THE CONTROL OF THE MISSISSIPPI.

101

known that negotiations were pending by which Spain should have the navigation of the river for twenty-five years, after which the United States should retain it forever. Certainly, under the new plan, the prospect was the more assuring of securing the control of the river immediately.1

Henry now returned vigorously to the attack. The necessity of amendments, he claimed, was universally admitted, for even Jefferson had advised nine States to adopt and four to reject the plan till proper ones could be made.2 Such could not be expected from North Carolina and New York, as these States were surrounded by Federalist walls; therefore they must emanate from Virginia. No part of the plan was more odious to Henry than that the power of the President and "a few Senators," in the most unlimited manner should make treaties, and "all under the abominable veil" of political secrecy. Here he saw the portent of the loss of the navigation of the Mississippi. Surely different objects of taxation in the thirteen different States would involve the country in an infinite number of inconveniences and in absolute confusion. The contrariety of interests, he believed, would make uniform taxation impossible and the evil would be aggravated because the new plan subjected everything to the northern majority, which had already shown itself willing to surrender the navigation of the Mississippi, and would always stand ready to sacrifice the South.*

Replying to Henry, Madison cited Jefferson's wellknown letter on ratification as evidence of the author's

2 Id., 314-315; see the note page 213, post, on Jefferson's letter. It had been used by the Anti-Federalists prior to the election to influence votes against the Constitution.

102

JEFFERSON CITED.

approval of the Constitution, and especially of the several parts which had been reprobated with such vehemence by the Anti-Federalists in the convention. Jefferson, he said, was captivated with the equality of suffrage in the Senate, which Henry called the rotten part of the Constitution. Henry had dilated on the omission of a clause declaring security for religion. Madison replied that if there were a majority of one sect, a Bill of Rights would be a poor protection. It was well known that the people of the States enjoyed the utmost freedom in religion, which arose from the multiplicity of sects in America, and which was the best and only security for religion in any society. As no such was in the majority, there would not be a persecution of the rest. The general government had not a shadow of right to intermeddle with religion. Correcting Henry further, Madison denied that seven States had ever been disposed to surrender the navigation of the Mississippi. When its cession to Spain had been proposed by southern States, the northern had opposed it. New Jersey had explicitly instructed her delegates to vote against it; therefore Henry's argument against ratification, because of the threatened surrender of the navigation of the great river, fell to the ground. Henry had drawn a dark picture of the dangers which he apprehended from the new plan, not the least of which was his dread of iniquitous speculation and stock jobbing in the operation of the new system, to which Madison answered that, judging from what had happened under the Confederation, any change would render amelioration in this respect probable.1

The purpose of the Anti-Federalists in bringing forward the action of Congress relative to the Mississippi,

1 Id., 332.

WESTERN IMMIGRATION.

103

was to influence the Kentucky delegates against the Constitution.1 The subject was quite irrelevant to the question of ratification, but was utilized by Henry, Monroe and Grayson as an objection to the new plan inferable from the conduct of Congress under the Articles. They claimed that the offer of surrender had emanated from northern States; that, by the new plan, these would be in the majority, and, therefore, the South would be in the same danger as before. As Grayson put it, the Mississippi was not secured under the old Confederation, but was better secured than it would be under the new Constitution. By the Articles, the consent of nine States would be necessary to yield the navigation, while by the proposed plan a few States could give it away.2

To all this Madison replied, that it was never the wish of the people at large, or of the eastern States in particular, to make the surrender. It was to their interest, even more than to the South, to maintain control of the river; for, as the carrying business was the natural occupation of the North, it naturally would support a measure which encouraged agriculture in the West and contributed to the carrying trade. The emigration which was going on into the West must affect the eastern States just as it did the southern. He believed that neither the Confederation nor the new Constitution involved the right of giving up the navigation of the Mississippi. It would be repugnant to the law of nations, though emergencies might arise under which the control of the river might be granted for a time. The surrender of that control to Spain for twenty-five years, as had been suggested, by seven States, had been made on the ground of reciprocity. The manufactures of Spain were to be imported and

1 Elliot, III, 361; June 13, 1788.

2 Id., 343.

102

JEFFERSON CITED.

approval of the Constitution, and especially of the several parts which had been reprobated with such vehemence by the Anti-Federalists in the convention. Jefferson, he said, was captivated with the equality of suffrage in the Senate, which Henry called the rotten part of the Constitution. Henry had dilated on the omission of a clause declaring security for religion. Madison replied that if there were a majority of one sect, a Bill of Rights would be a poor protection. It was well known that the people of the States enjoyed the utmost freedom in religion, which arose from the multiplicity of sects in America, and which was the best and only security for religion in any society. As no such was in the majority, there would not be a persecution of the rest. The general government had not a shadow of right to intermeddle with religion. Correcting Henry further, Madison denied that seven States had ever been disposed to surrender the navigation of the Mississippi. When its cession to Spain had been proposed by southern States, the northern had opposed it. New Jersey had explicitly instructed her delegates to vote against it; therefore Henry's argument against ratification, because of the threatened surrender of the navigation of the great river, fell to the ground. Henry had drawn a dark picture of the dangers which he apprehended from the new plan, not the least of which was his dread of iniquitous speculation and stock jobbing in the operation of the new system, to which Madison answered that, judging from what had happened under the Confederation, any change would render amelioration in this respect probable.1

The purpose of the Anti-Federalists in bringing forward the action of Congress relative to the Mississippi,

1 Id., 332.

WESTERN IMMIGRATION.

103

was to influence the Kentucky delegates against the Constitution.1 The subject was quite irrelevant to the question of ratification, but was utilized by Henry, Monroe and Grayson as an objection to the new plan inferable from the conduct of Congress under the Articles. They claimed that the offer of surrender had emanated from northern States; that, by the new plan, these would be in the majority, and, therefore, the South would be in the same danger as before. As Grayson put it, the Mississippi was not secured under the old Confederation, but was better secured than it would be under the new Constitution. By the Articles, the consent of nine States would be necessary to yield the navigation, while by the proposed plan a few States could give it away.2

To all this Madison replied, that it was never the wish of the people at large, or of the eastern States in particular, to make the surrender. It was to their interest, even more than to the South, to maintain control of the river; for, as the carrying business was the natural occupation of the North, it naturally would support a measure which encouraged agriculture in the West and contributed to the carrying trade. The emigration which was going on into the West must affect the eastern States just as it did the southern. He believed that neither the Confederation nor the new Constitution involved the right of giving up the navigation of the Mississippi. It would be repugnant to the law of nations, though emergencies might arise under which the control of the river might be granted for a time. The surrender of that control to Spain for twenty-five years, as had been suggested, by seven States, had been made on the ground of reciprocity. The manufactures of Spain were to be imported and 1 Elliot, III, 361; June 13, 1788.

2 Id., 343.