Page images
PDF
EPUB

68

A CONVENTION CALLED.

credit, both public and private, and had brought total ruin on numberless widows and orphans.1

That the new government would be aristocratic, and that by its omission of a Bill of Rights it would injure the liberties of the people, were claimed by James Lincoln, if Ninety-Six.2 Pinckney replying to these and to other objections, showed that the President's term of office, his re-eligibility, and his powers and the manner of choosing him, had been fully discussed in the Convention and were the result of common approval. Nor had its members forgotten to consider a Bill of Rights, but had concluded that none was needed, because the general government having no powers, save those expressly granted to it, could not take away the rights of the people.3 But another reason had had weight, particularly with the South Carolina members, against the insertion of a Bill of Rights. These generally began with the declaration that all men by nature are born free, but the South Carolina delegates would have made that declaration with very bad grace, while a large part of their property consisted in men, who were actually born slaves.*

The question being put, whether a convention should be called to consider the Constitution, it was carried unanimously. On the following day the question being whether the convention should assemble on the twelfth of May, at Charlestown, it was carried by a majority of only one, the minority favoring Columbia. The number of dele

1 Id., 306.

2 Id., 313-315.

3 Compare with Hamilton's explanation of the omission of a Bill of Rights in the Federalist, No. LXXXII, also Nos. XLIX, L, LI.

4 Elliot, IV, 315-316.

5 January 18, 1788. Id., 316.

6 76 to 75; Id., 317.

[blocks in formation]

gates chosen were two hundred and thirty-six. Those from the country districts were generally instructed to oppose the Constitution, though it does not appear that all the anti-federal districts gave this specific direction.1 A convention so numerous was bound to include the most prominent men in the State. Many of the delegates were greatly distinguished; Charles C. Pinckney, Charles Pinckney and John Rutledge, who had been delegates of the State to the Philadelphia Convention were among the number. There were other members scarcely less famed, among whom were Thomas Pinckney, the Governor, who, eight years later, was the candidate of the Federalists for VicePresident; Christopher Gadsden, venerable in years and doubtless the most highly esteemed man in the Commonwealth; David Ramsey, the historian; Edward Rutledge, at one time the Governor of the State, and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence; Thomas Heyward, also a signer, and with him Henry Lawrence, John Mathews and Richard Hutson, also signers of the Articles of Confederation. The names of Francis Marion, William Washington and William Moultrie, suggested how near was the convention to the stirring incidents of the late war. Among the leading Anti-Federalists were General Sumter and Edanus Burke. No convention which assembled to ratify the Constitution surpassed this of South Carolina in ability.

On the thirteenth of May, a majority of the delegates having assembled, Thomas Pinckney, the Governor, was elected president, and the discussion of the Constitution began. As in the late session of the legislature, the Constitution was now most ably defended by the delegates of

1 Libby, 93-94.

70

TRADE AND COMMERCE.

the State to the Federal Convention. As in Massachusetts, the instrument was taken up paragraph by paragraph. The victory had already been won in the legislature, but the Anti-Federalists, convinced that they could not defeat the Constitution, resolved on a policy of delay. Charles Pinckney, on the fourteenth of May, made a defense of the new government, basing his argument on the protection which it would afford to all classes of men and to all the interests of the Union. He emphasized the fact that it was based largely on the State constitutions and existing laws. Even the Senate, which had been so bitterly attacked by Lowndes in the legislature, was not unlike the analogous branch in most of the States. He called attention to the system of checks and balances which permeated the plan, but rested his defense chiefly on two truths, that the new Constitution was founded on the State systems and was within the control of the people.1

Tweed, a delegate from Prince Frederick, did not omit the familiar caution that the new plan should not be hastily adopted. He leaned to the opinion that another general convention was desirable. Pinckney at least convinced the Federalists, that the limitations which the Constitution imposed upon the States were salutary and necessary, and particularly the prohibition of paper money; for experience had shown that in every State in which it had been emitted since the Revolution, it always forced gold and silver out of the country and discouraged commerce. Every medium of trade, he argued, should have an intrinsic value, which paper money lacks; therefore, gold and silver were the fittest medium. The debtor class, through their representatives in the assemblies, would whenever possible, make paper money with fraud

1 Elliot, IV, 318-332. It will be observed that Pinckney's argument is the same as that used by the authors of the Federalist.

A POLICY OF OBSTRUCTION.

71

ulent views. In the States in which the credit of paper had been best supported, the bills had never been kept at par in circulation. Trade, if untrammeled, would doubtless command a sufficient sum in specie for its own purposes. So long as State issues were permissible, the citizens of South Carolina would be unable to trade with those of other States and be sure of receiving the value of their commodities. But, above all, the prohibition of State issues was needed to restore our foreign credit. Under the Constitution, there would be no more paper money, or tender laws, to drive commerce from our shores or cast a shadow on the American name.1

In accordance with their policy of obstruction and delay the Anti-Federalists, led by General Sumter, moved an adjournment until the twentieth of October, by which time the remaining States, and especially Virginia, would have acted; but this was defeated.2 On the twenty-third, the Constitution was ratified by a vote of one hundred and forty-nine to seventy-three. The Anti-Federalists succeeded in securing four amendments, namely, the right of prescribing the manner, time and place of holding elections to the Federal Legislature should be forever inseparably annexed to the sovereignty of the several States; the States should retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the general government;

1 May 20, 1788, Id., 333-336.

2 May 21, 1788, 135 nays, 89 yeas.

* Id., 338-340. Most of the negative votes came from the district eastward of the Wateree, nine from the district of Ninetysix; 8 from Saxe; from Gothe 6; the Lower districts between the Broad and Saluda Rivers 5; the Spartan district 5; the district between the Broad and Catawba Rivers, Richland county 3; Fairfield county 4; Chester district 4; the district called the New Acquisition 10. The authorship of the amendments is unknown, it is not improbable that Edanus Burke had much to do with it. For the ratification see Documentary History, III, 123-140.

72

RATIFICATION AND REJOICINGS.

Congress should never impose direct taxes, save when the revenue arising from the indirect was insufficient, and not then until requisition had been made upon the States; and the language of the Constitution prohibiting religious tests should be modified, so as to read that no other religious test should be required as a qualification to office under the United States than the oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. The second and third amendments were among those which Massachusetts had recommended.2

Four days after the ratification, the event was celebrated in Charleston as it had been in Boston and Baltimore by a procession of the trades. The ship Federalist, full rigged and manned, was the chief piece in the parade, as it had been in those towns. A packet swiftly sailing from Baltimore had brought to Charleston the news of ratification by Maryland, and now it carried back like news from South Carolina, and arrived in Baltimore on the last day of May. The joyous intelligence was received with a federal salute, was spread through Virginia and was carried on to Philadelphia and New York. Within a week it had reached New Hampshire. It was everywhere received by the Federalists as a sure sign that the Constitution would soon be approved by the requisite number of States.

The Constitution had now been before the country eight months and eight States had ratified; the ninth might be New Hampshire, New York or Virginia. The figure of the New Hampshire column partly raised to the Federal arch, lately displayed in the Massachusetts papers, illustrated the condition of affairs in New Hampshire. Thus

1 Compare Article VI, Section 3.

2 For the amendments see Documentary History, III, 139-140; Elliot, I, 325.

« PreviousContinue »