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. 1 Id., 266-267. 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. 8 Id., 273. 82 RATIFICATION DOUBTFUL. From the time of the adjournment of the Federal Convention, and during the intervening weeks till the Richmond convention assembled, the friends and opponents of the Constitution exerted themselves to reach every voter in the State. The exact result of the campaign preceding the election was doubtful, even after the delegates had been chosen. Both parties claimed the victory, and even Henry admitted that their strength was about equal.1 Grayson, who was hardly less opposed to the Constitution than Henry, confessed that anti-federal success in the convention was suspended by a hair.2 Testimony gathered from the results of the election and before the convention assembled went to show that public sentiment in the State was wavering and would approve, or disapprove, the Constitution as the leaders might decide. The vote of Virginia depended on them, and they depended on the independent delegates in the convention. Its debates promised, therefore, to be of extraordinary interest. Even Washington, whose powers of weighing probabilities were unsurpassed, declared that it was impossible to say, with any degree of certainty, what the decision of the convention would be. He thought the least opposition was to be expected from the northern part of the State, but was convinced, however, that there would be a greater weight of ability against the Constitution in Virginia than in any other State.3 With the exception of Washington, Jefferson and Richard Henry Lee, nearly every eminent citizen in the 1 Life of Henry, II, 342. 2 Id., 344. 3 Washington to James Wilson, April 4, 1788; for a particular account of the instructions to the delegates see Libby, 86-92. State was chosen a delegate. Among the one hundred and seventy members were Madison, Randolph, Blair, Wythe and Mason, who had attended the Federal Convention; Patrick Henry, who had declined an appointment; James Monroe, destined to be the fifth President of the United States; John Marshall, afterward Chief Justice; Bushrod Washington, destined to be his associate, and a long list of distinguished colleagues, including William Grayson; Benjamin Harrison, one of the signers; Humphrey Marshall, and the venerable Edmund Pendleton, Chancellor of the State, who was unanimously chosen President.1 The absence of Jefferson was conspicuous. Had he not been serving his country as minister to France, at this time, he undoubtedly would have been serving his State as a member of this convention. His close correspondence with Madison kept him in touch with American affairs and preserved his influence in the convention. His probable course there, had he been present, can only be hypothecated. There is much reason for believing that it would have been opposite to Hamilton's course in the New York Convention. The work of Marshall and Madison would have been more arduous. It speaks eloquently for the influence of Jefferson, at this time, that to this day a popular tradition lingers that he wrote the Constitution, or at least was foremost in securing its formation and adoption. His diplomatic services have quite vanished from the popular memory. The Federalists have not placed on record any regret that Jefferson was out of the country while the Constitution was process of formation and while it was in course of rati in 1 The debates of the Convention are in Elliot, III; see also the Richmond Edition of 1805; the Journal was republished at Richmond by Thomas W. White, 1827, 82 RATIFICATION DOUBTful. From the time of the adjournment of the Federal Convention, and during the intervening weeks till the Richmond convention assembled, the friends and opponents of the Constitution exerted themselves to reach every voter in the State. The exact result of the campaign preceding the election was doubtful, even after the delegates had been chosen. Both parties claimed the victory, and even Henry admitted that their strength was about equal.1 Grayson, who was hardly less opposed to the Constitution than Henry, confessed that anti-federal success in the convention was suspended by a hair.2 Testimony gathered from the results of the election and before the convention assembled went to show that public sentiment in the State was wavering and would approve, or disapprove, the Constitution as the leaders might decide. The vote of Virginia depended on them, and they depended on the independent delegates in the convention. Its debates promised, therefore, to be of extraordinary interest. Even Washington, whose powers of weighing probabilities were unsurpassed, declared that it was impossible to say, with any degree of certainty, what the decision of the convention would be. He thought the least opposition was to be expected from the northern part of the State, but was convinced, however, that there would be a greater weight of ability against the Constitution in Virginia than in any other State.3 With the exception of Washington, Jefferson and Richard Henry Lee, nearly every eminent citizen in the 3 Washington to James Wilson, April 4, 1788; for a particular account of the instructions to the delegates see Libby, 86-92. |