FOOTNOTES:

Judge Sewall reported from York that the delegates there had been chosen "to Oppose the Business.... Sanford had one meeting and Voted not to Send any—But Mr. S. come down full charged with Gass and Stirred up a 2ndMeeting and procured himself Elected, and I presume will go up charged like a Baloon."[1062]Nathaniel Barrell of York, a successful candidate for the Massachusetts Convention, "behaved so indecently before the Choice, as extorted a severe Reprimand from Judge Sewall, and when chosen modestly told his Constituents, he would sooner loose his Arm than put his Assent to the new proposed Constitution, it is to be feared many of his Brethern are of his mind."[1063]

Barrell explained to Thatcher: "I see it [the Constitution] pregnant with the fate of our libertys.... I see it entails wretchedness on my posterity—Slavery on my children; ... twill not be so much for our advantage to have our taxes imposed & levied at the pleasure of Congress as [by] the method now pursued ... a Continental Collector at the head of a standing army will not be so likely to do us justice in collecting the taxes.... I think such a Government impracticable among men with such high notions of liberty as we americans."[1064]

The "Address of the Minority" of Pennsylvania's Convention had reached a few men in Massachusetts, notwithstanding the alleged refusal of the post-office to transmit it; and it did some execution. To Thomas B. Wait it "was like the Thunder of Sinai—its lightenings were irresistible" to him. He deplored the "darkness, duplicity and studied ambiguity ... running thro' the whole Constitution," which, to his mind, made it certain that "as it now stands but very few individuals do or ever will understand it.... The vast Continent of America cannot long be subjected to a Democracy if consolidated into one Government—you might as well attempt to rule Hell by Prayer."[1065]

Christopher Gore condensed into one sentence the motives of those who favored the Constitution as the desire for "an honorable & efficient Govt. equal to the support of our national dignity—& capable of protecting the property of our citizens."[1066]

The spirit of Shays's Rebellion inspired the opponents of the Constitution in Massachusetts. "Many of the [Shays's] insurgents are in the Convention," Lincoln informed Washington; "even some of Shays's officers. A great proportion of these men are high in the opposition. We could hardly expect any thing else; nor could we ... justly suppose that those men, who were so lately intoxicated with large draughts of liberty, and who were thirsting for more would ... submit to a Constitution which would further take up the reins of Government, which, in their opinion, were too straight before."[1067]

Out of three hundred and fifty-five members ofthe Massachusetts Convention, one hundred and sixty-eight held out against the Constitution to the very last, uninfluenced by the careful, able, and convincing arguments of its friends, unmoved by their persuasion, unbought by their promises and deals.[1068]They believed "that some injury is plotted against them—that the system is the production of the rich and ambitious," and that the Constitution would result in "the establishment of two orders in Society, one comprehending the opulent and great, the other the poor and illiterate."[1069]At no time until they won over Hancock, who presided over the Massachusetts Convention, were the Constitutionalists sure that a majority was not against the new plan.

The struggle of these rude and unlearned Massachusetts men against the cultured, disciplined, powerful, and ably led friends of the Constitution in that State was pathetic. "Who, sir, is to pay the debts of the yeomanry and others?" exclaimed William Widgery. "Sir, when oil will quench fire, I will believe all this [the high-colored prophesies of the Constitutionalists] and not till then.... I cannot see why we need, for the sake of a little meat, swallow a great bone, which, if it should happen to stick in our throats, can never be got out."[1070]

Amos Singletary "wished they [the Constitutionalists] would not play round the subject with their fine stories like a fox round a trap, but come to it."[1071]"These lawyers," said he, "and men of learning and moneyed men, that talk so finely, and gloss overmatters so smoothly, to make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get into Congress themselves; they expect to be the managers of this Constitution, and get all the power and all the money, into their own hands, and then they will swallow up all us little folks like the greatLeviathan; ... yes, just as the whale swallowed upJonah."[1072]Replying to the Constitutionalist argument that the people's representatives in Congress would be true to their constituents, Abraham White said that he "would not trust a 'flock of Moseses.'"[1073]

The opposition complained that the people knew little or nothing about the Constitution—and this, indeed, was quite true. "It is strange," said General Thompson, "that a system which its planners say is so plain,that he that runs may read it, should want so much explanation."[1074]"Necessity compelled them to hurry,"[1075]declared Widgery of the friends of the Constitution. "Don't let us go too fast.... Why all this racket?" asked the redoubtable Thompson.[1076]Dr. John Taylor was sure that Senators "once chosen ... are chosen forever."[1077]

Time and again the idea cropped out of a National Government as a kind of foreign rule. "I beg the indulgence of this honorable body," implored Samuel Nason, "to permit me to make a short apostrophe to Liberty. O Liberty! thou greatest good! thou fairest property! with thee I wish to live—with thee I wish to die! Pardon me if I drop a tear on the peril to which she is exposed: I cannot, sir, see thisbrightest of jewels tarnished—a jewel worth ten thousand worlds; and shall we part with it so soon? O no."[1078]And Mr. Nason was sure that the people would part with this brightest of jewels if the Constitution was adopted. As to a standing army, let the Constitutionalists recall Boston on March 5, 1770. "Had I a voice like Jove," cried Nason, "I would proclaim it throughout the world; and had I an arm like Jove, I would hurl from the globe those villains that would dare attempt to establish in our country a standing army."[1079]

These "poor, ignorant men," as they avowed themselves to be, were rich in apostrophes. The reporter thus records one of General Thompson's efforts: "Here the general broke out in the following pathetic apostrophe: 'O my country, never give up your annual elections! Young men, never give up your jewel.'"[1080]John Holmes showed that the Constitution gave Congress power to "institute judicatories" like "that diabolical institution, theInquisition." "Racks," cried he, "andgibbets, may be amongst the most mild instruments of their [Congress's] discipline."[1081]Because there was no religious test, Major Thomas Lusk "shuddered at the idea that Roman Catholics, Papists, and Pagans might be introduced into office, and that Popery and the Inquisition may be established in America";[1082]and Singletary pointed out that under the Constitution a "Papist, or an Infidel, was as eligible as ... a Christian."[1083]

Thus the proceedings dragged along. The overwhelming arguments of the advocates of the Constitution were unanswered and, apparently, not even understood by its stubborn foes. One Constitutionalist, indeed, did speak their language, a farmer named Jonathan Smith, whom the Constitutionalist managers put forward for that purpose. "I am a plain man," said Mr. Smith, "and get my living by the plough. I am not used to speak in public, but I beg leave to say a few words to my brother plough-joggers in this house"; and Mr. Smith proceeded to make one of the most effective speeches of the Convention.[1084]But all to no purpose. Indeed, the pleadings and arguments for the Constitution seemed only to harden the feeling of those opposed to it. They were obsessed by an immovable belief that a National Government would destroy their liberties; "and," testifies King, "a distrust of men of property or education has a more powerful effect upon the minds of our opponents than any specific objections against the Constitution."[1085]

Finally, in their desperation, the Constitutionalist managers won Hancock,[1086]whose courting of the insurgents in Shays's Rebellion had elected him Governor. He had more influence with the opposition than any other man in New England. For the same reason, Governor Bowdoin's friends, who included most of the men of weight and substance, had been against Hancock. By promising the latter their support and by telling him that he would be made President if Washington was not,[1087]the Constitutionalist leaders induced Hancock to offer certain amendments which the Massachusetts Convention should recommend to Congress along with its ratification of the Constitution. Hancock offered these proposals as his own, although they were drawn by the learned and scholarly Parsons.[1088]Samuel Adams, hitherto silent, joined in this plan.

Thus the trick was turned and the Massachusetts Convention ratified the Constitution a few days later by a slender majority of nineteen out of a vote of three hundred and fifty-five.[1089]But not without bitter protest. General Thompson remarked that "he could not say amen to them [the amendments], but they might be voted for by some men—he did not say Judases."[1090]The deal by which the Constitutionalists won Hancock was suspected, it appears, for Dr. Charles Jarvis denied that "these amendments have been artfully introduced to lead to a decisionwhich would not otherwise be had."[1091]Madison in New York, watching the struggle with nervous solicitude, thought that the amendments influenced very few members of the Massachusetts opposition because of "their objections being levelled against the very essence of the proposed Government."[1092]Certainly, those who changed their votes for ratification had hard work to explain their conversion.

Nathaniel Barrell, who had pledged his constituents that he would part with his arm rather than vote for the "Slavery of my children," had abandoned his vow of amputation and decided to risk the future bondage of his offspring by voting for the Constitution. In trying to justify his softened heroism, he said that he was "awed in the presence of this august assembly"; he knew "how little he must appear in the eyes of those giants of rhetoric, who have exhibited such a pompous display of declamation"; but although he did not have the "eloquence of Cicero, or the blaze of Demosthenian oratory," yet he would try to explain. He summarized his objections, ending with his wish that "this Constitution had not been, in some parts of the continent, hurried on, like the driving of Jehu, very furiously." So he hoped the Convention would adjourn, but if it would not—well, in that case, Mr. Barrell would brave the wrath of his constituents and vote for ratification with amendments offered by Hancock.[1093]

Just as the bargain with Hancock secured the necessary votes for the Constitution in the Massachusetts Convention, so did the personal behavior of the Constitutionalists forestall any outbreak of protest after ratification. "I am at Last overcome," wrote Widgery, "by a majority of 19, including the president [Hancock] whose very Name is an Honour to the State, for by his coming in and offering Som Amendments which furnished many with Excuses to their Constituants, it was adopted to the great Joy of all Boston."[1094]The triumphant Constitutionalists kept up their mellowing tactics of conciliation after their victory and with good results, as appears by Mr. Widgery's account.

The "great bone" which had been thrust into his throat had not stuck there as he had feared it would. The Constitutionalists furnished materials to wash it down. "After Taking a parting Glass at the Expense of the Trades men in Boston we Disolved";[1095]but not before the mollified Widgery announced that the Constitution "had been carried by a majority of wise and understanding men.... After expressing his thanks for the civility which the inhabitants of this town [Boston] have shown to the Convention, ... he concluded by saying that he should support the ... Constitution" with all his might.[1096]

"One thing I mus menchen," relates Widgery, "the Gallerys was very much Crowded, yet on the Desition of so emportant a Question as the present you might have heard a Copper fall on the Galleryfloor, their was Sush a profound Silance; on thirs Day we got throw all our Business and on Fry Day, there was a federal Ship Riged and fixdon a Slead, hald by 13 Horses, and all Orders of Men Turndout and formed a procession in the following ordor Viz first the Farmers with the plow and Harrow Sowing grain, and Harrowing it in as they went Som in a Cart Brakeing and Swingeing Flax ... Tradesmen of all sorts, ... the Bakers [with] their Bread peal ... the Federal Ship ful Riged ... the Merchants ... a nother Slead, Halled by 13 Horses on which was a Ship yard, and a Number of smaul Ships &c. on that. in this order thay marchdto the House of Each of their Delegates in the Town of Boston, and returned to Fanuels Aall where the Merchants gave them 3 or 4 Hogsheads of Punch and as much wine cake & cheese as they could make way with ... one thing more Notwithstanding my opposition to the Constitution, and the anxiety of Boston for its adoption I most Tel you I was never Treated with So much politeness in my Life as I was afterwards by the Treadesmen of Boston Merchants & every other Gentleman."[1097]

Thus did the Massachusetts Constitutionalists take very human and effective measures to prevent such revolt against the Constitution, after its ratification, as the haughty and harsh conduct of their Pennsylvania brothers had stirred up in the City and State of Brotherly Love. "The minority are in good temper," King advises Madison; "they have themagnanimity to declare that they will devote their lives and property to support the Government."[1098]While there was a little Anti-Constitutionalist activity among the people after the Convention adjourned, it was not virulent. Gerry, indeed, gave one despairing shriek over departing "liberty" which he was sure the Constitution would drive from our shores; but that lament was intended for the ears of New York. It is, however, notable as showing the state of mind of such Anti-Constitutionalists as the Constitution's managers had not taken pains to mollify.

Gerry feared the "Gulph of despotism.... On these shores freedom has planted her standard, diped in the purple tide that flowed from the veins of her martyred heroes" which was now in danger from "the deep-laid plots, the secret intrigues, ... the bold effrontery" of those ambitious to be aristocrats, some of whom were "speculating for fortune, by sporting with public money." Only "a few, a very few [Constitutionalists] ... were ... defending their country" during the Revolution, said Gerry. "Genius, Virtue, and Patriotism seems to nod over the vices of the times ... while a supple multitude are paying a blind and idolatrous homage to ... those ... who are endeavouring ... to betray the people ... into an acceptance of a most complicated system of government; marked on the one side with thedark,secretandprofound intriguesof the statesman, long practised in the purlieus of despotism; and on the other, with the ideal projectsofyoung ambition, with its wings just expanded to soar to a summit, which imagination has painted in such gawdy colours as to intoxicate theinexperienced votaryand sendhimrambling from State to State, to collect materials to construct the ladder of preferment."[1099]

Thus protested Gerry; but if the people, in spite of his warnings,would"give their voices for a voluntary dereliction of their privileges"—then, concluded Gerry, "while the statesman is plodding for power, and the courtier practicing the arts of dissimulation without check—while the rapacious are growing rich by oppression, and fortune throwing her gifts into the lap of fools, let the sublimer characters, the philosophic lovers of freedom who have wept over her exit, retire to the calm shades of contemplation, there they may look down with pity on the inconsistency of human nature, the revolutions of states, the rise of kingdoms, and the fall of empires."[1100]

Such was the resistance offered to the Constitution in Massachusetts, such the debate against it, the management that finally secured its approval with recommendations by that Commonwealth,[1101]and the after effects of the Constitutionalists' tactics.

In New Hampshire a majority of the Convention was against the Constitution. "Almost every man of property and abilities ... [was] for it," wrote Langdon to Washington; but "a report was circulated ... that the liberties of the people were in danger, and the great men ... were forming a plan for themselves; together with a thousand other absurdities, which frightened the people almost out of what little senses they had."[1102]

Very few of the citizens of New Hampshire knew anything about the Constitution. "I was surprised to find ... that so little information respecting the Constitution had been diffused among the people," wrote Tobias Lear. "The valuable numbers ofPubliusare not known.... The debates of the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Conventions have been read by but few persons; and many other pieces, which contain useful information have never been heard of."[1103]

When the New Hampshire Convention assembled, "a great part of whom had positive instructions to vote against it," the Constitutionalists, after much argument and persuasion, secured an adjournment on February 22 until June.[1104]Learning this in New York, nine days later, Madison wrote Pendleton that the adjournment had been "found necessary to prevent a rejection."[1105]But, "notwithstanding our late Disappointments and Mortification," the New Hampshire Constitutionalists felt that they would win in the end and "make the people happy in spight of their teeth."[1106]

When, therefore, Virginia's great Convention met on June 2, 1788, the Nation's proposed fundamental law had not received deliberate consideration in any quarter; nor had it encountered weighty debate from those opposed to it. New York's Convention was not to assemble until two weeks later and that State was known to be hostile. The well-arranged plan was working to combine the strength of the leading enemies of the Constitution in the various States so that a new Federal Convention should be called.[1107]

"Had the influence of character been removed, the intrinsic merits of the instrument [Constitution] would not have secured its adoption. Indeed, it is scarcely to be doubted, that in some of the adopting States, a majority of the people were in the opposition," writes Marshall many years afterwards in a careful review of the thorny path the Constitution had had to travel.[1108]Its foes, says Marshall, were "firmly persuaded that the cradle of the constitution would be the grave of republican liberty."[1109]

In Virginia's Convention, the array of ability, distinction, and character on both sides was notable, brilliant, and impressive. The strongest debaters in the land were there, the most powerful orators, and some of the most scholarly statesmen. Seldom, in any land or age, has so gifted and accomplished a group of men contended in argument and discussion at one time and place. And yet reasoning and eloquence were not the only or even the principal weapons used by these giant adversaries. Skill in political management, craft in parliamentary tactics, intimate talks with the members, the downright "playing of politics," were employed by both sides. "Of all arguments that may be used at the convention," wrote Washington to Madison, more than four months before the Convention, "the most prevailing one ... will be that nine states at least will have acceded to it."[1110]

FOOTNOTES:[982]Grigsby, i, 25.[983]Travelers from the District of Kentucky or from the back settlements of Virginia always journeyed fully armed, in readiness to defend themselves from attack by Indians or others in their journey through the wilderness.[984]Grigsby, i, 27-28.[985]Ib., 25.[986]The Jockey Club was holding its annual races at Richmond when the Constitutional Convention of 1788 convened. (Christian, 31.)[987]Grigsby, i. 31.[988]Humphrey Marshall, from the District of Kentucky, saw for the first time one number of theFederalist, only after he had reached the more thickly peopled districts of Virginia while on his way to the Convention. (ib., footnote to 31.)[989]George Nicholas to Madison, April 5, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to p. 115.[990]"The most common and ostensible objection was that it [the Constitution] would endanger state rights and personal liberty—that it was too strong." (Humphrey Marshall, i, 285.)[991]Tyler, i, 142. Grigsby estimates that three fourths of the people of Virginia were opposed to the Constitution. (Grigsby, i, footnote to 160.)[992]Lee to Madison, Dec. 1787;Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to p. 88.[993]Madison's father to Madison, Jan. 30, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to p. 105.[994]Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788;ib., 103.[995]Henry to Lamb, June 9, 1788; Henry, ii, 342.[996]Minton Collins to Stephen Collins, March 16, 1788; Collins MSS., Lib. Cong.[997]Even Hamilton admitted this. "The framers of it [the Constitution] will have to encounter the disrepute of having brought about a revolution in government, without substituting anything that was worthy of the effort; they pulled down one Utopia, it will be said, to build up another." (Hamilton to Washington, Sept., 1788; Hamilton'sWorks: Lodge, ix, 444; and also in Jefferson,Writings: Ford, xi, footnote to 330.) Martin Van Buren describes the action of the Federal Convention that framed the Constitution, in "having ... set aside the instructions of Congress by making a new Constitution ... an heroic but lawless act." (Van Buren, 49-50.)Professor Burgess does not overstate the case when he declares: "Had Julius or Napoleon committed these acts [of the Federal Convention in framing and submitting the Constitution], they would have been pronouncedcoups d'état." (Burgess, i, 105.)Also see Beard:Econ. I. C., 217-18.[998]Ford:P. on C., 14.[999]Ib., 100-01.[1000]Ford:P. on C., 284-85. And see Jameson, 40-49.[1001]Washington to Lafayette, Sept. 18, 1788;Writings: Sparks, ix, 265.[1002]Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware had practically no ports and, under the Confederation, were at the mercy of Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania in all matters of trade. The Constitution, of course, remedied this serious defect. Also, these smaller States had forced the compromise by which they, with their comparatively small populations, were to have an equal voice in the Senate with New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, with their comparatively great populations. And therefore they would have practically equal weight in the law—and treaty-making power of the Government. This was the most formidable of the many rocks on which the Federal Convention all but broke up.[1003]One proposition was to call the State Convention "withintendays." (See "Address of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention," in McMaster and Stone, 458.)[1004]Ib., 3-4; and seeib., 75. An excuse for these mob methods was that the Legislature previously had resolved to adjournsine dieon that very day. This would put off action until the next session. The Anti-Constitutionalists urged—with entire truthfulness—that even this delay would give the people too little time to inform themselves upon the "New Plan" of government, as it was called, which the Convention was to pass upon in the people's name. "Not one in twenty know anything about it." (Mr. Whitehall in debate in the Legislature;ib., 32.)[1005]McMaster and Stone, 459-60. This charge was wholly accurate. Both sides exerted themselves to carry the "election." The Anti-Constitutionalists declared that they stood for "the principles of the Revolution"; yet, asserts Graydon, who was at Reading at the time, they sought the support of the Tories; the country lawyers were opposed to the "New Plan" and agreed not "to practice or accept any office under the Constitution"; but the Constitutionalists promised "prothonotaryships, attorney generalships, chief justiceships, and what not," and the hostile attorneys "were tempted and did eat." Describing the spirit of the times, Graydon testifies that "pelf was a better goal than liberty and at no period in my recollection was the worship of Mammon more widely spread, more sordid and disgusting."Everybody who wanted it had a military title, that of major being "the very lowest that a dasher of any figure would accept." To "clap on a uniform and a pair of epaulettes, and scamper about with some militia general for a day or two" was enough to acquire the coveted rank. Thus, those who had never been in the army, but "had played a safe and calculating game" at home and "attended to their interests," were not only "the men of mark and consideration," but majors, colonels, and generals as well. (Graydon, 331-33.)Noting, at a later time, this passion for military titles Weld says: "In every part of America a European is surprised at finding so many men with military titles ... but no where ... is there such a superfluity of these military personages as in the little town of Staunton; there is hardly a decent person in it ... but what is a colonel, a major, or a captain." (Weld, i, 236-37.)Such were the conditions in the larger towns when the members of the Pennsylvania Convention were chosen. The small vote cast seems to justify the charge that the country districts and inaccessible parts of the State did not even know of the election.[1006]McMaster and Stone, 503-04.[1007]McMaster and Stone, 173-74.[1008]Independent Gazetteer:ib., 183-84.[1009]Ib., 184-85.[1010]Pennsylvania Debates, in McMaster and Stone, 231. Elliott prints only a small part of these debates.[1011]Ib., 283-85.[1012]Ib., 219.[1013]McMaster and Stone, 253.[1014]Findley covered them with confusion in this statement by citing authority. Wilson irritably quoted in retort the words of Maynard to a student: "Young Man! I have forgotten more law than ever you learned." (Ib., 352-64.)[1015]Ib., 361-63.[1016]Ib., 365.[1017]Ib.[1018]Ib., 419.[1019]McMaster and Stone, 365.[1020]Ib., 453. The conduct of the Pennsylvania supporters of the Constitution aroused indignation in other States, and caused some who had favored the new plan of government to change their views. "On reception of the Report of the [Federal] Convention, I perused, and admir'd it;—Or rather, like many who stillthinkthey admire it, I loved Geo. Washington—I venerated Benj. Franklin—and therefore concluded that I must love and venerate all the works of their hands;—.... The honest and uninformedfreemenof America entertain the same opinion of those two gentlemen as do Europeanslavesof their Princes,—'that they can do no wrong.'"But, continues Wait, "on the unprecedented Conduct of the Pennsylvania Legislature [and Convention] I found myself Disposed to lend an ear to the arguments of the opposition—not with an expectation of being convinced that the new Constitution was defective; but because I thought the minority had been ill used; and I felt a little curious to hear the particulars," with the result that "I am dissatisfied with the proposed Constitution." (Wait to Thatcher, Jan. 8, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 262; and seeinfra.)Others did not, even then, entertain Mr. Wait's reverence for Washington, when it came to accepting the Constitution because of his support. When Hamilton asked General Lamb how he could oppose the Constitution when it was certain that his "good friend Genl. Washington would ... be the first President under it," Lamb "reply'd that ... after him Genl. Slushington might be the next or second president." (Ledlie to Lamb; MS., N.Y. Hist. Soc.)[1021]McMaster and Stone, 432-35.[1022]Ib., 424.[1023]Ib., 14-15.[1024]Ib.[1025]"Address of the Minority"; McMaster and Stone, 454-83.[1026]"Address of the Minority"; McMaster and Stone, 466.[1027]Ib., 469-70.[1028]Ib., 480.[1029]See various contemporary accounts of this riot reprinted in McMaster and Stone, 486-94.[1030]The authorship of the "Letters of Centinel" remains unsettled. It seems probable that they were the work of Eleazer Oswald, printer of theIndependent Gazetteer, and one George Bryan, both of Philadelphia. (Seeib., 6-7, and footnote.)[1031]"Letters of Centinel," no. 4,ib., 606.[1032]Ib., 620.[1033]Ib., 625.[1034]McMaster and Stone, 624.[1035]Ib., 630, 637, 639, 642, 653, 655.[1036]Ib., 629.[1037]Ib., 641.[1038]Ib., 631; and seeinfra, chap.XI.[1039]Ib., 639.[1040]Ib., 658.[1041]Ib., 661.[1042]Ib., 667.[1043]McMaster and Stone, 667.[1044]Ib., 668.[1045]"A Real Patriot," inIndependent Gazetteer, reprinted in McMaster and Stone, 524.[1046]"Gomes," inib., 527.[1047]H. Chapman to Stephen Collins, June 20, 1788; MS., Lib. Cong. Oswald, like Thomas Paine, was an Englishman.[1048]Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 102.[1049]Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 101.[1050]Gore to Thatcher, June 9, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 263. This was a very shrewd move; for Hancock had not yet been won over to the Constitution; he was popular with the protesting delegates, and perhaps could not have been defeated had they made him their candidate for presiding officer; the preferment flattered Hancock's abnormal vanity and insured the Constitutionalists against his active opposition; and, most of all, this mark of their favor prepared the way for the decisive use the Constitutionalist leaders finally were able to make of him. Madison describes Hancock as being "weak, ambitious, a courtier of popularity, given to low intrigue." (Madison to Jefferson, Oct. 17, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 270.)[1051]Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 101.[1052]Madison to Pendleton, Feb. 21, 1788;ib., 108.[1053]King to Madison, Jan. 27, 1788; King, i, 316.[1054]Ib., 317.[1055]Elliott, ii, 40.[1056]Harding, 48. These towns were bitterly opposed to the Constitution. Had they sent delegates, Massachusetts surely would have rejected the Constitution; for even by the aid of the deal hereafter described, there was a very small majority for the Constitution. And if Massachusetts had refused to ratify it, Virginia would, beyond the possibility of a doubt, have rejected it also. (Seeinfra, chaps.X,XI, andXII.) And such action by Massachusetts and Virginia would, with absolute certainty, have doomed the fundamental law by which the Nation to-day exists. Thus it is that the refusal of forty-six Massachusetts towns to send representatives to the State Convention changed the destiny of the Republic.[1057]Hill to Thatcher, Dec. 12, 1787;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 259.[1058]Lee to Thatcher, Jan. 23, 1788;ib., 266-67.[1059]Ib., 267.[1060]Ib.[1061]Bangs to Thatcher, Jan. 1, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 260.[1062]Sewall to Thatcher, Jan. 5, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 260-61.[1063]Savage to Thatcher, Jan. 11, 1788;ib., 264.[1064]Barrell to Thatcher, Jan. 15, 1788;ib., 265.[1065]Wait to Thatcher, Jan. 8, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 261. Wait was an unusually intelligent and forceful editor of a New England newspaper, theCumberland Gazette. (Ib., 258.)[1066]Gore to Thatcher, Dec. 30, 1787;ib., 260.[1067]Lincoln to Washington, Feb. 3, 1788;Cor. Rev.: Sparks, iv, 206.[1068]Seeinfra.[1069]King to Madison, Jan. 27, 1788; King, i, 317.[1070]Elliott, ii, 105-06.[1071]Ib., 101.[1072]Elliott, ii, 102.[1073]Ib., 28.[1074]Ib., 96.[1075]Ib., 94.[1076]Ib., 80.[1077]Ib., 48.[1078]Elliot, ii, 133.[1079]Ib., 136-37.[1080]Ib., 16.[1081]Ib., 111.[1082]Ib., 148.[1083]Ib., 44.[1084]Elliott, ii, 102-04. Mr. Thatcher made the best summary of the unhappy state of the country under the Confederation. (Ib., 141-48.)[1085]King to Madison, Jan. 20, 1788; King, i, 314.[1086]Rives, ii, 524-25. "To manage the cause against them (the jealous opponents of the Constitution) are the present and late governor, three judges of the supreme court, fifteen members of the Senate, twenty-four among the most respectable of the clergy, ten or twelve of the first characters at the bar, judges of probate, high sheriffs of counties, and many other respectable people, merchants, &c., Generals Heath, Lincoln, Brooks, and others of the late army." (Nathaniel Gorham to Madison, quoted inib.)[1087]"Hancock has committed himself in our favor.... You will be astonished, when you see the list of names that such an union of men has taken place on this question. Hancock will, hereafter, receive the universal support of Bowdoin's friends;and we told him, that, if Virginia does not unite, which is problematical, he is considered as the only fair candidate for President." (King to Knox, Feb. 1, 1788; King, i, 319. The italics are those of King.)[1088]Ib., ii, 525.[1089]Elliott, ii, 178-81.[1090]Ib., 140.[1091]Elliott, ii, 153.[1092]Madison to Randolph, April 10, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 117.[1093]Elliott, ii, 159-61.[1094]Widgery to Thatcher, Feb. 8, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 270.[1095]Ib.[1096]Elliott, ii, 218.[1097]Widgery to Thatcher, Feb. 8, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 270-71.[1098]King to Madison, Feb. 6, 1788; King, i, 320.[1099]Gerry, in Ford:P. on C., 1-23.[1100]Ib., 23. When a bundle of copies of Gerry's pamphlet was received by the New York Anti-Constitutionalists in Albany County, they decided that it was "in a style too sublime and florid for the common people in this part of the country." (Ib., 1.)[1101]During the debates theBoston Gazettepublished the following charge that bribery was being employed to get votes for the Constitution:—BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION!!!"The most diabolical plan is on foot to corrupt the members of the Convention, who oppose the adoption of the new Constitution. Large sums of money have been brought from a neighboring state for that purpose, contributed by the wealthy. If so, is it not probable there may be collections for the same accursed purpose nearer home?Centinel." (Elliott, ii, 51.)The Convention appointed a committee to investigate (ib.); it found that the charge was based on extremely vague rumor. (Harding, 103.) There the matter appears to have been dropped.More than eighty years afterward, Henry B. Dawson, the editor of theHistorical Magazine, a scholar of standing, asserted, personally, in his publication: "It is very well known—indeed, the son and biographer of one of the great leaders of the Constitutionalists in New York has frankly admitted to us—that enough members of the Massachusetts Convention were bought with moneyfrom New Yorkto secure the ratification of the new system by Massachusetts." (Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 268, footnote, referring to Savage's letter to Thatcher telling of the charge in theBoston Gazette.)Professor Harding discredits the whole story. (Harding, 101-05.) It is referred to only as showing the excited and suspicious temper of the times.[1102]Langdon to Washington, Feb. 28, 1788;Cor. Rev.: Sparks, iv, 212. "At least three fourths of the property, and a large proportion of the abilities in the State are friendly to the proposed system. The opposition here, as has generally been the case, was composed of men who were involved in debt." (Lear to Washington, June 22, 1788;ib., 224-25.)[1103]Lear to Washington, June 2, 1788;Cor. Rev.: Sparks, iv, 220.[1104]Langdon to King, Feb. 23, 1788; King, i, 321-22.[1105]Madison to Pendleton, March 3, 1788 (Writings: Hunt, v, 110), and to Washington, March 3, 1788 (ib., 111); and to Randolph; March 3, 1788 (ib., 113).[1106]Langdon to King, May 6, 1788; King, i, 328.[1107]Washington to Lafayette, Feb. 7, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 220.[1108]Marshall, ii, 127.[1109]Ib.[1110]Washington to Madison, Jan. 10, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 208.

[982]Grigsby, i, 25.

[983]Travelers from the District of Kentucky or from the back settlements of Virginia always journeyed fully armed, in readiness to defend themselves from attack by Indians or others in their journey through the wilderness.

[984]Grigsby, i, 27-28.

[985]Ib., 25.

[986]The Jockey Club was holding its annual races at Richmond when the Constitutional Convention of 1788 convened. (Christian, 31.)

[987]Grigsby, i. 31.

[988]Humphrey Marshall, from the District of Kentucky, saw for the first time one number of theFederalist, only after he had reached the more thickly peopled districts of Virginia while on his way to the Convention. (ib., footnote to 31.)

[989]George Nicholas to Madison, April 5, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to p. 115.

[990]"The most common and ostensible objection was that it [the Constitution] would endanger state rights and personal liberty—that it was too strong." (Humphrey Marshall, i, 285.)

[991]Tyler, i, 142. Grigsby estimates that three fourths of the people of Virginia were opposed to the Constitution. (Grigsby, i, footnote to 160.)

[992]Lee to Madison, Dec. 1787;Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to p. 88.

[993]Madison's father to Madison, Jan. 30, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to p. 105.

[994]Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788;ib., 103.

[995]Henry to Lamb, June 9, 1788; Henry, ii, 342.

[996]Minton Collins to Stephen Collins, March 16, 1788; Collins MSS., Lib. Cong.

[997]Even Hamilton admitted this. "The framers of it [the Constitution] will have to encounter the disrepute of having brought about a revolution in government, without substituting anything that was worthy of the effort; they pulled down one Utopia, it will be said, to build up another." (Hamilton to Washington, Sept., 1788; Hamilton'sWorks: Lodge, ix, 444; and also in Jefferson,Writings: Ford, xi, footnote to 330.) Martin Van Buren describes the action of the Federal Convention that framed the Constitution, in "having ... set aside the instructions of Congress by making a new Constitution ... an heroic but lawless act." (Van Buren, 49-50.)Professor Burgess does not overstate the case when he declares: "Had Julius or Napoleon committed these acts [of the Federal Convention in framing and submitting the Constitution], they would have been pronouncedcoups d'état." (Burgess, i, 105.)Also see Beard:Econ. I. C., 217-18.

Professor Burgess does not overstate the case when he declares: "Had Julius or Napoleon committed these acts [of the Federal Convention in framing and submitting the Constitution], they would have been pronouncedcoups d'état." (Burgess, i, 105.)

Also see Beard:Econ. I. C., 217-18.

[998]Ford:P. on C., 14.

[999]Ib., 100-01.

[1000]Ford:P. on C., 284-85. And see Jameson, 40-49.

[1001]Washington to Lafayette, Sept. 18, 1788;Writings: Sparks, ix, 265.

[1002]Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware had practically no ports and, under the Confederation, were at the mercy of Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania in all matters of trade. The Constitution, of course, remedied this serious defect. Also, these smaller States had forced the compromise by which they, with their comparatively small populations, were to have an equal voice in the Senate with New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, with their comparatively great populations. And therefore they would have practically equal weight in the law—and treaty-making power of the Government. This was the most formidable of the many rocks on which the Federal Convention all but broke up.

[1003]One proposition was to call the State Convention "withintendays." (See "Address of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention," in McMaster and Stone, 458.)

[1004]Ib., 3-4; and seeib., 75. An excuse for these mob methods was that the Legislature previously had resolved to adjournsine dieon that very day. This would put off action until the next session. The Anti-Constitutionalists urged—with entire truthfulness—that even this delay would give the people too little time to inform themselves upon the "New Plan" of government, as it was called, which the Convention was to pass upon in the people's name. "Not one in twenty know anything about it." (Mr. Whitehall in debate in the Legislature;ib., 32.)

[1005]McMaster and Stone, 459-60. This charge was wholly accurate. Both sides exerted themselves to carry the "election." The Anti-Constitutionalists declared that they stood for "the principles of the Revolution"; yet, asserts Graydon, who was at Reading at the time, they sought the support of the Tories; the country lawyers were opposed to the "New Plan" and agreed not "to practice or accept any office under the Constitution"; but the Constitutionalists promised "prothonotaryships, attorney generalships, chief justiceships, and what not," and the hostile attorneys "were tempted and did eat." Describing the spirit of the times, Graydon testifies that "pelf was a better goal than liberty and at no period in my recollection was the worship of Mammon more widely spread, more sordid and disgusting."Everybody who wanted it had a military title, that of major being "the very lowest that a dasher of any figure would accept." To "clap on a uniform and a pair of epaulettes, and scamper about with some militia general for a day or two" was enough to acquire the coveted rank. Thus, those who had never been in the army, but "had played a safe and calculating game" at home and "attended to their interests," were not only "the men of mark and consideration," but majors, colonels, and generals as well. (Graydon, 331-33.)Noting, at a later time, this passion for military titles Weld says: "In every part of America a European is surprised at finding so many men with military titles ... but no where ... is there such a superfluity of these military personages as in the little town of Staunton; there is hardly a decent person in it ... but what is a colonel, a major, or a captain." (Weld, i, 236-37.)Such were the conditions in the larger towns when the members of the Pennsylvania Convention were chosen. The small vote cast seems to justify the charge that the country districts and inaccessible parts of the State did not even know of the election.

Everybody who wanted it had a military title, that of major being "the very lowest that a dasher of any figure would accept." To "clap on a uniform and a pair of epaulettes, and scamper about with some militia general for a day or two" was enough to acquire the coveted rank. Thus, those who had never been in the army, but "had played a safe and calculating game" at home and "attended to their interests," were not only "the men of mark and consideration," but majors, colonels, and generals as well. (Graydon, 331-33.)

Noting, at a later time, this passion for military titles Weld says: "In every part of America a European is surprised at finding so many men with military titles ... but no where ... is there such a superfluity of these military personages as in the little town of Staunton; there is hardly a decent person in it ... but what is a colonel, a major, or a captain." (Weld, i, 236-37.)

Such were the conditions in the larger towns when the members of the Pennsylvania Convention were chosen. The small vote cast seems to justify the charge that the country districts and inaccessible parts of the State did not even know of the election.

[1006]McMaster and Stone, 503-04.

[1007]McMaster and Stone, 173-74.

[1008]Independent Gazetteer:ib., 183-84.

[1009]Ib., 184-85.

[1010]Pennsylvania Debates, in McMaster and Stone, 231. Elliott prints only a small part of these debates.

[1011]Ib., 283-85.

[1012]Ib., 219.

[1013]McMaster and Stone, 253.

[1014]Findley covered them with confusion in this statement by citing authority. Wilson irritably quoted in retort the words of Maynard to a student: "Young Man! I have forgotten more law than ever you learned." (Ib., 352-64.)

[1015]Ib., 361-63.

[1016]Ib., 365.

[1017]Ib.

[1018]Ib., 419.

[1019]McMaster and Stone, 365.

[1020]Ib., 453. The conduct of the Pennsylvania supporters of the Constitution aroused indignation in other States, and caused some who had favored the new plan of government to change their views. "On reception of the Report of the [Federal] Convention, I perused, and admir'd it;—Or rather, like many who stillthinkthey admire it, I loved Geo. Washington—I venerated Benj. Franklin—and therefore concluded that I must love and venerate all the works of their hands;—.... The honest and uninformedfreemenof America entertain the same opinion of those two gentlemen as do Europeanslavesof their Princes,—'that they can do no wrong.'"But, continues Wait, "on the unprecedented Conduct of the Pennsylvania Legislature [and Convention] I found myself Disposed to lend an ear to the arguments of the opposition—not with an expectation of being convinced that the new Constitution was defective; but because I thought the minority had been ill used; and I felt a little curious to hear the particulars," with the result that "I am dissatisfied with the proposed Constitution." (Wait to Thatcher, Jan. 8, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 262; and seeinfra.)Others did not, even then, entertain Mr. Wait's reverence for Washington, when it came to accepting the Constitution because of his support. When Hamilton asked General Lamb how he could oppose the Constitution when it was certain that his "good friend Genl. Washington would ... be the first President under it," Lamb "reply'd that ... after him Genl. Slushington might be the next or second president." (Ledlie to Lamb; MS., N.Y. Hist. Soc.)

But, continues Wait, "on the unprecedented Conduct of the Pennsylvania Legislature [and Convention] I found myself Disposed to lend an ear to the arguments of the opposition—not with an expectation of being convinced that the new Constitution was defective; but because I thought the minority had been ill used; and I felt a little curious to hear the particulars," with the result that "I am dissatisfied with the proposed Constitution." (Wait to Thatcher, Jan. 8, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 262; and seeinfra.)

Others did not, even then, entertain Mr. Wait's reverence for Washington, when it came to accepting the Constitution because of his support. When Hamilton asked General Lamb how he could oppose the Constitution when it was certain that his "good friend Genl. Washington would ... be the first President under it," Lamb "reply'd that ... after him Genl. Slushington might be the next or second president." (Ledlie to Lamb; MS., N.Y. Hist. Soc.)

[1021]McMaster and Stone, 432-35.

[1022]Ib., 424.

[1023]Ib., 14-15.

[1024]Ib.

[1025]"Address of the Minority"; McMaster and Stone, 454-83.

[1026]"Address of the Minority"; McMaster and Stone, 466.

[1027]Ib., 469-70.

[1028]Ib., 480.

[1029]See various contemporary accounts of this riot reprinted in McMaster and Stone, 486-94.

[1030]The authorship of the "Letters of Centinel" remains unsettled. It seems probable that they were the work of Eleazer Oswald, printer of theIndependent Gazetteer, and one George Bryan, both of Philadelphia. (Seeib., 6-7, and footnote.)

[1031]"Letters of Centinel," no. 4,ib., 606.

[1032]Ib., 620.

[1033]Ib., 625.

[1034]McMaster and Stone, 624.

[1035]Ib., 630, 637, 639, 642, 653, 655.

[1036]Ib., 629.

[1037]Ib., 641.

[1038]Ib., 631; and seeinfra, chap.XI.

[1039]Ib., 639.

[1040]Ib., 658.

[1041]Ib., 661.

[1042]Ib., 667.

[1043]McMaster and Stone, 667.

[1044]Ib., 668.

[1045]"A Real Patriot," inIndependent Gazetteer, reprinted in McMaster and Stone, 524.

[1046]"Gomes," inib., 527.

[1047]H. Chapman to Stephen Collins, June 20, 1788; MS., Lib. Cong. Oswald, like Thomas Paine, was an Englishman.

[1048]Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 102.

[1049]Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 101.

[1050]Gore to Thatcher, June 9, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 263. This was a very shrewd move; for Hancock had not yet been won over to the Constitution; he was popular with the protesting delegates, and perhaps could not have been defeated had they made him their candidate for presiding officer; the preferment flattered Hancock's abnormal vanity and insured the Constitutionalists against his active opposition; and, most of all, this mark of their favor prepared the way for the decisive use the Constitutionalist leaders finally were able to make of him. Madison describes Hancock as being "weak, ambitious, a courtier of popularity, given to low intrigue." (Madison to Jefferson, Oct. 17, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 270.)

[1051]Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 101.

[1052]Madison to Pendleton, Feb. 21, 1788;ib., 108.

[1053]King to Madison, Jan. 27, 1788; King, i, 316.

[1054]Ib., 317.

[1055]Elliott, ii, 40.

[1056]Harding, 48. These towns were bitterly opposed to the Constitution. Had they sent delegates, Massachusetts surely would have rejected the Constitution; for even by the aid of the deal hereafter described, there was a very small majority for the Constitution. And if Massachusetts had refused to ratify it, Virginia would, beyond the possibility of a doubt, have rejected it also. (Seeinfra, chaps.X,XI, andXII.) And such action by Massachusetts and Virginia would, with absolute certainty, have doomed the fundamental law by which the Nation to-day exists. Thus it is that the refusal of forty-six Massachusetts towns to send representatives to the State Convention changed the destiny of the Republic.

[1057]Hill to Thatcher, Dec. 12, 1787;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 259.

[1058]Lee to Thatcher, Jan. 23, 1788;ib., 266-67.

[1059]Ib., 267.

[1060]Ib.

[1061]Bangs to Thatcher, Jan. 1, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 260.

[1062]Sewall to Thatcher, Jan. 5, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 260-61.

[1063]Savage to Thatcher, Jan. 11, 1788;ib., 264.

[1064]Barrell to Thatcher, Jan. 15, 1788;ib., 265.

[1065]Wait to Thatcher, Jan. 8, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 261. Wait was an unusually intelligent and forceful editor of a New England newspaper, theCumberland Gazette. (Ib., 258.)

[1066]Gore to Thatcher, Dec. 30, 1787;ib., 260.

[1067]Lincoln to Washington, Feb. 3, 1788;Cor. Rev.: Sparks, iv, 206.

[1068]Seeinfra.

[1069]King to Madison, Jan. 27, 1788; King, i, 317.

[1070]Elliott, ii, 105-06.

[1071]Ib., 101.

[1072]Elliott, ii, 102.

[1073]Ib., 28.

[1074]Ib., 96.

[1075]Ib., 94.

[1076]Ib., 80.

[1077]Ib., 48.

[1078]Elliot, ii, 133.

[1079]Ib., 136-37.

[1080]Ib., 16.

[1081]Ib., 111.

[1082]Ib., 148.

[1083]Ib., 44.

[1084]Elliott, ii, 102-04. Mr. Thatcher made the best summary of the unhappy state of the country under the Confederation. (Ib., 141-48.)

[1085]King to Madison, Jan. 20, 1788; King, i, 314.

[1086]Rives, ii, 524-25. "To manage the cause against them (the jealous opponents of the Constitution) are the present and late governor, three judges of the supreme court, fifteen members of the Senate, twenty-four among the most respectable of the clergy, ten or twelve of the first characters at the bar, judges of probate, high sheriffs of counties, and many other respectable people, merchants, &c., Generals Heath, Lincoln, Brooks, and others of the late army." (Nathaniel Gorham to Madison, quoted inib.)

[1087]"Hancock has committed himself in our favor.... You will be astonished, when you see the list of names that such an union of men has taken place on this question. Hancock will, hereafter, receive the universal support of Bowdoin's friends;and we told him, that, if Virginia does not unite, which is problematical, he is considered as the only fair candidate for President." (King to Knox, Feb. 1, 1788; King, i, 319. The italics are those of King.)

[1088]Ib., ii, 525.

[1089]Elliott, ii, 178-81.

[1090]Ib., 140.

[1091]Elliott, ii, 153.

[1092]Madison to Randolph, April 10, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 117.

[1093]Elliott, ii, 159-61.

[1094]Widgery to Thatcher, Feb. 8, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 270.

[1095]Ib.

[1096]Elliott, ii, 218.

[1097]Widgery to Thatcher, Feb. 8, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 270-71.

[1098]King to Madison, Feb. 6, 1788; King, i, 320.

[1099]Gerry, in Ford:P. on C., 1-23.

[1100]Ib., 23. When a bundle of copies of Gerry's pamphlet was received by the New York Anti-Constitutionalists in Albany County, they decided that it was "in a style too sublime and florid for the common people in this part of the country." (Ib., 1.)

[1101]During the debates theBoston Gazettepublished the following charge that bribery was being employed to get votes for the Constitution:—BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION!!!"The most diabolical plan is on foot to corrupt the members of the Convention, who oppose the adoption of the new Constitution. Large sums of money have been brought from a neighboring state for that purpose, contributed by the wealthy. If so, is it not probable there may be collections for the same accursed purpose nearer home?Centinel." (Elliott, ii, 51.)The Convention appointed a committee to investigate (ib.); it found that the charge was based on extremely vague rumor. (Harding, 103.) There the matter appears to have been dropped.More than eighty years afterward, Henry B. Dawson, the editor of theHistorical Magazine, a scholar of standing, asserted, personally, in his publication: "It is very well known—indeed, the son and biographer of one of the great leaders of the Constitutionalists in New York has frankly admitted to us—that enough members of the Massachusetts Convention were bought with moneyfrom New Yorkto secure the ratification of the new system by Massachusetts." (Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 268, footnote, referring to Savage's letter to Thatcher telling of the charge in theBoston Gazette.)Professor Harding discredits the whole story. (Harding, 101-05.) It is referred to only as showing the excited and suspicious temper of the times.

[1101]During the debates theBoston Gazettepublished the following charge that bribery was being employed to get votes for the Constitution:—

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION!!!

"The most diabolical plan is on foot to corrupt the members of the Convention, who oppose the adoption of the new Constitution. Large sums of money have been brought from a neighboring state for that purpose, contributed by the wealthy. If so, is it not probable there may be collections for the same accursed purpose nearer home?Centinel." (Elliott, ii, 51.)

The Convention appointed a committee to investigate (ib.); it found that the charge was based on extremely vague rumor. (Harding, 103.) There the matter appears to have been dropped.

More than eighty years afterward, Henry B. Dawson, the editor of theHistorical Magazine, a scholar of standing, asserted, personally, in his publication: "It is very well known—indeed, the son and biographer of one of the great leaders of the Constitutionalists in New York has frankly admitted to us—that enough members of the Massachusetts Convention were bought with moneyfrom New Yorkto secure the ratification of the new system by Massachusetts." (Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 268, footnote, referring to Savage's letter to Thatcher telling of the charge in theBoston Gazette.)

Professor Harding discredits the whole story. (Harding, 101-05.) It is referred to only as showing the excited and suspicious temper of the times.

[1102]Langdon to Washington, Feb. 28, 1788;Cor. Rev.: Sparks, iv, 212. "At least three fourths of the property, and a large proportion of the abilities in the State are friendly to the proposed system. The opposition here, as has generally been the case, was composed of men who were involved in debt." (Lear to Washington, June 22, 1788;ib., 224-25.)

[1103]Lear to Washington, June 2, 1788;Cor. Rev.: Sparks, iv, 220.

[1104]Langdon to King, Feb. 23, 1788; King, i, 321-22.

[1105]Madison to Pendleton, March 3, 1788 (Writings: Hunt, v, 110), and to Washington, March 3, 1788 (ib., 111); and to Randolph; March 3, 1788 (ib., 113).

[1106]Langdon to King, May 6, 1788; King, i, 328.

[1107]Washington to Lafayette, Feb. 7, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 220.

[1108]Marshall, ii, 127.

[1109]Ib.

[1110]Washington to Madison, Jan. 10, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 208.

Back to Index Next