dome, surmounted by a statue of Ceres, was supported by ten fluted columns, each representing a State in the new Union. Three other columns, just outside the temple, were waiting to be placed on their pedestals. Inscribed on the temple the delighted spectators read: "In Union the Fabric Stands Firm." Their joy could scarcely have been greater had they known that the beautiful temple before them was again to be the most conspicuous object in a grander parade, viewed by more than a million souls, a hundred years later, when the first century of the Constitution was celebrated.

Even the most sanguine Federalist would have found difficulty in believing that in the wonderful commemoration in 1887, the Union, which he knew, so feeble in its beginnings, would be symbolized by a Doric temple with thirty-eight columns, each representing a State, and that eight unfinished columns representing Territories should be awaiting their places on pedestals for new States.1 The spectator who saw the two temples in the imposing display in 1887, had he chosen to read the address which James Wilson gave at the first anniversary, a hundred years before, would have found no feeble prophecy of the progress and prosperity which the nation should enjoy during the first century of its existence under the Constitution.

When the news from Richmond reached Poughkeepsie, on the third of July, the New York convention had been in session two weeks and a half. It had organized on the seventeenth of June with sixty-five members. George Clinton, of Ulster county, the Governor of the State, had been unanimously chosen its President. Hamilton,

1 A picture of the temples of 1788 and 1887, as they appeared in the procession at the one hundredth anniversary, is given in Carson, II, 24.

ANXIETY IN NEW YORK.

135

Yates and Lansing from Albany, lately delegates to the Federal Convention, were members, and among others of eminence were John Jay, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; the Chancellor of the State, Robert R. Livingston; Melancton Smith of Dutchess county; James Duane, John Sloss Hobart, who came up with Jay, Livingston and Hamilton from the city and county of New York, and Samuel Jones, an eminent lawyer and a delegate from the county of Queen. It was expected, and expectation was realized, that there would be considerable opposition to the Constitution in New York.1

So uncertain was the sentiment of its people, the action of earlier conventions was observed with great anxiety by the Federalists in the State. Rejection by Massachusetts would invigorate the opposition in New York,2 as would postponement in New Hampshire; forebodings which the elections in New York fully justified, for it was soon known that the majority of the members chosen were Anti-Federalists.5 By the State constitution of 1777, an elector was required, in addition to the qualification of residence, to possess a free-hold of the value of twenty pounds, or to be a taxpayer, for a tenement of the yearly value of forty shillings; but the legislature, in the act calling the convention had ignored the constitution and empowered all the free male citizens of the State, of the age of twenty-one and over, both to vote and to be eligible as delegates. Though opposition was so

1 Washington to Jefferson, January 1, 1788; Sparks, IX, 293. 2 Washington to Madison, February 5, 1788; Id., 312.

3 Washington to Knox, March 30, 1788; Id., 340. 4 April 24-30, 1788.

5 Hamilton's Works, I, 454. John Jay to Washington, May 29, 1788 and Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788; Sparks, IX, 372.

6 The same extension of the suffrage was permitted by the act of April 6, 1801, in the election in which the adoption of consti

136

PREVAILING ANTI-FEDERALISM.

strong and outspoken, the Federalists, especially those outside of the State, believed that the leaders of the opposition in New York would consider well the consequences, before they rejected the Constitution.1

The prevailing anti-federalism of New York was in large measure due to its form of local government, which made the county and not the town the unit of political action; in this respect the State was like Pennsylvania and Virginia; and consequently its public sentiment was largely dictated by party leaders. Had the town-meeting existed in New York, as in New England, the struggle for ratification would have been not unlike that in Connecticut. New York at this time but slightly resembled the Empire State as we know it. Save in the Hudson valley, and for a short distance in the Mohawk, it was scarcely inhabited by whites. The city of New York was a strong federal citadel, but to the northward, federalism soon vanished. Ratification, if secured at all, would be the result of phenomenal political management on the part of the Federalists, and would be carried by a small vote.2

But the struggle for ratification had begun long before the meeting of the Poughkeepsie convention and before the legislature had passed the resolution under which delegates had been elected. The struggle began nearly ten months before, immediately upon the adjournment of the Federal Convention, when Federalists and Anti

tutional amendments of that year were the issue. It will be noticed that the act allowed free persons of color to vote, without discrimination.

1 Washington to Benjamin Lincoln, June 29, 1788; Id., 392.

2 The summary of the distribution of the Federal and the antiFederal opinions among the counties of New York may be found in Libby, 80-82.

8 February 1, 1788.

Federalists had rushed into print and also began their campaign of almost unbridled speech. On the federal side there appeared in the New York Independent Journal, a few days after the adjournment of the Federal Convention, an article signed Publius, which was soon followed by others in the same paper and in the Packet and the Daily Advertiser.

Now the pseudonym Publius, it was soon known, was the name not of one person, but of three, and the three were Madison, Jay and Hamilton. The plan was Hamilton's, and the articles, at first intended to extend no more than in twenty or twenty-five numbers, were addressed to the people of the State of New York. There were some Anti-Federal writers, who wished to see the Union divided into several confederacies.1 The early numbers of the Federalist, for by that name the articles under the signature of Publius were soon designated, pointed out the danger of this and answered Anti-Federal objections to the new plan. The early numbers, in newspaper form, were sent to Washington, and, at his instigation, were reprinted in Virginia.2 Federalists everywhere agreed with him that they gave the rights of man a full and fair discussion and explained them in a clear and forcible manner such as could not fail to make a lasting impression upon those who read them.3

The interest which the papers excited and the magnitude of the question at issue, caused their authors to modify their plans. In order to influence the people of other States as well, the earlier essays to the number of thirty

1 The most important Anti-Federal pamphlets by Melanchton Smith and Richard Henry Lee are reprinted in Ford's Pamphlets. 2 Washington to David Stuart, November 30, 1787; Sparks, IX, 283; to James Madison, December 7, 1787; Id., 285.

8 Washington to John Armstrong, April 25, 1788; Id., 352.

six were reprinted with a preface and table of contents written by Hamilton and dated the seventeenth of March, 1788.1 He thought that the Federalist might not be without effect in assisting the public judgment on the momentous question of the Constitution. The desire to throw full light upon the subject had led and in a great measure, unavoidably, to a more copious discussion than was at first intended. Thus it happened that the first volume of the Federalist was published before all the remaining essays were written. The fortieth number appeared in the New York Packet on the eighteenth of January, and the seventieth, on the eighteenth of March, the day after the appearance of the first volume. The last number to appear, in newspaper form, was the seventy-seventh, in the Packet for the fourth of April. The remaining eight numbers first appeared in book form in the second volume,2 which was published on the twenty-eighth of May, 1788.

It does not appear that the public recognized the Federalist as anything more than a passing party pamphlet, but its true character was clearly discerned by a few, and by none more accurately than Washington, who wrote to Hamilton his judgment of the work, saying that when the transient circumstances and fugitive performance which attended the crisis of the adoption of the Constitution had disappeared, the Federalist would merit the notice of posterity, because it candidly and ably discussed

1 The Federalist, a Collection of Essays Written in Favor of the new Constitution as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787, in two volumes; I, New York, Printed and Sold by J. and A. McLean, No. 41 Hanover Square, MDCCLXXXVIII, 227.

2 Its title page is like that of the first volume and the book contains the new Constitution, the resolution of the Convention, and Washington's circular letter; 384 pp.