federal region was the oldest part of the State; was in proximity to the sea, and was interested in commerce. The southwestern and northern sections were remote from the lines of travel, were interested almost solely in agriculture, and did not feel the need of a new government. The fifty-seven delegates, who voted for ratification represented nearly the same percentage of the population of the State.1

New Hampshire thus repeated the political paradox of Massachusetts: the Federal party proposing amendments to a plan of government with which they were abundantly satisfied, but the reasons in both commonwealths were the same. The amendments were the price of ratification; Langdon's were in substance a transcript of the Massachusetts set, and were twelve in number. While their authorship is uncertain, there is little doubt that they were principally the work of Langdon and Judge Livermore.

The vote was taken on Saturday, the twenty-first of June, at one o'clock in the afternoon. Langdon at once sent the news to Governor Hancock, of Massachusetts, and, a little later, to Rufus King and Alexander Hamilton. The vote had been anticipated, and Sullivan and Knox had arranged that special express riders should bear the news to Poughkeepsie,2 where the New York Convention was in session, and to Richmond, where the Virginia delegates had just met. The news was of the greatest importance, for New Hampshire was the ninth State to ratify, and the Constitution could now be put in force. When the news reached Portsmouth, on Sunday morning, even the habits of Puritan propriety were

1 The 57 yeas represented 76,091 people; the 47 nays represented 57,641. Walker, 47.

2 See p. 144.

78

THE SHIP "UNION."

not stern enough wholly to restrain the people from expressions of joy. The second day of the week began with the ringing of bells and the pealing of salutes. Thursday was appointed as the day to celebrate, and the people at an early hour began pouring into the town. About eleven o'clock, a watchman from the State House gave notice that he descried an armed ship bearing down under full sail. On being hailed, it proved to be the ship Union, out five days from Concord, bound to the Federal City. She dropped anchor, and having taken a pilot on board soon got under way and joined the procession, which was like that which had already been seen in the streets of Boston, Baltimore and Charlestown. The favorite emblem of the hour was of nine strong pillars supporting Federal arches. The ninth was New Hampshire, and the tenth, partly raised, was Virginia. Scarcely less imposing were the celebrations at Salem, Providence and Newport. The people of New Hampshire were fully compensated for the check on the course of ratification, which the adjournment of their convention had caused. It gave them the unique honor of being the ninth State to ratify, and of completing the number required by the Constitution to inaugurate the new government. Meanwhile the people of Virginia had been discussing the Constitution.

1 Walker, 54-64.

CHAPTER III.

RATIFICATION BY VIRGINIA.

The adjournment of the New Hampshire convention, Washington recognized as prudent, but as very mal a propos for Virginia, which at this time and for thirty years afterwards ranked first in the country in population, wealth and political influence.1 The news reached the State while the elections to the convention were going on, and gave an opportunity to the opponents of the Constitution to represent to the people that it had not been so generally approved in other States as they had been taught to believe; therefore, it tended to influence their votes in favor of anti-federal candidates.2 For months Washington had been ceaselessly active on behalf of the new plan. On his return from the Federal Convention he had sent copies of the Constitution to Thomas Nelson, Benjamin Harrison and Patrick Henry, former Governors of Virginia, urging their influence in its behalf. He wished it had been more perfect, but believed it the best that could be obtained at this time. Its adoption was eminently desirable under the existing circumstances of the Union, and a door was left open for amendments.3 Henry soon replied that he could not give the Constitution his support, and Harrison plainly intimated that he thought the remedy would prove worse than the disease, but he would withhold his judgment until the general assembly had taken action. He was chiefly concerned

1 Between 1810 and 1820 it fell back to a second place, being supplanted by New York. In 1890, New York stood first, and Virginia, nineteenth in rank.

2 Washington to John Langdon, April 3, 1788; Sparks, IX, 340. 3 Washington to Henry, September 27, 1787; Sparks, IX, 256.

80

THE SITUATION IN VIRGINIA.

less the unlimited powers of taxation and the regulation of trade would establish a tyranny, and the powers given both the President and Congress would make the States south of the Potomac little more than an appendage to the Union.1

The situation in Virginia was unlike that in any other State. In New England the leaders took their political opinions largely from their constituents, and this was true in all States in which the township system of government existed. But in Virginia and southward, where the county system prevailed and the town meeting was unknown, the people in great measure took their opinions from the leaders.

Both Elbridge Gerry and George Mason, who had refused to sign the Constitution, had published their objections, but with very unequal effect. Gerry's fell flat in Massachusetts, for the people there, long accustomed to the discussion of public questions in town-meeting, considered his opinions of little more account than any other man's, but in Virginia and farther south Mason's objections were received by many people as of oracular importance; James Iredell, of North Carolina, considered them worthy of particular answer.2 Governor Randolph, who had also refused to sign, had published a letter giving his reasons, which had been widely circulated through the State. Luther Martin's "Genuine Information" had followed at its heels, and Richard Henry Lee's "Letters of a Federal Farmer" had been circulated broadcast by the Anti-Federalists.

2 Both Mason's and Iredell's observations are reprinted in Ford's Pamphlet. Iredell wrote under the pseudonym of Marcus. * Addressed to the speaker of the House of Delegates, October 10, 1787, Elliot, I, 482-491.

The limitations of the human voice alone prevented Patrick Henry, who was bitter against the new plan, from reaching every voter in the State. Washington was never busier with his correspondonce than during these uncertain days. He was kept accurately informed of the progress of the Constitution in other States and exerted himself to make his approval of the new plan widely known throughout his own. His letters at the time, as during the preceding year, emphasize his conviction that the alternative was the adoption of the Constitution or the total dissolution of the Union.1

On the nineteenth of October, the Virginia legislature took up the recommendation of Congress that the Constitution go before State conventions. It was observed that there was a quorum on the first day of the session and that business was immediately taken up, such an occurrence had not been known since the Revolution.2 By a unanimous vote, six days later, it authorized a convention to meet on the first Monday in June, with full power to discuss the new plan and submit amendments. Patrick Henry, who was a member of the House and was hostile to the plan, saw the hopelessness of opposing it there, and reserved his strength till it could be put forth to greater advantage in the forthcoming convention. His declaration that to decide on the Constitution would transcend the powers of the assembly, and that it must go before a convention, greatly surprised and pleased the Federalists, who had anticipated a different course from this anti-federal leader.3

1 Washington to Patrick Henry, September 24, 1787; to David Stuart, October 17; to Bushrod Washington, November 10, and Daniel Stuart, December 10; in Sparks, IX.

2 A member of assembly to Washington quoted in Washington's letter to Madison, October 22, 1787; Sparks, IX, 273.

3 Id., 273.