arisen, when attempts have been made to reconcile such a variety of interests and local prejudices as pervade the several states, will render explanation unnecessary. I wish the Constitution which is offered, had been more perfect; but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time. And, as a constitutional door is opened for amendments hereafter, the adoption of it under the present circumstances of the Union is, in my opinion, desirable."

To the Marquis de Chastelleux, he

wrote:

"Should it be adopted, and I think it will be, America will lift up her head again, and in a few years become respectable among nations."

Again he wrote:

"There are some things in the new form, I will readily acknowledge, which never did, and I am persuaded never will, obtain my cordial approbations; but I did then conceive, and do now most firmly believe, that in the aggregate it is the best Constitution, that can be obtained at this epoch; and that this, or a dissolution, awaits our choice, and is the only alternative." *

To Lafayette he expressed himself with still greater frankness and carnestness, as follows:

"I expect that many blessings will be attributed to our new government, which are now taking their rise from that industry and frugality, into the practice of which the people have been forced from necessity. I really believe, that there never was so much labor and economy to be found before in the country as at the present moment. If they persist in the habits they are acquiring, the good effects will soon be distinguishable. When the people shall find themselves secure under an energetic government, when foreign nations shall be disposed to give us equal advantages in commerce from dread of retaliation, when the burdens of war shall be in a manner done away by the sale of western lands, when the seeds of happiness which are sown here, shall begin to expand themselves, and when every one under his own vine and fig-tree, shall begin to taste the fruits of freedom, then all these blessings

5

(for all these blessings will come) will be referred to the fostering influence of the new government. Whereas many causes will have conspired to produce them. You see I am not less enthusiastic than I ever have been, if a belief that peculiar scenes of felicity are reserved for this country is to be denominated enthusiasm. Indeed, I do not believe that Providence has done so much for nothing. It has always been my creed, that we should not be left as a monument to prove, 'that mankind, under the most favorable circumstances for civil liberty and happiness, are unequal to the task of governing themselves and therefore made for a master.'"

Previous to this time the people had been divided by political opinions into at least two classes, but the issues which then divided them were purely local. There were the opponents and advocates of the impost; there were hard-money and softmoney men, etc.; but both sides were ardent Whigs. There were those, too, who feared the development of the West or disliked the growing power of commercial New England; there were those who opposed the closing of the Mississippi and hated to see the Federal power increased and the complete power to make treaties bestowed upon the central government; there were those again who saw no need for a central government with power of taxation and authority to levy customs duties or to regulate commerce in any way; and, finally, there were those who were liberty blind" who had prated so much about liberty that they had either unlearned or forgotten the arguments for government. But now a national issue was raised and the Whig party was split into Federalists and Anti

66

"Federal Constitution" and scores of others. The Anti-Federalists were assisted by Richard Henry Lee, who published a series of papers entitled Letters from the Federal Farmer, thousands of copies of which were scattered throughout Pennsylvania. His chief objections were that he saw in the proposed plan the seeds of democracy and centralization; that in the National legislature the vote was to be by individuals and not by States; that this body had an unlimited power of taxation; that the Federal judiciary had too much power; that the members were to be paid out of the National treasury and would thus be independent of their own States; that an oath of allegiance to the Federal government was required; and that no bill of rights was included.t "Turk" said: "Your President general will greatly resemble in his powers the mighty Ahdul

See McMaster, pp. 458-460.

Fiske, Critical Period, p. 312; McMaster, pp. 461-472.

Fiske, Critical Period, pp. 313–314.

7

Ahmed, our august Sultan - the Senate will be his divan your standing army will come in place of our janizaries — your your judges unchecked by vile juries might with great propriety be styled cadis."* Pelatiah Webster and a few others put forth some powerful arguments in favor of the Constitution, and James Wilson made a speech before a mass meeting in the state house at Philadelphia "remarkable among the speeches at that troubled time for coolness of reasoning and dignity of language." Wilson did not have Hamilton's political genius nor Madison's talent for debate and constitutional analysis, but in the comprehensiveness of his views and in the perception of the necessities of the country he fully equalled them and was one of their most efficient and best informed coadjutors.‡

On November 20 the Convention assembled and a stormy session began, the members at various times. almost coming to blows. Wilson and Thomas McKean led the Federalists; the Antis were led by Robert Whitehill, John Smilie and William Findley. So obstructive did the tactics of the Antis become that the Federalists grew enraged. Hour after hour was wasted by each side in abusing the other and whole days were spent

8

in discussing the meaning of simple words. In this way three weeks quickly passed. The chief objections to the Constitution were the omission of a bill of rights and because the existence of the States was endangered by the consolidation of the government.* The Antis also inveighed against the infrequency of elections, the exclusive authority of Congress and the powers of the judiciary. Wilson bore the brunt of the contest and made some remarkable speeches. † After three weeks of discussion, the Anti-Federalists offered fifteen amendments and proposed that the convention be adjourned so that the people of the State might discuss and approve or reject them. The Federalists resisted all such dilatory tactics, and by insisting upon an immediate rejection or ratification finally succeeded, December 12, 1787, in obtaining a ratification by a vote of 46 to 23. Excitement was high and it was claimed by the Anti-Federalists that the convention was illegal because of the use of force in the Legislature to secure a quorum to pass the resolution for calling the convention, because only 13,000 out of 70,000 voters in the State had

McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788 (1888), p. 268.

For some of the important features of these speeches, see Elliot, Debates, vol. ii., p. 422; McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, pp. 221, 227, 316, 415.

Elliot, Debates, vol. i., p. 319. See also Sharpless, Two Centuries of Pennsylvania History, p. 228; McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, pp. 285-287.

voted for delegates to the convention, and because though 46 delegates had voted to ratify, these 46 represented only 6,800 constituents. Several riots occurred between the adherents of the two parties and a number of dinners and processions were held to express joy at the favorable action.*

In the meantime, on December 7, the Constitution was unanimously ratified by Delaware (the first State to ratify), and she was followed on the 18th of the same month by New Jersey without a dissenting voice, and by Georgia on January 2, 1788, without an amendment or an adverse vote. On January 9, 1788, the Connecticut convention, after a stormy session of five days, also gave a large majority in favor of adoption, the vote standing 128 to 40. On April 28, 1788, after a sharp struggle, Maryland ratified by a vote of 63 to 11 (the minority, however, proposing 28 amendments); South Carolina ratified May 23 by a vote of 140 to 73 (with (with 4 amendments proposed).† The chief struggles were in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, and North Carolina, while

* McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 472-475. See also McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, p. 429.

For the details of the conventions in these States, see Bancroft, vol. vi., pp. 381-395, 415420; McMaster, vol. i., pp. 474-476, 485-489; Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., chap. xxxiv. See also Orin G. Libby, The Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788, in University of Wisconsin Bulletins in Economics, Political Science and History, series i., no. i. (1894).

Rhode Island refused to call a convention.*

The convention of Massachusetts opened in January 1788, and the Constitution was discussed paragraph by paragraph. It was supposed that if the Massachusetts convention should ratify, the other States would be greatly influenced to act favorably upon this important question. Most of the prominent men of the State were members of the convention, such men as James Bowdoin, Rufus King, and Fisher Ames advocating the Constitution, while opposed to them were men of no less. courage and ability. John Hancock gave the Federalists only lukewarm support. Samuel Adams strongly opposed the Constitution, while Nathaniel Dane had denounced it and Gerry had refused to sign it.† As Schouler says, the very preponderance of learning, wealth, renown, and social respectability of the Federalists more closely united the opposition forces, jealous of city cliques, whose votes and influence could not be ignored. The subject was debated for an entire month and even then it was uncertain as to just what course the convention would follow.||

* Richman, Rhode Island, p. 254; Bates, Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union, p. 162 et seq.

† See McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, pp. 292-293; Thorpe, Story of the Constitution, p. 154; Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., p. 648 et seq.

Schouler, United States, vol. i.,
p. 67.

On the proceedings see Bancroft, vol. vi., pp. 395-408; Elliot, Debates, vol. ii.

9

One of the members speaks of the opposition as follows:

"Never was there an assembly in this state in possession of greater abilities and information, than the present Convention; yet I am in doubt whether they will approve the Constitution. There are unhappily three parties opposed to it. 1. All men who are in favor of paper money and tender laws. These are more or less in every part of the state. 2. All the late insurgents, and their abettors. We have in the Convention eighteen or twenty who were actually in Shays's army. 3. A great majority of the members from the province of Maine. Many of them and their constituents are only squatters upon other people's land, and they are afraid of being brought to account. They also think, though erroneously, that their favorite plan of being a separate state, will be defeated. Add to these, the honest doubting people, and they make a powerful host." *

The proceedings began with a desultory debate on the various parts of the instrument, which lasted until January 30,† the friends of the Constitution having carefully provided at the outset that no separate question should be taken. After discussion

* See also Fiske, Critical Period, pp. 316-320. In the debate concerning the army, one of the Maine delegates said: "Had I the voice of Jove I would proclaim it throughout the world; and had I an arm like Jove, I would hurl from the globe those villains that would dare attempt to establish in our country a standing army." Fear was expressed that the government would come into the hands of knaves, but Samuel West, a delegate from New Bedford, said: “I wish that the gentlemen who have started so many possible objections would try to show us that what they so much deprecate is probable. Because power may be abused, shall we be reduced to anarchy? What hinders our state legislatures from abusing their powers? May we not rationally suppose that the persons we shall choose to administer the government will be, in general, good men?" Abraham White of Bristol, however, said: "I would not trust them though every one of them should be a Moses." See Fiske, Critical Period, pp. 321-324.