Government and Administration of the United States

by Westel Woodbury Willoughby; William F. Willoughby

Another point upon which the convention differed was concerning the slave trade; whether it should, or should not, be allowed to continue. This question was also compromised, it being agreed to permit its continuance for twenty years (until 1808), after which all importation of slaves might be prohibited.

Yet another point in dispute was whether the slaves should, or should not, be counted in estimating the population of the States, in order to determine the number of representatives to which each State should be entitled. This likewise was compromised. It was agreed that five slaves should be counted equivalent to three white men.

These three main points being settled by compromises, other parts of the government, such as a single chief executive, a Federal judiciary, and the decision as to what powers should be given to the President, what to the Senate, and what to the House, were more easily arranged, and the convention adjourned September 17, 1787, having been in session a little over four months. Thus was prepared the Constitution under which we are now living—an achievement declared by Guizot to be the greatest work of its kind, and by Gladstone to be the greatest work ever struck out at one time by the hand of man.

The Constitution having been agreed to in convention, it was now submitted to the vote of each of the colonies for acceptance. It was decided in this convention that it should be considered as ratified, and should go into effect as soon as accepted by nine of the thirteen States.

The adoption or rejection of the Constitution now became a question which claimed the entire attention of the States, and it is during this contest that we find the origin of the first political parties in the United States. Those favoring the adoption of the Constitution were called "Federalists" and those opposing it "Anti-Federalists."

#Arguments For and Against Adoption.#—The Federalist party was composed of those men who were desirous of a strong central government, and for this reason favored the Constitution. This party was especially strong in New England, largely because New England, being the commercial part of the colonies, had had the lamentable weakness of the old confederation brought home to them the more forcibly by the disorganization and loss of commerce which the Continental Congress had been unable to regulate.

The Anti-Federalists were those who wished the State governments to be kept strong, and that there should be a comparatively weak central government.

The argument used by the Federalists for the adoption of the Constitution was, that only by correcting all those defects of the Confederation which have been pointed out, could order and prosperity be restored to the country. They said that the Constitution, being a series of compromises, could not please everyone in all respects, but that it was the best that could be obtained under the circumstances. Their arguments appeared in a remarkable collection of eighty-five essays, called the "Federalist," written by Alexander Hamilton in company with John Jay and James Madison. In these were explained all the points of the Constitution, and to this day they remain the best exposition of the Constitution ever written.

The objections raised by the Anti-Federalists were many. In the first place, it was of course objected that it gave to the central government too much power; that state government and State liberty would be crushed out. The State was then as dear to the citizen as is the National Government to us to-day. Patriotism was then devotion to the State. The colonists had suffered so much from control over their state governments by an outside strong government, that they were fearful of again putting themselves under a strong national government though of their own making. In warning terms it was declared it would be a government founded upon the destruction of the governments of the several States. They said, "Congress may monopolize every source of revenue, and thus indirectly demolish the State governments, for without funds they cannot exist." These elements of State love and jealousy of the Federal power are of the utmost importance in studying our history. We see them running through all our life as the main causes of division between political parties. (See later chapter on "Introduction to History of Political Parties.")

Another objection was, that the Constitution contained no definite "bill of rights" recognizing and guaranteeing fundamental personal liberties, such as freedom of speech, liberty of the press, assurance against unjust arrest, the right to bear arms, and trial by jury in civil cases, etc. This class of objections was satisfied by the adoption of the first ten constitutional amendments. It was also claimed by those opposed to the ratification, that inasmuch as the Constitution placed no limit to the number of terms which a President might serve, one man might become so powerful as to obtain a life-tenure of office, and thus the government would degenerate into a monarchy. To show how exaggerated were the fears during this critical period of our history, we have the report that it was actually claimed and believed by many at that time that the Federalists had the secret intention of inviting over to our country some European prince who should rule as king. Patrick Henry cried, "We shall have a king; the army will salute him monarch." Though not fixed by the Constitution, it has been since the time of Washington the invariable rule that no man shall be elected for more than two terms. The friends of President Grant attempted to have him nominated for a third time, but so strong was this prejudice that, popular as he was at that time, the plan failed.