SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE.

43

nounced biennial elections as perilous to public interests.1 One Anti-Federalist would have a property qualification,2 and pay the members of Congress from the State treasury; another insisted upon a religious test in order to exclude Roman Catholics, but not one of the seventeen clergymen present favored the proposed exclusion. It seems somewhat paradoxical that a demand for a property qualification should have been made by an Anti-Federalist, and that a Federalist should have declared that the objection was founded on undemocratic principles.

Protection to slavery and the slave trade furnished the Anti-Federalists many arguments, expressed summarily by Widgery, who remarked that one southern man with sixty slaves would have as much influence as thirty-seven freemen in New England. As in the Pennsylvania convention so here, the chief objection to the plan was to the power which it gave to Congress. Thomas Dawes, of Boston, argued, that Congress should be given power to encourage manufactures. But this idea which was destined to become a dominant principle of a great political party, in later years, alarmed the Anti-Federalists. It was not perfectly clear, to the majority of the friends or the opponents of the Constitution just how a government could derive an income from a tariff and not burden the people.?

The Americans at this time were familiar with direct taxes and quotas, but they had not yet pursued the sinuous ways of indirect taxation; thus a familiar argument with

1 Id., 113, 121.

2 Id., 133.

* Id., 251.

Theodore Sedgwick, Id., 133. For the part Sedgwick played in bringing about the adoption of the eleventh amendment, see p. 289.

Id., Parsons' Minutes, 303.

* Id., 158.

the Anti-Federalists was the probable inability of the new government to raise sufficient revenue by tariff, and, consequently, the necessity it would be under to tax land and personal property.1 Undoubtedly this favorite AntiFederal objection was inevitable, but as yet a tariff had not been tried. It is not strange that men, who, like the majority of the Americans, at this time, were obliged to work hard for a living, and whose annual income was not on an average much above two hundred dollars a year, should view, with alarm, the grant of power to Congress to levy and collect taxes at its discretion. This distrust of delegated power was well founded and lay at the bottom of all the Anti-Federal arguments against the legislative department.2 Many Federalists shared it. Yet, carried to an extreme it would destroy all government.3

Local antagonisms divided the members into the agricultural and the commercial party. The New England farmers habitually believed that the merchants, in the large towns, led a very easy life and nowhere was this conviction stronger than in rural Massachusetts. Out of it grew another belief, equally potent, that whatever the merchants favored, would be autocratic, and that true democracy was to be found in the thoughts of the farmers.* The industrial seam ran all along the coast dividing the tillers of the soil from the shop-keepers,-the countrymen from the townspeople. Richard Henry Lee had his audience in mind when he wrote his Letters of a Farmer. So Centinel in his letters to the people of Pennsylvania,5 told them that the new government was intended for the

1 Id., 203.

2 Harding, 74.

3 Knox to Washington, February 10, 1788; Id., 409; Harding, 74.

4 Harding, 75.

Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 626-628.

well born and would degrade the freemen of the State. It was the rich man's plan, devised to rob the poor man, and all who labored for their bread. This notion was reechoed in other States. In Massachusetts the Anti-Federalists hastened to point out that its truth was corroborated by the class of men who supported the new plan; the lawyers, the clergy, the judges and the rich merchants.1 Thus the contest over the ratification of the Constitution, as it was more or less elsewhere, was a contest between classes.

But not all the plowmen were Anti-Federalists. Jonathan Smith, of Berkshire county, who declared himself a plain man, who got his living by the plow, came from a part of the State which had been harrowed by Shays and his followers. He described the terrible effects of that insurrection. One of the Anti-Federal leaders tried to cut him off, as he vividly described the robberies, the burning of farm buildings, the alarm from town to town, and the breaking up of families, which the insurrection had caused. But Samuel Adams declared Smith in order, and told him to go on in his own way. It led to the conclusion that anarchy breeds tyranny.2 He had made a strong plea for the federal cause, but had not removed the suspicion that the new plan was essentially autocratic.3 Then, too, the paper money men and the friends of the tender laws opposed the new plan; for they saw in it the end of their schemes. Here was a serious obstacle in the way of the Federalists; but here lay the strength of the opposition. The inhabitants of Maine desired separation, and the delegates from this part of the State read in the clause regulating the organization of new States or

1 Harding, 76-77; Debates, 409.

2 Debates, 204.

3 Harding, 78.

4 Harding, 43, 79.

46

POLICY OF THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS.

parts of old ones a serious if not a fatal delay of their wishes.1 So most of the Maine delegates were opposed to the Constitution.2

The policy of the Anti-Federalists was to postpone the vote; adjourn the convention and await the decision of other States. Thus they all declaimed against undue haste. The new plan, they said, instead of being an amendment to the Articles of Confederation was a wholly different government; therefore, allow the people time for reflection before asking them to approve it. The worst feature of this objection was the power of the AntiFederalists to carry it through. It had been agreed at the opening of the session that the discussion should be by sections, until the whole Constitution had been considered. The convention was now amidst the powers of Congress, when on the twenty-third of January, Mason proposed that the form of procedure, by paragraphs, should be abandoned; that the whole instrument be discussed on its merits, and the vote on ratification be taken.* This was alarming, but on the following day, happily

1 When in 1819, separation was finally agitated, the Federalists opposed it; for an account of the separation see my Constitutional History of the American People, 1776-1850, II, Index "Maine." See the Debates and other proceedings of the convention of delegates assembled at Portland on the 11th and continued until the 29th of October, 1819, for the purpose of forming a constitution for the State of Maine, to which is prefixed the constitution taken in convention by Jeremiah Perley, Counsellorat-law, Portland; A. Shirley, Printer, 1820, 300 pages; Journal of the Convention, Augusta, 1856, 112 pages; The Debates and Journal (reprint), Edited by Charles E. Nash, Augusta, Maine, Farmers' Almanac Press, 1894. This also contains the Brunswick Convention of 1816 and biographical sketches of its members and of those of the convention of 1819.

2 Harding, 81.

* Debates, 160-161.

4 Debates, 195.

A POLITICAL BARGAIN.

47

for the Federalists, Samuel Adams spoke against the proposition and it was defeated. The Anti-Federalists were remarking that it was time they were going home to attend to their work, but Adams answered that this was not the time to desert public interests for private concerns. It would be better, he said, to lend the money which any of the country members needed rather than hurry so great a subject.

Adams's opposition was somewhat unexpected and was greeted with mingled applause and hisses,' but it showed where he stood. It showed more; namely, that if the Constitution was to be ratified, the Federalists must come to some terms with their opponents. In Pennsylvania the Federalist majority of two to one had made such terms unnecessary, though even there the political effect would have been highly advantageous. In Massachusetts a compromise was absolutely necessary. Opposition must be quieted by conceding to amendments covering the more serious objections. These should be adopted in the form of a recommendation to Congress, but ratification should not be conditional upon their final incorporation into the Constitution. It appears that this procedure was contemplated early in the session, indeed, within the first week.2 The exact source of the scheme is unknown, but probably it occurred to several of the Federal leaders, all of whom were practical politicians. Its successful operation involved some difficulties, not the least of which was the adroit management of Hancock.

As yet he had not appeared. His gout, which, John Adams said, always overtook him when there was anything unpopular or unpleasant for him to do, had kept

1 Debates, 197.

2 Harding, 84;

Massachusetts Centinel, January 12, 1788; Avery and Thatcher, January 19.