PUBLIC DISTURBANCES AND ANXIETIES
In February, 1787, Madison again took a seat in Congress. It was an
anxious period. Shays's rebellion in Massachusetts had assumed rather
formidable possibilities, and seemed not unlikely to spread to other
States. Till this storm should blow over, the important business of
Congress was to raise money and troops; in reality, to go to the help of
Massachusetts, if need should be, though the object ostensibly was to
protect a handful of people on the frontier against the Indians. It was
a striking instance of the imbecility of the government under the
Articles of Confederation, that it could only undertake to suppress
rebellion in a State under the pretense of doing something else which
came within the law. Massachusetts, it is true, was quite able to deal
with her insurgents; but when Congress convened it was not known in New
York that Lincoln had dispersed the main body of them at Petersham.
Nevertheless, a like difficulty might arise at any moment in any other
of the States, where the strength to meet it might be quite inadequate.
Madison's ideal still was, the Union before the States, and for the
sake of the States; the whole before the parts, to save the parts; the
binding the fagot together that the sticks might not be lost. "Our
situation," he wrote to Edmund Randolph in February, "is becoming every
day more and more critical. No money comes into the federal treasury; no
respect is paid to the federal authority; and people of reflection
unanimously agree that the existing Confederacy is tottering to its
foundation. Many individuals of weight, particularly in the eastern
district, are suspected of leaning toward monarchy. Other individuals
predict a partition of the States into two or more confederacies. It is
pretty certain that if some radical amendment of the single one cannot
be devised and introduced, one or the other of these revolutions, the
latter no doubt, will take place."
It is not impossible that Madison himself may have had some faith in
this suspicion that "individuals of weight in the eastern district" were
inclined to a monarchy. For such suspicion, however there could be
little real foundation. There were, doubtless, men of weight who thought
and said that monarchy was better than anarchy. There were, doubtless,
impatient men then who thought and said, as there are impatient men now
who think and say, that the rule of a king is better than the rule of
the people. But there was no disloyalty to government by the people
among those who only maintained that the English in America must draw
from the common heritage of English institutions and English law the
material wherewith to build up the foundations of a new nation. No
intelligent and candid man doubts now that they were wise; nor would it
have been long doubted then, had it not so speedily become manifest
that, if the stigma of "British" was once affixed to a political party,
any appeal from popular prejudice to reason and common sense was
hopeless.
There were a few persons who would have done away with the divisions of
States and establish in their place a central government. Those most
earnest in maintaining the autonomy of States declared that such a
government was, as Luther Martin of Maryland called it, of "a
monarchical nature." What else could that be but a monarchy? An
insinuation took on the form of a logical deduction and became a popular
fallacy. Yet those most earnest for a central government only sought to
establish a stable rule in place of no rule at all; or, worse still, of
the tyranny of an ignorant and vicious mob under the outraged name of
democracy, into which there was danger of drifting. Whether their plan
was wise or foolish, it did not mean a monarchy. Even of Shays's
misguided followers Jefferson said: "I believe you may be assured that
an idea or desire of returning to anything like their ancient government
never entered into their heads." As Madison knew and said, the real
danger was that the States would divide into two confederacies, and only
by a new and wiser and stronger union could that calamity be averted.
To gain the assent of most of the States to a convention was surmounting
only the least of the difficulties. Three weeks before the time of
meeting Madison wrote: "The nearer the crisis approaches, the more I
tremble for the issue. The necessity of gaining the concurrence of the
convention in some system that will answer the purpose, the subsequent
approbation of Congress, and the final sanction of the States, present a
series of chances which would inspire despair in any case where the
alternative was less formidable." He said, in the first month of the
session of that body, that "the States were divided into different
interests, not by their difference of size, but by other circumstances;
the most material of which resulted partly from climate, but principally
from the effects of their having or not having slaves. These two causes
concurred in forming the great division of interests in the United
States. It did not lie between the large and small States. It lay
between the Northern and Southern."
During the earlier weeks of this session of Congress, and, indeed, for
some months before, events had made so manifest this difference of
interest, coincident with the difference in latitude, that there seemed
little ground for hope that any good would come out of a constitutional
convention. The old question of the navigation of the Mississippi was
again agitated. The South held her right to that river to be of much
more value than anything she could gain by a closer union with the
North, and she was quite ready to go to war with Spain in defense of it.
On the other hand, the Northern States were quite indifferent to the
navigation of the Mississippi, and not disposed apparently to make any
exertion or sacrifice to secure it. Just now they were anxious to secure
a commercial treaty with Spain; but Spain insisted, as a preliminary
condition, that the United States should relinquish all claim to
navigation upon a river whose mouths were within Spanish territory. In
the Northern mind there was no doubt of the value of trade with Spain;
and there was a good deal of doubt whether there was anything worth
contending for in the right to sail upon a river running through a
wilderness where, as yet, there were few inhabitants, and hardly any
trade worth talking about. More than that, there was unquestionably a
not uncommon belief at the North and East that the settlement and
prosperity of the West would be at the expense of the Atlantic States.
Perhaps that view of the matter was not loudly insisted upon; but many
were none the less persuaded that, if population was attracted westward
by the hope of acquiring rich and cheap lands, prosperity and power
would go with it. At any rate, those of this way of thinking were not
inclined to forego a certain good for that which would profit them
nothing, and might do them lasting harm.
For these reasons, spoken and unspoken, the Northern members of Congress
were at first quite willing, for the sake of a commercial treaty, to
concede to Spain the exclusive control of the Mississippi. But to pacify
the South it was proposed that the concession to Spain should be for
only five and twenty years. If at the end of that period the navigation
of the Mississippi should be worth contending for, the question could be
reopened. The South was, of course, rather exasperated than pacified by
such a proposition. The navigation of the river had not only a certain
value to them now, but it was theirs by right, and that was reason
enough for not parting with it even for a limited period. Concessions
now would make the reassertion of the right the more difficult by and
by. If it must be fought for, it would lessen the chance of success to
put off the fighting five and twenty years. Indeed, it could not be put
off, for war was already begun in a small way. The Spaniards had seized
American boats on trading voyages down the river, and the Americans had
retaliated upon some petty Spanish settlements. Spain, moreover, seemed
at first no more inclined to listen to compromise than the South was.
England watched this controversy with interest. She had no expectation
of recovering for herself the Floridas, which she had lost in the war of
the Revolution, and had finally ceded to Spain by the treaty of 1783;
but she was quite willing to see that power get into trouble on the
Mississippi question, and more than willing that it should threaten the
peace and union of the States. Her own boundary line west of the
Alleghanies might possibly be extended far south of the Great Lakes, if
the Northern and Southern States should divide into two confederacies;
but, apart from any lust of territory, she rejoiced at anything that
threatened to check the growth of her late colonies.
Fortunately, however, the question was disposed of, before the
Constitutional Convention met at Philadelphia, by the failure to secure
a treaty. The Spanish minister, Guardoqui, consented, at length, after
long resistance, to accept as a compromise the navigation of the river
for five and twenty years; but Mr. Jay, who was willing, could he have
had his way, to concede anything, found at that stage of the
negotiations he could not command votes enough in Congress to secure a
treaty even in that modified form. Hitherto he had relied upon a
resolution passed by Congress in August, 1786, by the vote of seven
Northern States against five Southern. This, it was assumed, repealed a
resolution of the year before, and authorized the secretary to make a
treaty. The resolution of the year before, August, 1785, had been passed
by the votes of nine States, and was in confirmation of a provision of
the Articles of Confederation declaring that "no treaties with foreign
powers should be entered into but by the assent of nine States." The
minority contended that such a resolution could not be repealed by the
vote of only seven States, for that would be to violate a fundamental
condition of the Articles of Confederation. It is easy to see now that
there ought not to have been a difference among honorable men on such a
point as that. Nevertheless Mr. Jay, supported by some of the strongest
Northern men, held that the votes of seven States could be made, in a
roundabout way, to authorize an act which the Constitution declared
should never be lawful except with the assent of nine States. So the
secretary went on with his negotiations and came to terms with the
Spanish minister.
In April the secretary was called upon to report to Congress what was
the position of these negotiations. Then it first publicly appeared that
a treaty was actually agreed upon which gave up the right to the
Mississippi for a quarter of a century. But it was also speedily made
plain by various parliamentary motions that the seven votes, which the
friends of such a treaty had relied upon, had fallen from seven--even
could that number in the end have been of use--to, at best, four. The
New Jersey delegates had been instructed not to consent to the surrender
of the American right to the use of the Mississippi; a new delegate from
Pennsylvania had changed the vote of that State; and Rhode Island had
also gone over to the other side. "It was considered, on the whole,"
wrote Madison, "that the project for shutting the Mississippi was at an
end."
These details are not unimportant. Forty-five years afterward Madison
wrote that "his main object, in returning to Congress at this time, was
to bring about, if possible, the canceling of Mr. Jay's project for
shutting the Mississippi." Probably it had occurred to nobody then that
within less than twenty years the Province of Louisiana would belong to
the United States, when their right to the navigation of the river could
be no longer disputed. But so long as both its banks from the
thirty-first degree of latitude southward to the Gulf remained foreign
territory, it was of the last importance to the Southern States, whose
territory extended to the Mississippi, that the right of way should not
be surrendered. If a treaty with Spain could be carried that gave up
this right, and the Southern States should be compelled to choose
between the loss of the Mississippi and the loss of the Union, there
could be little doubt as to what their choice would be. It was not a
question to be postponed till after the Philadelphia Convention had
convened; if not disposed of before, the convention might as well not
meet.
Madison's letters, while the question was pending, show great anxiety.
He was glad to know that the South was of one mind on this subject and
would not yield an inch. He was quite confident that his own State would
take the lead, as she soon did, in the firm avowal of Southern opinion.
But he rejoiced that the question did not come up in the Virginia
legislature till after the act was passed to send delegates to the
Philadelphia Convention. That he looked upon as a point gained, and the
delegates were presently appointed; but he still despaired of any good
coming of the convention, unless "Mr. Jay's project for shutting the
Mississippi" could be first got rid of.
In a recent work[9] Mr. Madison is represented as having "struck a
bargain" with the Kentucky delegates to the Virginia Assembly, agreeing
to speak on behalf of a petition relating to the Mississippi question,
provided the delegates from Kentucky--then a part of Virginia--would
vote for the representation of Virginia at Philadelphia. A "bargain"
implies an exchange of one thing for another, and Madison had no
convictions in favor of closing the Mississippi to exchange for a
service rendered on behalf of a measure for which he wished to secure
votes. Moreover, no bargain was necessary. It was not easy to find
anybody in Virginia who needed to be persuaded that the right to the
Mississippi must not be surrendered. Madison wrote to Monroe in October,
1786, that it would "be defended by the legislature with as much zeal as
could be wished. Indeed, the only danger is that too much resentment may
be indulged by many against the federal councils." His only apprehension
was lest the Mississippi question should come up in the Assembly before
the report from the Annapolis Convention should be disposed of, for if
that were accepted the appointment of delegates to Philadelphia was
assured. "I hope," he wrote to Washington in November, "the report will
be called for before the business of the Mississippi begins to ferment."
It happened as he wished. "The recommendation from Annapolis," he wrote
again a week later, "in favor of a general revision of the federal
system was _unanimously_ agreed to" (the emphasis is his own). He
afterward reported to Jefferson "that the project for bartering the
Mississippi to Spain was brought before the Assembly after the preceding
measure had been adopted." There was neither delay nor difficulty in
securing the unanimous consent of the Assembly to resolutions
instructing the members of Congress to oppose any concession to Spain.
But Madison's anxiety was not in the least relieved by the speedy
appointment of delegates to the Philadelphia Convention; for, he wrote
presently to Washington, "I am entirely convinced, from what I observe
here (at Richmond), that, unless the project of Congress can be
reversed, the hopes of carrying this State into a proper federal system
will be demolished." He had already said, in the same letter, that the
resolutions on the Mississippi question had been "agreed to unanimously
in the House of Delegates," and three days before the letter was written
the delegates to Philadelphia had been appointed.
FOOTNOTE:
[Footnote 9: _A History of the People of the United States._ Vol. i. By
John Bach McMaster.]