IN THE GREAT CONVENTION
There is no alternative between the adoption of it [the
Constitution] and anarchy. (Washington.)
I look on that paper as the most fatal plan that could possibly
be conceived to enslave a free people. (Henry.)
More, much more, went forward in the Virginia struggle than appeared
upon the surface. Noble as was the epochal debate in Virginia's
Constitutional Convention, it was not so influential on votes of the
members as were other methods[1111] employed by both sides. Very
practical politicians, indeed, were these contending moulders of
destiny.
Having in mind the Pennsylvania storm; with the picture before them of
the delicate and skillful piloting by which alone the Constitution had
escaped the rocks in the tempestuous Massachusetts seas; with the
hurricane gathering in New York and its low thunders heard even from
States that had ratified--the Virginia Constitutionalists took no
chances, neglected no precaution. Throughout the country the
Constitutionalists were now acting with disciplined dispatch.
Intelligence of the New Hampshire Convention, of their success in which
the Constitutionalists finally had made sure, was arranged to be carried
by swift riders and relays of horses across country to Hamilton in New
York; and "any expense which you may incur will be cheerfully repaid,"
King assured Langdon.[1112] As to Virginia, Hamilton wrote Madison to
send news of "_any decisive_ question ... if favorable ... by an
express ... with pointed orders to make all possible diligence, by
changing horses etc."; assuring Madison, as King did Langdon, that
"all expense shall be thankfully and liberally paid."[1113]
The Constitutionalists, great and small, in other States were watching
Virginia's Convention through the glasses of an infinite apprehension.
"I fear that overwhelming torrent, Patrick Henry," General Knox confided
to King.[1114] Even before Massachusetts had ratified, one Jeremiah Hill
thought that "the fate of this Constitution and the political Salvation
of the united States depend cheifly on the part that Virginia and this
State [Massachusetts] take in the Matter."[1115] Hamilton's lieutenant,
King, while in Boston helping the Constitutionalists there, wrote to
Madison: "You can with difficulty conceive the real anxiety experienced
in Massachusetts concerning your decision."[1116] "Our chance of success
depends on you," was Hamilton's own despairing appeal to the then leader
of the Southern Constitutionalists. "If you do well there is a gleam of
hope; but certainly I think not otherwise."[1117] The worried New York
Constitutionalist commander was sure that Virginia would settle the fate
of the proposed National Government. "God grant that Virginia may
accede. The example will have a vast influence."[1118]
Virginia's importance justified the anxiety concerning her action. Not
only was the Old Dominion preëminent in the part she had taken in the
Revolution, and in the distinction of her sons like Henry, Jefferson,
and Washington, whose names were better known in other States than those
of many of their own most prominent men; but she also was the most
important State in the Confederation in population and, at that time, in
resources. "Her population," says Grigsby, "was over three fourths of
all that of New England;... not far from double that of Pennsylvania;...
or from three times that of New York ... over three fourths of all the
population of the Southern States;... and more than a fifth of the
population of the whole Union."[1119]
The Virginia Constitutionalists had chosen their candidates for the
State Convention with painstaking care. Personal popularity, family
influence, public reputation, business and financial power, and
everything which might contribute to their strength with the people, had
been delicately weighed. The people simply would not vote against such
men as Pendleton, Wythe, and Carrington;[1120] and these and others
like them accordingly were selected by the Constitutionalists as
candidates in places where the people, otherwise, would have chosen
antagonists to the Constitution.
More than one fourth of the Virginia Convention of one hundred and
seventy members had been soldiers in the Revolutionary War; and nearly
all of them followed Washington in his desire for a strong National
Government. Practically all of Virginia's officers were members of the
Cincinnati; and these were a compact band of stern supporters of the
"New Plan."[1121] Some of the members had been Tories, and these were
stingingly lashed in debate by Mason; but they were strong in social
position, wealth, and family connections, and all of them were for the
Constitution.[1122]
No practical detail of election day had been overlooked by the
Constitutionalists. Colonel William Moore wrote to Madison, before the
election came off: "You know the disadvantage of being absent at
elections.... I must therefore entreat and conjure you--nay, command
you, if it were in my power--to be here."[1123] The Constitutionalists
slipped in members wherever possible and by any device.
Particularly in Henrico County, where Richmond was situated, had
conditions been sadly confused. Edmund Randolph, then Governor of the
State, who next to Washington was Virginia's most conspicuous delegate
to the Federal Convention, had refused to sign the Constitution and was,
therefore, popularly supposed to be against it. October 17, 1787, he
wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House of Delegates explaining his
reasons for dissent. He approved the main features of the proposed plan
for a National Government but declared that it had fatal defects, should
be amended before ratification, a new Federal Convention called to pass
upon the amendments of the various States, and, thereafter, the
Constitution as amended again submitted for ratification to State
Conventions.[1124] Randolph, however, did not send this communication to
the Speaker "lest in the diversity of opinion I should excite a contest
unfavorable to that harmony with which I trust that great subject will
be discussed."[1125] But it was privately printed in Richmond and
Randolph sent a copy to Washington. On January 3, 1788, the letter was
published in the _Virginia Gazette_ together with other correspondence.
In an additional paragraph, which does not appear in Randolph's letter
as reproduced in Elliott, he said that he would "regulate himself by the
spirit of America" and that he would do his best to amend the
Constitution prior to ratification, but if he could not succeed he would
accept the "New Plan" as it stood.[1126] But he had declared to Richard
Henry Lee that "either a monarchy or aristocracy will be generated" by
it.[1127]
Thus Randolph to all appearances occupied middle ground. But, publicly,
he was in favor of making strenuous efforts to amend the Constitution as
a condition of ratification, and of calling a second Federal Convention;
and these were the means by which the Anti-Constitutionalists designed
to accomplish the defeat of the "New Plan." The opponents of the
proposed National Government worked hard with Randolph to strengthen his
resolution and he gave them little cause to doubt their success.[1128]
But the Constitutionalists were also busy with the Governor and with
greater effect. Washington wrote an adroit and persuasive letter
designed to win him entirely over to a whole-hearted and unqualified
advocacy of the Constitution. The question was, said Washington, the
acceptance of the Constitution or "a dissolution of the Union."[1129]
Madison, in a subtle mingling of flattery, argument, and insinuation,
skillfully besought his "dear friend" Randolph to come out for the
Constitution fully and without reserve. If only Randolph had stood for
the Constitution, wrote Madison, "it would have given it a decided and
unalterable preponderancy," and Henry would have been "baffled."
The New England opposition, Madison assured Randolph, was from
"that part of the people who have a repugnance in general to good
government ... a part of whom are known to aim at confusion and are
suspected of wishing a reversal of the Revolution.... Nothing can be
further from your [Randolph's] views than the principles of the
different sets of men who have carried on their opposition under the
respectability of your name."[1130]
Randolph finally abandoned all opposition and resolved to support the
Constitution even to the point of resisting the very plan he had himself
proposed and insisted upon; but nobody, with the possible exception of
Washington, was informed of this Constitutionalist master-stroke until
the Convention met;[1131] and, if Washington knew, he kept the secret.
Thus, although the Constitutionalists were not yet sure of Randolph,
they put up no candidate against him in Henrico County, where the people
were very much opposed to the Constitution. To have done so would have
been useless in any event; for Randolph could have been elected almost
unanimously if his hostility to the proposed Government had been more
vigorous, so decided were the people's dislike and distrust of it, and
so great, as yet, the Governor's popularity. He wrote Madison a day or
two before the election that nothing but his personal popularity "could
send me; my politicks not being sufficiently strenuous against the
Constitution."[1132] The people chose their beloved young Governor,
never imagining that he would appear as the leading champion of the
Constitution on the Convention floor and actually oppose amending it
before ratification.[1133]
But the people were not in the dark when they voted for the only
candidate the Constitutionalists openly brought out in Henrico County.
John Marshall was for the proposed National Government, outright and
aboveboard. He was vastly concerned. We find him figuring out the result
of the election in northern Virginia and concluding "that the question
will be very nice."[1134] Marshall had been made the Constitutionalist
candidate solely because of his personal popularity. As it was, even the
people's confidence in him barely had saved Marshall.
"Marshall is in danger," wrote Randolph; "but F. [Dr. Foushee, the
Anti-Constitutionalist candidate] is not popular enough on other scores
to be elected, altho' he is perfectly a Henryite."[1135] Marshall
admitted that the people who elected Randolph and himself were against
the Constitution; and declared that he owed his own election to his
individual strength with the people.[1136] Thus two strong champions of
the Constitution had been secured from an Anti-Constitutionalist
constituency; and these were only examples of other cases.
The Anti-Constitutionalists, too, straining every nerve to elect their
men, resorted to all possible devices to arouse the suspicions,
distrust, and fears of the people. "The opposition to it [the
Constitution] ... is addressed more to the passions than to the reason,"
declared Washington.[1137]
Henry was feverishly active. He wrote flaming letters to Kentucky that
the Mississippi would be lost if the new plan of government were
adopted.[1138] He told the people that a religious establishment would
be set up.[1139] The Reverend John Blair Smith, President of Hampden
Sidney College, declared that Henry "has descended to lower artifices
and management ... than I thought him capable of."[1140] Writing to
Hamilton of the activities of the opposition, Washington asserted that
"their assiduity stands unrivalled";[1141] and he informed Trumbull
that "the opponents of the Constitution are indefatigable."[1142]
"Every art that could inflame the passions or touch the interests of men
have been essayed;--the ignorant have been told that should the proposed
government obtain, their lands would be taken from them and their
property disposed of;--and all ranks are informed that the prohibition
of the Navigation of the Mississippi (their favorite object) will be a
certain consequence of the adoption of the Constitution."[1143]
Plausible and restrained Richard Henry Lee warned the people that "by
means of taxes, the government may command the whole or any part of the
subjects' property";[1144] and that the Constitution "promised a large
field of employment to military gentlemen, and gentlemen of the law; and
in case the government shall be executed without convulsions, it will
afford security to creditors, to the clergy, salary-men and others
depending on money payments."[1145]
Nor did the efforts of the Virginia opponents of a National
establishment stop there. They spread the poison of personal slander
also. "They have attempted to vilify & debase the characters who formed"
the Constitution, complained Washington.[1146] These cunning expedients
on one side and desperate artifices on the other were continued during
the sitting of the Virginia Convention by all the craft and guile of
practical politics.
After the election, Madison reported to Jefferson in Paris that the
Northern Neck and the Valley had elected members friendly to the
Constitution, the counties south of the James unfriendly members, the
"intermediate district" a mixed membership, with Kentucky divided. In
this report, Madison counts Marshall fifth in importance of all
Constitutionalists elected, and puts only Pendleton, Wythe, Blair, and
Innes ahead of him.[1147]
When the Convention was called to order, it made up a striking and
remarkable body. Judges and soldiers, lawyers and doctors, preachers,
planters, merchants, and Indian fighters, were there. Scarcely a field
fought over during the long, red years of the Revolution but had its
representative on that historic floor. Statesmen and jurists of three
generations were members.[1148]
From the first the Constitutionalists displayed better tactics and
discipline than their opponents, just as they had shown greater skill
and astuteness in selecting candidates for election. They arranged
everything beforehand and carried their plans out with precision. For
the important position of President of the Convention, they agreed on
the venerable Chancellor, Edmund Pendleton, who was able, judicial, and
universally respected. He was nominated by his associate, Judge Paul
Carrington, and unanimously elected.[1149]
In the same way, Wythe, who was learned, trusted, and beloved, and who
had been the teacher of many members of the Convention, was made
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. The Anti-Constitutionalists did
not dare to oppose either Pendleton or Wythe for these strategic places.
They had made the mistake of not agreeing among themselves on strong and
influential candidates for these offices and of nominating them before
the Constitutionalists acted. For the first time in Virginia's history,
a shorthand reporter, David Robertson, appeared to take down a
stenographic report of the debates; and this innovation was bitterly
resented and resisted by the opposition[1150] as a Constitutionalist
maneuver.[1151] Marshall was appointed a member of the committee[1152]
which examined the returns of the elections of members and also heard
several contested election cases.[1153]
[Illustration: GEORGE WYTHE]
At the beginning the Anti-Constitutionalists did not decide upon a plan
of action--did not carefully weigh their course of procedure. No sooner
had rules been adopted, and the Constitution and official documents
relating to it laid before the Convention, than their second tactical
mistake was made; and made by one of their very ablest and most
accomplished leaders. When George Mason arose, everybody knew that the
foes of the Constitution were about to develop the first move in their
order of battle. Spectators and members were breathless with suspense.
Mason was the author of Virginia's Constitution and Bill of Rights and
one of the most honorable, able, and esteemed members of the
Legislature.
He had been a delegate to the Federal Convention and, with Randolph, had
refused to sign the Constitution. Sixty-two years old, his snow-white
hair contrasting with his blazing dark eyes, his commanding stature clad
in black silk, his full, clear voice deliberate and controlled, George
Mason was an impressive figure as he stood forth to strike the first
blow at the new ordinance of Nationality.[1154] On so important a
subject, he did not think any rules should prevent "the fullest and
clearest investigation." God's curse would be small compared with "what
will justly fall upon us, if from any sinister views we obstruct the
fullest inquiry." The Constitution, declared Mason, should be debated,
"clause by clause," before any question was put.[1155]
The Constitutionalists, keen-eyed for any strategic blunder of their
adversaries, took instant advantage of Mason's bad generalship. Madison
suavely agreed with Mason,[1156] and it was unanimously resolved that
the Constitution should be "discussed clause by clause through all its
parts,"[1157] before any question should be put as to the instrument
itself or any part of it. Thus the opposition presented to the
Constitutionalists the very method the latter wished for, and had
themselves planned to secure, on their own initiative.[1158] The
strength of the foes of the proposed National Government was in
attacking it as a whole; their weakness, in discussing its specific
provisions. The danger of the Constitutionalists lay in a general debate
on the large theory and results of the Constitution; their safety, in
presenting in detail the merits of its separate parts.
While the fight over the Constitution was partly an economic class
struggle, it was in another and a larger phase a battle between those
who thought nationally and those who thought provincially. In hostile
array were two central ideas: one, of a strong National Government
acting directly on men; the other, of a weak confederated league merely
suggesting action to States. It was not only an economic contest, but
also, and even more, a conflict by those to whom "liberty" meant
unrestrained freedom of action and speech, against those to whom such
"liberty" meant tumult and social chaos.
The mouths of the former were filled with those dread and sounding words
"despotism" and "arbitrary power"; the latter loudly denounced "enemies
of order" and "foes of government." The one wanted no bits in the mouth
of democracy, or, at most, soft ones with loose reins and lax hand; the
other wished a stout curb, stiff rein, and strong arm. The whole
controversy, on its popular side, resounded with misty yet stirring
language about "liberty," "aristocracy," "tyranny," "anarchy,"
"licentiousness"; and yet "debtor," "creditor," "property and taxes,"
"payment and repudiation," were heard among the more picturesque and
thrilling terms. In this fundamental struggle of antagonistic theories,
the practical advantage for the hour was overwhelmingly with those who
resisted the Constitution.
They had on their side the fears of the people, who, as has appeared,
looked on all government with suspicion, on any vital government with
hostility, and on a great central Government as some distant and
monstrous thing, too far away to be within their reach, too powerful to
be resisted, too high and exalted for the good of the common man, too
dangerous to be tried. It was, to the masses, something new, vague, and
awful; something to oppress the poor, the weak, the debtor, the settler;
something to strengthen and enrich the already strong and opulent, the
merchant, the creditor, the financial interests.
True, the people had suffered by the loose arrangement under which they
now lived; but, after all, had not they and their "liberties" survived?
And surely they would suffer even more, they felt, under this stronger
power; but would they and their "liberties" survive its "oppression"?
They thought not. And did not many of the ablest, purest, and most
trusted public characters in the Old Dominion think the same? Here was
ammunition and to spare for Patrick Henry and George Mason, Tyler and
Grayson, Bland and Harrison--ammunition and to spare, with their guns
planted on the heights, if they could center their fire on the
Constitution as a single proposition.
But they had been sleeping and now awoke to find their position
surrendered, and themselves compelled, if Mason's resolutions were
strictly followed, to make the assault in piecemeal on detached parts of
the "New Plan," many of which, taken by themselves, could not be
successfully combated. Although they tried to recover their lost ground
and did regain much of it, yet the Anti-Constitutionalists were hampered
throughout the debate by this initial error in parliamentary
strategy.[1159]
And now the Constitutionalists were eager to push the fighting. The
soldierly Lee was all for haste. The Anti-Constitutionalists held back.
Mason protested "against hurrying them precipitately." Harrison said
"that many of the members had not yet arrived."[1160] On the third day,
the Convention went into committee of the whole, with the astute and
venerable Wythe in the chair. Hardly had this brisk, erect little
figure--clad in single-breasted coat and vest, standing collar and white
cravat, bald, except on the back of the head, from which unqueued and
unribboned gray hair fell and curled up from the neck[1161]--taken the
gavel before Patrick Henry was on his feet.
Henry moved for the reading of the acts by authority of which the
Federal Convention at Philadelphia had met,[1162] for they would show
the work of that Convention to be illegal and the Constitution the
revolutionary creature of usurped power. If Henry could fix on the
advocates of stronger law and sterner order the brand of lawlessness and
disorder in framing the very plan they now were championing, much of the
mistake of yesterday might be retrieved.
But it was too late. Helped from his seat and leaning on his crutches,
Pendleton was recognized by Wythe before Henry could get the eye of the
chair to speak upon his motion; and the veteran jurist crushed Henry's
purpose before the great orator could make it plain. "We are not to
consider," said Pendleton, "whether the Federal Convention exceeded
their powers." That question "ought not to influence our deliberations."
Even if the framers of the Constitution had acted without authority,
Virginia's Legislature afterwards had referred it to the people who had
elected the present Convention to pass upon it.[1163] Pendleton's brief
speech was decisive;[1164] Henry withdrew his motion; the preamble and
the first two sections of the first article of the Constitution were
laid before the committee and the destiny-determining debate began.
The Constitutionalists, who throughout the contest never made a mistake
in the men they selected to debate or the time when they should speak,
had chosen skillfully the parliamentary artillerist to fire their
opening gun. They did not wait for the enemy's attack, but discharged
the first shot themselves. Quickly there arose a broad, squat, ungainly
man, "deformed with fat," shaggy of brow, bald of head, gray-eyed, with
a nose like the beak of an eagle, and a voice clear and
emotionless.[1165] George Nicholas had been a brave, brilliant soldier
and was one of the ablest and best-equipped lawyers in the State. He was
utterly fearless, whether in battle on the field or in debate on the
floor. His family and connections were powerful. In argument and
reasoning he was the equal if not the superior of Madison himself; and
his grim personality made the meek one of Madison seem tender in
comparison. Nothing could disconcert him, nothing daunt his cold
courage. He probably was the only man in the Convention whom Henry
feared.[1166]
Nicholas was glad, he said, that the Convention was to act with the
"fullest deliberation." First he thrust at the method of the opposition
to influence members by efforts outside the Convention itself; and went
on with a clear, logical, and informed exposition of the sections then
under consideration. He ended by saying "that he was willing to trust
his own happiness, and that of his posterity, to the operation of that
system."[1167]
The Constitution's enemies, thus far out-pointed by its perfectly
trained and harmonious supporters, could delay no longer. Up rose the
idol and champion of the people. Although only fifty-two years old, he
had changed greatly in appearance since the days of his earlier
triumphs. The erect form was now stooped; spectacles now covered the
flashing eyes and the reddish-brown hair was replaced by a wig, which,
in the excitement of speech, he frequently pushed this way and that. But
the wizard brain still held its cunning, the magic tongue which,
twenty-three years ago had trumpeted Independence, still wrought its
spell.[1168] Patrick Henry began his last great fight.
What, asked Henry, were the reasons for this change of government? A
year ago the public mind was "at perfect repose"; now it was "uneasy and
disquieted." "A wrong step now ... and our republic may be lost." It was
a great consolidated Government that the Constitutionalists proposed,
solemnly asserted Henry. What right, he asked, had the framers of the
Constitution to say, "_We, the people_, instead of _We, the states_"? He
demanded the cause of that fundamental change. "Even from that
illustrious man [Washington] who saved us by his valor, I would have a
reason for his conduct." The Constitution-makers had no authority except
to amend the old system under which the people were getting along very
well. Why had they done what they had no power to do?[1169]
Thus Henry put the Constitutionalists on the defensive. But they were
ready. Instantly, Randolph was on his feet. He was thirty-seven years of
age, fashioned on noble physical lines, with handsome face and flowing
hair. His was one of Virginia's most distinguished families, his
connections were influential, and he himself was the petted darling of
the people. His luxuriant mind had been highly trained, his rich and
sonorous voice gave an added charm to his words.[1170] He was the
ostensible author[1171] of the plan on the broad lines of which the
Constitution finally had been built. His refusal to sign it because of
changes which he thought necessary, and his conversion to the extreme
Constitutionalist position, which he now, for the first time, was fully
to disclose, made him the strongest single asset the Constitutionalists
had acquired. Randolph's open, bold, and, to the public, sudden
championship of the Constitution was the explosion in the opposition's
camp of a bomb which they had hoped and believed their own ammunition.
Never before, said Randolph, had such a vast event come to a head
without war or force. It might well be feared that the best wisdom would
be unequal to the emergency and that passion might prevail over reason.
He warned the opposition that the chair "well knows what is order, how
to command obedience, and that political opinions may be as honest on
one side as on the other." Randolph then tried to explain his change. "I
had not even the glimpse of the genius of America," said he of his
refusal to sign the report of the Federal Convention. But it was now so
late that to insist on amendments before ratification would mean
"inevitable ruin to the Union";[1172] and he would strike off his arm
rather than permit that.
Randolph then reviewed the state of the country under the Confederation:
Congress powerless, public credit ruined, treaties violated, prices
falling, trade paralyzed, "and justice trampled under foot." The world
looks upon Americans "as little wanton bees, who had played for liberty,
but had no sufficient solidity or wisdom" to keep it. True, the Federal
Convention had exceeded its authority, but there was nothing else to be
done. And why not use the expression "We, the people"? Was the new
Government not for them? The Union is now at stake, and, exclaimed he,
"I am a friend to the Union."[1173]
The secret was out, at last; the Constitutionalists' _coup_ was
revealed. His speech placed Randolph openly and unreservedly on their
side. "The Governor has ... thrown himself fully into the federal
scale," gleefully reported the anxious Madison to the supreme
Nationalist chieftain at Mount Vernon.[1174] "The G[overno]r exhibited
a curious spectacle to view. Having refused to sign the paper [the
Constitution] everybody supposed him against it," was Jefferson's
comment on Randolph's change of front.[1175] Washington, perfectly
informed, wrote Jay in New York that "Mr. Randolph's declaration
will have considerable effect with those who had hitherto been
wavering."[1176] Theodoric Bland wrote bitterly to Arthur Lee
that, "Our chief magistrate has at length taken his party and appears
to be reprobated by the honest of both sides.... He has openly
declared for posterior amendments, or in other words, unconditional
submission."[1177]
All of Randolph's influence, popularity, and prestige of family were to
be counted for the Constitution without previous amendment; and this was
a far weightier force, in the practical business of getting votes for
ratification, than oratory or argument.[1178] So "the sanguine friends
of the Constitution counted upon a majority of twenty ... which number
they imagine will be greatly increased."[1179]
Randolph's sensational about-face saved the Constitution. Nothing that
its advocates did during these seething three weeks of able discussion
and skillful planning accomplished half so much to secure ratification.
Washington's tremendous influence, aggressive as it was tactful, which,
as Monroe truly said, "carried" the new National plan, was not so
practically effective as his work in winning Randolph. For, aside from
his uncloaked support, the Virginia Governor at that moment had a
document under lock and key which, had even rumor of it got abroad,
surely would have doomed the Constitution, ended the debate abruptly,
and resulted in another Federal Convention to deal anew with the
Articles of Confederation.
By now the Anti-Constitutionalists, or Republicans as they had already
begun to call themselves, also were acting in concert throughout the
country. Their tactics were cumbersome and tardy compared with the
prompt celerity of the well-managed Constitutionalists; but they were
just as earnest and determined. The Society of the Federal Republicans
had been formed in New York to defeat the proposed National Government
and to call a second Federal Convention. It opened correspondence in
most of the States and had agents and officers in many of them.
New York was overwhelmingly against the Constitution, and her Governor,
George Clinton, was the most stubborn and resourceful of its foes. On
December 27, 1787, Governor Randolph, under the formal direction of
Virginia's Legislature, had sent the Governors of the other States a
copy of the act providing for Virginia's Convention, which included the
clause for conferring with her sister Commonwealths upon the calling of
a new Federal Convention. The one to Clinton of New York was delayed in
the mails for exactly two months and eleven days, just long enough to
prevent New York's Legislature from acting on it.[1180]
After pondering over it for a month, the New York leader of the
Anti-Constitutionalist forces wrote Governor Randolph, more than three
weeks before the Virginia Convention assembled, the now famous letter
stating that Clinton was sure that the New York Convention, to be held
June 17, "will, with great cordiality, hold a communication with any
sister State on the important subject [a new Federal Convention] and
especially with one so respectable in point of importance, ability, and
patriotism as Virginia"; and Clinton assumed that the Virginia
Convention would "commence the measures for holding such
communications."[1181]
When Clinton thus wrote to Randolph, he supposed, of course, that the
Virginia Governor was against the Constitution. Had the New York
Executive known that Randolph had been proselyted by the
Constitutionalists, Clinton would have written to Henry, or Mason, or
taken some other means of getting his letter before the Virginia
Convention. Randolph kept all knowledge of Clinton's fatal communication
from everybody excepting his Executive Council. He did not make it
public until after the long, hard struggle was ended; when, for the
first time, too late to be of any effect, he laid the New York
communication before the Virginia Legislature which assembled just as
the Convention was adjourning.[1182]
Weighty as were the arguments and brilliant the oratory that made the
Virginia debate one of the noblest displays of intellect and emotion
which the world ever has seen, yet nothing can be plainer than that
other practices on both sides of that immortal struggle were more
decisive of the result than the amazing forensic duel that took place on
the floor of the Convention hall.
When one reflects that although the weight of fact and reason was
decisively in favor of the Constitutionalists; that their forces were
better organized and more ably led; that they had on the ground to help
them the most astute politicians from other States as well as from
Virginia; that Washington aggressively supported them with all his
incalculable moral influence; that, if the new National Government were
established, this herculean man surely would be President with all the
practical power of that office, of which patronage was not the
least--when one considers that, notwithstanding all of these and many
other crushing advantages possessed by the Constitutionalists, their
majority, when the test vote finally came, was only eight out of a total
vote of one hundred and sixty-eight; when one takes into account the
fact that, to make up even this slender majority, one or two members
violated their instructions and several others voted against the known
will of their constituents, it becomes plain how vitally necessary to
their cause was the Constitutionalists' capture of the Virginia
Governor.[1183]
The opponents of the proposed National Government never forgave him nor
was his reputation ever entirely reëstablished. Mason thereafter
scathingly referred to Randolph as "young A[rno]ld."[1184]
Answering Randolph, Mason went to the heart of the subject. "Whether the
Constitution be good or bad," said he, "it is a national government and
no longer a Confederation ... that the new plan provides for." The power
of direct taxation alone "is calculated to annihilate totally the state
governments." It means, said Mason, individual taxation "by two
different and distinct powers" which "cannot exist long together; the
one will destroy the other." One National Government is not fitted for
an extensive country. "Popular governments can only exist in small
territories." A consolidated government "is one of the worst curses that
can possibly befall a nation." Clear as this now was, when the
Convention came to consider the Judiciary clause, everybody would, Mason
thought, "be more convinced that this government will terminate in the
annihilation of the state governments."
But here again the author of Virginia's Bill of Rights made a tactical
mistake from the standpoint of the management of the fight, although it
was big-hearted and statesmanlike in itself. "If," said he, "such
amendments be introduced as shall exclude danger ... I shall most
heartily make the greatest concessions ... to obtain ... conciliation
and unanimity."[1185] No grindstone, this, to sharpen activity--no
hammer and anvil, this, to shape and harden an unorganized opposition
into a single fighting blade, wielded to bring victory or even to force
honorable compromise. The suggestion of conciliation before the first
skirmish was over was not the way to arouse the blood of combat in the
loose, undisciplined ranks of the opposition.
Swift as any hawk, the Constitutionalists pounced upon Mason's error,
but they seized it gently as a dove. "It would give me great pleasure,"
cooed Madison, "to concur with my honorable colleague in any
conciliatory plan." But the hour was now late, and he would postpone
further remarks for the time being.[1186]
So the Convention adjourned and the day ended with the
Constitutionalists in high spirits.[1187] Madison wrote to Washington
that "Henry & Mason made a lame figure & appeared to take different and
awkward ground. The Federalists [Constitutionalists][1188] are a good
deal elated by the existing prospect." Nevertheless, the timid Madison
fluttered with fear. "I dare not," wrote he, "speak with certainty as to
the decision. Kentucky has been extremely tainted and is supposed to be
generally adverse, and every possible piece of address is going on
privately to work on the local interests & prejudices of that & other
quarters."[1189]
The next day the building of the New Academy, where the Convention met,
was packed with an eager throng. Everybody expected Madison to engage
both Henry and Mason as he had intimated that he would do. But once more
the excellent management of the Constitutionalists was displayed.
Madison, personally, was not popular,[1190] he was physically
unimpressive, and strong only in his superb intellect. The time to
discharge the artillery of that powerful mind had not yet come. Madison
was not the man for this particular moment. But Pendleton was, and so
was "Light-Horse Harry" Lee. The Constitutionalists combined the ermine
and the sword. Virginia's most venerated jurist and her most dashing
soldier were ordered to the front. In them there was an appeal to much
that the Old Dominion still reverenced and loved, in spite of the
"levelling spirit" manifest there as well as in Massachusetts and other
States. So when all eyes were turned on Madison's seat, they beheld it
vacant. Madison had stayed away. Had he been present, he could not have
avoided speaking.
Dramatic, indeed, appeared the white-haired, crippled jurist, as,
struggling to his feet, he finally stood upon his crutches and faced the
Convention. He had been unused to public debate for many years, and was
thought to be so infirm that no one expected him to do more than make or
decide points of order and give his vote. Yet there the feeble old man
stood to answer the resistless Henry and the learned Mason. His ancient
friend and brother justice, Wythe, leaned forward from his chair to
catch the tones of the beloved voice. Tears rolled down the cheeks of
some of the oldest members who for decades had been Pendleton's
friends.[1191] The Constitutionalists had set the stage to catch the
emotions which they affected to despise, with the very character whose
strength was in that pure reasoning on which they pretended solely to
rely.
Without wasting a word, Pendleton came to the point. Henry, he said, had
declared that all was well before "this Federal system was thought of."
Was that accurate? In a few short sentences he showed that it was not.
There was, said Pendleton, "no quarrel between government and liberty;
the former is shield and protector of the latter. The war is between
government and licentiousness, faction, turbulence, and other violations
of the rules of society to preserve liberty." Why are the words "We, the
people," improper? "Who but the people have a right to form
government?... What have the state governments to do with it?" Had the
Federal Convention exceeded its powers? No. Because those powers were
"to propose, not to determine."
"Suppose," asked the venerable Pendleton, "the paper on your table [the
Constitution] dropped from one of the planets; the people found it, and
sent us here to consider whether it was proper for their adoption; must
we not obey them?" Of course. "Then the question must be between this
government and the Confederation," which "is no government at all." The
Confederation did not carry us through the war; "common danger and the
spirit of America" did that. The cry "United we stand--divided we fall,"
which "echoed and reëchoed through America--from Congress to the drunken
carpenter"--saved us in that dark hour. And Pendleton clearly, briefly,
solidly, answered every objection which Mason and Henry had made.
Nothing could have been more practically effective than his close. He
was of no party, Pendleton avowed; and his "age and situation" proved
that nothing but the general good influenced him.[1192]
The smouldering fires in Henry's blood now burned fiercely. This was the
same Pendleton who had fought Henry in his immortal resolution on the
Stamp Act in 1765 and in every other of those epochal battles for
liberty and human rights which Henry had led and won.[1193] But the
Constitutionalists gave the old war horse no chance to charge upon his
lifelong opponent. A young man, thirty-two years of age, rose, and,
standing within a few feet of the chair, was recognized. Six feet tall,
beautiful of face, with the resounding and fearless voice of a warrior,
Henry Lee looked the part which reputation assigned him. Descended from
one of the oldest and most honorable families in the colony, a graduate
of Princeton College, one of the most daring, picturesque, and
attractive officers of the Revolution, in which by sheer gallantry and
military genius he had become commander of a famous cavalry command, the
gallant Lee was a perfect contrast to the venerable Pendleton.[1194]
Lee paid tribute to Henry's shining talents; but, said he, "I trust that
he [Henry] is come to judge, and not to alarm." Henry had praised
Washington; yet Washington was for the Constitution. What was there
wrong with the expression "We, the people," since upon the people "it
is to operate, if adopted"? Like every Constitutionalist speaker, Lee
painted in somber and forbidding colors the condition of the country,
"all owing to the imbecility of the Confederation."[1195]
At last Henry secured the floor. At once he struck the major note of the
opposition. "The question turns," said he, "on that poor little
thing--the expression, 'We, the _people_; instead of the _states_.'" It
was an "alarming transition ... a revolution[1196] as radical as that
which separated us from Great Britain.... Sovereignty of the states ...
rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, ... all
pretensions of human rights and privileges" were imperiled if not lost
by the change.
It _was_ the "despised" Confederation that had carried us through the
war. Think well, he urged, before you part with it. "Revolutions like
this have happened in almost every country in Europe." The new
Government may prevent "licentiousness," but also "it will oppress
and ruin the people," thundered their champion. The Constitution
was clear when it spoke of "sedition," but fatally vague when it
spoke of "privileges." Where, asked Henry, were the dangers the
Constitutionalists conjured up? Purely imaginary! If any arose, he
depended on "the American spirit" to defend us.
The method of amendment provided in the Constitution, exclaimed Henry,
was a mockery--it shut the door on amendment. "A contemptible minority
can prevent the good of the majority." "A standing army" will "execute
the execrable commands of tyranny," shouted Henry. And who, he asked,
will punish them? "Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined
regiment?" If the Constitution is adopted, "it will be because we like a
great splendid" government. "The ropes and chains of consolidation" were
"about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire." The
Constitution's so-called checks and balances, sneered Henry, were
"rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ... contrivances."
The Constitutionalists talked of danger if the Confederation was
continued; yet, under it, declared Henry, "peace and security, ease and
content" were now the real lot of all. Why, then, attempt "to terrify us
into an adoption of this new form of government?... Who knows the
dangers this new system may produce? They are out of sight of the common
people; they cannot foresee latent consequences." It was the operation
of the proposed National Government "on the middling and lower classes
of people" that Henry feared. "This government" [the Constitution],
cried he, "is not a Virginian but an American government."
Throughout Henry's speech, in which he voiced, as he never failed to do,
the thought of the masses, a National Government is held up as a foreign
power--even one so restricted as the literal words of the Constitution
outlined. Had the Constitutionalists acknowledged those Nationalist
opinions which, in later years, were to fall from the lips of a young
member of the Convention and become the law of the land, the defeat of
the Constitution would have been certain, prompt, and overwhelming.
In the Constitution's chief executive, Henry saw "a great and mighty
President" with "the powers of a King ... to be supported in extravagant
magnificence." The National Government's tax-gatherers would "ruin you
with impunity," he warned his fellow members and the people they
represented. Did not Virginia's own "state sheriffs, those unfeeling
blood-suckers," even "under the watchful eye of our legislature commit
the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people? ... Lands have been
sold," asserted he, "for 5 shillings which were worth one hundred
pounds." What, then, would happen to the people "if their master had
been at Philadelphia or New York?" asked Henry. "These harpies may
search at any time your houses and most secret recesses." Its friends
talked about the beauty of the Constitution, but to Henry its features
were "horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful
squinting; it squints toward monarchy."
The President, "your American chief," can make himself absolute,
dramatically exclaimed the great orator. "If ever he violates the
laws ... he will come at the head of his army to carry everything before
him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him."
But will he submit to punishment? Rather, he will "make one bold push
for the American throne," prophesied Henry. "We shall have a king; the
army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in
making him king and fight against you."[1197] It would be infinitely
better, he avowed, to have a government like Great Britain with "King,
Lords, and Commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable
evils" as the Constitution contained.
Henry spoke of the danger of the power of Congress over elections, and
the treaty-making power. A majority of the people were against the
Constitution, he said, and even "the adopting states have already
heart-burnings and animosity and repent their precipitate hurry....
Pennsylvania has been tricked into" ratification. "If other states who
have adopted it have not been tricked, still they were too much
hurried.[1198] ... I have not said the one hundred thousandth part of
what I have on my mind and wish to impart"--with these words of warning
to the Constitutionalists, Henry closed by apologizing for the time he
had taken. He admitted that he had spoken out of order, but trusted that
the Convention would hear him again.[1199]
Studying this attack and defense of master swordsmen, following the
tactical maneuvers of America's ablest politicians, a partisan on one
side, yet personally friendly with members of the other, John Marshall
was waiting for the call that should bring him into the battle and, by
the method which he employed throughout his life, preparing to respond
when the Constitutionalist managers should give the word. He was
listening to the arguments on both sides, analyzing them, and, by that
process of absorption with which he was so peculiarly and curiously
gifted, mastering the subjects under discussion. Also, although casual,
humorous, and apparently indifferent, he nevertheless was busy, we may
be sure, with his winning ways among his fellow members.
Patrick Henry's effort was one of the two or three speeches made during
the three weeks of debate which actually may have had an effect upon
votes.[1200] The Constitutionalists feared that Henry would take the
floor next morning to follow up his success and deepen the profound
impression he had made. To prevent this and to break the force of
Henry's onslaught, they put forward Governor Randolph, who was quickly
recognized by the chair. Madison and Nicholas were held in
reserve.[1201]
But in vain did Randolph employ his powers of oratory, argument, and
persuasion in the great speech beginning "I am a child of the
Revolution," with which he attempted to answer Henry. There is no peace;
"the tempest growls over you.... Justice is suffocated," he said; legal
proceedings to collect debts are "obscured by legislative mists." As an
illustration of justice, consider the case of Josiah Philips, executed
without trial or witness, on a bill of attainder passed without debate
on the mere report of a member of the Legislature: "_This made the
deepest impression on my heart and I cannot contemplate it without
horror_."[1202] As to "the American spirit" expressed through the
militia being competent to the defense of the State, Randolph asked:
"Did ever militia defend a country?"
Randolph's speech was exhaustive and reached the heights of real
eloquence. It all came to this, he said, Union or Dissolution, thus
again repeating the argument Washington had urged in his letter to
Randolph. "Let that glorious pride which once defied the British
thunder, reanimate you again," he cried dramatically.[1203] But his
fervor, popularity, and influence were not enough.
Marshall, when he came to speak later in the debate, made the same
mistake. No more striking illustration exists of how public men, in the
hurry and pressure of large affairs, forget the most important events,
even when they themselves were principal actors in them.
Although the time had not properly come for the great logician of the
Constitution to expound it, the situation now precipitated the
psychological hour for him to strike. The chair recognized a slender,
short-statured man of thirty-seven, wearing a handsome costume of blue
and buff with doubled straight collar and white ruffles on breast and at
wrists. His hair, combed forward to conceal baldness, was powdered and
fell behind in the long beribboned queue of fashion. He was so small
that he could not be seen by all the members; and his voice was so weak
that only rarely could he be heard throughout the hall.[1204] Such was
James Madison as he stood, hat in hand and his notes in his hat, and
began the first of those powerful speeches, the strength of which, in
spite of poor reporting, has projected itself through more than a
hundred years.
At first he spoke so low that even the reporter could not catch what he
said.[1205] He would not, remarked Madison, attempt to impress anybody
by "ardent professions of zeal for the public welfare." Men should be
judged by deeds and not by words. The real point was whether the
Constitution would be a good thing or a bad thing for the country. Henry
had mentioned the dangers concealed in the Constitution; let him specify
and prove them. One by one he caught and crushed Henry's points in the
jaws of merciless logic.
What, for the gentle Madison, was a bold blow at the opposition shows
how even he was angered. "The inflammatory violence wherewith it [the
Constitution] was opposed by designing, illiberal, and unthinking minds,
begins to subside. I will not enumerate the causes from which, in my
conception, the heart-burnings of a majority of its opposers have
originated." His argument was unanswerable as a matter of pure reason
and large statesmanship, but it made little headway and had only slight
if any influence. "I am not so sanguine," reported Washington's nephew
to the General at Mount Vernon, "as to ... flatter myself that he made
many converts."[1206]
The third gun of the powerful battery which the Constitutionalists had
arranged to batter down the results of Henry's speech was now brought
into action. George Nicholas again took the floor. He was surprised that
Mason's resolution to debate the Constitution clause by clause had not
been followed. But it had not been, and therefore he must speak at
large. While Nicholas advanced nothing new, his address was a
masterpiece of compact reasoning.[1207]
Age and middle age had spoken for the Constitution; voices from the
bench and the camp, from the bar and the seats of the mighty, had
pleaded for it; and now the Constitutionalists appealed to the very
young men of the Convention through one of the most attractive of their
number. The week must not close with Henry's visions of desolation
uppermost in the minds of the members. On Saturday morning the chair
recognized Francis Corbin of Middlesex. He was twenty-eight years old
and of a family which had lived in Virginia from the early part of the
seventeenth century. He had been educated in England at the University
of Cambridge, studied law at the Inner Temple, was a trained lawyer, and
a polished man of the world.
Corbin made one of the best speeches of the whole debate. On the
nonpayment of our debts to foreign nations he was particularly strong.
"What!" said he, "borrow money to discharge interest on what was
borrowed?... Such a plan would destroy the richest country on earth." As
to a Republican Government not being fitted for an extensive country, he
asked, "How small must a country be to suit the genius of
Republicanism?" The power of taxation was the "lungs of the
Constitution." His defense of a standing army was novel and ingenious.
The speech was tactful in the deference paid to older men, and so
captivating in the pride it must have aroused in the younger members
that it justified the shrewdness of the Constitutionalist generals in
putting forward this youthful and charming figure.[1208]
Of course Henry could not follow a mere boy. He cleverly asked that
Governor Randolph should finish, as the latter had promised to
do.[1209] Randolph could not avoid responding; and his speech, while
very able, was nevertheless an attempt to explode powder already
burned.[1210] Madison saw this, and getting the eye of the chair
delivered the second of those intellectual broadsides, which, together
with his other mental efforts during the Constitutional period, mark him
as almost the first, if not indeed the very first, mind of his
time.[1211] The philosophy and method of taxation, the history and
reason of government, the whole range of the vast subject were
discussed,[1212] or rather begun; for Madison did not finish, and took
up the subject four days later. His effort so exhausted him physically
that he was ill for three days.[1213]
Thus fortune favored Henry. The day, Saturday, was not yet spent. After
all, he could leave the last impression on the members and spectators,
could apply fresh color to the picture he wished his hearers to have
before their eyes until the next week renewed the conflict. And he could
retain the floor so as to open again when Monday came. The art of Henry
in this speech was supreme. He began by stating the substance of Thomas
Paine's terrific sentence about government being, at best, "a necessary
evil"; and aroused anew that repugnance to any sturdy rule which was a
general feeling in the breasts of the masses.
Both the Confederation and the proposed Constitution were "evils,"
asserted Henry, and the only question was which was the less. Randolph
and Madison incautiously had referred to maxims. Henry seized the word
with infinite skill. "It is impiously irritating the avenging hand of
Heaven ... to desert those maxims which alone can preserve liberty," he
thundered. They were lowly maxims, to be sure, "poor little, humble
republican maxims"; but "humble as they are" they alone could make a
nation safe or formidable. He rang the changes on the catchwords of
liberty.
Then Henry spoke of Randolph's change of front. The Constitution "was
once execrated" by Randolph. "It seems to me very strange and
unaccountable that that which was the object of his execration should
now receive his encomiums. Something extraordinary must have operated so
great a change in his opinion." Randolph had said that it was too late
to oppose the "New Plan"; but, answered Henry, "I can never believe that
it is too late to save all that is precious." Henry denied the woeful
state of the country which the Constitutionalist speakers had pictured.
The "imaginary dangers" conjured by them were to intimidate the people;
but, cried Henry, "fear is the passion of slaves." The execution of
Josiah Philips under the bill of attainder was justifiable. Philips had
been a "fugitive murderer and an outlaw" leader of "an infamous
banditti," perpetrator of "the most cruel and shocking barbarities ...
an enemy to human nature."[1214]
It was not true, declared Henry, that the people were discontented under
the Confederation--at least the common people were not; and it was the
common people for whom he spoke. But, of course, sneered that consummate
actor, "the middling and lower ranks of people have not those
illuminated ideas" which the "well-born" are so happily possessed of;
"they [the common people] cannot so readily perceive latent objects." It
was only the "illuminated imaginations" and the "microscopic eyes of
modern statesmen" that could see defects where there were none.
Henry hinted with great adroitness at the probable loss of the
Mississippi, which was the sorest point with the members from Kentucky;
and, having injected the poison, passed on to let it do its work against
the time when he would strike with all his force. Then he appealed to
state pride. "When I call this the most mighty state in the Union, do I
not speak the truth? Does not Virginia surpass every state?" Of course!
There was no danger, then, that Virginia would be left out of the Union,
as the Constitutionalists had hinted might happen if Virginia rejected
the Constitution; the other States would be glad to have her on her own
terms.
Henry went over a variety of subjects and then returned to his favorite
idea of the National Government as something foreign. Picking up a
careless word of Randolph, who had spoken of the people as a "herd,"
Henry said that perhaps the words "We, the people," were used to
recommend it to the masses, "to those who are likened to a _herd_; and
by the operation of this blessed system are to be transformed from
respectable, independent citizens, to abject, dependent subjects or
slaves."[1215] Finally, when he felt that he had his hearers once more
under his spell, Henry, exclaiming that a Bill of Rights was vital,
asked for adjournment, which was taken, the great orator still holding
the floor.
FOOTNOTES:
[1111] Though "practical," these methods were honorable, as far as the
improper use of money was concerned.
[1112] King to Langdon, June 10, 1788; King, i, 331.
[1113] Hamilton to Madison, May 19, 1788; _Works_: Lodge, ix, 430. See
also _ib._, 432.
[1114] Knox to King, June 19, 1788; King, i, 335.
[1115] Hill to Thatcher, Jan. 1, 1788; _Hist. Mag._ (2d Series), vi,
261.
[1116] King to Madison, May 25, 1788; King, i, 329.
[1117] Hamilton to Madison, June 27, 1788; _Works_: Lodge, ix, 436.
Virginia had ratified the Constitution two days before Hamilton wrote
this letter, but the news did not reach New York until long afterward.
[1118] Hamilton to Madison, June 8, 1788; _Works_: Lodge, ix, 432-34.
[1119] Grigsby, i, 8. About three eighths of Virginia's population were
slaves valued at many millions of dollars.
[1120] Grigsby, i, footnote to 50; also 32; and see examples given by
Judge Scott, in Scott, 235-38.
[1121] Grigsby, i, footnote to 36; and see 29, 62, 339.
[1122] Henry, ii, 339; and Rowland, ii, 223 _et seq._
[1123] Rives, ii, 549.
[1124] Randolph to the Speaker of the House of Delegates, Oct. 10, 1787;
Elliott, i, 482-91; also Ford: _P. on C._, 261-76.
[1125] Randolph to Page and others, Dec. 2, 1787; _American Museum_,
iii, 61 _et seq._
[1126] _Ib._
[1127] Lee to Randolph, Oct. 16, 1787; Elliott, i, 503. Upon the
publication of this correspondence a young Richmond attorney, Spencer
Roane, the son-in-law of Patrick Henry, in an article signed "Plain
Dealer," published in the _Virginia Gazette_, attacked Randolph for
inconsistency. "Good God! How can the first magistrate and father of a
pure republican government ... before his proposed plan of amendment has
been determined upon, declare that he will accept a Constitution which
is to beget a monarchy or an aristocracy?... Can he foretell future
events? How else can he at this time discover what the 'spirit of
America' is?... How far will this principle carry him? Why, ... if the
dominion of Shays, instead of that of the new Constitution, should be
generally accepted, and become 'the spirit of America,' his Excellency
would turn Shayite." (Plain Dealer to Randolph, Feb. 13, 1788; Ford:
_Essays on the Constitution_, 385; also _Branch Hist. Papers_, 47.)
Roane's letter is important as the first expression of his hostility to
the Constitution. He was to become the determined enemy of Marshall;
and, as the ablest judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals, the chief
judicial foe of Marshall's Nationalism. (See vol. III of this work.)
[1128] "The importunities of some to me in public and private are
designed to throw me unequivocally and without condition, into the
opposition." (Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; Conway, 101.)
[1129] Washington to Randolph, Jan. 8, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi,
204-06.
[1130] Madison to Randolph, Jan. 10, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 79-84;
and see same to same, Jan. 20, 1788 (_ib._, 86-88); and March 3, 1788
(_ib._, 113-14).
[1131] "If he [Randolph] approves it at all, he will do it feebly."
(Washington to Lafayette, April 28, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 255; and
see Madison to Jefferson, April 22, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 121.)
[1132] Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; quoted in Conway, 101.
[1133] "Randolph was still looked upon as an Anti-Federalist by the
uninitiated." But his "position ... was evidently no secret to
Washington." (Rowland, ii, 210. See also _ib._, 225, 227, 231.)
[1134] _Ib._
[1135] Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; Conway, 101.
[1136] Scott, 160.
[1137] Washington to Carter, Dec. 14, 1787; _Writings_: Ford, xi,
footnote to 210.
[1138] Smith to Madison, June 12, 1788; Rives, ii, footnote to p. 544.
[1139] _Ib._ "The Baptist interest ... are highly incensed by Henry's
opinions and public speeches." (Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788;
Conway, 101.)
[1140] Smith to Madison, June 12, 1788; Rives, ii, 544.
[1141] Washington to Hamilton, Nov. 10, 1787; _Writings_: Ford, xi,
footnote to p. 181.
[1142] Washington to Trumbull, Feb. 5, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, 212. From
the first Washington attributed much of the opposition throughout the
country to the fact that popular leaders believed that the new National
Government would lessen their importance in their respective States.
"The governors elect or to be elected, the legislators, with a long
tribe of others whose political importance will be lessened if not
annihilated" were, said Washington, against a strong central Government.
(Washington to Knox, Feb. 3, 1787; Sparks, ix, 230; and see Graydon,
340.)
[1143] Washington to Lincoln, April 2, 1788; _ib._, xi, footnote to
239-40.
[1144] "Letters of a Federal Farmer," no. 3; Ford: _P. on C._, 301.
[1145] _Ib._, no. 5, 319.
[1146] Washington to Armstrong, April 25, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi,
252; and to Petit, Aug. 16, 1788; _ib._, 300.
[1147] Madison to Jefferson, April 22, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v,
120-22.
[1148] Grigsby, i, 34-35; and footnote to 49.
[1149] Grigsby, i, 64-66; and Elliott, iii, 1.
[1150] Rowland, ii, 222.
[1151] Henry, ii, 345. So angered were the Anti-Constitutionalists that
they would not correct or revise Robertson's reports of their speeches.
(_Ib._)
[1152] Elliott, iii, 1.
[1153] _Ib._, 5-6; also, Journal of the Convention, 7-11.
[1154] Grigsby, i, 69-70. In the descriptions of the dress, manners, and
appearance of those who took part in the debate, Grigsby's account has
been followed. Grigsby took infinite pains and gave many years to the
gathering and verifying of data on these picturesque subjects; he was
personally intimate with a large number of the immediate descendants of
the members of the Convention and with a few who were eye-witnesses; and
his reconstruction of the scenes in the Convention is believed to be
entirely accurate.
[1155] Elliott, iii, 3.
[1156] Mason's clause-to-clause resolve was, "contrary to his
expectations, concurred in by the other side." (Madison to Washington,
June 4, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, footnote to 124.) And see
Washington's gleeful report to the New York Constitutionalists of
Mason's error: "This [Mason's resolve] was as unexpected as acceptable
to the federalists, and their ready acquiescence seems to have somewhat
startled the opposite side for fear they had committed themselves."
(Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 271.)
[1157] Elliott, iii, 4.
[1158] Grigsby, i, 77.
[1159] For a discussion of this tactical blunder of the opponents of the
Constitution, see Grigsby, i, 72.
[1160] Elliott, iii, 4.
[1161] Grigsby, i, 75.
[1162] Elliott, iii, 6.
[1163] _Ib._
[1164] Grigsby, i, 77.
[1165] _Ib._, 79.
[1166] _Ib._, 78, 79, 140, 141, 246, 247.
[1167] Elliott, iii, 7-21.
[1168] Grigsby, i, 76.
[1169] Elliott, iii, 21-23.
[1170] Grigsby, i, 83-84.
[1171] Madison was the real designer of the Virginia plan. (Rives, ii,
chap. xxvii.)
[1172] This was the point Washington had made to Randolph. It is
interesting that, throughout the debate, Randolph, over and over again,
used almost the exact language of Washington's letter.
[1173] Elliott, iii, 23-29. Randolph's speech was apologetic for his
change of heart. He was not "a candidate for popularity": he had
"satisfied his conscience," etc.
[1174] Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 124.
[1175] Jefferson to Short, Sept. 20, 1788; quoting a private letter from
Virginia of July 12; _Works_: Ford, v, 431.
[1176] Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 271.
[1177] Bland to Lee, June 13, 1788; Rowland, ii, 243-44. Evidently the
opposition was slow to believe that Randolph had irrevocably deserted
them; for Bland's letter was not written until Randolph had made his
fourth extended speech ten days later.
[1178] Scott, 160.
[1179] Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 271.
[1180] From this delay Randolph's enemies have charged that his letter
to Clinton was not posted in time. Much as Randolph had to answer for,
this charge is unjust. Letters between Richmond and New York sometimes
were two or three months on the way. (See _supra_, chap. VII.)
[1181] Clinton to Randolph, May 8, 1788; Conway, 110-12.
[1182] Clinton to Randolph, May 8, 1788; Conway, 110-12; Henry, ii, 363;
Rowland, ii, 276-79; and see _infra_, chap. XII.
[1183] Randolph's change was ascribed to improper motives. Mason was
almost offensive in his insinuations during the debate and Henry openly
so, as will appear. Randolph's last words to the Convention were
explanatory and defensive.
Washington made Randolph his first Attorney-General and he exercised
great power for a time. "The Government is now solely directed by
Randolph," complained Jefferson. (Conway, 140.) While Washington
certainly did not appoint Randolph as a reward for his conduct in the
struggle over the Constitution, it is a reasonable inference that he
would not have been made a member of the Cabinet if he had not abandoned
his opposition, supported the Constitution, and suppressed Clinton's
letter.
Virginia had the head of the Cabinet in Jefferson as Secretary of State;
Washington himself was from Virginia; and since there were numerous men
from other States as well as or better equipped than Randolph for the
Attorney-Generalship, his selection for that place is, at least,
noteworthy. It gave Virginia the Presidency and two members of a Cabinet
which numbered only four in all.
When the Attorney-Generalship was tendered to Randolph, he wrote to
Madison bitterly resenting "the load of calumny which would be poured
upon" him if he should accept. "For," writes Randolph, "it has been
insinuated ... that my espousal of the Constitution had alienated even
its friends from me, who would not elect me to the house of
representatives. The insinuation has been carried so far as to apply it
to the disposal of offices under the government." (Randolph to Madison,
July 19, 1789; Conway, 127-28.)
[1184] Rowland, ii, 308.
[1185] Elliott, iii, 29-34.
[1186] Elliott, iii, 34-35.
[1187] Grigsby, i, 99.
[1188] Those who supported the Constitution were called "Federalists"
and its opponents "Anti-Federalists"; but, for sake of clearness, the
terms "Constitutionalists" and "Anti-Constitutionalists" are employed in
these chapters.
[1189] Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v,
footnote to 123-24.
[1190] Grigsby, i, footnote to 46.
[1191] Grigsby, i, 101-02. Scenes of a similar character occurred
several times in both Senate and House between 1900 and 1911, when one
of our elder statesmen, who plainly was nearing the end of life, rose to
speak. More than one notable contest, during that decade, was decided by
the sympathetic votes of aged friends who answered the call of long
years of affection.
[1192] Elliott, iii, 35-41.
[1193] See _infra_, chap, III; also Grigsby, i, 105-06.
[1194] _Ib._, 106-09.
[1195] Elliott, iii, 41-43.
[1196] Elliott, iii, 44. The word "revolution" is printed "resolution"
in Elliott's _Debates_. This is a good example of the inaccuracy of
Elliott's reprint of Robertson's stenographic report. In Robertson's
_Debates_, published in 1805, the word is correctly printed
"revolution." I have cited Elliott only because it is accessible. Even
Robertson's report is admittedly meager and unsatisfactory; all the
more, therefore, is it to be regretted that Elliott's reprint should be
so inaccurate.
[1197] At this point the reporter, unable to follow Henry's speech,
notes that he "strongly and pathetically expatiated on the probability
of the President's enslaving America and the horrid consequences that
must result." (Elliott, iii, 60.)
[1198] Henry had not heard of the Constitutionalists' bargain with
Hancock in Massachusetts.
[1199] Elliott, iii, 43-64.
[1200] General Posey, a Revolutionary officer, who was for the
Constitution, afterwards said that Henry's speech made him believe that
the Constitution would destroy liberty. Another intelligent man who
heard Henry's speech said that when the great orator pictured the
President at the head of the army, he felt his own wrists for the
shackles, and that his place in the gallery suddenly seemed like a
dungeon. (Grigsby, i, 118-19.)
[1201] Grigsby, i, 121.
[1202] Elliott, iii, 64-86. In the debate, much was made of this famous
case. Yet Philips was not executed under the provisions of the law
Randolph referred to. When arrested, he was indicted, tried, and
convicted in the General Court; and he was hanged by sentence of the
court, December 4, 1778.
Although, at that time, Randolph was Attorney-General of Virginia and
actually prosecuted the case; and although Henry was Governor and
ordered the arrest of Philips (Henry, i, 611-13), yet, ten years later,
both had forgotten the facts, and Randolph charged, and Henry in reply
admitted, that Philips had been executed under the bill of attainder
without trial. (Jefferson to Wirt, Oct. 14, 1814; _Works_: Ford, xi,
407.) The bill of attainder was drawn by Jefferson. It appears in _ib._,
ii, 330-36.
[1203] Again, Randolph's speech was marred by the note of personal
explanation that pervaded it. "The rectitude of my intentions";
"ambition and popularity are no objects with me"; "I expect, in the
course of a year, to retire to that private station which I most
sincerely and cordially prefer to all others,"--such expressions gave to
his otherwise aggressive and very able appeal a defensive tone.
[1204] Grigsby, i, 130. Madison's apparel at this Convention was as
ornate as his opinions were, in his opponents' eyes, "aristocratic."
[1205] Elliott, iii, 86. See entire speech, _ib._, 86-96.
[1206] Bushrod Washington to Washington, June 6, 1788; _Writings_:
Sparks, ix, 378. But Madison gave Henry an opening through which that
veteran orator drove like a troop of horse, as far as practical and
momentary effect was concerned. Madison described the new government as
partly National and partly Federal. (Elliott, iii, 94; and see Henry's
use of this, _ib._, 171; also _infra_.)
[1207] Elliott, iii, 97-103.
[1208] Elliott, iii, 104-14.
[1209] Elliott, iii, 114.
[1210] _Ib._, 114-28.
[1211] Madison was equaled only by Hamilton in sheer intellectuality,
but he was inferior to that colossus in courage and constructive genius.
[1212] _Ib._, 128-37.
[1213] Madison to Hamilton, June 9, 1788; Hamilton MSS., Lib. Cong.
Madison's four famous speeches in this Convention, are properly parts of
one comprehensive exposition. (See Madison's own notes for the third of
these speeches in _Writings_: Hunt, v, 148.) Mr. Hunt also prints
accurately Robertson's report of the speeches themselves in that volume.
They cannot be summarized here, but should be read in full.
[1214] See _supra_, footnote to 393.
[1215] Elliott, iii, 137-50.