The struggle in New York.
The "Federalist."
Such incidents might have served to remind one that the end had not yet come. The difficulties were not yet surmounted, and the rejoicing was in some respects premature. It was now settled that the new government was to go into operation, but how it was going to be able to get along without the adhesion of New York it was not easy to see. It is true that New York then ranked only as fifth among the states in population, but commercially and militarily she was the centre of the Union. She not only touched at once on the ocean and the lakes, but she separated New England from the rest of the country. It was rightly felt that the Union could never be cemented without this central state. So strongly were people impressed with this feeling that some went so far as to threaten violence. It was said that if New York did not come into the Union peacefully and of her own accord, she should be conquered and dragged in. That she would come in peacefully seemed at first very improbable. When the state convention assembled at Poughkeepsie, on the 17th of June, more than two thirds of its members were avowed Antifederalists. At their head was the governor, George Clinton, hard-headed and resolute, the bitterest hater of the Constitution that could be found anywhere in the thirteen states. Foremost among his supporters were Yates and Lansing, with Melanchthon Smith, a man familiar with political history, and one of the ablest debaters in the country. On the Federalist side were such eminent men as Livingston and Jay; but the herculean task of vanquishing this greathostile majority, and converting it by sheer dint of argument into a majority on the right side, fell chiefly upon the shoulders of one man. But for Alexander Hamilton the decision of New York would unquestionably have been adverse to the Constitution. Nay, more, it is very improbable that, but for him, the good work would have made such progress as it had in the other states. To get the people to adopt the Constitution, it was above all things needful that its practical working should be expounded, in language such as every one could understand, by some writer endowed in the highest degree with political intelligence and foresight. Upon their return from the Federal Convention, Yates and Lansing had done all in their power to bring its proceedings into ill-repute. Pamphlets and broadsides were scattered right and left. The Constitution was called the "triple-headed monster," and declared to be "as deep and wicked a conspiracy as ever was invented in the darkest ages against the liberties of a free people." It soon occurred to Hamilton that it would be well worth while to explain the meaning of all parts of the Constitution in a series of short, incisive essays. He communicated his plan to Madison and Jay, who joined him in the work, and the result was the "Federalist," perhaps the most famous of American books, and undoubtedly the most profound and suggestive treatise on government that has ever been written. Of the eighty-five numbers originally published in the "Independent Gazetteer," under the common signature of "Publius," Jay wrote five, Madisontwenty-nine, and Hamilton fifty-one. Jay's papers related chiefly to diplomatic points, with which his experience abroad had fitted him to deal. The first number was written by Hamilton in the cabin of a sloop on the Hudson, in October, 1787; and they continued to appear, sometimes as often as three or four in a week, through the winter and spring. Madison would have contributed a larger share than he did had he not been called early in March to Virginia to fight the battle of the Constitution in that state. The essays were widely and eagerly read, and probably accomplished more toward insuring the adoption of the Constitution than anything else that was said or done in that eventful year. They were hastily written,—struck out at white heat by men full of their subject. Doubtless the authors did not realize the grandeur of the literary work they were doing, and among the men of the time there were few who foresaw the immortal fame which these essays were to earn. It is said of one of the senators in the first Congress that he made the memorandum, "Get the 'Federalist,' if I can, without buying it. It isn't worth it." But for all posterity the "Federalist" must remain the most authoritative commentary upon the Constitution that can be found; for it is the joint work of the principal author of that Constitution and of its most brilliant advocate.
In nothing could the flexibleness of Hamilton's intellect, or the genuineness of his patriotism, have been more finely shown than in the hearty zeal and transcendent ability with which he now wrote in defence of a plan of government so different fromwhat he would himself have proposed. He made Madison's thoughts his own, until he set them forth with even greater force than Madison himself could command. Yet no arguments could possibly be less chargeable with partisanship than the arguments of the "Federalist." The judgment is as dispassionate as could be shown in a philosophical treatise. The tone is one of grave and lofty eloquence, apt to move even to tears the reader who is fully alive to the stupendous issues that were involved in the discussion. Hamilton was supremely endowed with the faculty of imagining, with all the circumstantial minuteness of concrete reality, political situations different from those directly before him; and he put this rare power to noble use in tracing out the natural and legitimate working of such a Constitution as that which the Federal Convention had framed.
Hamilton wins the victory, and New York ratifies, July 26.
When it came to defending the Constitution before the hostile convention at Poughkeepsie, he had before him as arduous a task as ever fell to the lot of a parliamentary debater. It was a case where political management was out of the question. The opposition were too numerous to be silenced, or cajoled, or bargained with. They must be converted. With an eloquence scarcely equalled before or since in America until Webster's voice was heard, Hamilton argued week after week, till at last Melanchthon Smith, the foremost debater of Clinton's party, broke away, and came to the Federalist side. It was like crushing the centre of a hostile army. After this the Antifederalist forces were confused and easily routed. Thedecisive struggle was over the question whether New York could ratify the Constitution conditionally, reserving to herself the right to withdraw from the Union in case the amendments upon which she had set her heart should not be adopted. Upon this point Hamilton reinforced himself with the advice of Madison, who had just returned to New York. Could a state once adopt the Constitution, and then withdraw from the Union if not satisfied? Madison's reply was prompt and decisive. No, such a thing could never be done. A state which had once ratified was in the federal bond forever. The Constitution could not provide for nor contemplate its own overthrow. There could be no such thing as a constitutional right of secession. When Melanchthon Smith deserted the Antifederalists on this point, the victory was won, and on the 26th of July, New York ratified the Constitution by the bare majority of 30 votes against 27. Rejoicings were now renewed throughout the country. In the city of New York there was an immense parade, and as the emblematic federal ship was drawn through the streets, with Hamilton's name emblazoned on her side, it was doubtless the proudest moment of the young statesman's life.
The laggard states, North Carolina and Rhode Island.
New York, however, dogged her acceptance by proposing, a few days afterward, that a second Federal Convention be called for considering the amendments suggested by the various states. The proposal was supported by the Virginia legislature, but Massachusetts and Pennsylvania opposed it, as having a dangerous tendency to reopen thewhole discussion and unsettle everything. The proposal fell to the ground. People were weary of the long dispute, and turned their attention to electing representatives to the first Congress. With the adhesion of New York all serious anxiety came to an end. The new government could be put in operation without waiting for North Carolina and Rhode Island to make up their minds. The North Carolina convention met on the 21st of July, and adjourned on the 1st of August without coming to any decision. The same objections were raised as in Virginia; and besides, the paper-money party was here much stronger than in the neighbouring state. In Rhode Island paper money was the chief difficulty; that state did not even take the trouble to call a convention. It was not until the 21st of November, 1789, after Washington's government had been several months in operation, that North Carolina joined the Federal Union. Rhode Island did not join till the 29th of May, 1790. If she had waited but a few months longer, Vermont, the first state not of the original thirteen, would have come in before her.
The autumn of 1788 was a season of busy but peaceful electioneering. That remarkable body, the Continental Congress, in putting an end to its troubled existence, decreed that presidential electors should be chosen on the first Wednesday of January, 1789, that the electors should meet and cast their votes for president on the first Wednesday in February, and that the Senate and House of Representatives should assemble on the firstWednesday in March. This latter day fell, in 1789, on the 4th of the month, and accordingly, three years afterward, Congress took it for a precedent, and decreed that thereafter each new administration should begin on the 4th of March. It was further decided, after some warm debate, that until the site for the proposed federal city could be selected and built upon, the seat of the new government should be the city of New York.
First presidential election, Jan. 7, 1789.
In accordance with these decrees, presidential elections were held on the first Wednesday in January. The Antifederalists were still potent for mischief in New York, with the result that, just as that state had not joined in the Declaration of Independence until after it had been proclaimed to the world, and just as she refused to adopt the Federal Constitution until after more than the requisite number of states had ratified it, so now she failed to choose electors, and had nothing to do with the vote that made Washington our first president. The other ten states that had ratified the Constitution all chose electors. But things moved slowly and cumbrously at this first assembling of the new government. The House of Representatives did not succeed in getting a quorum together until the 1st of April. On the 6th, the Senate chose John Langdon for its president, and the two houses in concert counted the electoral votes. There were 69 in all, and every one of the 69 was found to be for George Washington of Virginia. For the second name on the list there was nothing like such unanimity. It was to be expected that the other name wouldbe that of a citizen of Massachusetts, as the other leading state in the Union. The two foremost citizens of Massachusetts bore the same name, and were cousins. There would have been most striking poetic justice in coupling with the name of Washington that of Samuel Adams, since these two men had been indisputably foremost in the work of achieving the independence of the United States. But for the hesitancy of Samuel Adams in indorsing the Federal Constitution, he would very likely have been our first vice-president and our second president. But the wave of federalism had now begun to sweep strongly over Massachusetts, carrying everything before it, and none but the most ardent Federalists had a chance to meet in the electoral college. Voices were raised in behalf of Samuel Adams. While we honour the American Fabius, it was said, let us not forget the American Cato. It was urged by some, with much truth, that but for his wise and cautious action in the Massachusetts convention, the good ship Constitution would have been fatally wrecked upon the reefs of Shaysism. His course had not been that of an obstructionist, like that of his old friends Henry and Lee and Gerry; but at the critical moment—one of the most critical in all that wonderful crisis—he had thrown his vast influence, with decisive effect, upon the right side. All this is plain enough to the historian of to-day. But in the political fervour of the election of 1789, the fact most clearly visible to men was that Samuel Adams had hesitated, and perhaps made things wait. These points came out most distinctly onthe issue of his election to the Federal Congress, in which he was defeated by the youthful Fisher Ames, whose eloquence in the state convention had been so conspicuous and useful; but they serve to explain thoroughly why he was not put upon the presidential list along with Washington. His cousin, John Adams, had just returned from his mission to England, weary and disgusted with the scanty respect which he had been able to secure for a feeble league of states that could not make good its own promises. His services during the Revolution had been of the most splendid sort: and after Washington, he was the second choice of the electoral college, receiving 34 votes, while John Jay of New York, his nearest competitor, received only 9. John Adams was accordingly declared vice-president.
Inauguration of Washington, April 30.
On the 14th of April Washington was informed of his election, and on the next day but one he bid adieu again to his beloved home at Mount Vernon, where he had hoped to pass the remainder of his days in that rural peace and quiet for which no one yearns like the man who is burdened with greatness and fame unsought for. The position to which he was summoned was one of unparalleled splendour,—how splendid we can now realize much better than he, and our grandchildren will realize it better than we,—the position of first ruler of what was soon to become at once the strongest and the most peace-loving people upon the face of the earth. As he journeyed toward New York, his thoughts must have been busy with the arduous problems of the time. Already,doubtless, he had marked out the two great men, Jefferson and Hamilton, for his chief advisers: the one to place us in a proper attitude before the mocking nations of Europe; the other to restore our shattered credit, and enlist the moneyed interests of all the states in the success of the Federal Union. Washington's temperament was a hopeful one, as befitted a man of his strength and dash. But in his most hopeful mood he could hardly have dared to count upon such a sudden and wonderful demonstration of national strength as was about to ensue upon the heroic financial measures of Hamilton. His meditations on this journey we may well believe to have been solemn and anxious enough. But if he could gather added courage from the often-declared trust of his fellow-countrymen, there was no lack of such comfort for him. At every town through which he passed, fresh evidences of it were gathered, but at one point on the route his strong nature was especially wrought upon. At Trenton, as he crossed the bridge over the Assunpink Creek, where twelve years ago, at the darkest moment of the Revolution, he had outwitted Cornwallis in the most skilful of stratagems, and turned threatening defeat into glorious victory,—at this spot, so fraught with thrilling associations, he was met by a party of maidens dressed in white, who strewed his path with sweet spring flowers, while triumphal arches in softest green bore inscriptions declaring that he who had watched over the safety of the mothers could well be trusted to protect the daughters. On the 23d he arrived in New York, and was entertained at dinner by Governor Clinton.One week later, on the 30th, came the inauguration. It was one of those magnificent days of clearest sunshine that sometimes make one feel in April as if summer had come. At noon of that day Washington went from his lodgings, attended by a military escort, to Federal Hall, at the corner of Wall and Nassau streets, where his statue has lately been erected. The city was ablaze with excitement. A sea of upturned eager faces surrounded the spot, and as the hero appeared thousands of cocked hats were waved, while ladies fluttered their white handkerchiefs. Washington came forth clad in a suit of dark brown cloth of American make, with white silk hose and shoes decorated with silver buckles, while at his side hung a dress-sword. For a moment all were hushed in deepest silence, while the secretary of the Senate held forth the Bible upon a velvet cushion, and Chancellor Livingston administered the oath of office. Then, before Washington had as yet raised his head, Livingston shouted,—and from all the vast company came answering shouts,—"Long live George Washington, President of the United States!"
Thebibliography of the period covered in this book is most copiously and thoroughly treated in the seventh volume of Winsor'sNarrative and Critical History of America, Boston, 1888. For the benefit of the reader who may not have ready access to that vast storehouse of information, the following brief notes may be of service.
The best account of the peace negotiations is to be found in chapter ii. of Winsor's volume just cited, written by Hon. John Jay, who had already discussed the subject quite thoroughly in hisAddress before the New York Historical Society on its Seventy-Ninth Anniversary, Nov. 27, 1883. Of the highest value are Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice'sLife of Lord Shelburne, 3 vols., London, 1875–76, and Adolphe de Circourt,Histoire de l'action commune de la France et de l'Amérique, etc., tome iii.,Documents originaux inédits, Paris, 1876. See also Sparks,Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, 12 vols., Boston, 1829–30; Trescot'sDiplomacy of the American Revolution, N.Y., 1852; Lyman'sDiplomacy of the United States, Boston, 1826; Elliot'sAmerican Diplomatic Code, 2 vols., Washington, 1834; Chalmers'sCollection of Treaties, 2 vols., London, 1790; Lord Stanhope'sHistory of England, vol. vii., London, 1853; Lecky'sHistory of England, vol. iv., London, 1882; Lord John Russell'sMemorials of Fox, 4 vols., London, 1853–57; Albemarle'sRockingham and his Contemporaries, 2 vols., London, 1852; Walpole'sLast Journals, 2 vols., London, 1859; Force'sAmerican Archives, 4th series, 6 vols., Washington, 1839–46; John Adams'sWorks, 10 vols., Boston, 1850–56; Rives'sLife of Madison, 3 vols., Boston, 1859–68; Madison'sLetters and other Writings, 4 vols., Phila., 1865; the lives of Franklin,by Bigelow and Parton; the lives of Jay, by Jay, Flanders, and Whitelocke; Morse'sJohn Adams, Boston, 1885;Correspondence of George III. with Lord North, 2 vols., London, 1867; Wharton'sDigest of International Law, Washington, 1887,Appendixto vol. iii.; Hale'sFranklin in France, 2 vols., Boston, 1888. The view of the treaty set forth in 1830 by Sparks, according to which Jay and Adams were quite mistaken in their suspicions of the French court, we may now regard as disposed of by the evidence presented by Circourt and Fitzmaurice. It has led many writers astray, and even with all the lights which Mr. Bancroft has had, the account in the last revision of hisHistory of the United States, vol. v., N.Y., 1886, though in some respects one of the best to be found in the general histories, still leaves much to be desired.
The general condition of the United States under the articles of confederation is well sketched in the sixth volume of Bancroft's final revision, and in Curtis'sHistory of the Constitution, 2 vols., N.Y., 1861. An excellent summary is given in the first volume of Schouler'sHistory of the United States under the Constitution, of which vols, i.-iii. (Washington, 1882–85) have appeared. Mr. Schouler's book is suggestive and stimulating. The work most rich in details is Professor McMaster'sHistory of the People of the United States, of which the first volume rather more than covers the period 1783–89. The author is especially deserving of praise for the diligence with which he has searched the newspapers and obscure pamphlets of the period. He has thus given much fresh life to the narrative, besides throwing valuable light upon the thoughts and feelings of the men who lived under the "league of friendship." I take pleasure in acknowledging my indebtedness to Professor McMaster for several interesting illustrative details, chiefly in my third, fourth, and seventh chapters. At the same time one is sorely puzzled at some of his omissions, as in the account of the Federal Convention, in which one finds no allusion whatever to the all-important question of the representation of slaves, or to the compromise by which New England secured to Congress full power to regulatecommerce by yielding to Georgia and South Carolina in the matter of the African slave-trade. So the discussion as to the national executive is carried on till July 26th, when it was decided that the president should be chosen by Congress for a single term of seven years; then the subject is dropped, and the reader is left to suppose that such was the final arrangement. Instances of what seems like carelessness are sufficiently numerous to make the book in some places an unsafe guide to the general reader, but in spite of such defects, which a careful revision might remedy, its value is great. Further general information as to the period of the Confederation may be found in Morse's admirableLife of Alexander Hamilton, 3d ed., 2 vols., Boston, 1882; J.C. Hamilton'sRepublic of the United States, 7 vols., Boston, 1879; Frothingham'sRise of the Republic, Boston, 1872, chapter xii.; Von Holst'sConstitutional History, 5 vols., Chicago, 1877–85, chapter i.; Pitkin'sHistory of the United States, 2 vols., New Haven, 1828, vol. ii.; Marshall'sLife of Washington, 5 vols., Phila., 1805–07;Journals of Congress, 13 vols., Phila., 1800;Secret Journals of Congress, 4 vols., Boston, 1820–21.
On the loyalists and their treatment, the able essay by Rev. G.E. Ellis, in Winsor's seventh volume, is especially rich in bibliographical references. See also Sabine'sLoyalists of the American Revolution, 2 vols., Boston, 1864; Ryerson'sLoyalists of America, 2 vols., Toronto, 1880; Jones'sNew York during the Revolution, 2 vols., N.Y., 1879. Although chiefly concerned with events earlier than 1780, theJournal and Letters of Samuel Curwen, 4th ed., Boston, 1864, and especially theDiary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson, 2 vols., Boston, 1884–86, are valuable in this connection.
For the financial troubles the most convenient general survey is to be found in A.S. Bolles'sFinancial History of the United States, 1774–1789, N.Y., 1879; Sparks'sLife of Gouverneur Morris, 3 vols., Boston, 1832; Pelatiah Webster'sPolitical Essays, Phila., 1791; Phillips'sColonial and Continental Paper Currency, 2 vols., Roxbury, 1865–66; Varnum'sCase of Trevett v. Weeden, Providence, 1787; Arnold'sHistory of Rhode Island, 2 vols., N.Y., 1859–60. The bestaccount of the Shays rebellion is G.R. Minot'sHistory of the Insurrections in Massachusetts, Worcester, 1788; see also Barry'sHistory of Massachusetts, 3 vols., Boston, 1855–57; Austin'sLife of Gerry, 2 vols., Boston, 1828–29. A new and interesting account of the northwestern cessions and the Ordinance of 1787 is B.A. Hinsdale'sOld Northwest, N.Y., 1888; see also Dunn'sIndiana, Boston, 1888; Cutler'sLife, Journal, and Correspondence of Manasseh Cutler, 2 vols., Cincinnati, 1887.
In theJohns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, the following articles bear especially upon subjects here treated and are worthy of careful study: II., v., vi., H.C. Adams,Taxation in the United States, 1789–1816; III., i., H.B. Adams,Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States; III., ix., x., Davis,American Constitutions; IV., v., Jameson'sIntroduction to the Constitutional and Political History of the Individual States; IV., vii.-ix., Shoshuke Sato'sHistory of the Land Question in the United States.
For the proceedings of the Federal Convention in framing the Constitution, and of the several state conventions in ratifying it, the great treasure-house of authoritative information is Elliot'sDebates in the Conventions, 5 vols., originally published under the sanction of Congress in 1830–45; new reprint, Phila., 1888. The contents of the volumes are as follows:—
I. Sundry preliminary papers, relating to the ante-revolutionary period, and the period of the Confederation; journal of the Federal Convention; Yates's minutes of the proceedings; the official letters of Martin, Yates, Lansing, Randolph, Mason, and Gerry, in explanation of their several courses; Jay's address to the people of New York; and other illustrative papers.II, III., IV. Proceedings of the several state conventions; with other documents, including the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798, and data relating thereto.V. Madison's journal of debates in the Congress of the Confederation, Nov. 4, 1782–June 21, 1783, andFeb. 19–April 25, 1787; Madison's journal of the Federal Convention; letters from Madison to Washington, Jefferson, and Randolph, Sept. 1787–Nov. 1788; and other papers.
I. Sundry preliminary papers, relating to the ante-revolutionary period, and the period of the Confederation; journal of the Federal Convention; Yates's minutes of the proceedings; the official letters of Martin, Yates, Lansing, Randolph, Mason, and Gerry, in explanation of their several courses; Jay's address to the people of New York; and other illustrative papers.
II, III., IV. Proceedings of the several state conventions; with other documents, including the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798, and data relating thereto.
V. Madison's journal of debates in the Congress of the Confederation, Nov. 4, 1782–June 21, 1783, andFeb. 19–April 25, 1787; Madison's journal of the Federal Convention; letters from Madison to Washington, Jefferson, and Randolph, Sept. 1787–Nov. 1788; and other papers.
The best edition of the "Federalist" is by H.C. Lodge, N.Y., 1888. See also Story'sCommentaries on the Constitution, 4th ed., 3 vols., Boston, 1873; the works of Daniel Webster, 6 vols., Boston, 1851; Hurd'sTheory of our National Existence, Boston, 1881. The above works expound the Constitution as not a league between sovereign states but a fundamental law ordained by the people of the United States. The opposite view is presented inThe Republic of Republics, by P.C. Centz [Plain Common Sense, pseudonym of B.J. Sage of New Orleans], Boston, 1881; the works of Calhoun, 6 vols., N.Y., 1853–55; A.H. Stephens'sWar between the States, 2 vols., Phila., 1868; Jefferson Davis'sRise and Fall of the Confederate Government, 2 vols., N.Y., 1881.
Several volumes of the "American Statesmen" contain interesting accounts of discussions in the various conventions, as Tyler'sPatrick Henry, Hosmer'sSamuel Adams, Lodge'sHamilton, Magruder'sMarshall, Roosevelt'sMorris. Gay'sMadisonfalls far below the general standard of this excellent and popular series. No satisfactory biography of Madison has yet been written, though the voluminous work of W.C. Rives contains much good material. For judicial interpretations of the Constitution one may consult B.R. Curtis'sDigest of Decisions, 1790–1854; Flanders'sLives of the Chief Justices, Phila., 1858; Marshall'sWritings on the Federal Constitution, ed. Perkins, Boston, 1839; see also Pomeroy'sConstitutional Law, N.Y., 1868; Wharton'sCommentaries, Phila., 1884; Von Holst'sCalhoun, Boston, 1882; Tyler'sLetters and Times of the Tylers, 2 vols., Richmond, 1884–85. Among critical and theoretical works, Fisher'sTrial of the Constitution, Phila., 1862, and Lockwood'sAbolition of the Presidency, N.Y., 1884, are variously suggestive; Woodrow Wilson'sCongressional Government, Boston, 1885, is a work of rare ability, pointing out the divergence which has arisen between the literary theory of our government and its practical working. Walter Bagehot'sEnglish Constitution,revised ed., Boston, 1873, had already, in a most profound and masterly fashion, exhibited the divergence between the literary theory and the actual working of the British government. Some points of weakness in the British system are touched in Albert Stickney'sTrue Republic, N.Y., 1879; see also hisDemocratic Government, N.Y., 1885. The constitutional history of England is presented, in its earlier stages, with prodigious learning, by Dr. Stubbs, 3 vols., London, 1873–78, and in its later stages by Hallam, 2 vols., London, 1842, and Sir Erskine May, 2 vols., Boston, 1862–63; see also Freeman'sGrowth of the English Constitution, London, 1872;Comparative Politics, London, 1873;Some Impressions of the United States, London, 1883; Rudolph Gneist,History of the English Constitution, 2 vols., London, 1886; J.S. Mill,Representative Government, N.Y., 1862; Sir H. Maine,Popular Government, N.Y., 1886; S.R. Gardiner'sIntroduction to the Study of English History, London, 1881. In this connection I may refer to my own book,American Political Ideas, N.Y., 1885; and my articles, "Great Britain," "House of Lords," and "House of Commons," in Lalor'sCyclopædia of Political Science, 3 vols., Chicago, 1882–84. It is always pleasant to refer to that cyclopædia, because it contains the numerous articles on American history by Prof. Alexander Johnston. One must stop somewhere, and I will conclude by saying that I do not know where one can find anything more richly suggestive than Professor Johnston's articles.
Thenames of those who for various reasons were absent when the Constitution was signed are given in italics; the names of those who were present, but refused to sign, are given in small capitals.
New HampshireJohn Langdon.Nicholas Gilman.MassachusettsElbridge Gerry.Nathaniel Gorham.Rufus King.Caleb Strong.ConnecticutWilliam Samuel Johnson.Roger Sherman.Oliver Ellsworth.New YorkRobert Yates.Alexander Hamilton.John Lansing.New JerseyWilliam Livingston.David Brearley.William Churchill Houston.William Paterson.Jonathan Dayton.PennsylvaniaBenjamin Franklin.Thomas Mifflin.Robert Morris.George Clymer.Thomas Fitzsimmons.Jared Ingersoll.James Wilson.Gouverneur Morris.DelawareGeorge Read.Gunning Bedford.John Dickinson.Richard Bassett.Jacob Broom.MarylandJames McHenry.Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer.Daniel Carroll.John Francis Mercer.Luther Martin.VirginiaGeorge Washington.Edmund Randolph.John Blair.James Madison.George Mason.George Wythe.James McClurg.North CarolinaAlexander Martin.William Richardson Davie.William Blount.Richard Dobbs Spaight.Hugh Williamson.South CarolinaJohn Rutledge.Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.Charles Pinckney.Pierce Butler.GeorgiaWilliam Few.Abraham Baldwin.William Pierce.William Houstoun.
Of those who signed their names to the Federal Constitution, the six following were signers of the Declaration of Independence:—
Roger Sherman,Benjamin Franklin,Robert Morris,George Clymer,James Wilson,George Read.
The ten following were appointed as delegates to the Federal Convention, but never took their seats:—
New HampshireJohn Pickering.Benjamin West.MassachusettsFrancis Dana.New JerseyJohn Nelson.Abraham Clark.VirginiaPatrick Henry (declined).North CarolinaRichard Caswell (resigned).Willie Jones (declined).GeorgiaGeorge Walton.Nathaniel Pendleton.
No delegates were appointed by Rhode Island. In a letter addressed to "the Honourable the Chairman of the General Convention," and dated "Providence, May 11, 1787," several leading citizens of Rhode Island expressed their regret that their state should not be represented on so momentous an occasion. At the same time, says the letter, "the result of your deliberations ... we still hope may finally be approved and adopted by this state, for which we pledge our influence and best exertions." The letter was signed by John Brown, Joseph Nightingale, Levi Hall, Philip Allen, Paul Allen, Jabez Bowen, Nicholas Brown, John Jinkes, Welcome Arnold, William Russell, Jeremiah Olney, William Barton, and Thomas Lloyd Halsey. The letter was presented to the Convention on May 28th by Gouverneur Morris, and, "being read, was ordered to lie on the table for further consideration." See Elliot'sDebates, v. 125.
The Constitution was ratified by the thirteen states, as follows:—
1.DelawareDec. 6, 1787.2.PennsylvaniaDec. 12, 1787.3.New JerseyDec. 18, 1787.4.GeorgiaJan. 2, 1788.5.ConnecticutJan. 9, 1788.6.MassachusettsFeb. 6, 1788.7.MarylandApril 28, 1788.8.South CarolinaMay 23, 1788.9.New HampshireJune 21, 1788.10.VirginiaJune 25, 1788.11.New YorkJuly 26, 1788.12.North CarolinaNov. 21, 1789.13.Rhode IslandMay 29, 1790.
PRESIDENTS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS.
1.Peyton Randolph of VirginiaSept. 5, 1774.2.Henry Middleton of South CarolinaOct. 22, 1774.Peyton RandolphMay 10, 1775.3.John Hancock of MassachusettsMay 24, 1775.4.Henry Laurens of South CarolinaNov. 1, 1777.5.John Jay of New YorkDec. 10, 1778.6.Samuel Huntington of ConnecticutSept. 28, 1779.7.Thomas McKean of DelawareJuly 10, 1781.8.John Hanson of MarylandNov. 5, 1781.9.Elias Boudinot of New JerseyNov. 4, 1782.10.Thomas Mifflin of PennsylvaniaNov. 3, 1783.11.Richard Henry Lee of VirginiaNov. 30, 1784.12.Nathaniel Gorham of MassachusettsJune 6, 1786.13.Arthur St. Clair of PennsylvaniaFeb. 2, 1787.14.Cyrus Griffin of VirginiaJan. 22, 1788.