FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[893]Writings: Conway, i, 69et seq.[894]"Common Sensehad a prodigious effect." (Franklin to Le Veillard, April 15, 1787;Writings: Smyth, ix, 558.) "Its popularity was unexampled.... The author was hailed as our angel sent from Heaven to save all from the horrors of Slavery.... His pen was an appendage [to the army] almost as necessary and formidable as its cannon." (Cheetenham, 46-47, 55.) In America alone 125,000 copies ofCommon Sensewere sold within three months after the pamphlet appeared. (Belcher, i, 235.)"Can nothing be done in our Assembly for poor Paine? Must the merits ofCommon Sensecontinue to glide down the stream of time unrewarded by this country? His writings certainly have had a powerful effect upon the public mind. Ought they not, then, to meet an adequate return?" (Washington to Madison, June 12, 1784;Writings: Ford, x, 393; and see Tyler, i, 458-62.) In the Virginia Legislature Marshall introduced a bill for Paine's relief. (Supra, chap,VI.)[895]Graydon, 358.[896]Common Sense: Paine;Writings: Conway, i, 61. Paine's genius for phrase is illustrated in theCrisis, which next appeared. "These are the times that try men's souls"; "Tyranny like hell, is not easily conquered"; "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot," are examples of Paine's brilliant gift.[897]Moore'sDiary, ii, 143-44. Although this was a British opinion, yet it was entirely accurate.[898]"They willriseand for lack of argument, say, Má¹›Speaker, this measure will never do, thePeopleSir, will never bear it.... These small Politicians, returned home, ... tell their Constituents such & such measures are taking place altho' I did my utmost to prevent itâ€”The People must take care of themselves or they are undone. Stir up a County Convention and by Trumpeting lies from Town to Town get one [a convention] collected and Consisting of Persons of small Abilitiesâ€”of little or no propertyâ€”embarrass'd in their Circumstancesâ€”and of no great Integrityâ€”and these Geniouses vainly conceiving they are competent to regulate the affairs of Stateâ€”make some hasty incoherent Resolves, and these end in Sedition, Riot, & Rebellion." (Sewell to Thatcher, Dec., 1787;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 257.)[899]More than a decade after the slander was set afoot against Colonel Levin Powell of Loudoun County, Virginia, one of the patriot soldiers of the Revolution and an officer of Washington, that he favored establishing a monarchy, one of his constituents wrote that "detraction & defamation are generally resorted to promote views injurious to you.... Can you believe it, but it is really true that the old & often refuted story of your predilection for Monarchy is again revived." (Thomas Sims to Colonel Levin Powell, Leesburg, Virginia, Feb. 5 and 20, 1801;Branch Historical Papers, i, 58, 61.)[900]Watson, 262-64. This comic prophecy that the National Capital was to be the fortified home of a standing army was seriously believed by the people. Patrick Henry urged the same objection with all his dramatic power in the Virginia Convention of 1788. So did the scholarly Mason. (Seeinfra, chaps.XIandXII.)[901]Graydon, 392-93.[902]Memorials of the Society of the Cincinnati, 1790, 3-24.[903]Jefferson to Washington, Nov. 14, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 222-23; and see Jefferson's denunciation of the Cincinnati in Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 28, 1794;ib., viii, 156-57. But see Jefferson's fair and moderate account of the Cincinnati before he had learned of its unpopularity in America. (Jefferson to Meusnier, June 22, 1786;ib.,v, 50-56.)[904]The same who broke the quorum in the Continental Congress. (Supra, chap.IV.)[905]Burke:Considerations on the Society of the Order of Cincinnati; 1784.[906]Mirabeau:Considerations on the Order of Cincinnati; 1786. Mirabeau here refers to the rule of the Cincinnati that the officer's eldest son might become a member of the order, as in the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the present time.[907]As quoted in Hudson:Journalism in the United States, 158.[908]Madison to James Madison, Nov. 1, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 278.[909]Jay to Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 212.[910]See Weld, i, 114-15, as a fair example of foreign estimate of this American characteristic at that period.[911]See chap.II, vol.II, of this work.[912]Private debts which Virginia planters alone owed British merchants were "20 or 30 times the amount of all money in circulation in that state." (Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 17-18; and see Jefferson to McCaul, April 19, 1786;ib., 88.)[913]"It cannot perhaps be affirmed that there is gold & silver enoin the Country to pay the next tax." (Madison to Monroe, June 4, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 245.)[914]Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 27.[915]Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786:Works: Ford, v, 27.[916]Moore'sDiary, ii, 425-26. The merchants of Philadelphia shut their shops; and it was agreed that if Congress did not substitute "solid money" for paper, "all further resistance to" Great Britain "must be given up." (Ib.)[917]Jefferson to McCaul, April 19, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 90; also to Wm. Jones, Jan. 5, 1787;ib., 247.â€”"Paiment was made me in this money when it was but a shadow."[918]Livingston to Jay, July 30, 1789;Jay: Johnston, iii, 373-74.[919]Fithian, 91.[920]Virginia's paper money experiment was the source of many lawsuits in which Marshall was counsel. See, for example, Pickettvs.Claiborne (Call, iv, 99-106); Taliaferrovs.Minor (Call, i, 456-62).[921]The House of Delegates toward the end of 1786 voted 84 to 17 against the paper money resolution. (Madison to James Madison, Nov. 1, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 277.)[922]"The advocates for paper money are making the most of this handle. I begin to fear exceedingly that no efforts will be sufficient to parry this evil." (Madison to Monroe, June 4, 1786;ib., 245.)[923]Madison to Jefferson, Aug. 12, 1786;ib., 259.[924]"Enclosed are one hundred Dollars of new Emmission Money which Col. Steward desires me to have exchanged for Specie. Pray, inform him they are all counterfeit." (Gerry to King, April 7, 1785; King, i, 87.)[925]Washington to Grayson, Aug. 22, 1785;Writings: Ford,X, 493-94.[926]Knox to Washington, Oct. 28, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, footnote to p. 407-08.[927]Minot:History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts in 1786(2d ed.), 1810.[928]Printed in the first edition (1807) "enormous"â€”a good example of the haste of the first printing of Marshall'sLife of Washington. (See vol.IIIof this work.)[929]Marshall, ii, 117.[930]Ib., 118.[931]Knox to Washington, Oct. 28, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, footnote to 408.[932]Shays's Rebellion was only a local outburst of a general feeling throughout the United States. Marshall says, "those causes of discontent ... existed in every part of the union." (Marshall, ii, 117.)[933]Jay to Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 213.[934]Jay to Reed, Dec. 12, 1786;ib., 222.[935]Jay to Price, Sept. 27, 1786;ib., 168.[936]Madison to Randolph, Jan. 10, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 81.[937]Washington to Lee, Oct. 31, 1786;Writings: Ford, xi, 76-77.[938]Washington to Madison, Nov. 5, 1786;ib., 81.[939]Washington to Knox, Dec. 26, 1786;ib., 103-04. And Washington wrote to Lafayette that "There are seeds of discontent in every part of the Union." (Writings: Sparks, ix, 263.)[940]Marshall to James Wilkinson, Jan. 5, 1787;Amer. Hist. Rev., xii, 347-48.[941]Jefferson to Mrs. Adams, Feb. 22, 1787;Works: Ford, v, 265.[942]Jefferson to Mrs. Adams, Feb. 22, 1787;Works: Ford, v, 263.[943]Jefferson to Smith, Nov. 13, 1787;ib., 362.[944]"The payments from the States under the calls of Congress have in no year borne any proportion to the public wants. During the last year ... the aggregate payments ... fell short of 400,000 dollrs, a sum neither equal to the interest due on the foreign debts, nor even to the current expenses of the federal Government. The greatest part of this sum too went from Virga, which will not supply a single shilling the present year." (Madison to Jefferson, March 18, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 228.)[945]Washington to Jay, Aug. 1, 1786;Writings: Ford, xi, 54-55.[946]Jay (Secretary of State under the Confederation) to Jefferson, Dec. 14, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 223.[947]"We are wasting our time & labour in vain efforts to do business" (because of State delegates not attending), wrote Jefferson in 1784. (Jefferson to Washington, March 15, 1784;Works: Ford, iv, 266.) And at the very climax of our difficulties "a sufficient number of States to do business have not been represented in Congress." (Jay to Wm. Carmichael, Jan. 4, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 225.) During half of September and all of October, November, December, January, and February, nine States "have not been represented in congress"; and this even after the Constitution had been adopted. (Jay to Jefferson, March 9, 1789;Jay: Johnston, iii, 365.)[948]Jay to Jefferson, Dec. 14, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 223-24. And Melancton Smith declared that "the farmer cultivates his land and reaps the fruit.... The merchant drives his commerce and none can deprive him of the gain he honestly acquires.... The mechanic is exercised in his art, and receives the reward of his labour." (1797-98; Ford:P. on C., 94.) Of the prosperity of Virginia, Grigsby says, "our agriculture was most prosperous, and our harbors and rivers were filled with ships. The shipping interest ... was really advancing most rapidly to a degree of success never known in the colony." (Grigsby, i, footnote to p. 82; and see his brilliant account of Virginia's prosperity at this time;ib., 9-19.) "The spirit of industry throughout the country was never greater. The productions of the earth abound," wrote Jay to B. Vaughan, Sept. 2, 1784. (Jay: Johnston, iii, 132.)[949]Jay to John Adams, Feb. 21, 1787;Jay: Johnston, iii, 235. Jay thought that the bottom of the trouble was that "relaxation in government and extravagance in individuals create much public and private distress, and much public and private want of good faith." (Ib., 224.)[950]Madison to Jefferson, Dec. 4, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 293. "This indulgence to the people as it is called & considered was so warmly wished for out of doors, and so strenuously pressed within that it could not be rejected without danger of exciting some worse project of a popular cast." (Ib.)[951]Madison to Washington, Dec. 24, 1786;ib., 301. "My acquiescence in the measure was against every general principle which I have embraced, and was extorted by a fear that some greater evil under the name of relief to the people would be substituted." (Ib.)[952]Rutledge to Jay, May 2, 1789;Jay: Johnston, iii, 368.[953]Washington to Jay, May 18, 1786;Writings: Ford, xi, 31-32.[954]Jay to Washington, June 27, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 204.[955]Ib., 205.[956]Washington to Harrison, Jan. 18, 1784;Writings: Ford, x, 345.[957]Ib.[958]See Madison's masterful summary of the wickedness, weakness, and folly of the State Governments inWritings: Hunt, ii, 361-69.[959]Washington to Jay, March 10, 1787;Writings: Ford, xi, 125.[960]Seesupra, chap.VI.[961]Madison to Jefferson, March 18, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 228. "Another unhappy effect of a continuance of the present anarchy of our commerces will be a continuance of the unfavorable balance on it, which by draining us of our metals, furnishes pretexts for the pernicious substitution of paper money, for indulgencies to debtors, for postponements of taxes." (Ib.)[962]Virginia carefully defined her revenue boundaries as against Pennsylvania and Maryland; and provided that any vessel failing to enter and pay duties as provided by the Virginia tariff laws might be seized by any person and prosecuted "one half to the use of the informer, and the other half to the use of the commonwealth." (Va. Statutes at Large (1785), chap. 14, 46.)Virginia strengthened her tariff laws against importations by land. "If any such importer or owner shall unload any such wagon or other carriage containing any of the above goods, wares, or merchandise brought into this state by land without first having entered the same as directed above, every such wagon or other carriage, together with the horses thereto belonging and all such goods wares and merchandise as shall be brought therein, shall be forfeited and recovered by information in the court of the county; two-thirds to the informer and one-third toward lessening the levy of the county where such conviction shall be made." (Ib.)Even Pennsylvania, already the principal workshop of the country, while enacting an avowedly protective tariff on "Manufactures of Europe and Other foreign parts," included "cider, malted barley or grain, fish, salted or dried, cheese, butter, beef, pork, barley, peas, mustard, manufactured tobacco" which came, mostly, from sister States. The preamble declares that the duties are imposed to protect "the artisans and mechanics of this state" without whose products "the war could not have been carried on."In addition to agricultural articles named above, the law includes "playing cards, hair powder, wrought gold or silver utensils, polished or cut stones, musical instruments, walking canes, testaments, psalters, spelling books or primers, romances, novels and plays, and horn or tortoise shell combs," none of which could be called absolutely indispensable to the conduct of the war. The preamble gives the usual arguments for protective tariffs. It is the first protective tariff law, in the present-day sense, ever passed. (Pa. Statutes at Large (1785), 99.)[963]Even at the present time the various States have not recovered from this anti-National and uneconomic practice, as witness the tax laws and other statutes in almost every State designed to prevent investments by the citizens of that State in industries located in other States. Worse, still, are the multitude of State laws providing variable control over railways that are essentially National.[964]Writings: Hunt, ii, 395.[965]Marshall (1st ed.), v, 76-79.[966]Madison to Washington, April 16, 1787;Writings: Hunt, ii, 345-46. This ultra-Nationalist opinion is an interesting contrast to Madison's States' Rights views a few years later. (Seeinfra, vol.II, chaps.II,III, andIV.)[967]Minton Collins at Richmond to Stephen Collins at Philadelphia, May 8, 1788; MS., Lib. Cong.[968]Sam Smith in London to Stephen Collins in Philadelphia, July 21, 1788;ib.[969]Minton Collins to Stephen Collins, Aug. 9, 1788;ib.[970]"Vergennes complained, and with a good deal of stress, that they did not find a sufficient dependence on arrangements taken with us. This was the third time, too, he had done it.... He observed too, that the administration of justice with us was tardy, insomuch that their merchants, when they had money due to them within our States, considered it as desperate; and that our commercial regulations, in general, were disgusting to them." (Jefferson's Report;Works: Ford, iv, 487.)[971]Jefferson to Stuart, Jan. 25, 1786;ib., v, 74.[972]Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 16, 1786;ib., v, 230.[973]Jefferson to Carrington, Paris, Aug. 4, 1787;ib., 318; also 332; and Jefferson to Wythe, Sept. 16, 1787;ib., 340.[974]Jefferson to Carrington, Paris, Aug. 4, 1787;ib., 318.[975]Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786;ib., 8.[976]Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 8.[977]Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 20, 1787;ib., 373-74. Jefferson concluded, prophetically, that when the people "get piled upon one another, in large cities, as in Europe, they will become as corrupt as Europe." (Ib.)[978]Jefferson to Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785;ib., iv, 469.[979]Jefferson to Stuart, Jan. 25, 1786;ib., v, 74.[980]Seeinfra, chap.IX.[981]For a careful study of this important but neglected subject see Professor Edward Payson Smith's paper in Jameson, 46-115.

[893]Writings: Conway, i, 69et seq.

[894]"Common Sensehad a prodigious effect." (Franklin to Le Veillard, April 15, 1787;Writings: Smyth, ix, 558.) "Its popularity was unexampled.... The author was hailed as our angel sent from Heaven to save all from the horrors of Slavery.... His pen was an appendage [to the army] almost as necessary and formidable as its cannon." (Cheetenham, 46-47, 55.) In America alone 125,000 copies ofCommon Sensewere sold within three months after the pamphlet appeared. (Belcher, i, 235.)"Can nothing be done in our Assembly for poor Paine? Must the merits ofCommon Sensecontinue to glide down the stream of time unrewarded by this country? His writings certainly have had a powerful effect upon the public mind. Ought they not, then, to meet an adequate return?" (Washington to Madison, June 12, 1784;Writings: Ford, x, 393; and see Tyler, i, 458-62.) In the Virginia Legislature Marshall introduced a bill for Paine's relief. (Supra, chap,VI.)

"Can nothing be done in our Assembly for poor Paine? Must the merits ofCommon Sensecontinue to glide down the stream of time unrewarded by this country? His writings certainly have had a powerful effect upon the public mind. Ought they not, then, to meet an adequate return?" (Washington to Madison, June 12, 1784;Writings: Ford, x, 393; and see Tyler, i, 458-62.) In the Virginia Legislature Marshall introduced a bill for Paine's relief. (Supra, chap,VI.)

[895]Graydon, 358.

[896]Common Sense: Paine;Writings: Conway, i, 61. Paine's genius for phrase is illustrated in theCrisis, which next appeared. "These are the times that try men's souls"; "Tyranny like hell, is not easily conquered"; "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot," are examples of Paine's brilliant gift.

[897]Moore'sDiary, ii, 143-44. Although this was a British opinion, yet it was entirely accurate.

[898]"They willriseand for lack of argument, say, Má¹›Speaker, this measure will never do, thePeopleSir, will never bear it.... These small Politicians, returned home, ... tell their Constituents such & such measures are taking place altho' I did my utmost to prevent itâ€”The People must take care of themselves or they are undone. Stir up a County Convention and by Trumpeting lies from Town to Town get one [a convention] collected and Consisting of Persons of small Abilitiesâ€”of little or no propertyâ€”embarrass'd in their Circumstancesâ€”and of no great Integrityâ€”and these Geniouses vainly conceiving they are competent to regulate the affairs of Stateâ€”make some hasty incoherent Resolves, and these end in Sedition, Riot, & Rebellion." (Sewell to Thatcher, Dec., 1787;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 257.)

[899]More than a decade after the slander was set afoot against Colonel Levin Powell of Loudoun County, Virginia, one of the patriot soldiers of the Revolution and an officer of Washington, that he favored establishing a monarchy, one of his constituents wrote that "detraction & defamation are generally resorted to promote views injurious to you.... Can you believe it, but it is really true that the old & often refuted story of your predilection for Monarchy is again revived." (Thomas Sims to Colonel Levin Powell, Leesburg, Virginia, Feb. 5 and 20, 1801;Branch Historical Papers, i, 58, 61.)

[900]Watson, 262-64. This comic prophecy that the National Capital was to be the fortified home of a standing army was seriously believed by the people. Patrick Henry urged the same objection with all his dramatic power in the Virginia Convention of 1788. So did the scholarly Mason. (Seeinfra, chaps.XIandXII.)

[901]Graydon, 392-93.

[902]Memorials of the Society of the Cincinnati, 1790, 3-24.

[903]Jefferson to Washington, Nov. 14, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 222-23; and see Jefferson's denunciation of the Cincinnati in Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 28, 1794;ib., viii, 156-57. But see Jefferson's fair and moderate account of the Cincinnati before he had learned of its unpopularity in America. (Jefferson to Meusnier, June 22, 1786;ib.,v, 50-56.)

[904]The same who broke the quorum in the Continental Congress. (Supra, chap.IV.)

[905]Burke:Considerations on the Society of the Order of Cincinnati; 1784.

[906]Mirabeau:Considerations on the Order of Cincinnati; 1786. Mirabeau here refers to the rule of the Cincinnati that the officer's eldest son might become a member of the order, as in the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the present time.

[907]As quoted in Hudson:Journalism in the United States, 158.

[908]Madison to James Madison, Nov. 1, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 278.

[909]Jay to Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 212.

[910]See Weld, i, 114-15, as a fair example of foreign estimate of this American characteristic at that period.

[911]See chap.II, vol.II, of this work.

[912]Private debts which Virginia planters alone owed British merchants were "20 or 30 times the amount of all money in circulation in that state." (Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 17-18; and see Jefferson to McCaul, April 19, 1786;ib., 88.)

[913]"It cannot perhaps be affirmed that there is gold & silver enoin the Country to pay the next tax." (Madison to Monroe, June 4, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 245.)

[914]Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 27.

[915]Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786:Works: Ford, v, 27.

[916]Moore'sDiary, ii, 425-26. The merchants of Philadelphia shut their shops; and it was agreed that if Congress did not substitute "solid money" for paper, "all further resistance to" Great Britain "must be given up." (Ib.)

[917]Jefferson to McCaul, April 19, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 90; also to Wm. Jones, Jan. 5, 1787;ib., 247.â€”"Paiment was made me in this money when it was but a shadow."

[918]Livingston to Jay, July 30, 1789;Jay: Johnston, iii, 373-74.

[919]Fithian, 91.

[920]Virginia's paper money experiment was the source of many lawsuits in which Marshall was counsel. See, for example, Pickettvs.Claiborne (Call, iv, 99-106); Taliaferrovs.Minor (Call, i, 456-62).

[921]The House of Delegates toward the end of 1786 voted 84 to 17 against the paper money resolution. (Madison to James Madison, Nov. 1, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 277.)

[922]"The advocates for paper money are making the most of this handle. I begin to fear exceedingly that no efforts will be sufficient to parry this evil." (Madison to Monroe, June 4, 1786;ib., 245.)

[923]Madison to Jefferson, Aug. 12, 1786;ib., 259.

[924]"Enclosed are one hundred Dollars of new Emmission Money which Col. Steward desires me to have exchanged for Specie. Pray, inform him they are all counterfeit." (Gerry to King, April 7, 1785; King, i, 87.)

[925]Washington to Grayson, Aug. 22, 1785;Writings: Ford,X, 493-94.

[926]Knox to Washington, Oct. 28, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, footnote to p. 407-08.

[927]Minot:History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts in 1786(2d ed.), 1810.

[928]Printed in the first edition (1807) "enormous"â€”a good example of the haste of the first printing of Marshall'sLife of Washington. (See vol.IIIof this work.)

[929]Marshall, ii, 117.

[930]Ib., 118.

[931]Knox to Washington, Oct. 28, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, footnote to 408.

[932]Shays's Rebellion was only a local outburst of a general feeling throughout the United States. Marshall says, "those causes of discontent ... existed in every part of the union." (Marshall, ii, 117.)

[933]Jay to Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 213.

[934]Jay to Reed, Dec. 12, 1786;ib., 222.

[935]Jay to Price, Sept. 27, 1786;ib., 168.

[936]Madison to Randolph, Jan. 10, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 81.

[937]Washington to Lee, Oct. 31, 1786;Writings: Ford, xi, 76-77.

[938]Washington to Madison, Nov. 5, 1786;ib., 81.

[939]Washington to Knox, Dec. 26, 1786;ib., 103-04. And Washington wrote to Lafayette that "There are seeds of discontent in every part of the Union." (Writings: Sparks, ix, 263.)

[940]Marshall to James Wilkinson, Jan. 5, 1787;Amer. Hist. Rev., xii, 347-48.

[941]Jefferson to Mrs. Adams, Feb. 22, 1787;Works: Ford, v, 265.

[942]Jefferson to Mrs. Adams, Feb. 22, 1787;Works: Ford, v, 263.

[943]Jefferson to Smith, Nov. 13, 1787;ib., 362.

[944]"The payments from the States under the calls of Congress have in no year borne any proportion to the public wants. During the last year ... the aggregate payments ... fell short of 400,000 dollrs, a sum neither equal to the interest due on the foreign debts, nor even to the current expenses of the federal Government. The greatest part of this sum too went from Virga, which will not supply a single shilling the present year." (Madison to Jefferson, March 18, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 228.)

[945]Washington to Jay, Aug. 1, 1786;Writings: Ford, xi, 54-55.

[946]Jay (Secretary of State under the Confederation) to Jefferson, Dec. 14, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 223.

[947]"We are wasting our time & labour in vain efforts to do business" (because of State delegates not attending), wrote Jefferson in 1784. (Jefferson to Washington, March 15, 1784;Works: Ford, iv, 266.) And at the very climax of our difficulties "a sufficient number of States to do business have not been represented in Congress." (Jay to Wm. Carmichael, Jan. 4, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 225.) During half of September and all of October, November, December, January, and February, nine States "have not been represented in congress"; and this even after the Constitution had been adopted. (Jay to Jefferson, March 9, 1789;Jay: Johnston, iii, 365.)

[948]Jay to Jefferson, Dec. 14, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 223-24. And Melancton Smith declared that "the farmer cultivates his land and reaps the fruit.... The merchant drives his commerce and none can deprive him of the gain he honestly acquires.... The mechanic is exercised in his art, and receives the reward of his labour." (1797-98; Ford:P. on C., 94.) Of the prosperity of Virginia, Grigsby says, "our agriculture was most prosperous, and our harbors and rivers were filled with ships. The shipping interest ... was really advancing most rapidly to a degree of success never known in the colony." (Grigsby, i, footnote to p. 82; and see his brilliant account of Virginia's prosperity at this time;ib., 9-19.) "The spirit of industry throughout the country was never greater. The productions of the earth abound," wrote Jay to B. Vaughan, Sept. 2, 1784. (Jay: Johnston, iii, 132.)

[949]Jay to John Adams, Feb. 21, 1787;Jay: Johnston, iii, 235. Jay thought that the bottom of the trouble was that "relaxation in government and extravagance in individuals create much public and private distress, and much public and private want of good faith." (Ib., 224.)

[950]Madison to Jefferson, Dec. 4, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 293. "This indulgence to the people as it is called & considered was so warmly wished for out of doors, and so strenuously pressed within that it could not be rejected without danger of exciting some worse project of a popular cast." (Ib.)

[951]Madison to Washington, Dec. 24, 1786;ib., 301. "My acquiescence in the measure was against every general principle which I have embraced, and was extorted by a fear that some greater evil under the name of relief to the people would be substituted." (Ib.)

[952]Rutledge to Jay, May 2, 1789;Jay: Johnston, iii, 368.

[953]Washington to Jay, May 18, 1786;Writings: Ford, xi, 31-32.

[954]Jay to Washington, June 27, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 204.

[955]Ib., 205.

[956]Washington to Harrison, Jan. 18, 1784;Writings: Ford, x, 345.

[957]Ib.

[958]See Madison's masterful summary of the wickedness, weakness, and folly of the State Governments inWritings: Hunt, ii, 361-69.

[959]Washington to Jay, March 10, 1787;Writings: Ford, xi, 125.

[960]Seesupra, chap.VI.

[961]Madison to Jefferson, March 18, 1786;Writings: Hunt, ii, 228. "Another unhappy effect of a continuance of the present anarchy of our commerces will be a continuance of the unfavorable balance on it, which by draining us of our metals, furnishes pretexts for the pernicious substitution of paper money, for indulgencies to debtors, for postponements of taxes." (Ib.)

[962]Virginia carefully defined her revenue boundaries as against Pennsylvania and Maryland; and provided that any vessel failing to enter and pay duties as provided by the Virginia tariff laws might be seized by any person and prosecuted "one half to the use of the informer, and the other half to the use of the commonwealth." (Va. Statutes at Large (1785), chap. 14, 46.)Virginia strengthened her tariff laws against importations by land. "If any such importer or owner shall unload any such wagon or other carriage containing any of the above goods, wares, or merchandise brought into this state by land without first having entered the same as directed above, every such wagon or other carriage, together with the horses thereto belonging and all such goods wares and merchandise as shall be brought therein, shall be forfeited and recovered by information in the court of the county; two-thirds to the informer and one-third toward lessening the levy of the county where such conviction shall be made." (Ib.)Even Pennsylvania, already the principal workshop of the country, while enacting an avowedly protective tariff on "Manufactures of Europe and Other foreign parts," included "cider, malted barley or grain, fish, salted or dried, cheese, butter, beef, pork, barley, peas, mustard, manufactured tobacco" which came, mostly, from sister States. The preamble declares that the duties are imposed to protect "the artisans and mechanics of this state" without whose products "the war could not have been carried on."In addition to agricultural articles named above, the law includes "playing cards, hair powder, wrought gold or silver utensils, polished or cut stones, musical instruments, walking canes, testaments, psalters, spelling books or primers, romances, novels and plays, and horn or tortoise shell combs," none of which could be called absolutely indispensable to the conduct of the war. The preamble gives the usual arguments for protective tariffs. It is the first protective tariff law, in the present-day sense, ever passed. (Pa. Statutes at Large (1785), 99.)

Virginia strengthened her tariff laws against importations by land. "If any such importer or owner shall unload any such wagon or other carriage containing any of the above goods, wares, or merchandise brought into this state by land without first having entered the same as directed above, every such wagon or other carriage, together with the horses thereto belonging and all such goods wares and merchandise as shall be brought therein, shall be forfeited and recovered by information in the court of the county; two-thirds to the informer and one-third toward lessening the levy of the county where such conviction shall be made." (Ib.)

Even Pennsylvania, already the principal workshop of the country, while enacting an avowedly protective tariff on "Manufactures of Europe and Other foreign parts," included "cider, malted barley or grain, fish, salted or dried, cheese, butter, beef, pork, barley, peas, mustard, manufactured tobacco" which came, mostly, from sister States. The preamble declares that the duties are imposed to protect "the artisans and mechanics of this state" without whose products "the war could not have been carried on."

In addition to agricultural articles named above, the law includes "playing cards, hair powder, wrought gold or silver utensils, polished or cut stones, musical instruments, walking canes, testaments, psalters, spelling books or primers, romances, novels and plays, and horn or tortoise shell combs," none of which could be called absolutely indispensable to the conduct of the war. The preamble gives the usual arguments for protective tariffs. It is the first protective tariff law, in the present-day sense, ever passed. (Pa. Statutes at Large (1785), 99.)

[963]Even at the present time the various States have not recovered from this anti-National and uneconomic practice, as witness the tax laws and other statutes in almost every State designed to prevent investments by the citizens of that State in industries located in other States. Worse, still, are the multitude of State laws providing variable control over railways that are essentially National.

[964]Writings: Hunt, ii, 395.

[965]Marshall (1st ed.), v, 76-79.

[966]Madison to Washington, April 16, 1787;Writings: Hunt, ii, 345-46. This ultra-Nationalist opinion is an interesting contrast to Madison's States' Rights views a few years later. (Seeinfra, vol.II, chaps.II,III, andIV.)

[967]Minton Collins at Richmond to Stephen Collins at Philadelphia, May 8, 1788; MS., Lib. Cong.

[968]Sam Smith in London to Stephen Collins in Philadelphia, July 21, 1788;ib.

[969]Minton Collins to Stephen Collins, Aug. 9, 1788;ib.

[970]"Vergennes complained, and with a good deal of stress, that they did not find a sufficient dependence on arrangements taken with us. This was the third time, too, he had done it.... He observed too, that the administration of justice with us was tardy, insomuch that their merchants, when they had money due to them within our States, considered it as desperate; and that our commercial regulations, in general, were disgusting to them." (Jefferson's Report;Works: Ford, iv, 487.)

[971]Jefferson to Stuart, Jan. 25, 1786;ib., v, 74.

[972]Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 16, 1786;ib., v, 230.

[973]Jefferson to Carrington, Paris, Aug. 4, 1787;ib., 318; also 332; and Jefferson to Wythe, Sept. 16, 1787;ib., 340.

[974]Jefferson to Carrington, Paris, Aug. 4, 1787;ib., 318.

[975]Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786;ib., 8.

[976]Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 8.

[977]Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 20, 1787;ib., 373-74. Jefferson concluded, prophetically, that when the people "get piled upon one another, in large cities, as in Europe, they will become as corrupt as Europe." (Ib.)

[978]Jefferson to Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785;ib., iv, 469.

[979]Jefferson to Stuart, Jan. 25, 1786;ib., v, 74.

[980]Seeinfra, chap.IX.

[981]For a careful study of this important but neglected subject see Professor Edward Payson Smith's paper in Jameson, 46-115.

The plot thickens fast. A few short weeks will determine the political fate of America. (Washington.)

On Sunday, June 1, 1788, the dust lay deep in the streets of the little town of Richmond. Multitudes of horses were tethered here and there or stabled as best the Virginia Capital's meager accommodations permitted. Cavalcades of mounted men could be seen from Shockoe Hill, wending their way over the imperfect earthen roads from every direction to the center of interest.[982]Some of these had come hundreds of miles and arrived in the garb of the frontier, pistol and hanger at belt.[983]Patrick Henry, prematurely old at fifty-two, came in a one-horse, uncovered gig; Pendleton, aged, infirm, and a cripple, arrived in a phaeton.[984]

As we have seen, it was very hard for members of Virginia's Legislature to get to the seat of the State Government even from counties not far distant; and a rainy season, or even one week's downpour during the latter part of May, would have kept large numbers of the members of the Virginia Convention from reaching their destination in time and perhaps have decided the impending struggle[985]before itbegan. The year's great social and sporting event added to the throng and colored the dark background of political anxiety and apprehension with a faint tinge of gayety.[986]

Although seven months had elapsed since the Federal Convention had finished its work, there was, nevertheless, practically no accurate knowledge among the people of the various parts of the "New Plan" of government. Even some members of the Virginia State Convention had never seen a copy of the Constitution until they arrived in Richmond to deliberate upon it and decide its fate.[987]Some of the most inquiring men of this historic body had not read a serious or convincing argument for it or against it.[988]"The greater part of the members of the [Virginia] convention will go to the meeting without information on the subject," wrote Nicholas to Madison immediately after the election of delegates.[989]

One general idea, however, had percolated through the distances and difficulties of communication to the uninformed minds of the peopleâ€”the idea that the new Constitution would form a strong, consolidated National Government, superior to and dominant over the State Governments; a National Sovereignty overawing State Sovereignties, dangerous toif not entirely destructive of the latter; a general and powerful authority beyond the people's reach, which would enforce contracts, collect debts, impose taxes; above all, a bayonet-enforced rule from a distant point, that would imperil and perhaps abolish "liberty."[990]

So a decided majority of the people of Virginia were against the proposed fundamental law;[991]for, as in other parts of the country, few of Virginia's masses wanted anything stronger than the weak and ineffective Government of the State and as little even of that as possible. Some were "opposed to any system, was it even sent from heaven, which tends to confirm the union of the States."[992]Madison's father reported the Baptists to be "generally opposed to it"; and the planters who went to Richmond to sell their tobacco had returned foes of the "new plan" and had spread the uprising against it among others "who are no better acquainted with the necessity of adopting it than they themselves."[993]At first the friends of the Constitution deceived themselves into thinking that the work of the Philadelphia Convention met with approval in Virginia; but they soon found that "the tide next took a sudden and strong turn in the opposite direction."[994]Henry wrote toLamb that "Four-fifths of our inhabitants are opposed to the new scheme of government"; and he added that south of the James River "I am confident nine-tenths are opposed to it."[995]

That keen and ever-watchful merchant, Minton Collins, thus reported to the head of his commercial house in Philadelphia: "The New Federal Constitution will meet with much opposition in this State [Virginia] for many pretended patriots has taken a great deal of pains to poison the minds of the people against it.... There are two Classes here who oppose it, the one is those who have power & are unwilling to part with an atom of it, & the others are the people who owe a great deal of money, and are very unwilling to pay, as they are afraid this Constitution will make themHonest Menin spite of their teeth."[996]

And now the hostile forces are to meet in final and decisive conflict. Now, at last, the new Constitution is to be reallydebated; and debated openly before the people and the world. For the first time, too, it is to be opposed in argument by men of the highest order in ability, character, and standingâ€”men who cannot be hurried, or bullied, or shaken, or bought. The debates in the Virginia Convention of 1788 are the only masterful discussions onbothsides of the controversy that ever took place.

While the defense of the Constitution had been very able in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts (andlater in New York was to be most brilliant), the attack upon it in the Virginia Convention was nowhere equaled or approached in power, learning, and dignity. Extravagant as the assertion appears, it nevertheless is true that the Virginia contest was the only realdebateover the whole Constitution. It far surpassed, especially in presenting the reasons against the Constitution, the discussion in the Federal Convention itself, in weight of argument and attractiveness of presentation, as well as in the ability and distinction of the debaters.

The general Federal Convention that framed the Constitution at Philadelphia was a secret body; and the greatest pains were taken that no part of its proceedings should get to the public until the Constitution itself was reported to Congress. The Journals were confided to the care of Washington and were not made public until many years after our present Government was established. The framers of the Constitution ignored the purposes for which they were delegated; they acted without any authority whatever; and the document, which the warring factions finally evolved from their quarrels and dissensions, was revolutionary.[997]This capital factrequires iteration, for it is essential to an understanding of the desperate struggle to secure the ratification of that then unpopular instrument.

"Not one legislature in the United States had the most distant idea when they first appointed members for a [Federal] convention, entirely commercial ... that they would without any warrant from their constituents, presume on so bold and daring a stride," truthfully writes the excitable Gerry of Massachusetts in his bombastic denunciation of "the fraudulent usurpation at Philadelphia."[998]The more reliable Melancton Smith of New York testifies that "previous to the meeting of the Convention the subject of a new form of government had been little thought of and scarcely written upon at all.... The idea of a government similar to" the Constitution "never entered the minds of the legislatures who appointed the Convention and of but very few of the members who composed it, until they had assembled and heard it proposed in that body."[999]

"Had the idea of a total change [from the Confederation] been started," asserts the trustworthy Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, "probably no state would have appointed members to the Convention.... Probably not one man in ten thousand in the United States ... had an idea that the old ship [Confederation] was to be destroyed. Pennsylvaniaappointed principally those men who are esteemed aristocratical.... Other States ... chose men principally connected with commerce and the judicial department." Even so, says Lee, "the non-attendance of eight or nine men" made the Constitution possible. "We must recollect, how disproportionately the democratic and aristocratic parts of the community were represented" in this body.[1000]

This "child of fortune,"[1001]as Washington called the Constitution, had been ratified with haste and little or no discussion by Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Georgia. The principal men in the first three Commonwealths felt that the Constitution gave those States large commercial advantages and even greater political consequence;[1002]and Georgia, with so small a population as to be almost negligible, felt the need of some strong Government to defend her settlers against the Indians. It is doubtful whether many of the people of these four States had read the Constitution or had heard much about it, except that, in a general way, they were to be better off under the new than under the old arrangement.Their ratification carried no weight other than to make up four of the nine States necessary to set the new system in motion.

In other States its friends had whipped up all possible speed. Not a week had passed after the Federal Convention had laid the proposed Constitution before Congress when a resolution was introduced in the Legislature of Pennsylvania for the election, within five weeks,[1003]of delegates to a State Convention to ratify the "New Plan." When its opponents, failing in every other device to delay or defeat it, refused to attend the sessions, thus breaking a quorum, a band of Constitutionalists "broke into their lodgings, seized them, dragged them though the streets to the State House and thrust them into the Assembly room with clothes torn and faces white with rage." And there the objecting members were forcibly kept until the vote was taken. Thus was the quorum made and the majority of the Legislature enabled to "pass" the ordinance for calling the Pennsylvania State Convention to ratify the National Constitution.[1004]And this action was taken before the Legislature had even received from Congress a copy of that document.

The enemies in Pennsylvania of the proposed National Government were very bitter. They said that the Legislature had been under the yoke of Philadelphiaâ€”a charge which, indeed, appears to be true. Loud were the protests of the minority against the feverish haste. When the members of the Pennsylvania Convention, thus called, had been chosen and had finished their work, the Anti-Constitutionalists asserted that no fair election had really taken place because it "was held at so early a period and want of information was so great" that the people did not know that such an election was to be held; and they proved this to their own satisfaction by showing that, although seventy thousand Pennsylvanians were entitled to vote, only thirteen thousand of them really had voted and that the forty-six members of the Pennsylvania Convention who ratified the Constitution had been chosen by only sixty-eight hundred voters. Thus, they pointed out, when the State Convention was over, that the Federal Constitution had been ratified in Pennsylvania by men who represented less than one tenth of the voting population of the State.[1005]

Indeed, a supporter of the Constitution admitted that only a small fraction of the people did vote for members of the Pennsylvania State Convention; but he excused this on the ground that Pennsylvanians seldom voted in great numbers except in contested elections; and he pointed out that in the election of the Convention which framed the State's Constitution itself, only about six thousand had exercised their right of suffrage and that only a little more than fifteen hundred votes had been cast in the whole Commonwealth to elect Pennsylvania's first Legislature.[1006]

The enemies of the proposed plan for a National Government took the ground that it was being rushed through by the "aristocrats"; and the "Independent Gazetteer" published "The humble address of thelow bornof the United States of America, to their fellow slaves scattered throughout the world," which sarcastically pledged that "we, thelow born, that is,all the people of the United States, except 600 or thereabouts,well born," would "allow and admit the said 600well bornimmediately to establish and confirm this most noble, most excellent, and truly divine constitution."[1007]

James Wilson, they said, had been all but mobbed by the patriots during the Revolution; he never had been for the people, but always "strongly tainted with the spirit ofhigh aristocracy."[1008]Yet such a man, they declared, was the ablest and best person the Constitutionalists could secure to defend "that political monster, the proposed Constitution"; "a monster" which had emerged from "the thick veil of secrecy."[1009]

When the Pennsylvania State Convention had assembled, the opponents of the Constitution at once charged that the whole business was being speeded by a "system of precipitancy."[1010]They rang the changes on the secret gestation and birth of the Nation's proposed fundamental law, which, said Mr. Whitehill, "originates in mystery and must terminate in despotism," and, in the end, surely would annihilate the States.[1011]Hardly a day passed that the minority did not protest against the forcing tactics of the majority.[1012]While much ability was displayed on both sides, yet the debate lacked dignity, courtesy, judgment, and even information. So scholarly a man as Wilson said that "Virginia hasno bill of rights";[1013]and Chief Justice McKean, supported by Wilson, actually declared that none but English-speaking peoples ever had known trial by jury.[1014]

"Lack of veracity," "indecent," "trifling," "contempt for arguments and person," were a few of the more moderate, polite, and soothing epithets that filled Pennsylvania's Convention hall throughout this so-called debate. More than once the members almost came to blows.[1015]The galleries, filled with city people, were hot for the Constitution and heartened its defenders with cheers. "This is not the voice of the people of Pennsylvania," shouted Smilie, denouncing the partisan spectators. The enemies of the Constitution would not be "intimidated," he dramatically exclaimed, "were the galleries filled with bayonets."[1016]The sarcastic McKean observed in reply that Smilie seemed "mighty angry, merely because somebody was pleased."[1017]

Persons not members of the Convention managed to get on the floor and laughed at the arguments of those who were against the Constitution. Findley was outraged at this "want of sense of decency and order."[1018]Justice McKean treated the minority with contempt and their arguments with derision. "If the sky falls, we shall catch larks; if the rivers run dry, we shall catch eels," was all, said this conciliatoryadvocate of the Constitution, that its enemies' arguments amounted to; they made nothing more than a sound "likethe working of small beer."[1019]

The language, manners, and methods of the supporters of the Constitution in the Pennsylvania Convention were resented outside the hall. "If anything could induce me to oppose the New Constitution," wrote a citizen signing himself "Federalist," "it would be the indecent, supercilious carriage of its advocates towards its opponents."[1020]

While the Pennsylvania State Convention was sitting, the Philadelphia papers were full of attacks and counter-attacks by the partisans of either side, some of them moderate and reasonable, but most ofthem irritating, inflammatory, and absurd. A well-written petition of citizens was sent to the Convention begging it to adjourn until April or May, so that the people might have time to inform themselves on the subject: "The people of Pennsylvania have not yet had sufficient time and opportunity afforded them for this purpose. The great bulk of the people, from the want of leisure from other avocations; their remoteness from information, their scattered situation, and the consequent difficulty of conferring with each other" did not understand the Constitution, declared this memorial.

"The unaccountable zeal and precipitation used to hurry the people into premature decision" had excited and alarmed the masses, "and the election of delegates was rushed into before the greater part of the people ... knew what part to take in it." So ran the cleverly drawn indictment of the methods of those who were striving for ratification in Pennsylvania.[1021]In the State Convention, the foes of the Constitution scathingly denounced to the very last the jamming-through conduct of its friends; and just before the final vote, Smilie dared them to adjourn that the sense of the people might be taken.[1022]

Even such of the people as could be reached by the newspapers were not permitted to be enlightened by the Convention "debates"; for reports of them were suppressed.[1023]Only the speeches of James Wilson and Chief Justice McKean, both ardent advocates of the Constitution, were allowed to be published.[1024]

But although outnumbered two to one, cuffed and buffeted without mercy in debate, scoffed at and jeered at by the people of the Quaker City, the minority was stiff-necked and defiant. Their heads were "bloody but unbowed." Three days after the vote for ratification, forty-six "ayes" to twenty-three "nays," had been taken, the minority issued an address to their constituents.[1025]It relates the causes which led to the Federal Convention, describes its members, sets forth its usurpation of power, details the efforts to get popular support for the Constitution even "whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave."

The address recounts the violence by which the State Convention was called, "not many hours" after the "New Plan" had "issued forth from the womb of suspicious secrecy"; and reaffirms the people's ignorance of the Constitution, the trifling vote, the indecorous, hasty, "insulting" debate. It gives the amendments asked for by the minority, and finally presents most if not all the arguments which before had been or since have been advanced against the Constitution, and especially the National principle which pervades it.

The powers given Congress would produce "one consolidated government, which, from the nature of things, will be aniron handed despotism"; the State Governments would be annihilated; the general welfare clause would justify anything which "the will and pleasureof congress" dictated; that National body, "with complete and unlimited power overthepurseand thesword," could[1026]by taxation "command the whole or any part of the property of the people"â€”imposts, land taxes, poll taxes, excises, dutiesâ€”every kind of tax on every possible species of property and written instrument could be laid by the "monster" of National power. By the Judiciary provided in the Constitution "the rich and wealthy suitors would eagerly lay hold of the infinite mazes, perplexities and delays ... and the poor man being plunged in the bottomless pit of legal discussion" could not get justice.[1027]

Two coÃ¶rdinate "sovereignties," State and National, "would be contrary to the nature of things"; the Constitution without a bill of rights "would of itself necessarily produce a despotism"; a standing army might be used to collect the most burdensome taxes and with it "an ambitious man ... may step up into the throne and seize upon absolute power"[1028]â€”such are the broad outlines of the document with which the undismayed enemies of the Constitution began their campaign against it among the people of Pennsylvania after the Convention had ratified it.

The wrath of the Pennsylvania foes of the Constitution fed and grew upon its own extravagance. The friends of the "New Plan" tried to hold a meeting in Carlisle to rejoice over its ratification; but the crowd broke up their meeting, wrecked their cannon, and burned the Constitution in the very bonfire which the Constitutionalists had prepared to celebrate its victory. Blows were struck and violencedone.[1029]For almost a year, an Anti-Constitutionalist paper in Philadelphia kept up the bombardment of the Constitution and its advocates, its gunner being a writer signing himself "Centinel."[1030]His ammunition was a mixture of argument, statement, charge, and abuse, wrapped up in cartridge paper of blistering rhetoric. The Constitution was, wrote "Centinel," a "spurious brat"; "the evil genius of darkness presided at its birth" and "it came forth under the veil of mystery."[1031]

Should the small fraction of the people who had voted for the members of the Pennsylvania State Convention bind the overwhelming majority who had not voted, asked "Centinel." No, indeed! The people, wrote he with pen of gall, had nothing but contempt for the "solemn mummery" that had been acted in their name.[1032]As to the citizens of Philadelphia, everybody understood, asserted "Centinel," that the "spirit of independency" was dead withintheirbreasts; Philadelphia merchants, as was well known, were mere vassals to a commercial "colossus" (Robert Morris) who held the city in "thraldom."[1033]

"Mankind in the darkest ages, have never been so insulted," cried "Centinel," as the men of Pennsylvania had been by this "flagrant ... audacious ...conspiracy [the Constitution] against the liberties of a free people."[1034]The whole thing, he declared, was a dastardly plot. The conspirators had disarmed the militia, kept out of the mails such newspapers as had dared to voice the "people's rights";[1035]and "all intercourse between the patriots of America is as far as possible cut off; whilst on the other hand the conspirators have the most exact information, a common concert is everywhere evident; they move in unison."[1036]

The Constitutionalists were not content with their vile work in thrusting upon Pennsylvania "the empire of delusion," charged "Centinel,"[1037]but their agents were off for Virginia to do the like there.[1038]The whole world knew, said he, that the Constitutionalists had rushed the Constitution through in Pennsylvania;[1039]and that the "immaculate convention [that framed the Constitution] ... contained a number of the principal public defaulters,"[1040]chief of whom was Robert Morris, who, though a bankrupt in the beginning of the Revolution, had, by "peculation and embezzlement of the public property," accumulated "the immense wealth he has dazzled the world with since."[1041]

If only the address of Pennsylvania's heroic minority, "Centinel" lamented, had reached Boston in time, it would "have enabled patriotism to triumph" there; but, of course, the "high born" Constitutionalist managers of post-offices kept it back.[1042]Was notthe scandal so foul, asked "Centinel," that, on the petition of Philadelphia printers, Pennsylvania's Legislature appealed to Congress against the suppression of the mails?[1043]Of course Philadelphia was for "this system of tyranny"; but three fourths of the people in the eastern counties and nineteen twentieths of those in the middle, northern, and western counties were against it.[1044]

The grape and canister which its enemies poured upon the Constitution and its friends in Pennsylvania brought an answering fire. The attacks, said the Constitutionalists, had been written by "hireling writers" and "sowers of sedition"; their slanders showed "what falsehoods disappointed ambition is capable of using to impose upon the public." According to the Constitutionalists, their opponents were "incendiaries" with "infamous designs."[1045]"If every lie was to be punished by clipping, as in the case of other forgeries, not an ear would be left amongst the whole party," wrote a Constitutionalist of the conduct of the opposition.[1046]

But the Constitutionalists were no match for their enemies in the language of abuse, recklessness in making charges, or plausibility in presenting their case. Mostly they vented their wrath in private correspondence, which availed nothing. Yet the letters of business men were effective in consolidating the commercial interests. Also they illuminate the situation.

"That restless firebrand, the Printer of your city [Oswald, editor of the "Independent Gazetteer"], is running about as if driven by the Devil," wrote a New York merchant to a Philadelphia business correspondent, "seemingly determined to do all the mischief he can; indeed, in my opinion he is an actual incendiary & ought to be the object of legal restraint. He is in his own person a strong argument of the necessity of speedily adopting the new System & putting it into immediate motion."[1047]

And "firebrands," indeed, the Anti-Constitutionalists prove themselves in every possible way.

Madison was alarmed. He writes to Jefferson that the "minority ... of Pennsylvania has been extremely intemperate and continues to use very bold and menacing language."[1048]Little did Madison then foresee that the very men and forces he now was fighting were laying the foundation for a political party which was to make him President. Far from his thought, at this time, was the possibility of that antipodal change which public sentiment and Jefferson's influence wrought in him two years later. When the fight over the Constitution was being waged, there was no more extreme Nationalist in the whole country than James Madison.

So boiled the stormy Pennsylvania waters through which the Constitution was hastened to port and such was the tempest that strained its moorings after it was anchored in the harbor of ratification.

In Massachusetts, "all the men of abilities, ofproperty and of influence,"[1049]were quite as strong for the Constitution as the same class in Pennsylvania; but, impressed by the revolt against the tactics of hurry and force which the latter had employed, the Constitutionalists of the Bay State took an opposite course. Craft, not arrogance, was their policy. They were "wise as serpents," but appeared to be "as harmless as doves." Unlike the methods of the Pennsylvania Constitutionalists, they were moderate, patient, conciliatory, and skillful. They put up Hancock for President of the Convention, in order, as they said, "that we might have advantage of [his] ... nameâ€”whether capable of attending or not."[1050]

The Massachusetts adversaries of the Constitution were without a leader. Among them "there was not a single character capable of uniting their wills or directing their measures."[1051]Their inferiority greatly impressed Madison, who wrote to Pendleton that "there was scarce a man of respectability" among them.[1052]They were not able even to state their own case.

"The friends of the Constitution, who in addition to their own weight ... represent a very large proportion of the good sense and property of this State, have the task not only of answering, but also of stating and bringing forward the objections of their opponents," wrote King to Madison.[1053]The opponents admitted this themselves. Of course, said they, lawyers, judges, clergymen, merchants, and educated men, all of whom were in favor of the Constitution, could make black look white; but "if we had men of this description on our side" we could run these foxes to earth.[1054]Mr. Randall hoped "that these great men of eloquence and learning will not try tomakearguments to make this Constitution go down, right or wrong.... It takes the best men in this state to gloss this Constitution.... Suppose ... these great men would speak half as much against it, we might complete our business and go home in forty-eight hours."[1055]

The election of members to the Massachusetts Convention had shown widespread opposition to the proposed establishment of a National Government. Although the Constitutionalists planned well and worked hard, some towns did not want to send delegates at all; forty-six towns finally refused to do so and were unrepresented in the Convention.[1056]"Biddeford has backsliden & fallen from a state of Grace to a state of nature, met yesterday & a dumb Devil seized a Majority & they voted not to send, & when called on for a Reason they were dumb,mirabile dictu!"[1057]King Lovejoy was chosen for Vassalborough; but when the people learned that he would support the Constitution they "called another Meeting, turned him out, & chose another in his room who was desidedly against it."[1058]

The division among the people in one county was: "The most reputable characters ... on ...the rightside [for the Constitution] ... but the middling & common sort ... on the opposite";[1059]and in another county "the Majority of the Common people" were opposed,[1060]which seems to have been generally true throughout the State. Of the sentiment in Worcester, a certain E. Bangs wrote: "I could give you but a very disagreeable account: The most of them entertain such a dread of arbitrary power, that they are afraid even of limited authority.... Of upwards of 50 members from this county not more than 7 or 8 delegates are" for the Constitution, "& yet some of them are good menâ€”Not all [Shays's] insurgents I assure you."[1061]

Back to Index Next