such Convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these states a firm national government. Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.1 May, In consequence of this action of the Congress, the State of New York (February 28, 1787), the State of South Carolina (March 8, 1787), the State of Massachusetts (April 9, 1787), the State of Connecticut (May 2, 1787), and the State of Maryland (May 26, 1787) acted favorably upon the recommendation and appointed delegates to the conference of the States in 1787 Philadelphia, thus accounting for all the States with the exception of the State of Rhode Island, which, in its sovereign pleasure, or perhaps it may be more accurate to say, displeasure, refused to cast its lot with its sister States, although the better elements of the State, if their own testimony is to be taken, had attempted to line up the little Commonwealth with its equals, if not its betters. The second Monday of May came, but the delegates did not. On the 14th day of the month, the Virginian delegation, with George Washington at its head, arrived at Philadelphia on time, where they were met by the Pennsylvanian delegates, who would have found it difficult to be elsewhere. A majority of the States was obtained for the first time on May 25, 1787. On that day the conference held the first of its sessions, which was not to revise the Articles of Confederation and to make them adequate for the purposes of union, but to create a more perfect Union, the model, as many think, of organization for the society of nations. In the interval between these two periods the Virginian delegation met some two or three hours a day to consider the questions to come before the convention and to put their views in the form of resolutions which might serve, in the absence of others better, as a basis of discussion and of the future instrument of government. They also met and exchanged views with the delegates of the other States as they arrived, and especially, it would seem, entered into friendly and confidential relations with the Pennsylvanian members. An incident which happened before the opening of the conference is recorded by Mr. Madison, a member of the Virginian delegation destined to be the reporter of the conference and to be regarded as the father of the Constitution, just as General Washington, another Virginian delegate, was and is the father of the country. Interesting in itself, the incident has a permanent value in 1 Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America, Vol. iv, p. Large and Small States Organization of the Federal Convention that it shows the attitude of some of the delegates of the larger States which, it is believed, was shared consciously or unconsciously by that class of representatives. It also discloses their attitude in advance and explains their purpose in the course of proceedings. It appears that Gouverneur Morris, with the support of Robert Morris and of others from Pennsylvania, opposed "as unreasonable" the concession of an equal vote to the little States, on the ground that, armed with equality, the delegates of the smaller States would be enabled “to negative every good system of government" which the delegates of the larger States might propose, which, in the opinion of such delegates “must in the nature of things be founded on a violation of that equality." The Virginian delegates, however, forecast the consequences of such action on the part of the larger States at the opening of the convention, as likely to “beget fatal altercations between the large and small States." They felt that the attempt if made at this time would fail, whereas the smaller States might, in the course of debate, be prevailed upon " to give up their equality for the sake of an effective government." They therefore, to quote James Madison's account of the incident, "discountenanced and stifled the project." 1 It is, however, important to bear this incident in mind, as it shows the atmosphere of the convention, overcast before its opening and soon to be charged with electricity. The opposition between the large and the small appears to be inherent in the nature of things and to come to the surface during the proceedings of an international conference. The little States insist upon equality of representation, and upon their equality of right to present their views and to have them debated, even although if treated with courtesy and kindly consideration they are disposed to adopt the projects of the larger States if convinced that they are meant for the good of the whole. On the 25th of May the delegates of seven States, being a majority of the original thirteen which had declared their independence of the mother country on July 4, 1776, and whose independence was recognized by the mother country on September 7, 1783, had arrived, and on that day they proceeded to the hall in which that independence had been proclaimed and, in conference, to hit upon a plan for its maintenance, collectively as well as individually. As is the wont of international conferences, the leading member of the State in which the conference was held opened proceedings. In the place of Benjamin Franklin, President of Pennsylvania, unavoidably absent, Robert Morris, a delegate from that State, to quote Mr. Madison's Notes, "informed the members assembled that by the instruction & in behalf of the deputation of Pena. he proposed George Washington, Esq., late Commander in chief for presi1 Madison Papers, Gilpin ed., 1841, Vol. ii, p. 726 note. "2 An Conference dent of the Convention." 1 As is also the wont of international conferences, International the delegate of another and a leading State seconded the nomination. In this instance it was John Rutledge of South Carolina who expressed, as is ordinarily done on such occasions, his confidence that the choice would be unanimous, observing with greater truth than is customary, " that the presence of Gen'. Washington forbade any observations on the occasion which might otherwise be proper." 2 On this transaction Mr. Madison makes the proper comment that "the nomination came with particular grace from Penna, as Doc'. Franklin alone could have been thought of as a competitor. The Doc". was himself to have made the nomination of General Washington, but the state of the weather and of his health confined him to his house." 3 And it may be said in this connection that Washington and Franklin were, by their respective achievements, the two great personalities in the convention, in which, according to the account of a contemporary, they moved with great caution and circumspection. As is not the wont, however, of international conferences, the election was by ballot, which, in the case of Washington, could only result in a unanimous election, after which he was conducted to the chair by Messrs. Morris and Rutledge. Thereupon, " in a very emphatic manner," to quote Mr. Madison, "he thanked the Convention for the honor they had conferred on him, reminded them of the novelty of the scene of business in which he was to act, lamented his want of better qualifications, and claimed the indulgence of the House towards the involuntary errors which his inexperience might occasion." 4 This language is also the language of international conferences, but it was invariably Washington's attitude toward himself in private, and in public, on the three great occasions in which he appeared before his countrymen, here, on accepting the chief command of the American armies, and on being proposed and elected President of the United States. As was also the wont of international conferences, a delegate from Penn sylvania, in this instance James Wilson, proposed the appointment of a secretary and nominated William Temple Franklin, whose selection would have been agreeable to the authorities of Pennsylvania, inasmuch as he was the grandson of its venerable chief executive. But as the nomination was made in a conference of the American States, accustomed to think and to act for themselves and to choose those whom they really wanted, not those who were imposed upon them, Mr. Franklin's nomination did not result in an election. "Colonel," as Mr. Madison calls him, but as we should say today, Alexander 1 Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. iii, p. 8. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., p. 9. 4 Ibid., pp. 8-9. Hamilton, nominated Major Jackson, and upon ballot the major had five votes to the grandson's two. The convention had a president and a secretary; it did not as yet have members. The credentials of those appointed by the States were presented and read, whereupon the deputies there assembled constituted the conference. As the members acted under instructions from their States, in accordance with the custom of international assemblies, it is desirable to give some attention to the form and content of their credentials. First of Virginia, to follow the order of the States accepting the recommendation of the Annapolis Convention, subsequently approved by the Congress. The purpose is stated and the delegates are instructed " to meet such Deputies as may be appointed and authorized by other States to assemble in Convention at Philadelphia . and to join with them in devising and discussing all such Alterations and farther Provisions as may be necessary to render the Fœderal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union and in reporting such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress as when agreed to by them and duly confirmed by the several States will effectually provide for the same." 1 The Pennsylvania delegates were constituted and appointed " with Powers to meet such Deputies as may be appointed and authorized by the other States . . . and to join with them in devising, deliberating on, and discussing, all such alterations and further Provisions, as may be necessary to render the fœderal Constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the Union." 2 The State of North Carolina authorized its deputies "to meet and confer with such Deputies as may be appointed by the other States for similar purposes, and with them to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remove the defects of our Fœderal Union, and to procure the enlarged Purposes which it was intended to effect, and that they report such an Act to the General Assembly of this State, as when agreed to by them, will effectually provide for the same." 3 The delegates of New Hampshire were appointed and authorized “to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remedy the defects of our federal Union." 4 The instructions to the delegates of Delaware contained a clause which showed the intention of that little commonwealth to maintain not only the independence but the equality which it had gained for itself, in conjunction with the other States, through a conflict of seven years. Thus, the deputies of the smallest of the States attending the Convention,― for Rhode Island, as previously stated, failed to appear, were appointed and authorized to meet the deputies appointed and authorized by the other States, "and to join with them in devising, deliberating on, and discussing, such Alterations and further Provisions as may be necessary to render the Fœderal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union. . . : So always and Provided, that such Alterations or further Provisions, or any of them, do not extend to that part of the Fifth Article of the Confederation of the said States, finally ratified on the first day of March, in the Year One thousand seven hundred and eighty one, which declares that 'In determining Questions in the United States in Congress Assembled each State shall have one vote.'" 1 The reason for this action on behalf of Delaware is clearly stated in a letter dated New Castle, January 17, 1787, from George Read, soon to be head of the Delaware delegation, to John Dickinson, soon to be its leading member, as he already was a leading citizen of the United States, from which the following passages are quoted by way of comment : Finding that Virginia hath again taken the lead in the proposed convention at Philadelphia in May, as recommended in our report when at Annapolis, . . . it occurred to me, as a prudent measure on the part of our State, that its Legislature should, in the act of appointment, so far restrain the powers of the commissioners, whom they shall name on this service, as that they may not extend to any alteration in that part of the fifth article of the present Confederation, . . . that is, that such clause shall be preserved or inserted, for the like purpose, in any revision that shall be made and agreed to in the proposed convention.2 The reason for this suggestion, inuring to the benefit of the small States generally as well as to Delaware, and which John Dickinson, perhaps more than any other man, made a reality, is thus stated by Mr. Read, who, curiously enough, in the Convention went over to the larger States: I conceive our existence as a State will depend upon our preserving such rights, for I consider the acts of Congress hitherto, as to the ungranted lands in most of the larger States, as sacrificing the just claims of the smaller and bounded States to a proportional share therein, for the purpose of discharging the national debt incurred during the war; and such is my jealousy of most of the larger States, that I would trust nothing to their candor, generosity, or ideas of public justice in behalf of this State, from what has heretofore happened, and which, I presume, hath not escaped your notice. . . Persuaded I am, from what I have seen occasionally in the public prints and heard in private conversations, that the voice of the States will be one of the subjects of revision, and in a meeting where there will be so great an interested majority, I suspect the argument or oratory of the smaller State commissioners will avail little. In such circumstances I conceive it will relieve the commissioners of the State from disagreeable argumentation, as well as prevent the downfall of the State, which would at once become a 1 Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. iii, p. 575. 2 W. T. Read, Life and Correspondence of George Read, pp. 438-9. |