CHAPTER II[ToC]
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE
Political revolutions are the opportunity of youth. In England, Pitt and Fox; in America, Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris; in Europe, Napoleon and Pozzo di Borgo, before they reached their thirtieth year, helped to shape the political destiny of nations. The early maturity of Gallatin was no less remarkable. In his voluminous correspondence there is no trace of youth. At nineteen his habits of thought were already formed, and his moral and intellectual tendencies were clearly marked in his character, and understood by himself. His tastes also were already developed. His life, thereafter, was in every sense a growth. The germs of every excellence, which came to full fruition in his subsequent career, may be traced in the preferences of his academic days. From youth to age he was consistent with himself. His mind was of that rare and original order which, reasoning out its own conclusions, seldom has cause to change.
His political opinions were early formed. A letter written by him in October, 1783, before he had completed his twenty-third year, shows the maturity of his intellect, and his analytic habit of thought. An extract gives the nature of the reasons which finally determined him to make his home in America:—
“This is what by degrees greatly influenced my judgment. After my arrival in this country I was early convinced, upon a comparison of American governments with that of Geneva, that the latter is founded on false principles; that the judicial power, in civil as well as criminal cases, the executive power wholly, and two thirds of the legislative power being lodged in two bodies which are almost self-made, and the members of which are chosen for life,—it is hardly possible but that this formidable aristocracy should, sooner or later, destroy the equilibrium which it was supposed could be maintained at Geneva.”
The period from the peace of 1783 to the adoption of the federal Constitution in 1787 was one of political excitement. The utter failure of the old Confederation to serve the purposes of national defense and safety for which it was framed had been painfully felt during the war. Independence had been achieved under it rather than by it, the patriotic action of some of the States supplying the deficiencies of others less able or less willing. By the radical inefficiency of the Confederation the war had been protracted, its success repeatedly imperiled, and, at its close, the results gained by it were constantly menaced. The more perfect union which was the outcome of the deliberations of the federal convention was therefore joyfully accepted by the people at large. Indeed, it was popular pressure, and not the arguments of its advocates, that finally overcame the formidable opposition in and out of the convention to the Constitution. No written record remains of Mr. Gallatin's course during the sessions of the federal convention. He was not a member of the body, nor is his name connected with any public act having any bearing upon its deliberations. Of the direction of his influence, however, there can be no doubt. He had an abiding distrust of strong government,—a dread of the ambitions of men. Precisely what form he would have substituted for the legislative and executive system adopted nowhere appears in his writings, but certainly neither president nor senate would have been included. They bore too close a resemblance to king and lords to win his approval, no matter how restricted their powers. He would evidently have leaned to a single house, with a temporary executive directly appointed by itself; or, if elected by the people, then for a short term of office, without renewal; and he would have reduced its legislative powers to the narrowest possible limit. The best government he held to be that which governs least; and many of the ablest of that incomparable body of men who welded this Union held these views. But the yearning of the people was in the other direction. They felt the need of government. They wanted the protection of a strong arm. It must not be forgotten that the thirteen colonies which declared their independence in 1776 were all seaboard communities, each with its port. They were all trading communities. The East, with its fisheries and timber; the Middle States, with their agricultural products and peltries; the South, with its tobacco; each saw, in that freedom from the restrictions of the English navigation laws which the treaty of peace secured, the promise of a boundless commerce. To protect commerce there must be a national power somewhere. Since the peace the government had gained neither the affection of its own citizens nor the respect of foreign powers.
The federal Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787. The first State to summon a convention of ratification was Pennsylvania. No one of the thirteen original States was more directly interested than herself. The centre of population lay somewhere in her limits, and there was reasonable ground for hope that Philadelphia would become once more the seat of government. The delegates met at Philadelphia on November 2. An opposition declared itself at the beginning of the proceedings. Regardless of the popular impatience, the majority allowed full scope to adverse argument, and it was not until December 12 that the final vote was taken and the Constitution ratified, without recommendations, by a majority of two to one. In this body Fayette County was represented by Nicholas Breading and John Smilie. The latter gentleman, of Scotch-Irish birth, an adroit debater, led the opposition. In the course of his criticisms he enunciated the doctrines which were soon to become a party cry; the danger of the Constitution “in inviting rather than guarding against the approaches of tyranny;” “its tendency to a consolidation, not a confederation, of the States.” Mr. Gallatin does not appear to have sought to be a delegate to this body, but his hand may be traced through the speeches of Smilie in the precision with which the principles of the opposition were formulated and declared; and his subsequent course plainly indicates that his influence was exerted in the interest of the dissatisfied minority. The ratification was received by the people with intense satisfaction, but the delay in debate lost the State the honor of precedence in the honorable vote of acquiescence,—the Delaware convention having taken the lead by a unanimous vote. For the moment the Pennsylvania Anti-Federalists clung to the hope that the Constitution might yet fail to receive the assent of the required number of States, but as one after another fell into line, this hope vanished.
One bold expedient remained. The ratification of some of the States was coupled with the recommendation of certain amendments. Massachusetts led the way in this, Virginia followed, and New York, which, in the language of the day, became the eleventh pillar of the federal edifice, on July 26, 1788, accompanied her ratification with a circular letter to the governors of all the States, recommending that a general convention be called.[1]
The argument taken in this letter was the only one which had any chance of commending itself to popular favor. It was in these words: “that the apprehension and discontents which the articles occasion cannot be removed or allayed unless an act to provide for the calling of a new convention be among the first that shall be passed by the next Congress.” This document, made public at once, encouraged the Pennsylvania Anti-Federalists to a last effort to bring about a new convention, to undo or radically alter the work of the old. A conference held at Harrisburg, on September 3, 1788, was participated in by thirty-three gentlemen, from various sections of the State, who assembled in response to the call of a circular letter which originated in the county of Cumberland in the month of August. The city of Philadelphia and thirteen counties were represented; six of the dissenting members of the late convention were present, among whom was Smilie. He and Gallatin represented the county of Fayette.