Governor Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, gave form to the discussion that followed the organization of the Convention, by proposing, on the twenty-ninth of May, 1787, a legislature chosen by the people (not by the States), which should elect members of an executive and a judiciary department. It was objected to because, in the language of Mr. Lansing, of New York, it destroyed the sovereignty of the several States, by committing to the general government "all power except what may be exercised in the little local matters." Another form was proposed the same day by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, and both were referred to a committee of the whole. The committee reported in favor of Randolph's, or the "Virginia" system. * system. After the report had been made, a new plan was offered by William Patterson, of New Jersey, as a substitute for that of Randolph, providing for a government of more limited powers, or, as its first article stated, revising, correcting and enlarging all the articles of confederation; and General Alexander Hamilton presented still another as the conclusion of a speech on the subject, in which it was arranged that the members of the executive, legislative and judiciary departments were to be chosen by the people to serve for life, or during good behavior, with the exception of the members of an assembly who were to serve three

In N. C. Towne's "History and Analysis of the Constitution of the United States" (Boston, 1860) pp. 252-295, sundry documents connected with the proceedings of the Convention are given, including the views of James Madison, the plans of Randolph, Patterson, Pinckney, and Hamilton, and the resolutions agreed to by the Convention, July 26. William Hickey's "Constitution of the United States " (Baltimore) is a valuable treasury of information on these subjects.

FEDERALISTS AND NATIONAL MEN.

343

years. This was not seriously considered, and the choice lay between the Virginia and the New Jersey plans, called respectively the "National" and the "Federal" plan.

A difference of opinion was soon made evident between the delegates, some considering that the powers of the Convention were limited to the revision of the old articles of confederation, and were not sufficient to construct a new form of government. The supporters of the former view called themselves Federalists, and in general they approved the New Jersey plan. Those who considered the Convention authorized to frame a new government, called themselves "National" men. The debate on these points shows the earnestness of the men, and must be studied by those who would know the fundamental principles of our government.

Mr. Hamilton said that he did not approve either plan, but was especially opposed to that of New Jersey, being "fully convinced that no amendment of the confederation, leaving the States in possession of their sovereignty, could possibly answer the purpose." Mr. Randolph said that the salvation of the Republic was at stake, and that it would be treason not to propose what was found necessary; and Hamilton added that he agreed in the feeling, that the States had sent the delegates "to provide for the exigencies of

The Convention met under authority of an act of the Congress of the Confederation, of February 21, 1787, calling it 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, and the preservation of the Union."

the Union," and the question for them to answer was, not what their constituents had expressed in their deliberations on the subject, but rather "what provision shall we make for the happiness of our country?"

Mr. Randolph said that a national government alone would prove capable of "crushing rebellion whenever it may rear its crest," of providing for harmony among the States, regulating trade, naturalization, etc., and Mr. Madison said that there was less danger of encroachment from the general government than from the State governments, and that the mischiefs arising from encroachments by the general government would be less fatal than those by the State governments. He argued that the danger of a strong central government was not that it might abuse its power, but that it might imperfectly perform its duties "throughout so great an extent of country and over so great a variety of objects."

Other views were presented and urged, but after discussion a report was made by the committee of the whole in favor of the Virginia plan, on the ninth of June, and the national system was finally adopted. A comparison of the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation impresses the candid student with the belief that the patriots who framed it, bearing in mind the difficulties of carrying on the government under the weaker scheme, felt that they were now to lay the foundations of a great nation, though a monarchy of any kind was far from their thoughts. The larger States were on the national side; the smaller took the federal view, and the altercations became so great at times as to threaten the usefulness of the Convention.

ON THE VERGE OF DISSOLUTION.

345

It was in consequence of this condition of affairs that Franklin moved, on the twenty-eighth of June, that prayers be offered at the opening of each morning session.*

In the midst of the agitation, when the smaller States were crying that they would suffer dominion of a foreign power rather than give up the right to an equal vote in one of the branches of the Legislature, Franklin offered in committee, the motion that the votes of the States should be equal in the Senate,† and the tumult was assuaged in part, though so deep was the feeling that one of the members said that they were on the verge of dissolution, "scarce held together by the strength of a hair," and threats of secession were made on the part of the Federalists, while the national party spoke of dismemberment and absorption of the smaller States by the larger by the power of the sword. Better counsels prevailed, and the States were given the equal votes in the Senate, and the unequal votes in the House, that they have at the present time.

The question of how this unequal representation should be arranged, caused a new division, this time between the North and the South, for the South demanded that the slaves should be included with the freemen in any count upon which representation should be based, while the North, which had largely given up the system of negro slavery, held that free

* In making this motion, Franklin said, "If a sparrow cannot fall without God's knowledge, how can an empire rise without his aid?"

† On this point Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, said that if the difficulty on the subject of representation could not otherwise be got over, he would agree to have two branches, and a proportional representation in one, provided each State had an equal voice in the other.

men only should be counted as the basis of representation. Again the spirit of compromise brought peace, and it was settled that three fifths of the slaves should be included with the freemen, in the count on which the ratio of representation should be settled between the States.

The status of the slave trade gave ground for another debate, which ended in a further compromise, the representatives of Virginia and the central States, who constituted the main opponents to the continuance of the trade, agreeing that the traffic should continue no longer than twenty years, or until 1808. This was not inserted in the Constitution, nor was the word slave mentioned in that document, though a clause. respecting the return of fugitive slaves was inserted in article four, similar to that in the articles of Confederation of the New England Colonies (1643).

This brief review is sufficient to show that the Constitution was "adopted by bargain and compromise," as one of the members of the convention* (Nicholas

*The following is the text of the letter here referred to.

"The important business of the Convention being closed, the Secretary set off this morning to present Congress with a report of their proceedings, which I hope will come before the States in the manner directed; but as some time must necessarily elapse before that can take place, I do myself the pleasure to transmit the enclosed papers for your private satisfaction, forbearing all comments on the plan, but that it is the best that could meet the unanimous consent of the States in Convention. It was done by bargain and compromise, yet, notwith standing its imperfections, on the adoption of it depends (in my feeble judgment) whether we shall become a respectable nation, or a people torn to pieces by intestine commotions, and rendered contemptible for ages." The letter was addressed to Joseph Gilman, who had been chairman of the New Hampshire Committee of Safety during the war, and who was at a later date appointed by Washington one of the judges of the Northwestern Territory.