Page images
PDF
EPUB

32

THE NEW JERSEY CONVENTION.

was careful not to ignore.1 It was upon these amendments and all that they imply that the hostility toward the new government rested, which, at last, culminated in the whisky insurrection in western Pennsylvania.2

4

In New Jersey, public opinion was so outspoken for the Constitution that there was no doubt of its ratification.3 The people of that State were convinced that nothing short of such a government as it proposed would save the State and the whole country from absolute ruin. On the twentyninth of October, its legislature unanimously recommended its inhabitants to choose three delegates from each county to assemble in convention, at Trenton, on the second Tuesday in December.5 David Brearly, of Hunterdon County, was the only delegate chosen who had belonged to the Fed

1 See Chap. VI, post.

2 As a great portion of these amendments were incorporated in the first ten adopted two years later, their authorship is of more than passing interest. The minority which reported them, December 12, 1787, consisted of John Whitehill of Lancaster; John Harris, John Reynolds, Robert Whitehill, Jonathan Hoge, all from Cumberland; Nicholas Lutz, John Ludwig, Abraham Lincoln, John Bishop and Joseph Hiester of Berks; James Martin and Joseph Powell of Bedford; William Findlay, John Baird and William Todd of Westmoreland; James Marshall and James Edgar of Washington; Nathaniel Breading and John Smilie of Fayette; Richard Baird of Franklin, William Brown, Adam Orth and John A. Hana of Dauphin. The Abraham Lincoln here mentioned was a great-great-uncle to the President; see Tarbell's Early Life of Lincoln, pp. 226-227. He was a delegate from Berks county to the Constitutional Convention of Pennsylvania in 1789, as were also Robert Whitehill, Joseph Heister, Joseph Powell, William Findlay, William Todd, John Smilie, William Brown, Albert Gallatin, James Wilson and Thomas McKean; see the Minutes of this convention, 138.

3 Gouverneur Morris to Washington, October 30, 1787.

4 Libby, 85. Massachusetts Gazette, November 13, 1787.

5 Minutes of the Convention of the State of New Jersey, Holden at Trenton, the Eleventh Day of December, 1787, Trenton, MDCCCLXXXVIII, 25.

THE GEORGIA CONVENTION.

33

eral Convention.1 On the eleventh of December, the delegates met, and, after discussing the Constitution, article by article, a week later, gave it their unanimous approval.2 Like the Pennsylvania convention, this of New Jersey offered to cede to Congress a Federal District for the seat of the general government. The convention suggested no amendments. When every member in attendance had signed3 the convention went in procession to the Court House, where the secretary read the ratification in the hearing of the people.

While these ratifications were in progress at the north, the people of Georgia, at the far south, were approving the new plan with even greater unanimity. The delegates, among whom was William Few of Richmond county, who had been a member of the Federal Convention, met on Christmas day, at Augusta, and devoted a week to a careful examination of the Constitution, and on the second day of January ratified it unanimously. The joy and happiness of the hour were expressed by a salute of thirteen guns. The news of ratification at the North had not yet reached Georgia. Its people had acted independently and for their own and the general welfare.®

5

In Connecticut many of the towns voted directly upon the question of ratification, and the principal ones were

1 Thirty-nine delegates were chosen, all of whom attended save one; among the members were John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration, Frederick Frelinghuysen and John Steven of Hunterdon, who was chosen president, and Mathew Whillden. 2 The form of ratification was drawn by Judge Brearly. Minutes, pp. 25-26; Documentary History, II, 46.

3 December 19.

4 Samuel W. Stockton.

5 Steven's Georgia, II, 386-388.

• For the ratification see Documentary History, Vol. II, 65-85. The convention consisted of twenty-five members; John Wereat was president and Isaac Brigg, secretary.

7 See the list in Libby, 79.

34

THE CONNECTICUT CONVENTION.

unanimous in its favor.1 The delegates to the ratifying convention, one hundred and sixty-eight in number, chosen in conformity with the unanimous act of the legislature, of the sixteenth of October,2 were for the most part instructed to vote for the new Constitution. Among them were Ellsworth, Sherman and William Samuel Johnson, who had been delegates to the Federal Convention, and the entire membership included the most eminent public men in the State.3

Sherman and Ellsworth, in a joint letter to Governor Huntington, remarked that though Congress, under the new Constitution, would be differently organized than under the Articles, yet the representation from Connecticut would not be changed. The equal representation of the States in the Senate, and the participation of that body in appointments to office, would secure the rights of the lesser as well as the greater States. The principal object which the States had in view in appointing the Philadelphia convention had been to vest additional powers in Congress, yet it would be found that these extended only to matters affecting the common interests of the Union, and that they were specially defined, so that, in all other matters, each State would retain its sovereignty.

The Constitution would be found not to differ from the Articles in its enumeration of objects for which Congress might legislate, namely, the common defense, the general welfare and the payment of the public debt. The principal branch of revenue would probably be from duties on imports. The restraint on the State legislatures, forbidding them to emit bills of credit or to make anything

1 Connecticut Courant, November 26, 1787. 2 Documentary History, II, 86.

3 Among them were Nathan Griswold, chosen president of the convention, Jeremiah Wadsworth and Governor Samuel Huntington.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

35

but money a tender in payment of debts, or to impair the obligation of contracts by ex post facto laws, was thought necessary and a security to commerce, in which the interest of foreigners, as well as of the citizens of different States, might be affected. The energy of the general government, on the one hand, and suitable checks on the other, had been provided in order to secure the rights of the States and the liberties and property of the citizens.1 The convention assembled in the State House in Hartford on the third of January, 1788, but soon adjourned to the North Meeting House, where it entered upon a discussion of the Constitution, section by section.

Ellsworth, speaking of the plan as a whole, showed that it would be economical by preserving peace among the sections of the country and by uniting them for their common defense.2 It would promote justice and, by its coercive power, give the general government adequate energy. Treaties would be fulfilled, the public debt paid, and Connecticut would be exempted from the imposts which it annually paid to Massachusetts and New York. In brief, the Constitution was a complete system of legislative, judicial and executive power. Continuing his speech, Ellsworth met the objections urged against the general power of Congress to lay and collect taxes,-namely, that it was too extensive and partial and that it should not be granted to Congress at all.

The objection was expressed briefly in the phrase of the day "the union of the sword and the purse. His argu

[ocr errors]

1 Sherman and Ellsworth to Governor Huntington, September 26, 1787; Elliot, I, 491.

2 Ellsworth's remarks throughout were the same as those in the first thirty numbers of the Federalist. As in the Federalist so most of the illustrations used by Ellsworth were taken from the ancient confederacies and the actual workings of the State governments.

Elliot, II, 185-190. January 4, 1788.

36

THE TAXING POWER.

ment had already been made in the Federal Convention, and now was summed in the remark, that unless Congress was given the power of taxation, a single State would control the Union and the minority would govern.1 Wolcott pointed out that the Constitution would effectually secure the States in their several rights, using language almost identical with Wilson's in his speech in the State House yard in Philadelphia.2

General Wadsworth feared lest the power of taxation granted to Congress might be used to discriminate against the South or against the North, and particularly might bear hard upon the importing States. This objection, Ellsworth proved, was unfounded. Nothing was to be omitted from taxation. Imported blacks were to be subjected to a duty. That the North would not pay all the imposts was clear, for though the exports from Virginia were valued at a million sterling a year, the payment did not come back in money; "for in money," said he, "the Virginians are poor to a proverb. They anticipate their crops, they spend faster than they earn, they are ever in debt. Their rich exports return in articles to eat, to drink and to wear, and all are subject to the imposts." Maryland was like Virginia. The imports and exports of the South, then, would be quite as great as those of the North. On the ninth of January, the vote was cast, the Constitution was agreed to, and was signed by one hundred and twentyeight members. Forty-eight delegates voted against it.1 No amendments were proposed. Thus in its formal action, Connecticut stood side by side with the four States which had already ratified. Meanwhile four other States had been taking action.

1 Id., 190-197. January 7, 1788.

2 Id., 201-202.

8 Id., 194.

4 Documentary History, II, 86-89.

« PreviousContinue »