Washington and the American Republic, Vol. 3.

by Benson John Lossing

“The confederation appears to me,” Washington wrote to James Warren, in October, 1785, “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 toward 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 restrained. It behooves us, then, to establish just principles; and this can not, any more than other matters of national concerns, 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.”

A little earlier than this, Washington had been engaged in grave discussions at Mount Vernon, with commissioners who had been appointed by the assemblies of Virginia and Maryland, to form a compact in relation to the navigation of the Potomac and Pocomoke rivers, and a part of Chesapeake bay. During the conference he suggested the idea of a conjunction of the several states in arrangements of a commercial nature, over which the Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, had no control. In this suggestion lay the kernel of future most important action, which finally led to the great result of a convention of the states, the abandonment of the old confederation, and the adoption of the Federal Constitution.

But earlier far than this, one of the most extraordinary young men of the last century—indeed, of any century—had, with wonderful sagacity, perceived the evils that would naturally be developed by a weak central government, and had pleaded eloquently with the people to give the Congress more power. That young man was Alexander Hamilton, who, as early as 1781, put forth his views on the subject in a series of papers, under the title of The Continentalist. He was then only twenty-four years of age, yet no man in the country appeared to have clearer views of what constituted true national policy, than he. Indeed, he spoke with the wisdom of a statesman of threescore years; and with Washington and others he deeply lamented the mischievous effects of the practical influence of the doctrine of state rights in its ultra phases. “An extreme jealousy of power,” he said, “is the attendant of 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—a want of power in Congress.”

The Continentalist was published in the New York Packet, printed at Fishkill, in Duchess county, and the series were devoted chiefly to a discussion of the defects of the confederation. They excited great local and general interest; and finally Hamilton succeeded in having the subject of a general convention brought before the New York legislature, in 1782, while in session at Poughkeepsie. The idea Was a popular one with them, and on Sunday, the twenty-first of July, 1782, that body passed a series of resolutions, in the last of which it was remarked, “that it is essential to the common welfare, that there should be as soon as possible, a conference of the whole on the subject, and that it would be advisable for this purpose to propose to Congress to recommend, and to each state to adopt, the measure of assembling a GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE STATES, specially authorized to revise and amend the CONFEDERATION, reserving the right to the respective legislatures to ratify their determination.”

1786

This recommendation was pondered in other states, but the public authorities were not ready to adopt it. At length the suggestion of Washington, concerning a general commercial convention, was acted upon by the Virginia legislature. That action drew a letter from John Jay to Washington, in March, 1786, in which he said:—

“Experience has pointed out errors in our national government which call for correction, and which threaten to blast the fruit we expected from our tree of liberty. The correction proposed by Virginia may do some good, and would, perhaps, do more if it comprehended more objects. An opinion begins to prevail that a general convention for revising the Articles of Confederation would be expedient. Whether the people are yet ripe for such a measure, or whether the system proposed to be attained by it is only to be expected from calamity and commotion, is difficult to ascertain. I think we are in a delicate situation, and a variety of considerations and circumstances give me uneasiness.”

To this Washington responded in May, saying: “I coincide perfectly in sentiment with you, my dear sir, that there are errors in our national government which call for correction; loudly, I would add; but I shall find myself happily mistaken, if the remedies are at hand. We are certainly in a delicate situation; but my fear is, that the people are not yet sufficiently misled to retract from error. To be plain, I think there is more wickedness than ignorance mixed in our councils. Under this impression I scarcely know what opinion to entertain of a general convention. That it is necessary to revise and amend the Articles of Confederation, I entertain no doubt; but what may be the consequences of such an attempt, is doubtful. Yet something must be done, or the fabric must fall, for it certainly is tottering.”