THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

127

those who were not situated like its people.1 Randolph replied to Henry's objection to the restriction of the slave trade that the southern States, and even South Carolina herself, had conceived slave property to be secure by the words of this clause; and that not a member of the Virginia delegation to Philadelphia had entertained the smallest suspicion of the abolition of slavery. He challenged Henry to point out the clause where this formidable power of emancipation was inserted, and to make assurance doubly sure, he quoted the clause for the rendition of fugitive slaves as sufficient proof of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution.2 But the voice of the future was heard as well as the voice of the past. Zachariah Johnson, from Augusta county, after briefly giving the reasons why he should support the Constitution, objected to Henry's Bill of Rights, that it did not acknowledge that all men by nature are equally free and independent. He had no sympathy with Henry's hostility to emancipation. The principles of emancipation, he said, had begun to work since the Revolution, and whatever the people of Virginia might do, emancipation would come at last. He looked upon slavery as the cause of the impiety and dissipation so widely disseminated among the American people; total abolition would do much good.3

The session had been protracted nearly four weeks, the delegates were becoming weary, and objectors to the new plan were merely repeating their objections. When all had been said the alternative remained; Union or no Union, and the wavering members were beginning to believe that they would lose nothing and might gain much by sup

1 Elliot, III, 591.

2 Id., 599.

3 Id., 648.

4 Washington to Randolph, January 8, 1788; Sparks IX, 297.

128

CONDITIONAL RATIFICATION.

porting the new plan. Assured, now, that the navigation of the Mississippi was not to be surrendered, some of the Kentucky members became friendly to the new plan. Even such ardent Anti-Federalists as Richard Henry Lee and George Mason were not surpassed by Madison or Marshall in their opposition to paper money. Yet there were many members, and not all from the rural districts, who hesitated to vote for a government which would establish public credit and maintain the obligation of contracts. In the ardor of his innumerable objections, Henry said many things which should not be construed too strictly against him; thus, when he exclaimed that he might yet be called a rebel,1 but that his neighbors would protect him. This was interpreted rather as exuberance in speech than a serious declaration, for Henry's last words in the discussion were that if he should be in the minority, he would have the painful sensations arising from the conviction of being overpowered in a good cause; he would yet be a peaceful citizen, and, deprecating violence, should devote himself to remedy the defects of the system in a constitutional way.2

It was now the twenty-fifth of June and the convention after a more intense debate than had been heard in any other Commonwealth, took up the amendments which Henry and his friends had proposed. And first, by a majority of eight votes, it decided that these amendments should not be previous, but subsequent, to ratification.3 This meant that Virginia ratified unconditionally, unless its action be construed as implying that Congress would propose these amendments to the States. By a vote of eighty-nine to seventy-nine, the Constitution was ratified

PUBLIC SENTIMENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.

129

and the amendments and a Bill of Rights adopted.1 The engrossed form of ratification and the amendments reported by the committee, of which Wythe was chairman, were formally agreed to on the twenty-seventh, and the convention adjourned.2

The distribution of the vote showed the state of public sentiment from the tide-water counties to the banks of the Mississippi. The central counties, and those bordering North Carolina, and nearly all the counties in Kentucky, voted against the Constitution. Its friends were in the eastern, northern and northwestern part of the Commonwealth. The form of ratification contained a statement which may be considered as the foundation of that important political doctrine which Madison defended, ten years later, and which has long been known as the doctrine of '98.

Virginia ratified with the understanding that the powers granted under the Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed by them whenever they should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and that every power, not granted, remained with the people at their will. The majority

for the Constitution was a narrow one and was not secured without great tact, patience and argument.

"I think," said Grayson, "that were it not for one great

1 The extent to which the Virginia amendments were finally incorporated in the Constitution is shown in the history of the first twelve; see pp. 199-333.

2 For the amendments and Bill of Rights see Elliot, III, 657661; also the formal ratification in Documentary History, III, 145-160.

8 For an account of the doctrine of 1798, see my Constitutional History of the American People, 1776-1850, I, Chapter vi. The language of this clause in the Virginia act of ratification is almost identical with the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

130

INFLUENCE OF WASHINGTON.

character in America, so many men would not be for this government; we have a ray of hope. We do not fear while he lives, but we can only expect his fame to be immortal. We wish to know who beside him can concentrate the confidence and affections of all America." Had Washington not been one of the authors of the Constitution; the first citizen of Virginia and outspoken in favor of the new plan, there is little doubt that it would have been rejected by the Richmond convention.2 While Virginia was taking action, on the Constitution, the people of New York had assembled in convention to consider it.

1 Elliot, III, 616.

2 The evidence is abundant that common expectation pointed to Washington as the first President. It was hinted at by Doctor Franklin in the Federal Convention on the 4th of June; (Elliot, V. 154) see also Henry Lee's letter to Washington, September 13, 1788, when Congress had made provision for the inauguration of the new government; Sparks, IX, 552.

CHAPTER IV.

RATIFICATION BY NEW YORK.

The news of the ratification at Richmond was quickly dispatched to Mount Vernon, and Baltimore, and on to Poughkeepsie, where the New York convention was in session. Washington could not conceal his satisfaction.1 He wrote to Pinckney that the citizens of Alexandria, who were Federal to a man, had no sooner received the news on the twenty-seventh of June, than they determined to devote the following day to festivity, but their joy was greatly increased and a much keener zest was given to their celebration by the arrival of the express, two hours before the dawn of day, with the news that, on the twenty-first, the convention of New Hampshire had acceded to the new confederacy by a majority of eleven voices.2

The citizens of Alexandria constituted the first public company in America who had the pleasure of pouring a libation to the prosperity of the ten States which had actually adopted the general government. The day was memorable as the anniversary of the battles of Monmouth and Sullivan's Island. Washington thought that the pleasing hope might now be rationally indulged that the

1 Washington to Charles C. Pinckney, June 28, 1788; Sparks, IX, 389.

2 It does not appear that the ratification by New Hampshire was known in the Virginia convention before it also had ratified; James Innes on the 25th, (Elliott, III, 636) speaks of eight States having exercised their sovereignty in ratification, a remark which he would not have been likely to make if the news from New Hampshire had been received. Innes was speaking just before the vote was taken in the Virginia convention on ratification.