CELEBRATION IN NEW YORK.

153

low-chandlers Company, a huge flag with thirteen stripes, displaying thirteen candles, of which eleven were burning in one common flame; those of New York and North Carolina were lighted, but were not joined with the rest. Two faces were displayed on the banner,-Hamilton and Washington, and above the figure of Washington was written the wish of the Nation, that he might be the first President. This was not the limit of the honor shown to Hamilton. Moving amidst the procession was a Federal Ship, of thirteen guns, and the name of the ship was Hamilton. The honors shown him were deserved; he had been the first to propose the more perfect Union;1 he had labored unceasingly to bring about the Federal Convention; he had borne a distinguished part in its discussions; he had signed it for the State of New York; he had planned and had been the chief author of the Federalist, which remains the classic contemporary exposition of the Constitution; and, in the face of almost insurmountable obstacles, he had carried the Constitution through the Poughkeepsie convention; for it was due to his logic and eloquence that the two Anti-Federalist leaders had ceased their opposition and voted for ratification. The Constitution had now been adopted by eleven States and its inauguration was the next thing to provide for. North Carolina and Rhode Island were delaying, and Vermont, a quasi-State, was doubtful what it ought to do. Happily the civil program which the equities and proprieties of national life demanded, was carried out.

1 See Vol. I, p. 244.

CHAPTER V.

THE NEW GOVERNMENT INAUGURATED; RATIFICATION BY NORTH CAROLINA, RHODE ISLAND AND VERMONT.

The State of North Carolina at this time extended from the Atlantic to the Mississippi. The western counties comprised all the portion then called Frankland, or the District of Washington,-known to us as Tennessee,and the region between the mountains and the lowlands was decidedly anti-federal. Even the larger towns, and there was not one in the State containing a population of eight thousand souls, did not contain a federal majority.1 The general assembly willingly agreed to a convention, five days before that of New York adjourned, and it assembled in the Presbyterian church at Hillsboro, with two hundred and twenty-eight members, on the twentyfirst of July.2

The Federal leaders were William Richardson Davie and Richard Dobbs Spaight, lately delegates to the Federal Convention; Samuel Johnston, the governor; and Archibald Maclain, John Steele and James Iredell; the Anti-Federalists were Willie Jones, David Caldwell, Timothy Bloodworth and Samuel Spencer. It was widely believed that North Carolina would be governed by the conduct of Virginia,3 and some sanguine Federalists in the South had started the rumor that the people of the State were almost unanimous for the Constitution.*

1 For some account of the geographical distribution of federal and anti-federal sentiments, see Libby, 93.

2 Elliot, IV, 1; 1788.

3 Washington to Madison, December 7, 1787; Sparks IX, 286; to Jay, January 20, 1788, Id., 309.

4 Id., 288.

PUBLIC OPINION IN NORTH CAROLINA.

155

Though this rumor was not credited by thoughtful men, the prospect of ratification in North Carolina seemed more promising than in New York, for the State was in a less favorable situation to withdraw from the Union.1 The Constitution had now been so long before the country that every man of intelligence in the State was prepared to give his vote on the question of adoption; so that when the convention assembled a short session and an immediate decision were expected. The Anti-Federalists, overwhelmingly strong, were led chiefly by Willie Jones, of Halifax, a man of large wealth and an ardent believer in democracy. Unquestionably he was the most influential man in the convention. He favored taking the vote at once and then adjourning. In other conventions it had been the Anti-Federalists who had asked for delay; but in North Carolina it was the Federalists led by Iredell who protested against the undue haste of the Anti-Federalists and their demand for an immediate vote.2 Jones even preferred that the question should go to the electors directly, for he was confident that they would refuse to ratify, but it was finally decided, and by a great majority, to discuss the Constitution clause by clause.1

Little that was said against it, or for it, was new, but the convention differed from any of the other thirteen in its political character, being composed of a greater proportion of Anti-Federalists than assembled elsewhere and giving utterance more perfectly therefore, than any other to all that the opponents of the Constitution demanded. David Caldwell, of Guilford, a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian

1 Washington to Charles C. Pinckney, June 28, 1788, Id., 390. 2 Elliot, IV, 4.

3 Id., 7.

4 Id., 15.

156

IREDELL'S S DEFENSE.

clergyman, logical and fixed in his opinions, objected to the opening of the preamble, "We the people," for the people, he said, had not empowered the Federal Convention to use their name; to which Davie replied that the Convention, which had been called to decide upon the most effectual means of removing the defects of the Confederation, had submitted the Constitution, believing full well that it would be in no sense binding until it had received the solemn assent of the people,1 and entering upon a general defense of the new plan he elaborated the meaning of the preamble, showing that the entire instrument was in keeping with its scope and purpose.

Caldwell still demanded to know why the delegates from the States had styled themselves "we the people?" Iredell answered, that the words were not to be applied. to the members themselves, but were the style of the Constitution, when it should be ratified by the States.2 But the plan made the President a law maker, and gave the Vice-President a vote, in case the Senate was equally divided. To which Governor Johnston replied, that if a Senator were to be appointed Vice-President, the State which he represented would either lose a vote, if he was not permitted to vote on every occasion, or in some instances would have two votes; and Iredell added that the President had no power of legislation, but only authority to object to a bill and thus to secure its reconsideration: an assurance against a law passed by a bare majority.3 Goudy, of Guilford, objected to being represented with negroes, to which Davie made answer, that the southern delegates had insisted on the admission of slaves into representation, because they contributed by their labor to

the general wealth as well as other members of the community, and as rational beings had the right to be represented. The final conclusion in the matter had been a compromise. But North Carolina, said Galloway, had too few representatives, which Spaight explained was due to the lack of a census of the State and the number proposed was only temporary. Great dread was expressed of the Senate and of the investment of the whole power of impeachment in the House of Representatives. But Johnston and Iredell cited the precedent of the British Constitution, and explained the checks which were imposed upon the management of cases of impeachment and in judgments arising in them.1

3

Especially did the Anti-Federalists object to the long term of the Senate, as well as to its powers, to which Iredell and Davie answered as they had already been answered in the Federalist;2 The Senate must be organized to give stability to the government, and therefore, the term must be sufficiently long. Even Governor Johnston confessed that he could not comprehend the reason for giving Congress power over elections, and he was quickly supported by Spencer, who saw in this grant of authority only a blow at the State legislatures and a tendency toward a consolidated government. Iredell demonstrated that the very existence of the general government would depend on that of the State legislatures; the power over elections had been given Congress to be exercised in case the State did not make adequate provision either by neglect or in time of war. Davie admitted that if there were any seeds in the Constitution