IMPOTENCE OF CONGRESS.

43

States was established by the war; their economic emancipation was only a formal one. In this respect they remained, for a great many years more, in colonial deper.dence. The only essential change made in the situation. served merely to confirm anew Franklin's saying, that "not England, but Europe" was the mother country of America. The advantage, however, which might have been reaped from this change was scarcely turned to account. The United States had of course the right to enter into commercial relations with such of the European powers as might offer them the best terms; but this right was destined to remain completely unproductive of profit, as long as these powers did not consider it their interest to enter into commercial treaties with them. And as, by reason of the powerlessness of congress and the little reliance that could be placed on the state legislatures, there could be no guaranty that the terms of any treaty would be observed, trans-Atlantic nations were little inclined to bind themselves to anything.1 England had already experienced how little reliance was to be placed on the promises of congress. The terms of the treaty of peace were frequently violated by the Americans, as Jay, the then secretary of foreign affairs, frankly avowed. But they were satisfied with making this avowal, for the urgent recommendations of congress to

'The Duke of Dorset writes on the 26th of March, 1785, to the American commissioners who were endeavoring to negotiate a treaty of commerce: ... I have been . . . instructed to learn from you, gentlemen, what is the real nature of the powers with which you are invested, whether you are merely commissioned by congress, or whether you have received separate powers from the respective states. The apparent determination of the respective states to regulate their own separate interests renders it absolutely necessary, towards forming a permanent system of commerce, that my court should be informed how far the commissioners can be duly authorized to enter into any engagements with Great Britain, which it may not be in the power of any one of the states to render totally useless and inefficient." Diplomatic Correspondence, 1783-1789, II., p. 297. Compare Marshall, Life of Wash., II., pp., 96, 97. Pitkin, History of the U. S., II., pp. 189, 190.

the states to henceforth make the observance of the treaty an object of their earnest solicitude, were words spoken to the wind. England, therefore, thought herself justified in not performing her part of the contract. She refused to vacate the western posts; and the Indians, under the protection of her troops, and partly because urged to it by England, carried on an atrocious border warfare against American settlers.1 The complaints consequent upon the distress and misery growing out of this lamentable absence of government continued to become louder and more general. Congress had to use all its remaining resources and energy in order to meet the daily demands upon it. Complete ruin had been once avoided only because Holland happened to be in a condition to make another small loan. But this could afford a respite of only a few months more.

Colonel Humphries wrote to Washington that the wheels of the political machine could with difficulty continue to move. And, indeed, a short time after they came to “an awful stand."2 The United States, which had already

'Most American writers consider it a settled fact that England was the first to break the terms of the treaty. It must be granted, also, that Jefferson could claim with a certain degree of truth, in his communica tion of the 29th of May, 1792, to the English ambassador, Hammond, that congress was bound only to recommend the states to deport them. selves towards their English creditors and towards the loyalists in the manner desired by England. But the absolute want of power of the government of the Union had given so good a pretext to England to fail in its engagements and congress was so directly compelled to acknowledge its powerlessness over the "sovereign" states, that neither England nor any other country would be likely to be induced to undertake any new engagement and receive as an equivalent new recommendations of congress to the states.

"The delinquencies of the states have, step by step, matured themselves to an extreme which has at length arrested all the wheels of the national government and brought them to an awful stand. Congress at this time scarcely possesses the means of keeping up the forms of administration till the states can have time to agree upon a more substantial substitute for the present shadow of a federal government." Federalist, No. XV.

dreamed themselves to be the redeemers of the world from political slavery, were, both at home and abroad, an object of compassion, of scorn and contempt. This was known to all; no one ventured to deny it; but the legislatures remained obdurate. They have a fatal disinclination to despoil themselves of the smallest attribute of independent or sovereign states, wrote 'colonel Humphries, in substance, to Washington on the 20th of January, 1787. It was necessary that their own existence should be in jeopardy, before they would even reluctantly acknowledge that there was no salvation for them except in strengthening the government of the Union.

In Massachusetts were witnessed the first commotions which showed beyond a doubt that society itself was already completely undermined and that a radical political reform and the preservation of social order were well-nigh identical questions. The malcontents who either openly or secretly sided with Shay were equal in number to the friends of the state government, and their ultimate object was none other than the repudiation of public and private debts and a re-distribution of property. The greatest evil of all was that it was long doubtful whether the legislature would rouse itself to energetic action, or whether that part of it which was in secret sympathy with the rebels would obtain the upper hand.

The news of the outbreak of these disorders created a very profound impression everywhere. The old leaders of the Revolution felt that the time had at last come when the question of the "to be" or the "not to be" of the nation must be decided. The spectre of civil war rose up

'Washington writes to Colonel Lee: "To be more exposed in the eyes of the world and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible." See also Works of Jefferson, I., pp. 509, 518, 532; II., pp. 193, 194.

2

Compare Curtis, Hist, of the Const., I., p. 269; Sparks, Wash., IX., p. 207; Marshall, Wash., II., p. 107; Rives, Madison, II., p. 175.

in a threatening attitude before every eye.1 Colonel Humphries implored Washington not to remain neutral if it should break out. And Washington himself was far from considering these fears as mere phantoms. He wrote to General Knox: "There are combustibles in every state to which a spark might set fire." And this was the view that obtained everywhere. "It is, indeed, difficult to overcharge any picture of the gloom and apprehensions which then pervaded the public councils as well as the private meditations of the ablest men of the country."

1 "Our discontents were fermenting into civil war." Fisher Ames, Works, II., p. 370.

2 Marshall, Life of Wash., II., p. 119.

Story, Comm., I., § 271. A certain Smith, who said of himself: “1 am a plain man and get my living by the plow," described the rebellion in the following words, in the Massachusetts convention: "There was a black cloud that arose in the East last winter, and spread over the West. . . . I mean, sir, the county of Bristol; the cloud rose there, and burst upon us, and produced a dreadful effect. It brought on a state of anarchy, and that led to tyranny. I say it brought anarchy. People that used to live peaceably and were before good neighbors, got distracted and took up arms against government. . . . I am going, Mr. President, to show you and my brother farmers what were the effects of anarchy, that you may see the reasons why I wish for good government. People, I say, took up arms; and then if you went to speak to them, you had the musket of death presented to your breast. They would rob you of your property, threaten to burn your houses; oblige you to be on your guard night and day; alarm spread from town to town; families were broken up; the tender mother would cry: 'Oh, my son is among them, what shall I do for my child? Some were taken captive; children taken out of their schools and carried away. Then we should hear of an action, and the poor prisoners were set in front to be killed by their own friends. How dreadful, how distressing, was this! Our distress was so great that we should have been glad to snatch at any. thing that looked like a government. Had any one that was able to protect us come and set up his standard, we should all have flocked to it, even if it had been a monarch, and that monarch might have proved a tyrant. So that you see that anarchy leads to tyranny; and better to have one tyrant than so many at once." Elliott, Deb., II., pp. 102, 103. Jameson, The Constitutional Convention, p. 41, says: "If they did not desire, within the borders of each state, to see a repetition of the rebel

THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION.

47

It was owing to this general feeling that a desperate crisis had been reached, that the report of the convention at Annapolis did not fall on deaf ears. This convention met in September, 1786, at the invitation of the legisla ture of Virginia, "to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial relations" might "be necessary to their common interests." But as only five states1 were represented, and the commissioners were soon satisfied that their powers were not such as the critical condition of the country demanded, they contented themselves with drawing up a report which was laid before congress and the legislatures of the several states. The commissioners therein recommended the calling of a general convention "to meet at Philadelphia, on the second day in May next, to take into consideration the situation of the United States; to devise such further provisions as shall to them seem necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an act for that purpose to the United States in congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state, will effectually provide for the same."

This report induced New York to instruct its delegates to make a formal proposition that congress should recommend to the states the calling of a general convention. On the 21st of February, 1787, this proposition was accepted and the recommendation made which had been advised by the Annapolis convention.

The supporters of a strong government now acted with

lion kindled by Shay in Massachusetts, ending, perhaps, in a general civil war, they must substitute for the rotten structure of the confederation a constitution which would confirm, and not undermine and break up, their actual union." See Life of J. Adams, II., p. 131.

1 New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia. The proposition referred to received a majority of only one vote in the New York senate. Marshall, Life of Wash., II., p. 123.