was so far acceded to, that Congress agreed to accept of a cession of less than the whole. The reservation embraced about six millions of acres. See Sparks's Washington, IX. 178, note, where it appears that the right of the State to this territory was considered very feeble at the time.

[318] July 9, 1786.

[319] December 30, 1788.

[320] August 9, 1789.

[321] That of North Carolina was made February 25, 1790, and that of Georgia, April 24, 1802.

[322] See Mr. Madison's notes of the Debates in the Confederation. Elliot, V. 128, 157, 190, 211, 376, 381.

[323] His recommendation contemplated a survey of James River and the Potomac, from tide-water to their respective sources; then to ascertain the best portage between those rivers and the streams capable of improvement which run into the Ohio; then to traverse and survey those streams to their junction with the Ohio; then, passing down the Ohio to the mouth of the Muskingum, to ascend that river to the carrying-place to the Cuyahoga; then down the Cuyahoga to Lake Erie, and thence to Detroit. He also advised a survey of Big Beaver Creek, and of the Scioto, and of all the waters east and west of the Ohio, which invited attention by their proximity and the ease of land transportation between them and the James and Potomac Rivers. "These things being done," he said, "I shall be mistaken if prejudice does not yield to facts, jealousy to candor, and finally, if reason and nature, thus aided, do not dictate what is right and proper to be done." (Writings of Washington, IX. 65.) This suggestion was adopted, and a commission appointed.

[324] Writings, IX. 63, 117-119. August 22, 1785.

[325] Article II. Journals, IX. 26.

[326] Executed November 30, 1782. Secret Journals, III. 338.

[327] Article VIII. Journals, IX. 29.

[328] June 25, 1784. Communicated to Congress November 19, 1784. Secret Journals, III. 517, 518.

[329] Guardoqui arrived and was recognized July 2, 1785. Secret Journals, III. 563.

[330] August 25, 1785. Secret Journals, III. 585, 586.

[331] See the communication made by Mr. Jay to Congress, August 3, 1786. Secret Journals, IV. 43.

[332] Henry Lee, then in Congress, wrote to Washington on the 3d of July, 1786, as follows: "Your reasoning is perfectly conformable to the prevalent doctrine on that subject in Congress. We are very solicitous to form a treaty with Spain for commercial purposes. Indeed, no nation in Europe can give us conditions so advantageous to our trade as that kingdom. The carrying business they are like ourselves in, and this common source of difficulty in adjusting commercial treaties between other nations does not apply to America and Spain. But, my dear General, I do not think you go far enough. Rather than defer longer a free and liberal system of trade with Spain, why not agree to the exclusion of the Mississippi? This exclusion will not, cannot, exist longer than the infancy of the Western emigrants. Therefore, to these people what is now done cannot be important. To the Atlantic States it is highly important; for we have no prospect of bringing to a conclusion our negotiations with the court of Madrid, but by yielding the navigation of the Mississippi. Their Minister here is under positive instructions on that point. In all other arrangements, the Spanish monarch will give to the States testimonies of his regard and friendship. And I verily believe, that, if the above difficulty should be removed, we should soon experience the advantages which would flow from a connection with Spain." (Writings of Washington, IX. 173, note.)

[333] Washington's Writings, IX. 205, 206, note.

[334] Washington had not changed his opinion, at the time of these negotiations. On the 18th of June, 1786, he wrote to Henry Lee, in answer to his letter above quoted: "The advantages with which the inland navigation of the rivers Potomac and James is pregnant, must strike every mind that reasons upon the subject; but there is, I perceive, a diversity of sentiment respecting the benefits and consequences which may flow from the free and immediate use of the Mississippi. My opinion of this matter has been uniformly the same; and no light in which I have been able to consider the subject is likely to change it. It is, neither to relinquish nor to push our claim to this navigation, but in the mean while to open all the communications which Nature has afforded between the Atlantic States and the Western territory, and to encourage the use of them to the utmost. In my judgment, it is matter of very serious concern to the well-being of the former to make it the interest of the latter to trade with them; without which, the ties of consanguinity, which are weakening every day, will soon be no bond, and we shall be no more, a few years hence, to the inhabitants of that country, than the British and Spaniards are at this day; not so much, indeed, because commercial connections, it is well known, lead to others, and united are difficult to be broken. These must take place with the Spaniards, if the navigation of the Mississippi is opened. Clear I am, that it would be for the interest of the Western settlers, as low down the Ohio as the Big Kenhawa, and back to the Lakes, to bring their produce through one of the channels I have named; but the way must be cleared, and made easy and obvious to them, or else the ease with which people glide down streams will give a different bias to their thinking and acting. Whenever the new States become so populous and so extended to the westward as really to need it, there will be no power which can deprive them of the use of the Mississippi. Why, then, should we prematurely urge a matter which is displeasing, and may produce disagreeable consequences, if it is our interest to let it sleep? It may require some management to quiet the restless and impetuous spirits of Kentucky, of whose conduct I am more apprehensive in this business than I am of all the opposition that will be given by the Spaniards." (IX. 172, 173.)

On the 26th of July of the same year, he again wrote to the same gentleman, expressing the same opinions; and on the 31st of October, he said that these sentiments "are controverted by only one consideration of weight, and that is, the operation which the occlusion of the river may have on the minds of the Western settlers, who will not consider the subject in a relative point of view, or on a comprehensive scale, and may be influenced by the demagogues of the country to acts of extravagance and desperation, under the popular declamation, that their interests are sacrificed." In July, 1787, he retained the same views as to the true policy of the different sections of the country interested in this question, but admitted that, from the spirit manifested at the West, it had become a moot point to determine, when every circumstance was brought into view, what was best to be done. (IX. 172, 180, 205, 261.)

[335] See Mr. Jay's reasoning, Secret Journals, IV. 53, 54.

[336] August 29, 1786. Secret Journals, IV. 109, 110. The States which voted to rescind these instructions were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland; Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, voted not to rescind. Another resolution was carried on the following day (August 30), by the votes of seven States, instructing the Secretary to insist on the territorial limits or boundaries of the United States, as fixed in the Treaty with Great Britain, and not to form any treaty with the Spanish Minister, unless those boundaries were acknowledged and secured. Ibid. 111-116.

[337] This agreement was made between the 29th of August, the date of the rescinding resolution, and the 6th of October, 1786. See Mr. Jay's communication to Congress under the latter date, Secret Journals, IV. 297-301.

[338] This seizure was made on the 6th of June, 1786. Secret Journals, IV. 325.

[339] See the documents laid before Congress, April 13, 1787. Secret Journals, IV. 315-328. On the 30th of January, 1787, Mr. Jefferson thus writes to Mr. Madison, from Paris: "If these transactions give me no uneasiness, I feel very differently at another piece of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Mississippi may be abandoned to Spain. I never had any interest westward of the Alleghany; and I never will have any. But I have had great opportunities of knowing the character of the people who inhabit that country; and I will venture to say, that the act which abandons the navigation of the Mississippi is an act of separation between the Eastern and Western country. It is a relinquishment of five parts out of eight of the territory of the United States; an abandonment of the fairest subject for the payment of our public debts, and the chaining those debts on our own necks, in perpetuam. I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character and physical advantages of the people, who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the Confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as soldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers and sons, or rather, to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide. Nor would that country quit the cost of being retained against the will of its inhabitants, could it be done. But it cannot be done. They are able already to rescue the navigation of the Mississippi out of the hands of Spain, and to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by the inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them and Spain; and that will produce the question with us, whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war, in order to reunite them with us, and thus correct our error. And were I to permit my forebodings to go one step further, I should predict that the inhabitants of the United States would force their rulers to take the affirmative of that question. I wish I may be mistaken in all these opinions." (Jefferson, II. 87.)

[340] Secret Journals, IV. 311-313.

[341] February 28, 1787.

[342] Madison. Elliot's Debates, V. 97.

[343] These instructions were adopted in November, 1786. Pitkin, II. 207. They were laid before Congress, April 19, 1787. Madison. Elliot's Debates, V. 103.

[344] Henry Lee did not approve of this policy. See Washington's Works, IX. 205, note.

[345] See Madison's account of two interviews with Guardoqui, March 13 and 19, 1787. Elliot, V. 98, 100. At the first of these interviews, Guardoqui stated that he had had no conference with Mr. Jay since the previous October, and never expected to confer with him again.

[346] April 18, 1787. Madison. Elliot, V. 102. On the next day (April 19) the instructions of Virginia were laid before Congress, but a motion to refer them also to the Secretary was lost, Massachusetts and New York voting against it, and Connecticut being divided. Ibid. When Mr. Jay's report came under consideration, Mr. Gorham of Massachusetts, according to Madison, avowed his opinion, that the shutting of the Mississippi would be advantageous to the Atlantic States, and wished to see it shut. Ibid. 103.

[347] Article IX.

[348] Madison. Elliot, V. 104, 105.

[349] Ibid.

[350] September 16, 1788. Secret Journals, IV. 449-454.

[351] "The war, as you have very justly observed," General Washington wrote to James Warren of Massachusetts, in October, 1785, "has terminated most advantageously for America, and a fair field is presented to our view; but I confess to you, my dear Sir, that I do not think we possess wisdom or justice enough to cultivate it properly. Illiberality, jealousy, and local policy mix too much in all our public counsels for the good government of the Union. In a word, the Confederation appears to me to be little more than a shadow without the substance, and Congress a nugatory body, their ordinances being little attended to. To me it is a solecism in politics; indeed, it is one of the most extraordinary things in nature, that we should confederate as a nation, and yet be afraid to give the rulers of that nation (who are the creatures of our own making, appointed for a limited and short duration, and who are amenable for every action and may be recalled at any moment, and are subject to all the evils which they may be instrumental in producing) sufficient powers to order and direct the affairs of the same. By such policy as this, the wheels of government are clogged, and our brightest prospects, and that high expectation which was entertained of us by the wondering world, are turned into astonishment; and, from the high ground on which we stood, we are descending into the vale of confusion and darkness.

"That we have it in our power to become one of the most respectable nations upon earth, admits, in my humble opinion, of no doubt, if we would but pursue a wise, just, and liberal policy towards one another, and keep good faith with the rest of the world. That our resources are ample and increasing, none can deny; but while they are grudgingly applied, or not applied at all, we give a vital stab to public faith, and shall sink, in the eyes of Europe, into contempt.

"It has long been a speculative question among philosophers and wise men, whether foreign commerce is of real advantage to any country; that is, whether the luxury, effeminacy, and corruptions which are introduced along with it are counterbalanced by the convenience and wealth which it brings. But the decision of this question is of very little importance to us. We have abundant reason to be convinced that the spirit of trade which pervades these States is not to be repressed. It behooves us, then, to establish just principles; and this cannot, any more than other matters of national concern, be done by thirteen heads differently constructed and organized. The necessity, therefore, of a controlling power, is obvious; and why it should be withheld is beyond my comprehension." Writings, IX. 139-141.

[352] They are named in this order, because it represents the order in which they respectively acted upon the enlargement of the federal powers.

[353] One of the necessary and immediate effects of the Revolution of course was, the loss of the exclusive commercial advantages which this country had enjoyed with Great Britain and her dependencies; and the prohibitory acts and impositions, which fell with their full weight on the American trade, after the peace, were particularly disastrous to the trade of Massachusetts. The whale fishery, a business of great importance, had brought into the Province, before the war, 172,000 guineas per annum, giving employment to American seamen, and not requiring the use of any foreign materials, except a small quantity of cordage. A duty was now laid on whale oil in England of £18 per tun. In addition to the loss thus sustained, the exportation of lumber and provisions in American bottoms to the West Indies was entirely prohibited. Another great inconvenience, which came in fact to be intolerable, was the vast influx of British goods, consigned to English factors for sale, depriving the native merchants, manufacturers, and artisans of the market. At the same time, the revenue of the State, derived from impost and excise duties and a tax on auctions of one per cent., fell short of the annual interest on the private debt of the State, 30,000 pounds (currency) per annum, and a tax of 20,000 pounds (currency) was computed to be necessary to cancel the debt, principal and interest, in fifteen years, and pay the ordinary charges of the government. Besides this, the State's proportion of the federal debt was to be provided for. It was in this state of things that two remarkable popular meetings were held in Boston, in the spring of 1785, to act upon the subject of trade and navigation, and to call the attention of Congress to the necessity for a national regulation of commerce. The first was a meeting of the merchants and tradesmen, convened at Faneuil Hall on the 18th of April. They appointed a committee to draft a petition to Congress, representing the embarrassments under which the trade was laboring, and took measures to cause the legislature to call the attention of the delegation in Congress to the importance of immediate action upon the subject. They also established a committee of correspondence with the merchants in the other seaports of the United States, to induce a similar action; and they entered into a pledge not to purchase any goods of the British merchants and factors residing in Boston, who had made very heavy importations, which tended to drain the specie of the State. The other meeting was an assembly of the artisans and mechanics, held at the Green Dragon Tavern, on the 28th of April, at which similar resolutions were adopted. It is quite apparent, from these proceedings, that all branches of industry were threatened with ruin; and in the efforts to counteract the effects of the great influx of foreign commodities, we trace the first movements of a popular nature towards a national control over commerce.

[354] Governor Bowdoin's first Message to the Legislature, May 31, 1785.

[355] July 1, 1785.

[356] The delegation at that time consisted of Elbridge Gerry, Samuel Holten, and Rufus King. Their "Reasons assigned for suspending the delivery to Congress of the Governor's letter for revising and altering the Confederation" may be found in the Life of Hamilton, II. 353. See also Boston Magazine for 1785, p. 475.

[357] November 25, 1785.

[358] Letter of Messrs. Gerry, Holten, and King, delegates in Congress, to the Governor of Massachusetts, assigning reasons for suspending the delivery of his letter to Congress, dated September 3, 1785. Life of Hamilton, II. 353, 357. "We are apprehensive," said they, "and it is our duty to declare it, that such a measure would produce throughout the Union an exertion of the friends of an aristocracy to send members who would promote a change of government; and we can form some judgment of the plan which such members would report to Congress. But should the members be altogether republican, such have been the declamations of designing men against the Confederation generally, against the rotation of members, which, perhaps, is the best check to corruption, and against the mode of altering the Confederation by the unanimous consent of the legislatures, which effectually prevents innovations in the articles by intrigue or surprise, that we think there is great danger of a report which would invest Congress with powers that the honorable legislature have not the most distant intention to delegate."

[359] November 30th, 1785.

[360] The resolution introduced on the 30th of November was agreed to in the Delegates, but before it was carried up to the Senate, it was reconsidered and laid upon the table. Elliot's Debates, I. 114, 115. Letter of Mr. Madison to General Washington, of December 9, 1785, Washington's Works, IX. 508.

[361] What direct agency General Washington had in suggesting or promoting this scheme, does not appear; although it seems to have originated, or to have been agreed upon, at his house. His published correspondence contains no mention of the visit of the commissioners; but Chief Justice Marshall states that such a visit was made, and in this statement he is followed by Mr. Sparks. (Marshall, V. 90; Sparks, I. 428.) Mr. Madison, writing to General Washington in December, 1785, refers to "the proposed appointment of commissioners for Virginia and Maryland, concerted at Mount Vernon, for keeping up harmony in the commercial regulations of the two States," and says that the meeting of commissioners from all the States, which had then been proposed, "seems naturally to grow out of it." (Washington's Writings, IX. 509.)

That Washington foresaw that the plan agreed upon at his house in March would lead to a general assembly of representatives of all the States, seems altogether probable, from the opinions which he entertained and expressed to his correspondents, during that summer, upon the subject of conferring adequate commercial powers upon Congress. (See his Letters to Mr. McHenry and Mr. Madison of August 22d and November 30th, Writings, IX. 121, 145.)

[362] This resolution, passed January 21, 1786, was in these words: "Resolved, That Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Jr., Walter Jones, St. George Tucker, Meriweather Smith, David Ross, William Ronald, and George Mason, Esquires, be appointed commissioners, who, or any five of whom, shall meet such commissioners as may be appointed by the other States in the Union, at a time and place to be agreed on, to take into consideration the trade of the United States; to examine the relative situation and trade of the said States; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their common interest and their permanent harmony; and to report to the several States such an act relative to this great object, as, when unanimously ratified by them, will enable the United States in Congress assembled effectually to provide for the same; that the said commissioners shall immediately transmit to the several States copies of the preceding resolution, with a circular letter respecting their concurrence therein, and proposing a time and place for the meeting aforesaid."

[363] Rhode Island, Maryland, and Georgia.

[364] "The committee," said the Report, "have thought it their duty candidly to examine the principles of this system, and to discover, if possible, the reasons which have prevented its adoption; they cannot learn that any member of the Confederacy has stated or brought forward any objections against it, and the result of their impartial inquiries into the nature and operation of the plan has been a clear and decided opinion, that the system itself is more free from well-founded exceptions, and is better calculated to receive the approbation of the several States, than any other that the wisdom of Congress can devise. In the course of this inquiry, it most clearly appeared that the requisitions of Congress for eight years past have been so irregular in their operation, so uncertain in their collection, and so evidently unproductive, that a reliance on them in future, as a source from whence moneys are to be drawn to discharge the engagements of the Confederacy, definite as they are in time and amount, would be not less dishonorable to the understandings of those who entertain such confidence, than it would be dangerous to the welfare and peace of the Union. The committee are therefore seriously impressed with the indispensable obligation that Congress are under of representing to the immediate and impartial consideration of the several States, the utter impossibility of maintaining and preserving the faith of the federal government by temporary requisitions on the States, and the consequent necessity of an early and complete accession of all the States to the revenue system of the 18th of April, 1783." (Journals of Congress, XI. 35, 36. February 15, 1786.)

[365] Life of Hamilton, II. 374, 375

[366] The legislature of New York were willing to grant the duties to Congress, but insisted upon reserving the power of levying and collecting them; and, instead of making the collectors amenable to and removable by Congress, they made them removable by the State, on conviction for default or neglect of duty in the State courts. This was a material departure from the plan recommended by Congress, and was entirely inconsistent with the grants already made by several of the States. See the Report and proceedings in Congress on the New York Act, July 27-August 23, 1786. Journals, XI. 153, 184, 197, 200.

[367] New York was represented by Alexander Hamilton and Egbert Benson; New Jersey by Abraham Clark, William C. Houston, and James Schureman; Pennsylvania by Tench Coxe; Delaware by George Read, John Dickinson, and Richard Bassett; Virginia by Edmund Randolph (Governor), James Madison, Jr., and St. George Tucker.

[368] General Knox, writing to General Washington under date of January 14, 1787, says: "You ask what prevented the Eastern States from attending the September meeting at Annapolis. It is difficult to give a precise answer to this question. Perhaps torpidity in New Hampshire; faction and heats about their paper money in Rhode Island; and jealousy in Connecticut. Massachusetts had chosen delegates to attend, who did not decline until very late, and the finding of other persons to supply their places was attended with delay, so that the convention had broken up by the time the new-chosen delegates had reached Philadelphia." Writings of Washington, IX. 513.

[369] Report of the Annapolis Convention, Elliot's Debates, I. 116; Hamilton's Works, II. 336.

[370] Article XIII.

[371] Report, ut supra.

[372] See his letter to James Duane, written in 1780, Life, I. 284-305.

[373] Ibid. The first public proposal of a continental convention is assigned by Mr. Madison to one Pelatiah Webster, whom he calls "an able, though not conspicuous citizen," and who made this suggestion in a pamphlet published in May, 1781. Recent researches have not added to our knowledge of this writer. In the summer of 1782, the legislature of New York, under the suggestion of Hamilton, passed resolutions recommending such a convention. On the 1st of April, 1783, Hamilton, in a debate in Congress, expressed his desire to see a general convention take place. In 1784, the measure was a good deal talked of among the members of Congress, and in the winter of 1784-85, Noah Webster, an eminent political writer in Connecticut, suggested "a new system of government, which should act, not on the States, but directly on individuals, and vest in Congress full power to carry its laws into effect." In 1786, the subject was again talked of among members of Congress, before the meeting at Annapolis. (Madison. Elliot, V. 117, 118.) But Hamilton's letter to James Duane, in 1780, although not published at the time, was of course earlier than any of these suggestions. In that letter, after showing that the fundamental defect of the then existing system was a want of power in Congress, he thus analyzes in advance the Articles of Confederation, which had not then taken effect:—"But the Confederation itself is defective, and requires to be altered. It is neither fit for war nor peace. The idea of an uncontrollable sovereignty, in each State, over its internal police, will defeat the other powers given to Congress, and make our Union feeble and precarious. There are instances, without number, where acts necessary for the general good, and which rise out of the powers given to Congress, must interfere with the internal police of the States; and there are as many instances in which the particular States, by arrangements of internal police, can effectually, though indirectly, counteract the arrangements of Congress. You have already had examples of this, for which I refer to your own memory. The Confederation gives the States, individually, too much influence in the affairs of the army; they should have nothing to do with it. The entire foundation and disposal of our military forces ought to belong to Congress. It is an essential element of the Union; and it ought to be the policy of Congress to destroy all ideas of State attachment in the army, and make it look up wholly to them. For this purpose, all appointments, promotions, and provisions whatsoever ought to be made by them. It may be apprehended, that this may be dangerous to liberty. But nothing appears more evident to me, than that we run much greater risk of having a weak and disunited federal government, than one which will be able to usurp upon the rights of the people. Already some of the lines of the army would obey their States in opposition to Congress, notwithstanding the pains we have taken to preserve the unity of the army. If any thing would hinder this, it would be the personal influence of the general,—a melancholy and mortifying consideration. The forms of our State constitutions must always give them great weight in our affairs, and will make it too difficult to blind them to the pursuit of a common interest, too easy to oppose what they do not like, and to form partial combinations, subversive of the general one. There is a wide difference between our situation and that of an empire under one simple form of government, distributed into counties, provinces, or districts, which have no legislatures, but merely magistratical bodies to execute the laws of a common sovereign. There the danger is that the sovereign will have too much power, and oppress the parts of which it is composed. In our case, that of an empire composed of confederate states, each with a government completely organized within itself, having all the means to draw its subjects to a close dependence on itself, the danger is directly the reverse. It is, that the common sovereign will not have power sufficient to unite the different members together, and direct the common forces to the interest and happiness of the whole.... The Confederation, too, gives the power of the purse too entirely to the State legislatures. It should provide perpetual funds in the disposal of Congress, by a land-tax, poll-tax, or the like. All imposts upon commerce ought to be laid by Congress, and appropriated to their use; for without certain revenues, a government can have no power; that power which holds the purse-strings absolutely, must rule. This seems to be a medium which, without making Congress altogether independent, will tend to give reality to its authority. Another defect in our system is, want of method and energy in the administration. This has partly resulted from the other defect; but in a great degree from prejudice and the want of a proper executive. Congress have kept the power too much in their own hands, and have meddled too much with details of every sort. Congress is properly a deliberative corps, and it forgets itself when it attempts to play the executive. It is impossible that a body, numerous as it is, constantly fluctuating, can ever act with sufficient decision, or with system. Two thirds of the members, one half the time, cannot know what has gone before them, or what connection the subject in hand has to what has been transacted on former occasions. The members who have been more permanent will only give information that promotes the side they espouse, in the present case, and will as often mislead as enlighten. The variety of business must distract, and the proneness of every assembly to debate must at all times delay. Lastly, Congress, convinced of these inconveniences, have gone into the measure of appointing boards. But this is, in my opinion, a bad plan. A single man, in each department of the administration, would be greatly preferable. It would give us a chance of more knowledge, more activity, more responsibility, and, of course, more zeal and attention. Boards partake of the inconveniences of larger assemblies; their decisions are slower, their energy less, their responsibility more diffused. They will not have the same abilities and knowledge as an administration by single men. Men of the first pretensions will not so readily engage in them, because they will be less conspicuous, of less importance, have less opportunity of distinguishing themselves. The members of boards will take less pains to inform themselves and arrive at eminence, because they have fewer motives to do it. All these reasons conspire to give a preference to the plan of vesting the great executive departments of the state in the hands of individuals. As these men will be, of course, at all times under the direction of Congress, we shall blend the advantages of a monarchy in one constitution.... I shall now propose the remedies which appear to me applicable to our circumstances, and necessary to extricate our affairs from their present deplorable situation. The first step must be to give Congress powers competent to the public exigencies. This may happen in two ways: one, by resuming and exercising the discretionary powers I suppose to have been originally vested in them for the safety of the States, and resting their conduct on the candor of their countrymen and the necessity of the conjuncture; the other, by calling immediately a convention of all the States, with full authority to conclude finally upon a general confederation, stating to them beforehand explicitly the evils arising from a want of power in Congress, and the impossibility of supporting the contest on its present footing, that the delegates may come possessed of proper sentiments, as well as proper authority, to give efficacy to the meeting. Their commission should include a right of vesting Congress with the whole or a proportion of the unoccupied lands, to be employed for the purpose of raising a revenue, reserving the jurisdiction to the States by whom they are granted. The Confederation, in my opinion, should give Congress a complete sovereignty; except as to that part of internal police which relates to the rights of property and life among individuals, and to raising money by internal taxes. It is necessary that every thing belonging to this should be regulated by the State legislatures. Congress should have complete sovereignty in all that relates to war, peace, trade, finance; and to the management of foreign affairs; the right of declaring war, of raising armies, officering, paying them, directing their motions in every respect; of equipping fleets, and doing the same with them; of building fortifications, arsenals, magazines, &c.; of making peace on such conditions as they think proper; of regulating trade, determining with what countries it shall be carried on; granting indulgences; laying prohibitions on all the articles of export or import; imposing duties, granting bounties and premiums for raising, exporting, or importing; and applying to their own use the product of these duties, only giving credit to the States on whom they are raised in the general account of revenues and expense; instituting admiralty courts, &c.; of coining money, establishing banks on such terms, and with such privileges, as they think proper; appropriating funds, and doing whatever else relates to the operations of finance; transacting every thing with foreign nations; making alliances offensive and defensive, and treaties of commerce, &c.... The second step I would recommend is, that Congress should instantly appoint the following great officers of state: a Secretary for Foreign Affairs; a President of War; a President of Marine; a Financier; a President of Trade.... These officers should have nearly the same powers and functions as those in France analogous to them, and each should be chief in his department, with subordinate boards, composed of assistants, clerks, &c., to execute his orders." (Life of Hamilton, I. 284-305.)

[374] Abstract of an Address made to the Legislature of Massachusetts, by the Hon. Rufus King, in October, 1786. Boston Magazine for the year 1786, p. 406.

[375] Mr. Madison's Notes of Debates in the Congress of the Confederation. Elliot, V. 96.

[376] This was the opinion of Mr. Jay. He thought that no alterations should be attempted, unless deduced from the only source of just authority, the people. He seems to have considered that, if the people of the States, acting through their primary conventions, were to send delegates to a general convention, with authority to alter the Articles of Confederation, the new system would rest upon the authority of the people, without further sanction. See his letter to General Washington, of date January 7, 1787. Writings of Washington, IX. 510.

[377] Letter of General Knox to General Washington, January 14, 1787. Writings of Washington, IX. 513.

[378] Madison. Elliot, V. 96.

[379] It was brought before them by the speech of the Governor (Clinton), informing them of the resolutions of Congress, which had requested an immediate call of the legislature to consider the revenue system, "a subject," he observed, "which had been repeatedly submitted to them, and must be well understood."

[380] Journals, XII. 15. February 21, 1787.

[381] Ibid. The vote rejecting the impost bill was taken on the 15th of February. The resolution of instructions was passed on the 17th, and was laid before Congress on the 21st.

[382] Mr. Madison has recorded the suspicions with which this resolution of the New York legislature was received. Their previous refusal of the impost act, and their known anti-federal tendencies, gave rise, he says, to the belief that their object was to obtain a convention without having it called under the authority of Congress, or else, by dividing the plans of the States in their appointments of delegates, to frustrate them all. (Madison. Elliot, V. 96.) But whatever grounds there might have been for either of these suspicions, the latter certainly was not well founded. The New York resolution was drafted by Hamilton, and although it was passed by a body in which a majority had not exhibited a disposition to enlarge the authority of Congress, it was manifestly not intended to prevent the adoption of the plan of a convention. It contemplated the passage by Congress of an act, recommending the States to institute a convention of representatives of the States to revise the Articles of Confederation; and the resolution introduced by the New York delegation into Congress proposed that the alterations and amendments which the convention might consider necessary to render the Articles of Confederation "adequate to the preservation and support of the Union," should be reported to Congress and to the States respectively, but did not direct how they should be adopted. This would have left open a great question, and seemed to be a departure from the mode in which the Articles of Confederation directed that amendments should be made. Probably it was Hamilton's intention to leave the form in which the new system should be adopted for future action, without fettering the movement by prescribing the mode before the convention had assembled. But this course was practically impossible. Congress could not be prevailed upon to recommend a convention, without making the condition that the new provisions should be reported to Congress and confirmed by the States. This gave rise to great embarrassment in the convention, when it came to be admitted that the Confederation must be totally superseded, and not amended; and it was finally disregarded. But it was the only mode in which the convention could have been recommended by Congress, and without that recommendation, probably, it could not have been instituted.

[383] The resolution introduced by the Massachusetts delegation, when that of New York had been rejected, after being amended, was finally passed in the following terms: "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 mean to remedy which several of the States, and particularly the State of New York, by express instructions to their delegates in Congress, have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution; and such a 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 day in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole 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." Journals, XII. 17. February 21, 1787.

[384] The Articles of Confederation did not expressly require that amendments should be prepared and proposed in Congress. The thirteenth Article provided, that no alteration should be made, unless it should "be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." But it was clearly implied by this, that Congress were to have the power of recommending alterations, and this power was exercised in 1783, with regard to the rule of apportionment.

[385] Governor Randolph of Virginia writing to General Washington, on the 11th of March, 1787, and urging him to attend the Convention, said: "I must call upon your friendship to excuse me for again mentioning the Convention at Philadelphia. Your determination having been fixed on a thorough review of your situation, I feel like an intruder when I again hint a wish that you would join the delegation. But every day brings forth some new crisis, and the Confederation is, I fear, the last anchor of our hope. Congress have taken up the subject, and appointed the second Monday in May next as the day of meeting. Indeed, from my private correspondence, I doubt whether the existence of that body, even through this year, may not be questionable under our present circumstances." Sparks's Washington, IX. 243, note.

[386] The States of Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Delaware had appointed their delegates to the Convention before it was sanctioned by Congress. Virginia led the way; and the following preamble to her act shows with what motives and objects she did so. "Whereas, the commissioners who assembled at Annapolis, on the 14th day of September last, for the purpose of devising and reporting the means of enabling Congress to provide effectually for the commercial interests of the United States, have represented the necessity of extending the revision of the federal system to all its defects, and have recommended that deputies for that purpose be appointed by the several legislatures, to meet in convention in the city of Philadelphia, on the 2d day of May next,—a provision which was preferable to a discussion of the subject in Congress, where it might be too much interrupted by the ordinary business before them, and where it would, besides, be deprived of the valuable counsels of sundry individuals who are disqualified by the constitution or laws of particular States, or restrained by peculiar circumstances from a seat in that assembly: And whereas the General Assembly of this Commonwealth, taking into view the actual situation of the Confederacy, as well as reflecting on the alarming representations made from time to time by the United States in Congress, particularly in their act of the 15th day of February last, can no longer doubt that the crisis is arrived at which the good people of America are to decide the solemn question, whether they will, by wise and magnanimous efforts, reap the just fruits of that independence which they have so gloriously acquired, and of that Union which they have cemented with so much of their common blood,—or whether, by giving way to unmanly jealousies and prejudices, or to partial and transitory interests, they will renounce the auspicious blessings prepared for them by the Revolution, and furnish to its enemies an eventful triumph over those by whose virtue and valor it has been accomplished: And whereas the same noble and extended policy, and the same fraternal and affectionate sentiments, which originally determined the citizens of this Commonwealth to unite with their brethren of the other States in establishing a federal government, cannot but be felt with equal force now as motives to lay aside every inferior consideration, and to concur in such further concessions and provisions as may be necessary to secure the great objects for which that government was instituted, and to render the United States as happy in peace as they have been glorious in war: Be it therefore enacted, &c., That seven commissioners be appointed, by joint ballot of both houses of Assembly, who, or any three of them, are hereby authorized as deputies from this Commonwealth to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorized by other States, to assemble in convention at Philadelphia, as above recommended, and to join with them in devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and in reporting such an act, for that purpose, to the United States in Congress, as, when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, will effectually provide for the same." (Elliot, I. 132.) The instructions of New Jersey to her delegates were, "to take into consideration the state of the Union as to trade and other important objects, and of devising such other provisions as shall appear to be necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies thereof." (Ibid. 128.) The act of Pennsylvania provided for the appointment of deputies to join with the deputies of other States "in devising, deliberating on, and discussing all such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the Union, and in reporting such act or acts, for that purpose, to the United States in Congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, will effectually provide for the same." (Ibid. 130.) The instructions of Delaware were of the same tenor. (Ibid. 131.) The act of North Carolina directed her deputies "to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remove the defects of our Federal Union, and to procure the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect; and that they report such an act to the General Assembly of this State, as, when agreed to by them, will effectually provide for the same." (Ibid. 135.) The instructions to the delegates of New Hampshire were of the same tenor. (Ibid. 126.) The appointment of the delegates of Massachusetts was made with reference to the terms of the resolve of Congress recommending the Convention, and for the purposes declared therein. (Ibid. 126, 127.) The appointment of Connecticut was made with the same reference, and with the further direction "to discuss upon such alterations and provisions, agreeably to the general principles of republican government, as they shall think proper to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union; and they are further directed, pursuant to the said act of Congress, to report such alterations and provisions as may be agreed to by a majority of the United States represented in convention, to the Congress of the United States, and to the General Assembly of this State." (Ibid. 127.) The resolutions of New York, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia pursued nearly the same terms with the resolve of Congress. (Ibid. 127, 131, 136, 137.)

[387] Sparks's Washington, IX. 223, 225, 230, 236, 508-520.

[388] Sparks's Washington, IX. 223, 225, 230, 236, 508-520.

[389] Madison's Debates in the Federal Convention. Elliot, V. 244.

[390] Washington's Writings, IX. 166.

[391] Washington's Writings, IX. 121.

[392] Washington's Writings, IX. 167.

[393] Washington's Writings, IX. 212.

[394] Washington's Writings, IX. 219.

[395] Washington's Writings, IX. 221.

[396] Washington's Writings, IX. 236.

[397] Sparks's Life of Washington, p. 435.

[398] Madison's Debates, Elliot, V. 123.

[399] Washington's Writings, IX. 250.

[400] Washington's Writings, IX. 258.

[401] While these sheets are passing through the press, Mr. Ticknor writes to me as follows: "One day in January, 1819, talking with Prince Talleyrand, in Paris, about his visit to America, he expressed the highest admiration of Mr. Hamilton, saying, among other things, that he had known nearly all the marked men of his time, but that he had never known one, on the whole, equal to him. I was much surprised and gratified with the remark; but still, feeling that, as an American, I was in some sort a party concerned by patriotism in the compliment, I answered with a little reserve, that the great military commanders and the great statesmen of Europe had dealt with larger masses and wider interests than he had. 'Mais, Monsieur,' the Prince instantly replied, 'Hamilton avoit deviné l'Europe.'"

[402] See his first speech in the Convention, as reported by Mr. Madison.

[403] Burke, speaking of Lord Chatham.

[404] The current editions of the Federalist are taken from an edition published at Washington in 1818, by Jacob Gideon, in which the numbers written by Mr. Madison purport to have been corrected by himself. There had been three editions previous to this. The first edition was published in 1788, in two small volumes, by J. & A. McLean, 41 Hanover Square, New York, under the following title: "The Federalist: a Collection of Essays written in Favor of the New Constitution, as agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787." The first volume was issued before the last of the essays were written, and the second followed it, as soon as the series was completed. The authentic text of the work is to be found in this edition; two of the authors were in the city of New York at the time it was printed, and probably superintended it. It was reissued from the same type, in 1789, by John Tiebout, 358 Pearl Street, New York. A second edition was published in 1802, at New York, in two volumes, containing also "Pacificus on the Proclamation of Neutrality, and the Constitution, with its Amendments." A third edition was published in 1810, by Williams & Whiting, New York. I have seen copies of the first and second editions only, in the library of Peter Force, Esq., of Washington, editor of the "American Archives." There are some discrepancies between the text of the first edition and that of 1818, from which the current editions are taken. By whom or on what authority the alterations were made, I have not been able to ascertain, nor have I learned when, or why, or how far Mr. Madison may have corrected or altered the papers which he wrote. Such of the changes as I have examined do not materially affect the sense; but it is very desirable that the true text of the Federalist should be reproduced. That text exists in the first edition, which was issued while the Constitution was before the people of the United States for their ratification; and as the Federalist was an argument addressed to the people in favor of the adoption of the Constitution, the exact text of that argument, as it was read and acted upon, ought to be restored, without regard to the reasons which may have led any of the writers, or any one else, to alter it. I know of no evidence that Colonel Hamilton ever made or sanctioned the alteration of a word. After the text of the Constitution itself, there is scarcely any thing the preservation of which is more important than the text of the Federalist as it was first published.

[405] Article "Madison" in the Penny Encyclopædia, written for that work by Professor George Tucker of the University of Virginia.

[406] Ante, pp. 131-141.

[407] It was drawn by James Duane of New York.

[408] Ante, pp. 174, 206-208.

[409] Ante, pp. 177-179.

[410] Ante, pp. 176, 186, 188.

[411] In preparing the note to page 342 (ante), I refrained from attributing to General Washington the suggestion of the enlarged plan recommended by the Alexandria commissioners, although it was concerted at his house, because there is no evidence, beyond that fact, of his having proposed this enlargement of the plan. Since that note was printed, I have learned in a direct manner, that Mr. Madison had stated to the Hon. Edward Coles, formerly his private secretary and afterwards Governor of Illinois, that he (Mr. Madison) first suggested it. In assigning, therefore, to the different individuals who took a prominent part in the measures which led to the formation of the Constitution, the various suggestions which had an important influence upon the course of events,—a curious and interesting inquiry,—I consider that to Mr. Madison belongs the credit of having originated that series of Virginia measures which brought about the meeting of commissioners of all the States at Annapolis, for the purpose of enlarging the powers of Congress over commerce; while Hamilton is to be considered the author of the plan in which the Convention at Annapolis was merged, for an entire revision of the federal system and the formation of a new constitution.

[412] The resolve was introduced by Mr. Tyler, father of the Ex-President, a person of much influence in the legislature, and who had never been in Congress. Although prepared by Mr. Madison, it was not offered by him, for the reason that a great jealousy was felt against those who had been in the federal councils, and because he was known to wish for an enlargement of the powers of Congress. See Madison's Introduction to the Debates in the Convention, Elliot, V. 113.

[413] Ibid., p. 114.

[414] Introduction to the Debates, Elliot, V. 121.

[415] Letter to Edmund Randolph, dated New York, April 8, 1787.

[416] Jefferson's Autobiography. Works, I. 41, edition of 1853.

[417] The following extract from an autograph letter of Mr. Madison, hitherto unpublished, which lies before me, written after the adoption of the Constitution, shows very clearly that he concurred with Hamilton in the opinion that the strongest government consistent with the republican form was necessary in the situation of this country. The letter is dated at Philadelphia, December 10, 1788, and is addressed to Philip Mazzei, at Paris.

"Your book, as I prophesied, sells nowhere but in Virginia; a very few copies only have been called for, either in New York or in this city. The language in which it is written will account for it. In order to attract notice, I translated the panegyric in the French Mercure, and had it made part of the advertisement. I did not translate the comment on the Federal Constitution, as you wished, because I could not spare the time, as well as because I did not approve the tendency of it. Some of your remarks prove that Horace's 'Cœlum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt' does not hold without exception. In Europe, the abuses of power continually before your eyes have given a bias to your political reflections, which you did not feel in equal degree when you left America, and which you would feel less of, if you had remained in America. Philosophers on the old continent, in their zeal against tyranny would rush into anarchy; as the horrors of superstition drive them into atheism. Here, perhaps, the inconveniences of relaxed government have reconciled too many to the opposite extreme. If your plan of a single legislature, as in Pennsylvania, &c., were adopted, I sincerely believe that it would prove the most deadly blow ever given to republicanism. Were I an enemy to that form, I would preach the very doctrines which are preached by the enemies to the government proposed for the United States. Many of our best citizens are disgusted with the injustice, instability, and folly which characterize the American administrations. The number has for some time been rapidly increasing. Were the evils to be much longer protracted, the disgust would seize citizens of every description.

"It is of infinite importance to the cause of liberty to ascertain the degree of it which will consist with the purposes of society. An error on one side may be as fatal as on the other. Hitherto, the error in the United States has lain in the excess.

"All the States, except North Carolina and Rhode Island, have ratified the proposed Constitution. Seven of them have appointed their Senators, of whom those of Virginia, R. H. Lee and Colonel Grayson, alone are among the opponents of the system. The appointments of Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia will pretty certainly be of the same stamp with the majority. The House of Representatives is yet to be chosen, everywhere except in Pennsylvania. From the partial returns received, the election will wear a federal aspect unless the event in one or two particular counties should contradict every calculation. If the eight members from this State be on the side of the Constitution, it will in a manner secure the majority in that branch of the Congress also. The object of the anti-Federalists is, to bring about another general convention, which would either agree on nothing, as would be agreeable to some, and throw every thing into confusion, or expunge from the Constitution parts which are held by its friends to be essential to it. The latter party are willing to gratify their opponents with every supplemental provision for general rights, but insist that this can be better done in the mode provided for amendments.

"I remain, with great sincerity, your friend and servant,

"Jas. Madison, Jr."

[418] In 1753, he was appointed Deputy Postmaster-General for the British Colonies, from which place he was dismissed in 1774, while in England, on account of the part he had taken in American affairs.

[419] In 1754. See an account of this plan, ante, p. 8.

[420] He first went to England in 1757, as agent of the Pennsylvania Assembly to settle their difficulties with the Proprietaries, where he remained until 1762. In 1764, he was reappointed provincial agent in England for Pennsylvania; in 1768, he received a similar appointment from Georgia; in 1769, he was chosen agent for New Jersey; and in 1770, he became agent for Massachusetts. His whole residence in England, from 1757 to 1775, embraced a period of sixteen years, two years having been passed at home. He resided in France about nine years, from 1776 to 1785.

[421] He added, with his usual quiet humor, that "whoever looks over the lists of public officers, civil and military, of that nation, will find, I believe, that the North Britons enjoy their full proportion of emolument." Madison, Elliot, V. 179.

[422] Madison, Elliot, V. 554.

[423] Mr. Madison has recorded the following anecdote at the end of the Debates, as an incident worthy of being known to posterity. "Whilst the last members were signing, 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 often found it difficult, in their art, to distinguish a rising from a setting sun. 'I have,' said he, 'often and often, in the course of the session, and the vicissitude 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.'"

[424] Sparks's Life of Franklin, 528.

[425] Sparks's Life of G. Morris, I. 103. The florid and declamatory style of this speech belongs to the period and to the youth of the speaker. The breadth of its views and its vigor of thought display the characteristics which belonged to him through life. He had a prophetic insight of the future resources of this country, and made many remarkable predictions of its greatness. His biographer has claimed for him the suggestion of the plan for uniting the waters of Lake Erie with those of the Hudson, and upon very strong evidence.

[426] See the Report and the debates thereon, Secret Journals, II. 132 et seq.

[427] In January, 1782, the Financier made a report, which was officially signed by him, but which Mr. Jefferson says was prepared by his Assistant, Gouverneur Morris. It embraced an elaborate statement of the denominations and comparative value of the foreign coins in circulation in the different States, and proposed the adoption of a money unit and a system of decimal notation for a new coinage. The unit suggested was such a portion of pure silver as would be a common measure of the penny of every State, without leaving a fraction. This common divisor Mr. Morris found to be one 1440th of a dollar, or one 1600th of the crown sterling. The value of a dollar was therefore to be expressed by 1,440 units, and that of a crown by 1,600, each unit containing a quarter of a grain of fine silver. Nothing, however, was done, until 1784, when Mr. Jefferson, being in Congress, took up the subject. He approved of Mr. Morris's general views, and his method of decimal notation, but objected to his unit as too minute for ordinary use. Mr. Jefferson proposed the dollar as the unit of account and payment, and that its divisions and subdivisions should be in the decimal ratio. This plan was adopted in August, 1785, and in 1786 the names and characters of the coins were determined. The ordinance establishing the coinage was passed August 8, 1786, and that establishing the mint, on the 16th of October, in the same year. (Jefferson's Autobiography, Works, I. 52-54. Life of Gouverneur Morris, I. 273. Journals of Congress, XI. 179, 254.)

[428] The materials for the final preparation of the instrument, consisting of a reported draft in detail and the various resolutions which had been adopted, were placed in the hands of a committee of revision, of which William Samuel Johnson, of Connecticut, was the chairman; the other members being Messrs. Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, Madison, and King. The chairman committed the work to Mr. Morris, and the Constitution, as adopted, was prepared by him. (See Mr. Madison's letter to Mr. Sparks, Life of Gouverneur Morris, I. 284. Madison's Debates, Elliot, V. 530.)

[429] Life of Morris, I. 284-286.

[430] Ibid. 266.

[431] Madison, Elliot, V. 276, 277.

[432] Madison, Elliot, V. 556.

[433] Life, I. 287.

[434] Ibid. 288-290.

[435] Ibid. 517.

[436] Ante, p. 339, note.

[437] Mr. King being in Boston in October, 1786, was desired by the legislature to attend and give an account of the state of national affairs. For an abstract of his address, see Boston Magazine for the year 1786, p. 406.

[438] Ante, p. 266 et seq.

[439] Ibid.

[440] Journals, XII. 15-17.

[441] Madison, Elliot, V. 212, 213.

[442] Madison, Elliot, V. 266.

[443] The Ordinance for the government of the Northwestern Territory was drawn by Nathan Dane of Massachusetts. It was reported in Congress July 11th, 1787, and was passed July 13th. The committee by whom it was reported were Messrs. Carrington and R. H. Lee of Virginia, Kearney of Delaware, Smith of New York, and Mr. Dane. The clause relating to contracts was in these words: "And in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made or have force in the said territory, that shall in any manner whatever interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide and without fraud previously formed." On the 28th of August, Mr. King moved in the Convention to insert the same clause in the Constitution; but it was opposed, and was not finally adopted until September 14, when it was incorporated in the phraseology in which it now stands in the Constitution. (Madison, Elliot, V. 485; Journal of the Convention, Elliot, I. 311.)

[444] Madison, Elliot, V. 133.

[445] Denmark, it is said, abolished the foreign slave-trade and the importation into her colonies in 1792, but the prohibitions were not to take effect until 1804. 1 Kent's Commentaries, 198, note (citing Mr. Wheaton).

[446] In the first draft of the Constitution reported by the Committee of Detail, it was provided that the importation of such persons as the States might think proper to admit should not be prohibited. When the committee to arrange, if possible, certain compromises between the Northern and Southern States was raised, this provision, with other matters, was referred, and it was finally agreed that the importation should not be prohibited before the year 1808. After the adoption of the Constitution, Congress, by the acts of March 22d, 1794, and May 10, 1800, prohibited the citizens and residents of the United States from carrying slaves to any foreign territory for the purpose of traffic. By the act of March 2, 1807, the importation of slaves into the United States after January 1, 1808, was prohibited under severe penalties. In 1818 and 1819 these penalties were further increased, and in 1820, the offence was made piracy. Although the discussion of the subject commenced in England at about the same time (1788), it was nearly twenty years before a bill could be carried through Parliament for the abolition of the traffic. Through the whole of that period, and down to the very last, counsel were repeatedly heard at the bar, in behalf of interested parties, to oppose the reform. The trade was finally abolished by act of Parliament in March, 1807; it was made a felony in 1810, and declared to be piracy in 1824. While, therefore, the representatives of a few of the Southern States of this Union refused to consent to an immediate prohibition, they did consent to engraft upon the Constitution what was in effect a declaration that the trade should be prohibited at a fixed period of time; and the trade was thus abolished by the United States, under a government of limited powers, with respect to their own territories, as soon as it was abolished by the "omnipotent" Parliament of Great Britain. Moreover, by consenting to give to the Union the power to regulate commerce, the Southern States enabled Congress to abolish the slave-trade with foreign countries thirteen years before the same trade was made unlawful to British vessels.

[447] Encyclopædia Americana, Art. "Wilson, James."

[448] Madison, Elliot, V. 78.

[449] Ibid. 213.

[450] The following extracts from the speech referred to will well repay a careful perusal.

"Tacitus,—the profound politician Tacitus,—who lived towards the latter end of those ages which are now denominated ancient, who undoubtedly had studied the constitutions of all the states and kingdoms known before and in his time, and who certainly was qualified, in an uncommon degree, for understanding the full force and operation of each of them, considers, after all he had known and read, a mixed government, composed of the three simple forms, as a thing rather to be wished than expected. And he thinks that, if such a government could even be instituted, its duration could not be long. One thing is very certain,—that the doctrine of representation in government was altogether unknown to the ancients. Now, the knowledge and practice of this doctrine is, in my opinion, essential to every system that can possess the qualities of freedom, wisdom, and energy.

"It is worthy of remark, and the remark may, perhaps, excite some surprise, that representation of the people is not, even at this day, the sole principle of any government in Europe. Great Britain boasts—and she may well boast—of the improvement she has made in politics by the admission of representation; for the improvement is important as far as it goes; but it by no means goes far enough. Is the executive power of Great Britain founded on representation? This is not pretended. Before the Revolution, many of the kings claimed to reign by divine right, and others by hereditary right; and even at the Revolution, nothing further was effected or attempted than the recognition of certain parts of an original contract (Blackstone, 233), supposed, at some former remote period, to have been made between the king and the people. A contract seems to exclude, rather than to imply, delegated power. The judges of Great Britain are appointed by the crown. The judicial authority, therefore, does not depend upon representation, even in its most remote degree. Does representation prevail in the legislative department of the British government? Even here it does not predominate, though it may serve as a check. The legislature consists of three branches,—the king, the lords, and the commons. Of these, only the latter are supposed by the constitution to represent the authority of the people. This short analysis clearly shows to what a narrow corner of the British constitution the principle of representation is confined. I believe it does not extend farther, if so far, in any other government in Europe. For the American States were reserved the glory and the happiness of diffusing this vital principle throughout the constituent parts of government. Representation is the chain of communication between the people and those to whom they have committed the exercise of the powers of government. This chain may consist of one or more links, but in all cases it should be sufficiently strong and discernible.

"To be left without guide or precedent was not the only difficulty in which the Convention were involved, by proposing to their constituents a plan of a confederate republic. They found themselves embarrassed with another, of peculiar delicacy and importance. I mean that of drawing a proper line between the national government and the governments of the several States. It was easy to discover a proper and satisfactory principle on the subject. Whatever object of government is confined, in its operation and effects, within the bounds of a particular State, should be considered as belonging to the government of that State; whatever object of government extends, in its operation or effects, beyond the bounds of a particular State, should be considered as belonging to the government of the United States. But though this principle be sound and satisfactory, its application to particular cases would be accompanied with much difficulty, because, in its application, room must be allowed for great discretionary latitude of construction of the principle. In order to lessen or remove the difficulty arising from discretionary construction on this subject, an enumeration of particular instances, in which the application of the principle ought to take place, has been attempted with much industry and care. It is only in mathematical science that a line can be described with mathematical precision. But I flatter myself that, upon the strictest investigation, the enumeration will be found to be safe and unexceptionable, and accurate, too, in as great a degree as accuracy can be expected in a subject of this nature. Particulars under this head will be more properly explained, when we descend to the minute view of the enumeration which is made in the proposed Constitution.

"After all, it will be necessary that, on a subject so peculiarly delicate as this, much prudence, much candor, much moderation, and much liberality should be exercised and displayed both by the federal government and by the governments of the several States. It is to be hoped that those virtues in government will be exercised and displayed, when we consider that the powers of the federal government and those of the State governments are drawn from sources equally pure. If a difference can be discovered between them, it is in favor of the federal government, because that government is founded on a representation of the whole Union; whereas the government of any particular State is founded only on the representation of a part, inconsiderable when compared with the whole. Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the counsels of the whole will embrace the interest of every part, than that the counsels of any part will embrace the interests of the whole?

"I intend not, Sir, by this description of the difficulties with which the Convention were surrounded, to magnify their skill or their merit in surmounting them, or to insinuate that any predicament in which the Convention stood should prevent the closest and most cautious scrutiny into the performance which they have exhibited to their constituents and to the world. My intention is of far other and higher aim,—to evince, by the conflicts and difficulties which must arise from the many and powerful causes which I have enumerated, that it is hopeless and impracticable to form a constitution which, in every part, will be acceptable to every citizen, or even to every government, in the United States; and that all which can be expected is, to form such a constitution as, upon the whole, is the best that can possibly be obtained. Man and perfection!—a state and perfection!—an assemblage of states and perfection! Can we reasonably expect, however ardently we may wish, to behold the glorious union?

"I can well recollect, though I believe I cannot convey to others, the impression which, on many occasions, was made by the difficulties which surrounded and pressed the Convention. The great undertaking sometimes seemed to be at a stand; at other times, its motion seemed to be retrograde. At the conclusion, however, of our work, many of the members expressed their astonishment at the success with which it terminated.

"Having enumerated some of the difficulties which the Convention were obliged to encounter in the course of their proceedings, I shall next point out the end which they proposed to accomplish. Our wants, our talents, our affections, our passions, all tell us that we were made for a state of society. But a state of society could not be supported long or happily without some civil restraint. It is true, that, in a state of nature, any one individual may act uncontrolled by others; but it is equally true, that, in such a state, every other individual may act uncontrolled by him. Amidst this universal independence, the dissensions and animosities between interfering members of the society would be numerous and ungovernable. The consequence would be, that each member, in such a natural state, would enjoy less liberty, and suffer more interruption, than he would in a regulated society. Hence the universal introduction of governments of some kind or other into the social state. The liberty of every member is increased by this introduction; for each gains more by the limitation of the freedom of every other member, than he loses by the limitation of his own. The result is, that civil government is necessary to the perfection and happiness of man. In forming this government, and carrying it into execution, it is essential that the interest and authority of the whole community should be binding in every part of it.

"The foregoing principles and conclusions are generally admitted to be just and sound with regard to the nature and formation of single governments, and the duty of submission to them. In some cases, they will apply, with much propriety and force, to states already formed. The advantages and necessity of civil government among individuals in society are not greater or stronger than, in some situations and circumstances, are the advantages and necessity of a federal government among states. A natural and very important question now presents itself,—Is such the situation, are such the circumstances, of the United States? A proper answer to this question will unfold some very interesting truths.

"The United States may adopt any one of four different systems. They may become consolidated into one government, in which the separate existence of the States shall be entirely absolved. They may reject any plan of union or association, and act as separate and unconnected States. They may form two or more confederacies. They may unite in one federal republic. Which of these systems ought to have been formed by the Convention? To support, with vigor, a single government over the whole extent of the United States, would demand a system of the most unqualified and the most unremitted despotism. Such a number of separate States, contiguous in situation, unconnected and disunited in government, would be, at one time, the prey of foreign force, foreign influence, and foreign intrigue; at another, the victims of mutual rage, rancor, and revenge. Neither of these systems found advocates in the late Convention. I presume they will not find advocates in this. Would it be proper to divide the United States into two or more confederacies? It will not be unadvisable to take a more minute survey of this subject. Some aspects under which it may be viewed are far from being, at first sight, uninviting. Two or more confederacies would be each more compact and more manageable than a single one extending over the same territory. By dividing the United States into two or more confederacies, the great collision of interests apparently or really different and contrary, in the whole extent of their dominion, would be broken, and, in a great measure, disappear, in the several parts. But these advantages, which are discovered from certain points of view, are greatly overbalanced by inconveniences that will appear on a more accurate examination. Animosities, and perhaps wars, would arise from assigning the extent, the limits, and the rights of the different confederacies. The expenses of governing would be multiplied by the number of federal governments. The danger resulting from foreign influence and mutual dissensions would not, perhaps, be less great and alarming in the instance of different confederacies, than in the instance of different, though more numerous, unassociated States.

"These observations, and many others that might be made on the subject, will be sufficient to evince that a division of the United States into a number of separate confederacies would probably be an unsatisfactory and an unsuccessful experiment. The remaining system which the American States may adopt, is a union of them under one confederate republic. It will not be necessary to employ much time, or many arguments, to show that this is the most eligible system that can be proposed. By adopting this system, the vigor and decision of a wide-spreading monarchy may be joined to the freedom and beneficence of a contracted republic. The extent of territory, the diversity of climate and soil, the number and greatness and connection of lakes and rivers with which the United States are intersected and almost surrounded,—all indicate an enlarged government to be fit and advantageous for them. The principles and dispositions of their citizens indicate that, in this government, liberty shall reign triumphant. Such, indeed, have been the general opinions and wishes entertained since the era of independence. If those opinions and wishes are as well founded as they have been general, the late Convention were justified in proposing to their constituents one confederate republic, as the best system of a national government for the United States.

"In forming this system, it was proper to give minute attention to the interest of all the parts; but there was a duty of still higher import,—to feel and to show a predominating regard to the superior interests of the whole. If this great principle had not prevailed, the plan before us would never have made its appearance. The same principle that was so necessary in forming it is equally necessary in our deliberations, whether we should reject or ratify it.

"I make these observations with a design to prove and illustrate this great and important truth,—that, in our decisions on the work of the late Convention, we should not limit our views and regards to the State of Pennsylvania. The aim of the Convention was to form a system of good and efficient government, on the more extensive scale of the United States. In this, and in every other instance, the work should be judged with the same spirit with which it was performed. A principle of duty, as well as candor, demands this.

"We have remarked, that civil government is necessary to the perfection of society; we now remark, that civil liberty is necessary to the perfection of civil government. Civil liberty is natural liberty itself, divested of only that part which, placed in the government, produces more good and happiness to the community than if it had remained in the individual. Hence it follows that civil liberty, while it resigns a part of natural liberty, retains the free and generous exercise of all the human faculties, so far as it is compatible with the public welfare.

"In considering and developing the nature and end of the system before us, it is necessary to mention another kind of liberty, which has not yet, as far as I know, received a name. I shall distinguish it by the appellation of federal liberty. When a single government is instituted, the individuals of which it is composed surrender to it a part of their natural independence, which they before enjoyed as men. When a confederate republic is instituted, the communities of which it is composed surrender to it a part of their political independence, which they before enjoyed as States. The principles which directed, in the former case, what part of the natural liberty of the man ought to be given up, and what part ought to be retained, will give similar directions in the latter case. The States should resign to the national government that part, and that part only, of their political liberty, which, placed in that government, will produce more good to the whole than if it had remained in the several States. While they resign this part of their political liberty, they retain the free and generous exercise of all their other faculties, as States, so far as it is compatible with the welfare of the general and superintending confederacy.

"Since States, as well as citizens, are represented in the Constitution before us, and form the objects on which that Constitution is proposed to operate, it was necessary to notice and define federal as well as civil liberty.

"These general reflections have been made in order to introduce, with more propriety and advantage, a practical illustration of the end proposed to be accomplished by the late Convention.

"It has been too well known, it has been too severely felt, that the present Confederation is inadequate to the government, and to the exigencies, of the United States. The great struggle for Liberty in this country, should it be unsuccessful, will probably be the last one which she will have for her existence and prosperity in any part of the globe. And it must be confessed that this struggle has, in some of the stages of its progress, been attended with symptoms that foreboded no fortunate issue. To the iron hand of Tyranny, which was lifted up against her, she manifested, indeed, an intrepid superiority. She broke in pieces the fetters which were forged for her, and showed that she was unassailable by force. But she was environed with dangers of another kind, and springing from a very different source. While she kept her eye steadily fixed on the efforts of oppression, licentiousness was secretly undermining the rock on which she stood.

"Need I call to your remembrance the contrasted scenes of which we have been witnesses? On the glorious conclusion of our conflict with Britain, what high expectations were formed concerning us by others! What high expectations did we form concerning ourselves! Have those expectations been realized? No. What has been the cause? Did our citizens lose their perseverance and magnanimity? No. Did they become insensible of resentment and indignation at any high-handed attempt that might have been made to injure or enslave them? No. What, then, has been the cause? The truth is, we dreaded danger only on one side: this we manfully repelled. But, on another side, danger, not less formidable, but more insidious, stole in upon us; and our unsuspicious tempers were not sufficiently attentive either to its approach or to its operations. Those whom foreign strength could not overpower have wellnigh become the victims of internal anarchy.

"If we become a little more particular, we shall find that the foregoing representation is by no means exaggerated. When we had baffled all the menaces of foreign power, we neglected to establish among ourselves a government that would insure domestic vigor and stability. What was the consequence? The commencement of peace was the commencement of every disgrace and distress that could befall a people in a peaceful state. Devoid of national power, we could not prohibit the extravagance of our importations, nor could we derive a revenue from their excess. Devoid of national importance, we could not procure for our exports a tolerable sale at foreign markets. Devoid of national credit, we saw our public securities melt in the hands of the holders, like snow before the sun. Devoid of national dignity, we could not, in some instances, perform our treaties on our part; and, in other instances, we could neither obtain nor compel the performance of them on the part of others. Devoid of national energy, we could not carry into execution our own resolutions, decisions, or laws.

"Shall I become more particular still? The tedious detail would disgust me. The years of languor are now over. We have felt the dishonor with which we have been covered; we have seen the destruction with which we have been threatened. We have penetrated to the causes of both, and when we have once discovered them, we have begun to search for the means of removing them. For the confirmation of these remarks, I need not appeal to an enumeration of facts. The proceedings of Congress, and of the several States, are replete with them. They all point out the weakness and insufficiency as the cause, and an efficient general government as the only cure, of our political distempers.

"Under these impressions, and with these views, was the late Convention appointed; and under these impressions, and with these views, the late Convention met.

"We now see the great end which they proposed to accomplish. It was to frame, for the consideration of their constituents, one federal and national constitution,—a constitution that would produce the advantages of good, and prevent the inconveniences of bad government;—a constitution whose beneficence and energy would pervade the whole Union, and bind and embrace the interests of every part;—a constitution that would insure peace, freedom, and happiness to the States and people of America.

"We are now naturally led to examine the means by which they proposed to accomplish this end. This opens more particularly to our view the discussion before us. But, previously to our entering upon it, it will not be improper to state some general and leading principles of government, which will receive particular application in the course of our investigations.

"There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable. Where does this power reside? To this question writers on different governments will give different answers. Sir William Blackstone will tell you, that in Britain the power is lodged in the British Parliament; that the Parliament may alter the form of the government; and that its power is absolute, without control. The idea of a constitution, limiting and superintending the operations of legislative authority, seems not to have been accurately understood in Britain. There are, at least, no traces of practice conformable to such a principle. The British Constitution is just what the British Parliament pleases. When the Parliament transferred legislative authority to Henry VIII., the act transferring could not, in the strict acceptation of the term, be called unconstitutional.

"To control the power and conduct of the legislature by an overruling constitution, was an improvement in the science and practice of government reserved to the American States.

"Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions. This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is, that, in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed, the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitutions control in act, as well as right.

"The consequence is, that the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.

"These important truths, Sir, are far from being merely speculative. We, at this moment, speak and deliberate under their immediate and benign influence. To the operation of these truths we are to ascribe the scene, hitherto unparalleled, which America now exhibits to the world,—a gentle, a peaceful, a voluntary, and a deliberate transition from one constitution of government to another. In other parts of the world, the idea of revolutions in government is, by a mournful and an indissoluble association, connected with the idea of wars, and all the calamities attendant on wars. But happy experience teaches us to view such revolutions in a very different light,—to consider them only as progressive steps in improving the knowledge of government, and increasing the happiness of society and mankind.

"Oft have I marked, with silent pleasure and admiration, the force and prevalence, through the United States, of the principle that the supreme power resides in the people, and that they never part with it. It may be called the panacea in politics. There can be no disorder in the community but may here receive a radical cure. If the error be in the legislature, it may be corrected by the constitution; if in the constitution, it may be corrected by the people. There is a remedy, therefore, for every distemper in government, if the people are not wanting to themselves; if they are wanting to themselves, there is no remedy. From their power, as we have seen, there is no appeal; of their error, there is no superior principle of correction.

"There are three simple species of government;—monarchy, where the supreme power is in a single person; aristocracy, where the supreme power is in a select assembly, the members of which either fill up, by election, the vacancies in their own body, or succeed to their places in it by inheritance, property, or in respect of some personal right or qualification; a republic or democracy, where the people at large retain the supreme power, and act either collectively or by representation.

"Each of these species of government has its advantages and disadvantages.

"The advantages of a monarchy are strength, despatch, secrecy, unity of counsel. Its disadvantages are tyranny, expense, ignorance of the situation and wants of the people, insecurity, unnecessary wars, evils attending elections or successions.

"The advantages of aristocracy are wisdom, arising from experience and education. Its disadvantages are dissensions among themselves, oppression to the lower orders.

"The advantages of democracy are liberty, equality, cautious and salutary laws, public spirit, frugality, peace, opportunities of exciting and producing abilities of the best citizens. Its disadvantages are dissensions, the delay and disclosure of public counsels, the imbecility of public measures, retarded by the necessity of a numerous consent.

"A government may be composed of two or more of the simple forms above mentioned. Such is the British government. It would be an improper government for the United States, because it is inadequate to such an extent of territory, and because it is suited to an establishment of different orders of men. A more minute comparison between some parts of the British Constitution, and some parts of the plan before us, may perhaps find a proper place in a subsequent period of our business.

"What is the nature and kind of that government which has been proposed for the United States by the late Convention? In its principle, it is purely democratical. But that principle is applied in different forms, in order to obtain the advantages, and exclude the inconveniences, of the simple modes of government.

"If we take an extended and accurate view of it, we shall find the streams of power running in different directions, in different dimensions, and at different heights,—watering, adorning, and fertilizing the fields and meadows through which their courses are led; but if we trace them, we shall discover that they all originally flow from one abundant fountain.

"In this Constitution, all authority is derived from the people.

"Fit occasions will hereafter offer for particular remarks on the different parts of the plan."

After an elaborate examination of the Constitution, he thus concludes:—

"A free government has often been compared to a pyramid. This allusion is made with peculiar propriety in the system before you; it is laid on the broad basis of the people; its powers gradually rise, while they are confined in proportion as they ascend, until they end in that most permanent of all forms. When you examine all its parts, they will invariably be found to preserve that essential mark of free governments,—a chain of connection with the people.

"Such, Sir, is the nature of this system of government; and the important question at length presents itself to our view,—Shall it be ratified, or shall it be rejected, by this Convention? In order to enable us still further to form a judgment on this truly momentous and interesting point, on which all we have, or can have, dear to us on earth is materially depending, let us for a moment consider the consequences that will result from one or the other measure. Suppose we reject this system of government; what will be the consequence? Let the farmer say,—he whose produce remains unasked for; nor can he find a single market for its consumption, though his fields are blessed with luxuriant abundance. Let the manufacturer, and let the mechanic, say; they can feel, and tell their feelings. Go along the wharves of Philadelphia, and observe the melancholy silence that reigns. I appeal not to those who enjoy places and abundance under the present government; they may well dilate upon the easy and happy situation of our country. Let the merchants tell you what is our commerce; let them say what has been their situation since the return of peace,—an era which they might have expected would furnish additional sources to our trade, and a continuance, and even an increase, to their fortunes. Have these ideas been realized? or do they not lose some of their capital in every adventure, and continue the unprofitable trade from year to year, subsisting under the hopes of happier times under an efficient general government? The ungainful trade carried on by our merchants has a baneful influence on the interests of the manufacturer, the mechanic, and the farmer; and these, I believe, are the chief interests of the people of the United States.

"I will go further. Is there now a government among us that can do a single act that a national government ought to do? Is there any power of the United States that can command a single shilling? This is a plain and a home question.

"Congress may recommend; they can do no more: they may require; but they must not proceed one step further. If things are bad now,—and that they are not worse is only owing to hopes of improvement or change in the system,—will they become better when those hopes are disappointed? We have been told, by honorable gentlemen on this floor, that it is improper to urge this kind of argument in favor of a new system of government, or against the old one: unfortunately, Sir, these things are too severely felt to be omitted; the people feel them; they pervade all classes of citizens, and every situation from New Hampshire to Georgia: the argument of necessity is the patriot's defence, as well as the tyrant's plea.

"Is it likely, Sir, that, if this system of government is rejected, a better will be framed and adopted? I will not expatiate on this subject; but I believe many reasons will suggest themselves to prove that such expectation would be illusory. If a better could be obtained at a future time, is there any thing wrong in this? I go further. Is there any thing wrong that cannot be amended more easily by the mode pointed out in the system itself, than could be done by calling convention after convention, before the organization of the government? Let us now turn to the consequences that will result if we assent to and ratify the instrument before you. I shall trace them as concisely as I can, because I have trespassed already too long on the patience and indulgence of the house.

"I stated, on a former occasion, one important advantage; by adopting this system, we become a nation; at present, we are not one. Can we perform a single national act? Can we do any thing to procure us dignity, or to preserve peace and tranquillity? Can we relieve the distress of our citizens? Can we provide for their welfare or happiness? The powers of our government are mere sound. If we offer to treat with a nation, we receive this humiliating answer: 'You cannot, in propriety of language, make a treaty, because you have no power to execute it.' Can we borrow money? There are too many examples of unfortunate creditors existing, both on this and the other side of the Atlantic, to expect success from this expedient. But could we borrow money, we cannot command a fund, to enable us to pay either the principal or interest; for, in instances where our friends have advanced the principal, they have been obliged to advance the interest also, in order to prevent the principal from being annihilated in their hands by depreciation. Can we raise an army? The prospect of a war is highly probable. The accounts we receive, by every vessel from Europe, mention that the highest exertions are making in the ports and arsenals of the greatest maritime powers. But whatever the consequence may be, are we to lie supine? We know we are unable, under the Articles of Confederation, to exert ourselves; and shall we continue so, until a stroke be made on our commerce, or we see the debarkation of a hostile army on our unprotected shores? Who will guarantee that our property will not be laid waste, that our towns will not be put under contribution, by a small naval force, and subjected to all the horror and devastation of war? May not this be done without opposition, at least effectual opposition, in the present situation of our country? There may be safety over the Appalachian Mountains, but there can be none on our sea-coast. With what propriety can we hope our flag will be respected, while we have not a single gun to fire in its defence?

"Can we expect to make internal improvement, or accomplish any of those great national objects which I formerly alluded to, when we cannot find money to remove a single rock out of a river?

"This system, Sir, will at least make us a nation, and put it in the power of the Union to act as such. We shall be considered as such by every nation in the world. We shall regain the confidence of our citizens, and command the respect of others.

"As we shall become a nation, I trust that we shall also form a national character, and that this character will be adapted to the principles and genius of our system of government: as yet we possess none; our language, manners, customs, habits, and dress depend too much upon those of other countries. Every nation, in these respects, should possess originality; there are not, on any part of the globe, finer qualities for forming a national character, than those possessed by the children of America. Activity, perseverance, industry, laudable emulation, docility in acquiring information, firmness in adversity, and patience and magnanimity under the greatest hardships;—from these materials, what a respectable national character may be raised! In addition to this character, I think there is strong reason to believe that America may take the lead in literary improvements and national importance. This is a subject which, I confess, I have spent much pleasing time in considering. That language, Sir, which shall become most generally known in the civilized world will impart great importance over the nation that shall use it. The language of the United States will, in future times, be diffused over a greater extent of country than any other that we know. The French, indeed, have made laudable attempts towards establishing a universal language; but, beyond the boundaries of France, even the French language is not spoken by one in a thousand. Besides the freedom of our country, the great improvements she has made, and will make, in the science of government, will induce the patriots and literati of every nation to read and understand our writings on that subject; and hence it is not improbable that she will take the lead in political knowledge.

"If we adopt this system of government, I think we may promise security, stability, and tranquillity to the governments of the different States. They would not be exposed to the danger of competition on questions of territory, or any other that have heretofore disturbed them. A tribunal is here found to decide, justly and quietly, any interfering claim; and now is accomplished what the great mind of Henry IV. of France had in contemplation,—a system of government for large and respectable dominions, united and bound together, in peace, under a superintending head, by which all their differences may be accommodated, without the destruction of the human race. We are told by Sully that this was the favorite pursuit of that good king during the last years of his life; and he would probably have carried it into execution, had not the dagger of an assassin deprived the world of his valuable life. I have, with pleasing emotion, seen the wisdom and beneficence of a less efficient power under the Articles of Confederation, in the determination of the controversy between the States of Pennsylvania and Connecticut; but I have lamented that the authority of Congress did not extend to extinguish, entirely, the spark which has kindled a dangerous flame in the district of Wyoming.

"Let gentlemen turn their attention to the amazing consequences which this principle will have in this extended country. The several States cannot war with each other; the general government is the great arbiter in contentions between them; the whole force of the Union can be called forth to reduce an aggressor to reason. What a happy exchange for the disjointed, contentious State sovereignties!

"The adoption of this system will also secure us from danger, and procure us advantages from foreign nations. This, in our situation, is of great consequence. We are still an inviting object to one European power at least; and, if we cannot defend ourselves, the temptation may become too alluring to be resisted. I do not mean that, with an efficient government, we should mix with the commotions of Europe. No, Sir; we are happily removed from them, and are not obliged to throw ourselves into the scale with any. This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion, that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war. I cannot forbear, on this occasion, the pleasure of mentioning to you the sentiments of the great and benevolent man, whose works I have already quoted on another subject. M. Necker has addressed this country in language important and applicable in the strictest degree to its situation and to the present subject. Speaking of war, and the greatest caution that all nations ought to use in order to avoid its calamities,—'And you, rising nation,' says he, 'whom generous efforts have freed from the yoke of Europe! let the universe be struck with still greater reverence at the sight of the privileges you have acquired, by seeing you continually employed for the public felicity: do not offer it as a sacrifice at the unsettled shrine of political ideas, and of the deceitful combinations of warlike ambition; avoid, or at least delay, participating in the passions of our hemisphere; make your own advantage of the knowledge which experience alone has given to our old age, and preserve, for a long time, the simplicity of childhood; in short, honor human nature, by showing that, when left to its own feelings, it is still capable of those virtues that maintain public order, and of that prudence which insures public tranquillity.'

"Permit me to offer one consideration more, that ought to induce our acceptance of this system. I feel myself lost in the contemplation of its magnitude. By adopting this system, we shall probably lay a foundation for erecting temples of liberty in every part of the earth. It has been thought by many, that on the success of the struggle America has made for freedom will depend the exertions of the brave and enlightened of other nations. The advantages resulting from this system will not be confined to the United States, but will draw from Europe many worthy characters, who pant for the enjoyment of freedom. It will induce princes, in order to preserve their subjects, to restore to them a portion of that liberty of which they have for many ages been deprived. It will be subservient to the great designs of Providence with regard to this globe,—the multiplication of mankind, their improvement in knowledge, and their advancement in happiness." (Elliot's Debates, II. 423-434, 524-529.)

[451] His own description of himself in a speech made in the Virginia Convention which ratified the Constitution. Elliot, III. 65.

[452] Washington's Writings, IX. 66.

[453] He stated the number of blacks to be 236,000, and that of the whites only 352,000.

[454] Debates in the Virginia Convention, Elliot, III. 65-84, 85, 86.

[455] For a full list of the Delegates, see the Appendix to this volume.

[456] In this connection, I cannot avoid a reference to Dr. Francis Lieber's profound and admirable work "On Civil Liberty and Self-government." Whoever will follow that very able writer in his masterly exposition of the principles of Anglican liberty, will become satisfied that the American branch of it is more strictly a system of "self-government" than any other, speaking with reference to the application of the principle to every department. The destruction of such a system, therefore, would be the destruction of self-government in its most complete form. No one can suppose that the popular principles in the English Constitution would continue to expand, as they have done for the last fifty years, if the corresponding principles in America were to be overthrown, or even if they were to receive a sensible check.

[457] This Table is taken from the 12th volume of Mr. Sparks's edition of Washington's Writings, p. 426.