CHAPTER VII.

CROWNING THE WORK.

[Sidenote: The new Constitution is laid before Congress and submitted

forthwith to the several states for ratification.]

It was on the 17th of September, 1787, that the Federal Convention broke

up. For most of the delegates there was a long and tedious journey home

before they could meet their fellow-citizens and explain what had been

done at Philadelphia during this anxious summer. Not so, however, with

Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania delegation. At eleven o'clock on

the next morning, radiant with delight at seeing one of the most

cherished purposes of his life so nearly accomplished, the venerable

philosopher, attended by his seven colleagues, presented to the

legislature of Pennsylvania a copy of the Federal Constitution, and in a

brief but pithy speech, characterized by his usual homely wisdom, begged

for it their most favourable consideration. His words fell upon willing

ears, for nowhere was the disgust at the prevailing anarchy greater than

in Philadelphia. But still it was not quite in order for the assembly to

act upon the matter until word should come from the Continental

Congress. Since its ignominious flight to Princeton, four years ago,

that migratory body had not honoured Philadelphia with its presence. It

had once flitted as far south as Annapolis, but at length had chosen for

its abiding-place the city of New York, where it was now in session. To

Congress the new Constitution must be submitted before it was in order

for the several states to take action upon it. On the 20th of September

the draft of the Constitution was laid before Congress, accompanied by a

letter from Washington. The forces of the opposition were promptly

mustered. At their head was Richard Henry Lee, who eleven years ago had

moved in Congress the Declaration of Independence. He was ably supported

by Nathan Dane of Massachusetts, and the delegation from New York were

unanimous in their determination to obstruct any movement toward a

closer union of the states. Their tactics were vigorous, but the

majority in Congress were against them, especially after the return of

Madison from Philadelphia. Madison, aided by Edward Carrington and young

Henry Lee, the famous leader of light horse, succeeded in every division

in carrying the vote of Virginia in favour of the Constitution and

against the obstructive measures of the elder Lee. The objection was

first raised that the new Constitution would put an end to the

Continental Congress, and that in recommending it to the states for

consideration Congress would be virtually asking them to terminate its

own existence. Was it right or proper for Congress thus to have a hand

in signing its own death-warrant? But this flimsy argument was quickly

overturned. Seven months before Congress had recognized the necessity

for calling the convention together; whatever need for its work existed

then, there was the same need now; and by refusing to take due

cognizance of it Congress would simply stultify itself. The opposition

then tried to clog the measure by proposing amendments, but they were

outgeneralled, and after eight days' discussion it was voted that the

new Constitution, together with Washington's letter, "be transmitted to

the several legislatures, in order to be submitted to a convention of

delegates in each state by the people thereof, in conformity to the

resolves of the convention."

[Sidenote: First American parties, Federalists and Antifederalists.]

The submission of the Constitution to the people of the states was the

signal for the first formation of political parties on a truly national

issue. During the war there had indeed been Whigs and Tories, but their

strife had not been like the ordinary strife of political parties; it

was actual warfare. Irredeemably discredited from the outset, the Tories

had been overridden and outlawed from one end of the Union to the other.

They had never been able to hold up their heads as a party in

opposition. Since the close of the war there had been local parties in

the various states, divided on issues of hard and soft money, or the

impost, or state rights, and these issues had coincided in many of the

states. During the autumn of 1787 all these elements were segregated

into two great political parties, whose character and views are

sufficiently described by their names. Those who supported the new

Constitution were henceforth known as Federalists; those who were

opposed to strengthening the bond between the states were called

Antifederalists. It was fit that their name should have this merely

negative significance, for their policy at this time was purely a policy

of negation and obstruction. Care must be taken not to confound them

with the Democratic-Republicans, or _strict constructionists_, who

appear in opposition to the Federalists soon after the adoption of the

Constitution. The earlier short-lived party furnished a great part of

its material to the later one, but the attitude of the strict

constructionists under the Constitution was very different from that of

the Antifederalists. Madison, the second Republican president, was now

the most energetic of Federalists; and Jefferson, soon to become the

founder of the Democratic-Republican party, wrote from Paris, saying,

"The Constitution is a good canvas, on which some strokes only want

retouching." He found the same fault with it that was found by many of

the ablest and most patriotic men in the country,--that it failed to

include a bill of rights; but at the same time he declared that while he

was not of the party of Federalists, he was much further from that of

the Antifederalists. The Federal Convention he characterized as "an

assembly of demi-gods."

[Sidenote: The contest in Pennsylvania.]

The first contest over the new Constitution came in Pennsylvania. The

Federalists in that state were numerous, but their opponents had one

point in their favour which they did not fail to make the most of. The

constitution of Pennsylvania was peculiar. Its legislature consisted of

a single house, and its president was chosen by that house. Therefore,

said the Antifederalists, if we approve of a federal constitution which

provides for a legislature of two houses and chooses a president by the

device of an electoral college, we virtually condemn the state

constitution under which we live. This cry was raised with no little

effect. But some of the strongest immediate causes of opposition to the

new Constitution were wanting in Pennsylvania. The friends of paper

money were few there, and the objections to the control of the central

government over commerce were weaker than in many of the other states.

The Antifederalists were strongest in the mountain districts west of the

Susquehanna, where the somewhat lawless population looked askance at any

plan that savoured of a stronger government and a more regular

collection of revenue. In the eastern counties, and especially in

Philadelphia, the Federalists could count upon a heavy majority.

[Sidenote: How to make a quorum.]

The contest began in the legislature on the 28th of September, the very

day on which Congress decided to submit the Constitution to the states,

and before the news of the action had reached Philadelphia. The zeal of

the Federalists was so intense that they could wait no longer, and they

hurried the event with a high-handed vigour that was not altogether

seemly. The assembly was on the eve of breaking up, and a new election

was to be held on the first Tuesday of November. The Antifederalists

hoped to make a stirring campaign, and secure such a majority in the new

legislature as to prevent the Constitution from being laid before the

people. But their game was frustrated by George Clymer, who had sat in

the Federal Convention, and now most unexpectedly moved that a state

convention be called to consider the proposed form of government. Great

was the wrath of the Antifederalists. Mr. Clymer was quite out of order,

they said. Congress had not yet sent them the Constitution; and besides,

no such motion could be made without notice given beforehand, nor could

it be voted on till it had passed three readings. Parliamentary usage

was doubtless on the side of the Antifederalists, but the majority were

clamorous, and overwhelmed them with cries of "Question, question!" The

question was then put, and carried, by 43 votes against 19, and the

house adjourned till four o'clock. Before going to their dinners the 19

held an indignation meeting, at which it was decided that they would

foil these outrageous proceedings by staying away. It took 47 to make a

quorum, and without these malcontents the assembly numbered but 45. When

the house was called to order after dinner, it was found there were but

45 members present. The sergeant-at-arms was sent to summon the

delinquents, but they defied him, and so it became necessary to adjourn

till next morning. It was now the turn of the Federalists to uncork the

vials of wrath. The affair was discussed in the taverns till after

midnight, the 19 were abused without stint, and soon after breakfast,

next morning, two of them were visited by a crowd of men, who broke into

their lodgings and dragged them off to the state house, where they were

forcibly held down in their seats, growling and muttering curses. This

made a quorum, and a state convention was immediately appointed for the

20th of November. Before these proceedings were concluded, an

express-rider brought the news from New York that Congress had submitted

the Constitution to the judgment of the states.

And now there ensued such a war of pamphlets, broadsides, caricatures,

squibs, and stump-speeches, as had never yet been seen in America. Cato

and Aristides, Cincinnatus and Plain Truth, were out in full force. What

was the matter with the old confederation? asked the Antifederalists.

Had it not conducted a glorious and triumphant war? Had it not set us

free from the oppression of England? That there was some trouble now in

the country could not be denied, but all would be right if people would

only curb their extravagance, wear homespun clothes, and obey the laws.

There was government enough in the country already. This Philadelphia

convention ought to be distrusted. Some of its members, such as John

Dickinson and Robert Morris, had opposed the Declaration of

Independence. Pretty men these, to be offering us a new government! You

might be sure there was a British cloven foot in it somewhere. Their

convention had sat four months with closed doors, as if they were afraid

to let people know what they were about. Nobody could tell what secret

conspiracies against American liberty might not have been hatched in all

that time. One thing was sure: the convention had squabbled. Some

members had gone home in a huff; others had refused to sign a document

fraught with untold evils to the country. And now came James Wilson,

making speeches in behalf of this precious Constitution, and trying to

pull the wool over people's eyes and persuade them to adopt it. Who was

James Wilson, any way? A Scotchman, a countryman of Lord Bute, a born

aristocrat, a snob, a patrician, Jimmy, James de Caledonia. Beware of

any form of government defended by such a man. And as to the other

members of the convention, there was Roger Sherman, who had signed the

articles of confederation, and was now trying to undo his own work. What

confidence could be placed in a man who did not know his own mind any

better than that? Then there were Hamilton and Madison, mere boys; and

Franklin, an old dotard, a man in his second childhood. And as to

Washington, he was doubtless a good soldier, but what did he know about

politics? So said the more moderate of the malcontents, hesitating for

the moment to speak disrespectfully of such a man; but presently their

zeal got the better of them, and in a paper signed "Centinel" it was

boldly declared that Washington was a born fool!

[Sidenote: Delaware ratifies the Constitution, Dec. 6, 1787;

Pennsylvania, Dec. 12; New Jersey, Dec. 18.]

From the style and temper of these arguments one clearly sees that the

Antifederalists in Pennsylvania felt from the beginning that the day was

going against them. Sixteen of the men who had seceded from the

assembly, headed by Robert Whitehill of Carlisle, issued a manifesto

setting forth the ill-treatment they had received, and sounding an alarm

against the dangers of tyranny to which the new Constitution was already

exposing them. They were assisted by Richard Henry Lee, who published a

series of papers entitled "Letters from the Federal Farmer," and

scattered thousands of copies through the state of Pennsylvania. He did

not deny that the government needed reforming, but in the proposed plan

he saw the seeds of aristocracy and of centralization. The chief

objections to the Constitution were that it created a national

legislature in which the vote was to be by individuals, and not by

states; that it granted to this body an unlimited power of taxation;

that it gave too much power to the federal judiciary; that it provided

for paying the salaries of members of Congress out of the federal

treasury, and would thus make them independent of their own states; that

it required an oath of allegiance to the federal government; and

finally, that it did not include a bill of rights. These objections were

very elaborately set forth by the leading Antifederalists in the state

convention; but the logic and eloquence of James Wilson bore down all

opposition. The Antifederalists resorted to filibustering. Five days, it

is said, were used up in settling the meanings of the two words

"annihilation" and "consolidation." In this way the convention was kept

sitting for nearly three weeks, when news came from "the Delaware

state," as it used then to be called in Pennsylvania. The concession of

an equal representation in the federal Senate had removed the only

ground of opposition in Delaware, and the Federalists had everything

their own way there. In a convention assembled at Dover, on the 6th of

December, the Constitution was ratified without a single dissenting

voice. Thus did this little state lead the way in the good work. The

news was received with exultation by the Federalists at Philadelphia,

and on the 12th Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution by a two thirds

vote of 46 to 23. The next day all business was quite at a standstill,

while the town gave itself up to processions and merry-making. The

convention of New Jersey had assembled at Trenton on the 11th, and one

week later, on the 18th, it ratified the Constitution unanimously.

A most auspicious beginning had thus been made. Three states, one third

of the whole number required, had ratified almost at the same moment.

Two of these, moreover, were small states, which at the beginning of the

Federal Convention had been obstinately opposed to any fundamental

change in the government. It was just here that the Federalists were now

strongest. The Connecticut compromise had wrought with telling effect,

not only in the convention, but upon the people of the states. When the

news from Trenton was received in Pennsylvania, there was great

rejoicing in the eastern counties, while beyond the Susquehanna there

were threats of armed rebellion. On the day after Christmas, as the

Federalists of Carlisle were about to light a bonfire on the common and

fire a salute, they were driven off the field by a mob armed with

bludgeons, their rickety old cannon was spiked, and an almanac for the

new year, containing a copy of the Constitution, was duly cursed, and

then burned. Next day the Federalists, armed with muskets, came back,

and went through their ceremonies. Their opponents did not venture to

molest them; but after they had dispersed, an Antifederalist

demonstration was made, and effigies of James Wilson and Thomas McKean,

another prominent Federalist, were dragged to the common, and there

burned at the stake.

[Sidenote: Georgia ratifies, Jan. 2, 1788; Connecticut, Jan. 9. The

outlook in Massachusetts.]

The action of Delaware and New Jersey had shown that the Antifederalists

could not build any hopes upon the antagonism between large and small

states. It was thought, however, that the southern states would unite in

opposing the Constitution from their dread of becoming commercially

subjected to New England. But the compromise on the slave-trade had

broken through this opposition. On the 2d of January, 1788, the

Constitution was ratified in Georgia without a word of dissent. One week

later Connecticut ratified by a vote of 128 to 40, after a session of

only five days. The hopes of the Antifederalists now rested upon

Massachusetts, where the state convention assembled on the 9th of

January, the same day on which that of Connecticut broke up. Should

Massachusetts refuse to ratify, there would be no hope for the

Constitution. Even should nine states adopt it without her, no one

supposed a Federal Union feasible from which so great a state should be

excluded. Her action, too, would have a marked effect upon other states.

It could not be denied that the outlook in Massachusetts was far from

encouraging. The embers of the Shays rebellion still smouldered there,

and in the mountain counties of Worcester and Berkshire were heard loud

murmurs of discontent. Laws impairing the obligation of contracts were

just what these hard-pressed farmers desired, and by the proposed

Constitution all such laws were forever prohibited. The people of the

district of Maine, which had formed part of Massachusetts for nearly a

century, were anxious to set up an independent government for

themselves; and they feared that if they were to enter into the new and

closer Federal Union as part of that state, they might hereafter find it

impossible to detach themselves. For this reason half of the Maine

delegates were opposed to the Constitution. In none of the thirteen

states, moreover, was there a more intense devotion to state rights than

in Massachusetts. Nowhere had local self-government reached a higher

degree of efficiency; nowhere had the town meeting flourished with such

vigour. It was especially characteristic of men trained in the town

meeting to look with suspicion upon all delegated power, upon all

authority that was to be exercised from a distance. They believed it to

be all important that people should manage their own affairs, instead of

having them managed by other people; and so far had this principle been

carried that the towns of Massachusetts were like little

semi-independent republics, and the state was like a league of such

republics, whose representatives, sitting in the state legislature, were

like delegates strictly bound by instructions rather than untrammelled

members of a deliberative body. To men trained in such a school, it

would naturally seem that the new Constitution delegated altogether too

much power to a governing body which must necessarily be remote from

most of its constituents. It was feared that some sort of tyranny might

grow out of this, and such fears were entertained by men who were not in

the slightest degree infected with Shaysism, as the political disease of

the inland counties was then called. Such fears were entertained by one

of the greatest citizens that Massachusetts has ever produced, the man

who has been well described as preëminently "the man of the town

meeting,"--Samuel Adams. The limitations of this great man, as well as

his powers, were those which belonged to him as chief among the men of

English race who have swayed society through the medium of the ancient

folk mote. At this time he was believed by many to be hostile to the new

Constitution, and his influence in Massachusetts was still greater than

that of any other man. Besides this, it was thought that the governor,

John Hancock, was half-hearted in his support of the Constitution, and

it was in everybody's mouth that Elbridge Gerry had refused to set his

name to that document because he felt sure it would create a tyranny.

Such symptoms encouraged the Antifederalists in the hope that

Massachusetts would reject the Constitution and ruin the plans of the

"visionary young men"--as Richard Henry Lee called them--who had swayed

the Federal Convention. But there were strong forces at work in the

opposite direction. In Boston and all the large coast towns, even those

of the Maine district, the dominant feeling was Federalist. All

well-to-do people had been alarmed by the Shays insurrection, and

merchants, shipwrights, and artisans of every sort were convinced that

there was no prosperity in store for them until the federal government

should have control over commerce, and be enabled to make its strength

felt on the seas and in Europe. In these views Samuel Adams shared so

thoroughly that his attitude toward the Constitution at this moment was

really that of a waverer rather than an opponent. Amid balancing

considerations he found it for some time hard to make up his mind.

In the convention which met on the 9th of January there sat Gorham,

Strong, and King, who had taken part in the Federal Convention. There

were also Samuel Adams and James Bowdoin; the revolutionary generals,

Heath and Lincoln; and the rising statesmen, Sedgwick, Parsons, and

Fisher Ames, whose eloquence was soon to become so famous. There were

twenty-four clergymen, of various denominations,--men of sound

scholarship, and several of them eminent for worldly wisdom and

liberality of temper. Governor Hancock presided, gorgeous in crimson

velvet and finest laces, while about the room sat many browned and

weather-beaten farmers, among whom were at least eighteen who hardly a

year ago had marched over the pine-clad mountain ridges of Petersham,

under the banner of the rebel Shays. It was a wholesome no less than a

generous policy that let these men come in and freely speak their minds.

The air was thus the sooner cleared of discontent; the disease was thus

the more likely to heal itself. In all there were three hundred and

fifty-five delegates present,--a much larger number than took part in

any of the other state conventions. The people of all parts of

Massachusetts were very thoroughly represented, as befitted the state

which was preëminent in the active political life of its town meetings,

and the work done here was in some respects decisive in its effect upon

the adoption of the Constitution.

[Sidenote: Debates in the Massachusetts convention.]

The convention began by overhauling that document from beginning to end,

discussing it clause by clause with somewhat wearisome minuteness. Some

of the objections seem odd to us at this time, with our larger

experience. It was several days before the minds of the country members

could be reconciled to the election of representatives for so long a

period as two years. They had not been wont to delegate power to anybody

for so long a time, not even to their selectmen, whom they had always

under their eyes. How much more dangerous was it likely to prove if

delegated authority were to be exercised for so long a period at some

distant federal city, such as the Constitution contemplated! There was a

vague dread that in some indescribable way the new Congress might

contrive to make its sittings perpetual, and thus become a tyrannical

oligarchy, which might tax the people without their consent. And then as

to this federal city, there were some who did not like the idea. A

district ten miles square! Was not that a great space to give up to the

uncontrolled discretion of the federal government, wherein it could

wreak its tyrannical will without let or hindrance? One of the delegates

thought he could be reconciled to the new Constitution if this district

could only be narrowed down to one mile square. And then there was the

power granted to Congress to maintain a standing army, of which the

president was to be _ex officio_ commander-in-chief. Did not this open

the door for a Cromwell? It was to be a standing army for at least two

years, since this was the shortest period between elections. Why, even

the British Parliament, since 1688, did not keep up a standing army for

more than one year at a time, but renewed its existence annually under

what was termed the Mutiny Act. But what need of a standing army at all?

Would it not be sure to provoke needless disorders? Had they already

forgotten the Boston Massacre, in spite of all the orations that had

been delivered in the Old South Meeting-House? A militia, organized

under the town-meeting system, was surely all-sufficient. Such a militia

had won glorious triumphs at Lexington and Bennington; and at King's

Mountain, had not an army of militia surrounded and captured an army of

regulars led by one of England's most skilful officers? What more could

you ask? Clearly this plan for a standing army foreboded tyranny. Upon

this point Mr. Nason, from the Maine district, had his say, in tones of

inimitable bombast. "Had I the voice of Jove," said he, "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!"

[Sidenote: Liberal attitude of the clergy.]

Next came the complaint that the Constitution did not recognize the

existence of God, and provided no religious tests for candidates for

federal offices. But, strange to say, this objection did not come from

the clergy. It was urged by some of the country members, but the

ministers in the convention were nearly unanimous in opposing it. There

had been a remarkable change of sentiment among the clergy of this

state, which had begun its existence as a theocracy, in which none but

church members could vote or hold office. The seeds of modern liberalism

had been planted in their minds. When Amos Singletary of Sutton declared

it to be scandalous that a Papist or an infidel should be as eligible to

office as a Christian,--a remark which naively assumed that Roman

Catholics were not Christians,--the Rev. Daniel Shute of Hingham replied

that no conceivable advantage could result from a religious test. Yes,

said the Rev. Philip Payson of Chelsea, "human tribunals for the

consciences of men are impious encroachments upon the prerogatives of

God. A religious test, as a qualification for office, would have been a

great blemish." "In reason and in the Holy Scripture," said the Rev.

Isaac Backus of Middleborough, "religion is ever a matter between God

and the individual; the imposing of religious tests hath been the

greatest engine of tyranny in the world." With this liberal stand firmly

taken by the ministers, the religious objection was speedily overruled.

Then the clause which allows Congress to regulate the times, places, and

manner of holding federal elections was severely criticised. It was

feared that Congress would take advantage of this provision to destroy

the freedom of elections. It was further objected that members of

Congress, being paid their salaries from the federal treasury, would

become too independent of their constituents. Federal collectors of

revenue, moreover, would not be so likely to act with moderation and

justice as collectors appointed by the state. Then it was very doubtful

whether the people could support the expense of an elaborate federal

government. They were already scarcely able to pay their town, county,

and state taxes; was it to be supposed they could bear the additional

burden with which federal taxation would load them? Then the compromise

on the slave-trade was fiercely attacked. They did not wish to have a

hand in licensing this nefarious traffic for twenty years. But it was

urged, on the other hand, that by prohibiting the foreign slave-trade

after 1808 the Constitution was really dealing a death-blow to slavery;

and this opinion prevailed.

During the whole course of the discussion, observed the Rev. Samuel West

of New Bedford, it seemed to be taken for granted that the federal

government was going to be put into the hands of crafty knaves. "I

wish," said he, "that the gentlemen who have started so many _possible_

objections would try to show us that what they so much deprecate is

_probable_.... Because power _may_ be abused, shall we be reduced to

anarchy? What hinders our state legislatures from abusing their

powers?... May we not rationally suppose that the persons we shall

choose to administer the government will be, in general, good men?"

General Thompson said he was surprised to hear such an argument from a

clergyman, who was professionally bound to maintain that all men were

totally depraved. For his part he believed they were so, and he could

prove it from the Old Testament. "I would not trust them," echoed

Abraham White of Bristol, "though every one of them should be a Moses."

[Sidenote: Speech of a Berkshire farmer.]

The feeling of distrust was strongest among the farmers from the

mountain districts. As Rufus King said, they objected, not so much to

the Constitution as to the men who made it and the men who sang its

praises. They hated lawyers, and were jealous of wealthy merchants.

"These lawyers," said Amos Singletary, "and men of learning, and moneyed

men that talk so finely and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us

poor illiterate people swallow the pill, expect to get into Congress

themselves. They mean to be managers of the Constitution. They mean to

get all the money into their hands, and then they will swallow up us

little folk, like the great Leviathan, Mr. President; yes, just as the

whale swallowed up Jonah." Here a more liberal-minded farmer, Jonathan

Smith of Lanesborough, rose to reply with references to the Shays

rebellion, which presently called forth cries of "Order!" from some of

the members. Samuel Adams said the gentleman was quite in order,--let

him go on in his own way. "I am a plain man," said Mr. Smith, "and am

not used to speak in public, but I am going to show the effects of

anarchy, that you may see why I wish for good government. Last winter

people took up arms, and then, if you went to speak to them, you had the

musket of death presented to your breast. They would rob you of your

property, threaten to burn your houses, oblige you to be on your guard

night and day. Alarms spread from town to town, families were broken up;

the tender mother would cry, 'Oh, my son is among them! What shall I do

for my child?' Some were taken captive; children taken out of their

schools and carried away.... How dreadful was this! Our distress was so

great that we should have been glad to snatch at anything that looked

like a government.... Now, Mr. President, when I saw this Constitution,

I found that it was a cure for these disorders. I got a copy of it, and

read it over and over.... I did not go to any lawyer, to ask his

opinion; we have no lawyer in our town, and we do well enough without.

My honourable old daddy there [pointing to Mr. Singletary] won't think

that I expect to be a Congressman, and swallow up the liberties of the

people. I never had any post, nor do I want one. But I don't think the

worse of the Constitution because lawyers, and men of learning, and

moneyed men are fond of it. I am not of such a jealous make. They that

are honest men themselves are not apt to suspect other people....

Brother farmers, let us suppose a case, now. Suppose you had a farm of

50 acres, and your title was disputed, and there was a farm of 5,000

acres joined to you that belonged to a man of learning, and his title

was involved in the same difficulty: would you not be glad to have him

for your friend, rather than to stand alone in the dispute? Well, the

case is the same. These lawyers, these moneyed men, these men of

learning, are all embarked in the same cause with us, and we must all

sink or swim together. Shall we throw the Constitution overboard because

it does not please us all alike? Suppose two or three of you had been at

the pains to break up a piece of rough land and sow it with wheat: would

you let it lie waste because you could not agree what sort of a fence to

make? Would it not be better to put up a fence that did not please every

one's fancy, rather than keep disputing about it until the wild beasts

came in and devoured the crop? Some gentlemen say, Don't be in a hurry;

take time to consider. I say, There is a time to sow and a time to reap.

We sowed our seed when we sent men to the Federal Convention, now is the

time to reap the fruit of our labour; and if we do not do it now, I am

afraid we shall never have another opportunity."

[Sidenote: Attitude of Samuel Adams.]

It may be doubted whether all the eloquence of Fisher Ames could have

stated the case more forcibly than it was put by this plain farmer from

the Berkshire hills. Upon Ames, with King, Parsons, Bowdoin, and Strong,

fell the principal work in defending the Constitution. For the first two

weeks, Samuel Adams scarcely opened his mouth, but listened with anxious

care to everything that was said on either side. The convention was so

evenly divided that there could be no doubt that his single voice would

decide the result. Every one eagerly awaited his opinion. In the debate

on the two years' term of members of Congress, he had asked Caleb

Strong the reason why the Federal Convention had decided upon so long a

term; and when it was explained as a necessary compromise between the

views of so many delegates, he replied, "I am satisfied." "Will Mr.

Adams kindly say that again?" asked one of the members. "I am

satisfied," he repeated; and not another word was said on the subject in

all those weeks. So profound was the faith of this intelligent and

skeptical and independent people in the sound judgment and unswerving

integrity of the Father of the Revolution! As the weeks went by, and the

issue seemed still dubious, the workingmen of Boston, shipwrights and

brass-founders and other mechanics, decided to express their opinion in

a way that they knew Samuel Adams would heed. They held a meeting at the

Green Dragon tavern, passed resolutions in favour of the Constitution,

and appointed a committee, with Paul Revere at its head, to make known

these resolutions to the great popular leader. When Adams had read the

paper, he asked of Paul Revere, "How many mechanics were at the Green

Dragon when these resolutions passed?" "More, sir, than the Green Dragon

could hold." "And where were the rest, Mr. Revere?" "In the streets,

sir." "And how many were in the streets?" "More, sir, than there are

stars in the sky."

[Sidenote: Washington's fruitful suggestion.]

Between Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson there were several points of

resemblance, the chief of which was an intense faith in the sound common

sense of the mass of the people. This faith was one of the strongest

attributes of both these great men. It has usually been supposed that

it was this incident of the meeting at the Green Dragon that determined

Adams's final attitude in the state convention. Unquestionably, such a

demonstration must have had great weight with him. But at the same time

the affair was taking such a turn as would have decided him, even

without the aid of this famous mass-meeting. The long delay in the

decision of the Massachusetts convention had carried the excitement to

fever heat throughout the country. Not only were people from New

Hampshire and New York and naughty Rhode Island waiting anxiously about

Boston to catch every crumb of news they could get, but intrigues were

going on, as far south as Virginia, to influence the result. On the 21st

of January the "Boston Gazette" came out with a warning, headed by

enormous capitals with three exclamation-points: "_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 neighbouring

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?" No adequate investigation ever determined whether this charge was

true or not. We may hope that it was ill-founded; but our general

knowledge of human nature must compel us to admit that there was

probably a grain of truth in it. But what was undeniable was that

Richard Henry Lee wrote a letter to Gerry, urging that Massachusetts

should not adopt the Constitution without insisting upon sundry

amendments; and in order to consider these amendments, it was suggested

that there should be another Federal Convention. At this anxious crisis,

Washington suddenly threw himself into the breach with that infallible

judgment of his which always saw the way to victory. "If another Federal

Convention is attempted," said Washington, "its members will be more

discordant, and will agree upon no general plan. The Constitution is the

best that can be obtained at this time.... The Constitution or disunion

are before us to choose from. If the Constitution is our choice, a

constitutional door is open for amendments, and they may be adopted in a

peaceable manner, without tumult or disorder."

[Sidenote: Massachusetts ratifies, proposing amendments, Feb. 6, 1788.]

When this advice of Washington's reached Boston, it set in motion a

train of events which soon solved the difficulty, both for Massachusetts

and for the other states which had not yet made up their mind. Chief

among the objections to the Constitution had been the fact that it did

not contain a bill of rights. It did not guarantee religious liberty,

freedom of speech and of the press, or the right of the people

peacefully to assemble and petition the government for a redress of

grievances. It did not provide against the quartering of soldiers upon

the people in time of peace. It did not provide against general

search-warrants, nor did it securely prescribe the methods by which

individuals should be held to answer for criminal offences. It did not

even provide that nobody should be burned at the stake or stretched on

the rack, for holding peculiar opinions about the nature of God or the

origin of evil. That such objections to the Constitution seem strange to

us to-day is partly due to the determined attitude of the men who, amid

all the troubles of the time, would not consent to any arrangement from

which such safeguards to free thinking and free living should be

omitted. The friends of the Constitution in Boston now proposed that the

convention, while adopting it, should suggest sundry amendments

containing the essential provisions of a bill of rights. It was not

intended that the ratification should be conditional. Under the

circumstances, a conditional ratification might prove as disastrous as

rejection. It might lead to a second Federal Convention, in which the

good work already accomplished might be undone. The ratification was to

be absolute, and the amendments were offered in the hope that action

would be taken upon them as soon as the new government should go into

operation. There could be little doubt that the suggestion would be

heeded, not only from the importance of Massachusetts in the Union, but

also from the fact that Virginia and other states would be sure to

follow her example in suggesting such amendments. This forecast proved

quite correct, and it was in this way that the first ten amendments

originated, which were acted on by Congress in 1790, and became part of

the Constitution in 1791. As soon as this plan had been matured, Hancock

proposed it to the convention; the hearty support of Adams was

immediately insured, and within a week from that time, on the 6th of

February, the Constitution was ratified by the narrow majority of 187

votes against 168. On that same day Jefferson, in Paris, wrote to

Madison: "I wish with all my soul that the nine first conventions may

accept the new Constitution, to secure to us the good it contains; but I

equally wish that the four latest, whichever they may be, may refuse to

accede to it till a declaration of rights be annexed; but no objection

to the new form must produce a schism in our Union." But as soon as he

heard of the action of Massachusetts, he approved it as preferable to

his own idea, and he wrote home urging Virginia to follow the example.

Massachusetts was thus the sixth state to ratify the Constitution. On

that day the name of the Long Lane by the meeting-house where the

convention had sat was changed to Federal Street. The Boston people,

said Henry Knox, had quite lost their senses with joy. The two counties

of Worcester and Berkshire had given but 14 yeas against 59 nays, but

the farmers went home declaring that they should cheerfully abide by the

decision of the majority. Not a murmur was heard from any one.

[Sidenote: Maryland ratifies, April 28.]

[Sidenote: Debates in the South Carolina legislature.]

[Sidenote: South Carolina ratifies, May 23.]

About the time that the Massachusetts convention broke up, that of New

Hampshire assembled at Exeter; but after a brief discussion it was

decided to adjourn until June, in order to see how the other states

would act. On the 21st of April the Maryland convention assembled at

Annapolis. All the winter Patrick Henry had been busily at work, with

the hope of inducing the southern states to establish a separate

confederacy; but he had made little headway anywhere, and none at all in

Maryland, where his influence was completely counteracted by that of

Washington. Above all things, said Washington, do not let the convention

adjourn till the matter is decided, for the Antifederalists are taking

no end of comfort from the postponement in New Hampshire. Their glee was

short-lived, however. Some of Maryland's strongest men, such as Luther

Martin and Samuel Chase, were Antifederalists; but their efforts were of

no avail. After a session of five days the Constitution was ratified by

a vote of 63 to 11. Whatever damage New Hampshire might have done was

thus more than made good. The eyes of the whole country were now turned

upon the eighth state, South Carolina. Her convention was to meet at

Charleston on the 12th of May, the anniversary of the day on which

General Lincoln had surrendered that city to Sir Henry Clinton; but

there had been a decisive preliminary struggle in the legislature in

January. The most active of the Antifederalists was Rawlins Lowndes, who

had opposed the Declaration of Independence. Lowndes was betrayed into

silliness. "We are now," said he, "under a most excellent

constitution,--a blessing from Heaven, that has stood the test of time

[!!], and given us liberty and independence; yet we are impatient to

pull down that fabric which we raised at the expense of our blood." This

was not very convincing to the assembly, most of the members knowing

full well that the fabric had not stood the test of time, but had

already tumbled in by reason of its vicious construction. A more

effective plea was that which referred to the slave-trade. "What cause

is there," said Lowndes, "for jealousy of our importing negroes? Why

confine us to twenty years? Why limit us at all? This trade can be

justified on the principles of religion and humanity. They do not like

our having slaves because they have none themselves, and therefore want

to exclude us from this great advantage." Cotesworth Pinckney replied:

"By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of negroes

for twenty years. The general government can never emancipate them, for

no such authority is granted, and it is admitted on all hands that the

general government has no powers but what are expressly granted by the

Constitution. We have obtained a right to recover our slaves in whatever

part of the country they may take refuge, which is a right we had not

before. In short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best

terms in our power for the security of this species of property. We

would have made better if we could; but, on the whole, I do not think

them bad." Perhaps Pinckney would not have assumed exactly this tone at

Philadelphia, but at Charleston the argument was convincing. Lowndes

then sounded the alarm that the New England states would monopolize the

carrying-trade and charge ruinous freights, and he drew a harrowing

picture of warehouses packed to bursting with rice and indigo spoiling

because the owners could not afford to pay the Yankee skippers' prices

for carrying their goods to market. But Pinckney rejoined that a Yankee

shipmaster in quest of cargoes would not be likely to ruin his own

chances for getting them, and he called attention to the great

usefulness of the eastern merchant marine as affording material for a

navy, and thus contributing to the defence of the country. Finally

Lowndes put in a plea for paper money, but with little success. The

result of the debate set the matter so clearly before the people that a

great majority of Federalists were elected to the convention. Among them

were Gadsden, the Rutledges and the Pinckneys, Moultrie, and William

Washington, who had become a citizen of the state from which he had

helped to expel the British invader. The Antifederalists were largely

represented by men from the upland counties, belonging to a population

in which there was considerable likeness all along the Appalachian chain

of mountains, from Pennsylvania to the southern extremity of the range.

There were among them many "moonshiners," as they were

called,--distillers of illicit whiskey,--and they did not relish the

idea of a federal excise. At their head was Thomas Sumter, a convert to

Patrick Henry's scheme for a southern confederacy. Their policy was one

of delay and obstruction, but it availed them little, for on the 23d of

May, after a session of eleven days, South Carolina ratified the

Constitution by a vote of 149 against 73.

[Sidenote: Important effect upon Virginia.]

[Sidenote: Debates in the Virginia Convention.]

[Sidenote: Madison and Marshall prevail and Virginia ratifies, June 25.]

The sound policy of the Federal Convention in adopting the odious

compromise over the slave-trade was now about to bear fruit. In Virginia

there had grown up a party which favoured the establishment of a

separate southern confederacy. By the action of South Carolina all such

schemes were now nipped in the bud. Of the states south of Mason and

Dixon's line, three had now ratified the Constitution, so that any

separate confederacy could now consist only of Virginia and North

Carolina. The reason for this short-lived separatist feeling in Virginia

was to be found in the complications which had grown out of the attempt

of Spain to close the Mississippi River. It will be remembered that only

two years before Jay had actually recommended to Congress that the right

to navigate the lower Mississippi be surrendered for twenty-five years,

in exchange for a favourable commercial treaty with Spain. The New

England states, caring nothing for the distant Mississippi, supported

this measure in Congress; and this narrow and selfish policy naturally

created alarm in Virginia, which, in her district of Kentucky, touched

upon the great river. Thus to the vague dread of the southern states in

general, in the event of New England's controlling the commercial policy

of the government, there was added, in Virginia's case, a specific fear.

If the New England people were thus ready to barter away the vital

interests of a remote part of the country, what might they not do? Would

they ever stop at anything so long as they could go on building up their

commerce? This feeling strongly influenced Patrick Henry in his desire

for a separate confederacy; and we have seen how Randolph and Mason, in

the Federal Convention, were so disturbed at the power given to

Congress to regulate commerce by a simple majority of votes that they

refused to set their names to the Constitution. They alleged further

reasons for their refusal, but this was the chief one. They wanted a two

thirds vote to be required, in order that the south might retain the

means of protecting itself. Under these circumstances the opposition to

the Constitution was very strong, and but for the action of South

Carolina the party in favour of a separate confederacy might have been

capable of doing much mischief. As it was, since that party had actively

intrigued both in South Carolina and Maryland, the ratification of the

Constitution by both these states was a direct rebuff. It quite

demoralized the advocates of secession. The paper-money men, moreover,

were handicapped by the fact that two of the most powerful

Antifederalists, Mason and Lee, were determined opponents of a paper

currency, so that this subject had to be dropped or very gingerly dealt

with. The strength of the Antifederalists, though impaired by these

causes, was still very great. The contest was waged with all the more

intensity of feeling because, since eight states had now adopted the

Constitution, the verdict of Virginia would be decisive. The convention

met at Richmond on the 2d of June, and Edmund Pendleton was chosen

president. Foremost among the Antifederalists was Patrick Henry, whose

eloquence was now as zealously employed against the new government as it

had been in bygone days against the usurpations of Great Britain. He was

supported by Mason, Lee, and Grayson, as well as by Benjamin Harrison

and John Tyler, the fathers of two future presidents; and he could count

on the votes of most of the delegates from the midland counties, from

the south bank of the James River, and from Kentucky. But the united

talents of the opposition had no chance of success in a conflict with

the genius and tact of Madison, who at one moment crushed, at another

conciliated, his opponent, but always won the day. To Madison, more than

any other man, the Federalist victory was due. But he was ably seconded

by Governor Randolph, whom he began by winning over from the opposite

party, and by the favourite general and eloquent speaker, "Light-Horse

Harry." Conspicuous in the ranks of Federalists, and unsurpassed in

debate, was a tall and gaunt young man, with beaming countenance, eyes

of piercing brilliancy, and an indescribable kingliness of bearing, who

was by and by to become chief justice of the United States, and by his

masterly and far-reaching decisions to win a place side by side with

Madison and Hamilton among the founders of our national government. John

Marshall, second to none among all the illustrious jurists of the

English race, was then, at the age of thirty-three, the foremost lawyer

in Virginia. He had already served for several terms in the state

legislature, but his national career began in this convention, where his

arguments with those of Madison, reinforcing each other, bore down all

opposition. The details of the controversy were much the same as in the

states already passed in review, save in so far as coloured by the

peculiar circumstances of Virginia. After more than three weeks of

debate, on the 25th of June, the question was put to vote, and the

Constitution was ratified by the narrow majority of 89 against 79.

Amendments were offered, after the example of Massachusetts, which had

already been followed by South Carolina and the minority in Maryland;

and, as in Massachusetts, the defeated Antifederalists announced their

intention to abide loyally by the result.

[Sidenote: New Hampshire had already ratified, June 21.]

The discussion had lasted so long that Virginia lost the distinction of

being the ninth state to ratify the Constitution. That honour had been

reserved for New Hampshire, whose convention had met on the anniversary

of Bunker Hill, and after a four days' session, on the 21st of June, had

given its consent to the new government by a vote of 57 against 46. The

couriers from Virginia and those from New Hampshire, as they spurred

their horses over long miles of dusty road, could shout to each other

the joyous news in passing. Though the ratification of New Hampshire had

secured the necessary ninth state, yet the action of Virginia was not

the less significant and decisive. Virginia was at that time, and for a

quarter of a century afterward, the most populous state in the Union,

and one of the greatest in influence. Even with the needed nine states

all in hand, it is clear that the new government could not have gone

into successful operation with the leading state, the home of Washington

himself, left out in the cold. The New Roof, as men were then fond of

calling the Federal Constitution, must speedily have fallen in without

this indispensable prop. When it was known that Virginia had ratified,

it was felt that the victory was won, and the success of the new scheme

assured. The 4th of July, 1788, witnessed such loud rejoicings as have

perhaps never been seen before or since on American soil. In

Philadelphia there was a procession miles in length, in which every

trade was represented, and wagons laden with implements of industry or

emblematic devices alternated with bands of music and gorgeous banners.

There figured the New Roof, supported by thirteen columns, and there was

to be seen the Ship of State, the good ship Constitution, made out of

the barge which Paul Jones had taken from the shattered and

blood-stained Serapis, after his terrible fight. As for the old scow

Confederacy, Imbecility master, it was proclaimed she had foundered at

sea, and "the sloop Anarchy, when last heard from, was ashore on Union

Rocks." All over the country there were processions and bonfires, and in

some towns there were riots. In Providence the Federalists prepared a

barbecue of oxen roasted whole, but a mob of farmers, led by three

members of the state legislature, attempted to disperse them, and were

with some difficulty pacified. In Albany the Antifederalists publicly

burned the Constitution, whereupon a party of Federalists brought out

another copy of it, and nailed it to the top of a pole, which they

planted defiantly amid the ashes of the fire their opponents had made.

Out of these proceedings there grew a riot, in which knives were drawn,

stones were thrown, and blood was shed.

[Sidenote: The struggle in New York.]

[Sidenote: The "Federalist."]

Such incidents might have served to remind one that the end had not yet

come. The difficulties were not yet surmounted, and the rejoicing was in

some respects premature. It was now settled that the new government was

to go into operation, but how it was going to be able to get along

without the adhesion of New York it was not easy to see. It is true that

New York then ranked only as fifth among the states in population, but

commercially and militarily she was the centre of the Union. She not

only touched at once on the ocean and the lakes, but she separated New

England from the rest of the country. It was rightly felt that the Union

could never be cemented without this central state. So strongly were

people impressed with this feeling that some went so far as to threaten

violence. It was said that if New York did not come into the Union

peacefully and of her own accord, she should be conquered and dragged

in. That she would come in peacefully seemed at first very improbable.

When the state convention assembled at Poughkeepsie, on the 17th of

June, more than two thirds of its members were avowed Antifederalists.

At their head was the governor, George Clinton, hard-headed and

resolute, the bitterest hater of the Constitution that could be found

anywhere in the thirteen states. Foremost among his supporters were

Yates and Lansing, with Melanchthon Smith, a man familiar with political

history, and one of the ablest debaters in the country. On the

Federalist side were such eminent men as Livingston and Jay; but the

herculean task of vanquishing this great hostile majority, and

converting it by sheer dint of argument into a majority on the right

side, fell chiefly upon the shoulders of one man. But for Alexander

Hamilton the decision of New York would unquestionably have been adverse

to the Constitution. Nay, more, it is very improbable that, but for him,

the good work would have made such progress as it had in the other

states. To get the people to adopt the Constitution, it was above all

things needful that its practical working should be expounded, in

language such as every one could understand, by some writer endowed in

the highest degree with political intelligence and foresight. Upon their

return from the Federal Convention, Yates and Lansing had done all in

their power to bring its proceedings into ill-repute. Pamphlets and

broadsides were scattered right and left. The Constitution was called

the "triple-headed monster," and declared to be "as deep and wicked a

conspiracy as ever was invented in the darkest ages against the

liberties of a free people." It soon occurred to Hamilton that it would

be well worth while to explain the meaning of all parts of the

Constitution in a series of short, incisive essays. He communicated his

plan to Madison and Jay, who joined him in the work, and the result was

the "Federalist," perhaps the most famous of American books, and

undoubtedly the most profound and suggestive treatise on government that

has ever been written. Of the eighty-five numbers originally published

in the "Independent Gazetteer," under the common signature of "Publius,"

Jay wrote five, Madison twenty-nine, and Hamilton fifty-one. Jay's

papers related chiefly to diplomatic points, with which his experience

abroad had fitted him to deal. The first number was written by Hamilton

in the cabin of a sloop on the Hudson, in October, 1787; and they

continued to appear, sometimes as often as three or four in a week,

through the winter and spring. Madison would have contributed a larger

share than he did had he not been called early in March to Virginia to

fight the battle of the Constitution in that state. The essays were

widely and eagerly read, and probably accomplished more toward insuring

the adoption of the Constitution than anything else that was said or

done in that eventful year. They were hastily written,--struck out at

white heat by men full of their subject. Doubtless the authors did not

realize the grandeur of the literary work they were doing, and among the

men of the time there were few who foresaw the immortal fame which these

essays were to earn. It is said of one of the senators in the first

Congress that he made the memorandum, "Get the 'Federalist,' if I can,

without buying it. It isn't worth it." But for all posterity the

"Federalist" must remain the most authoritative commentary upon the

Constitution that can be found; for it is the joint work of the

principal author of that Constitution and of its most brilliant

advocate.

In nothing could the flexibleness of Hamilton's intellect, or the

genuineness of his patriotism, have been more finely shown than in the

hearty zeal and transcendent ability with which he now wrote in defence

of a plan of government so different from what he would himself have

proposed. He made Madison's thoughts his own, until he set them forth

with even greater force than Madison himself could command. Yet no

arguments could possibly be less chargeable with partisanship than the

arguments of the "Federalist." The judgment is as dispassionate as could

be shown in a philosophical treatise. The tone is one of grave and lofty

eloquence, apt to move even to tears the reader who is fully alive to

the stupendous issues that were involved in the discussion. Hamilton was

supremely endowed with the faculty of imagining, with all the

circumstantial minuteness of concrete reality, political situations

different from those directly before him; and he put this rare power to

noble use in tracing out the natural and legitimate working of such a

Constitution as that which the Federal Convention had framed.

[Sidenote: Hamilton wins the victory, and New York ratifies, July 26.]

When it came to defending the Constitution before the hostile convention

at Poughkeepsie, he had before him as arduous a task as ever fell to the

lot of a parliamentary debater. It was a case where political management

was out of the question. The opposition were too numerous to be

silenced, or cajoled, or bargained with. They must be converted. With an

eloquence scarcely equalled before or since in America until Webster's

voice was heard, Hamilton argued week after week, till at last

Melanchthon Smith, the foremost debater of Clinton's party, broke away,

and came to the Federalist side. It was like crushing the centre of a

hostile army. After this the Antifederalist forces were confused and

easily routed. The decisive struggle was over the question whether New

York could ratify the Constitution conditionally, reserving to herself

the right to withdraw from the Union in case the amendments upon which

she had set her heart should not be adopted. Upon this point Hamilton

reinforced himself with the advice of Madison, who had just returned to

New York. Could a state once adopt the Constitution, and then withdraw

from the Union if not satisfied? Madison's reply was prompt and

decisive. No, such a thing could never be done. A state which had once

ratified was in the federal bond forever. The Constitution could not

provide for nor contemplate its own overthrow. There could be no such

thing as a constitutional right of secession. When Melanchthon Smith

deserted the Antifederalists on this point, the victory was won, and on

the 26th of July, New York ratified the Constitution by the bare

majority of 30 votes against 27. Rejoicings were now renewed throughout

the country. In the city of New York there was an immense parade, and as

the emblematic federal ship was drawn through the streets, with

Hamilton's name emblazoned on her side, it was doubtless the proudest

moment of the young statesman's life.

[Sidenote: The laggard states, North Carolina and Rhode Island.]

New York, however, dogged her acceptance by proposing, a few days

afterward, that a second Federal Convention be called for considering

the amendments suggested by the various states. The proposal was

supported by the Virginia legislature, but Massachusetts and

Pennsylvania opposed it, as having a dangerous tendency to reopen the

whole discussion and unsettle everything. The proposal fell to the

ground. People were weary of the long dispute, and turned their

attention to electing representatives to the first Congress. With the

adhesion of New York all serious anxiety came to an end. The new

government could be put in operation without waiting for North Carolina

and Rhode Island to make up their minds. The North Carolina convention

met on the 21st of July, and adjourned on the 1st of August without

coming to any decision. The same objections were raised as in Virginia;

and besides, the paper-money party was here much stronger than in the

neighbouring state. In Rhode Island paper money was the chief

difficulty; that state did not even take the trouble to call a

convention. It was not until the 21st of November, 1789, after

Washington's government had been several months in operation, that North

Carolina joined the Federal Union. Rhode Island did not join till the

29th of May, 1790. If she had waited but a few months longer, Vermont,

the first state not of the original thirteen, would have come in before

her.

The autumn of 1788 was a season of busy but peaceful electioneering.

That remarkable body, the Continental Congress, in putting an end to its

troubled existence, decreed that presidential electors should be chosen

on the first Wednesday of January, 1789, that the electors should meet

and cast their votes for president on the first Wednesday in February,

and that the Senate and House of Representatives should assemble on the

first Wednesday in March. This latter day fell, in 1789, on the 4th of

the month, and accordingly, three years afterward, Congress took it for

a precedent, and decreed that thereafter each new administration should

begin on the 4th of March. It was further decided, after some warm

debate, that until the site for the proposed federal city could be

selected and built upon, the seat of the new government should be the

city of New York.

[Sidenote: First presidential election, Jan. 7, 1789.]

In accordance with these decrees, presidential elections were held on

the first Wednesday in January. The Antifederalists were still potent

for mischief in New York, with the result that, just as that state had

not joined in the Declaration of Independence until after it had been

proclaimed to the world, and just as she refused to adopt the Federal

Constitution until after more than the requisite number of states had

ratified it, so now she failed to choose electors, and had nothing to do

with the vote that made Washington our first president. The other ten

states that had ratified the Constitution all chose electors. But things

moved slowly and cumbrously at this first assembling of the new

government. The House of Representatives did not succeed in getting a

quorum together until the 1st of April. On the 6th, the Senate chose

John Langdon for its president, and the two houses in concert counted

the electoral votes. There were 69 in all, and every one of the 69 was

found to be for George Washington of Virginia. For the second name on

the list there was nothing like such unanimity. It was to be expected

that the other name would be that of a citizen of Massachusetts, as the

other leading state in the Union. The two foremost citizens of

Massachusetts bore the same name, and were cousins. There would have

been most striking poetic justice in coupling with the name of

Washington that of Samuel Adams, since these two men had been

indisputably foremost in the work of achieving the independence of the

United States. But for the hesitancy of Samuel Adams in indorsing the

Federal Constitution, he would very likely have been our first

vice-president and our second president. But the wave of federalism had

now begun to sweep strongly over Massachusetts, carrying everything

before it, and none but the most ardent Federalists had a chance to meet

in the electoral college. Voices were raised in behalf of Samuel Adams.

While we honour the American Fabius, it was said, let us not forget the

American Cato. It was urged by some, with much truth, that but for his

wise and cautious action in the Massachusetts convention, the good ship

Constitution would have been fatally wrecked upon the reefs of Shaysism.

His course had not been that of an obstructionist, like that of his old

friends Henry and Lee and Gerry; but at the critical moment--one of the

most critical in all that wonderful crisis--he had thrown his vast

influence, with decisive effect, upon the right side. All this is plain

enough to the historian of to-day. But in the political fervour of the

election of 1789, the fact most clearly visible to men was that Samuel

Adams had hesitated, and perhaps made things wait. These points came out

most distinctly on the issue of his election to the Federal Congress,

in which he was defeated by the youthful Fisher Ames, whose eloquence in

the state convention had been so conspicuous and useful; but they serve

to explain thoroughly why he was not put upon the presidential list

along with Washington. His cousin, John Adams, had just returned from

his mission to England, weary and disgusted with the scanty respect

which he had been able to secure for a feeble league of states that

could not make good its own promises. His services during the Revolution

had been of the most splendid sort: and after Washington, he was the

second choice of the electoral college, receiving 34 votes, while John

Jay of New York, his nearest competitor, received only 9. John Adams was

accordingly declared vice-president.

[Sidenote: Inauguration of Washington, April 30.]

On the 14th of April Washington was informed of his election, and on the

next day but one he bid adieu again to his beloved home at Mount Vernon,

where he had hoped to pass the remainder of his days in that rural peace

and quiet for which no one yearns like the man who is burdened with

greatness and fame unsought for. The position to which he was summoned

was one of unparalleled splendour,--how splendid we can now realize much

better than he, and our grandchildren will realize it better than

we,--the position of first ruler of what was soon to become at once the

strongest and the most peace-loving people upon the face of the earth.

As he journeyed toward New York, his thoughts must have been busy with

the arduous problems of the time. Already, doubtless, he had marked out

the two great men, Jefferson and Hamilton, for his chief advisers: the

one to place us in a proper attitude before the mocking nations of

Europe; the other to restore our shattered credit, and enlist the

moneyed interests of all the states in the success of the Federal Union.

Washington's temperament was a hopeful one, as befitted a man of his

strength and dash. But in his most hopeful mood he could hardly have

dared to count upon such a sudden and wonderful demonstration of

national strength as was about to ensue upon the heroic financial

measures of Hamilton. His meditations on this journey we may well

believe to have been solemn and anxious enough. But if he could gather

added courage from the often-declared trust of his fellow-countrymen,

there was no lack of such comfort for him. At every town through which

he passed, fresh evidences of it were gathered, but at one point on the

route his strong nature was especially wrought upon. At Trenton, as he

crossed the bridge over the Assunpink Creek, where twelve years ago, at

the darkest moment of the Revolution, he had outwitted Cornwallis in the

most skilful of stratagems, and turned threatening defeat into glorious

victory,--at this spot, so fraught with thrilling associations, he was

met by a party of maidens dressed in white, who strewed his path with

sweet spring flowers, while triumphal arches in softest green bore

inscriptions declaring that he who had watched over the safety of the

mothers could well be trusted to protect the daughters. On the 23d he

arrived in New York, and was entertained at dinner by Governor Clinton.

One week later, on the 30th, came the inauguration. It was one of those

magnificent days of clearest sunshine that sometimes make one feel in

April as if summer had come. At noon of that day Washington went from

his lodgings, attended by a military escort, to Federal Hall, at the

corner of Wall and Nassau streets, where his statue has lately been

erected. The city was ablaze with excitement. A sea of upturned eager

faces surrounded the spot, and as the hero appeared thousands of cocked

hats were waved, while ladies fluttered their white handkerchiefs.

Washington came forth clad in a suit of dark brown cloth of American

make, with white silk hose and shoes decorated with silver buckles,

while at his side hung a dress-sword. For a moment all were hushed in

deepest silence, while the secretary of the Senate held forth the Bible

upon a velvet cushion, and Chancellor Livingston administered the oath

of office. Then, before Washington had as yet raised his head,

Livingston shouted,--and from all the vast company came answering

shouts,--"Long live George Washington, President of the United States!"

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

The bibliography of the period covered in this book is most copiously

and thoroughly treated in the seventh volume of Winsor's _Narrative and

Critical History of America_, Boston, 1888. For the benefit of the

reader who may not have ready access to that vast storehouse of

information, the following brief notes may be of service.

The best account of the peace negotiations is to be found in chapter ii.

of Winsor's volume just cited, written by Hon. John Jay, who had already

discussed the subject quite thoroughly in his _Address before the New

York Historical Society on its Seventy-Ninth Anniversary_, Nov. 27,

1883. Of the highest value are Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice's _Life of Lord

Shelburne_, 3 vols., London, 1875-76, and Adolphe de Circourt, _Histoire

de l'action commune de la France et de l'Amérique, etc._, tome iii.,

_Documents originaux inédits_, Paris, 1876. See also Sparks, _Diplomatic

Correspondence of the American Revolution_, 12 vols., Boston, 1829-30;

Trescot's _Diplomacy of the American Revolution_, N.Y., 1852; Lyman's

_Diplomacy of the United States_, Boston, 1826; Elliot's _American

Diplomatic Code_, 2 vols., Washington, 1834; Chalmers's _Collection of

Treaties_, 2 vols., London, 1790; Lord Stanhope's _History of England_,

vol. vii., London, 1853; Lecky's _History of England_, vol. iv., London,

1882; Lord John Russell's _Memorials of Fox_, 4 vols., London, 1853-57;

Albemarle's _Rockingham and his Contemporaries_, 2 vols., London, 1852;

Walpole's _Last Journals_, 2 vols., London, 1859; Force's _American

Archives_, 4th series, 6 vols., Washington, 1839-46; John Adams's

_Works_, 10 vols., Boston, 1850-56; Rives's _Life of Madison_, 3 vols.,

Boston, 1859-68; Madison's _Letters and other Writings_, 4 vols.,

Phila., 1865; the lives of Franklin, by Bigelow and Parton; the lives

of Jay, by Jay, Flanders, and Whitelocke; Morse's _John Adams_, Boston,

1885; _Correspondence of George III. with Lord North_, 2 vols., London,

1867; Wharton's _Digest of International Law_, Washington, 1887,

_Appendix_ to vol. iii.; Hale's _Franklin in France_, 2 vols., Boston,

1888. The view of the treaty set forth in 1830 by Sparks, according to

which Jay and Adams were quite mistaken in their suspicions of the

French court, we may now regard as disposed of by the evidence presented

by Circourt and Fitzmaurice. It has led many writers astray, and even

with all the lights which Mr. Bancroft has had, the account in the last

revision of his _History of the United States_, vol. v., N.Y., 1886,

though in some respects one of the best to be found in the general

histories, still leaves much to be desired.

The general condition of the United States under the articles of

confederation is well sketched in the sixth volume of Bancroft's final

revision, and in Curtis's _History of the Constitution_, 2 vols., N.Y.,

1861. An excellent summary is given in the first volume of Schouler's

_History of the United States under the Constitution_, of which vols,

i.-iii. (Washington, 1882-85) have appeared. Mr. Schouler's book is

suggestive and stimulating. The work most rich in details is Professor

McMaster's _History of the People of the United States_, of which the

first volume rather more than covers the period 1783-89. The author is

especially deserving of praise for the diligence with which he has

searched the newspapers and obscure pamphlets of the period. He has thus

given much fresh life to the narrative, besides throwing valuable light

upon the thoughts and feelings of the men who lived under the "league of

friendship." I take pleasure in acknowledging my indebtedness to

Professor McMaster for several interesting illustrative details, chiefly

in my third, fourth, and seventh chapters. At the same time one is

sorely puzzled at some of his omissions, as in the account of the

Federal Convention, in which one finds no allusion whatever to the

all-important question of the representation of slaves, or to the

compromise by which New England secured to Congress full power to

regulate commerce by yielding to Georgia and South Carolina in the

matter of the African slave-trade. So the discussion as to the national

executive is carried on till July 26th, when it was decided that the

president should be chosen by Congress for a single term of seven years;

then the subject is dropped, and the reader is left to suppose that such

was the final arrangement. Instances of what seems like carelessness are

sufficiently numerous to make the book in some places an unsafe guide to

the general reader, but in spite of such defects, which a careful

revision might remedy, its value is great. Further general information

as to the period of the Confederation may be found in Morse's admirable

_Life of Alexander Hamilton_, 3d ed., 2 vols., Boston, 1882; J.C.

Hamilton's _Republic of the United States_, 7 vols., Boston, 1879;

Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, Boston, 1872, chapter xii.; Von

Holst's _Constitutional History_, 5 vols., Chicago, 1877-85, chapter i.;

Pitkin's _History of the United States_, 2 vols., New Haven, 1828, vol.

ii.; Marshall's _Life of Washington_, 5 vols., Phila., 1805-07;

_Journals of Congress_, 13 vols., Phila., 1800; _Secret Journals of

Congress_, 4 vols., Boston, 1820-21.

On the loyalists and their treatment, the able essay by Rev. G.E. Ellis,

in Winsor's seventh volume, is especially rich in bibliographical

references. See also Sabine's _Loyalists of the American Revolution_, 2

vols., Boston, 1864; Ryerson's _Loyalists of America_, 2 vols., Toronto,

1880; Jones's _New York during the Revolution_, 2 vols., N.Y., 1879.

Although chiefly concerned with events earlier than 1780, the _Journal

and Letters of Samuel Curwen_, 4th ed., Boston, 1864, and especially the

_Diary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson_, 2 vols., Boston, 1884-86, are

valuable in this connection.

For the financial troubles the most convenient general survey is to be

found in A.S. Bolles's _Financial History of the United States_,

1774-1789, N.Y., 1879; Sparks's _Life of Gouverneur Morris_, 3 vols.,

Boston, 1832; Pelatiah Webster's _Political Essays_, Phila., 1791;

Phillips's _Colonial and Continental Paper Currency_, 2 vols., Roxbury,

1865-66; Varnum's _Case of Trevett v. Weeden_, Providence, 1787;

Arnold's _History of Rhode Island_, 2 vols., N.Y., 1859-60. The best

account of the Shays rebellion is G.R. Minot's _History of the

Insurrections in Massachusetts_, Worcester, 1788; see also Barry's

_History of Massachusetts_, 3 vols., Boston, 1855-57; Austin's _Life of

Gerry_, 2 vols., Boston, 1828-29. A new and interesting account of the

northwestern cessions and the Ordinance of 1787 is B.A. Hinsdale's _Old

Northwest_, N.Y., 1888; see also Dunn's _Indiana_, Boston, 1888;

Cutler's _Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Manasseh Cutler_, 2

vols., Cincinnati, 1887.

In the _Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political

Science_, the following articles bear especially upon subjects here

treated and are worthy of careful study: II., v., vi., H.C. Adams,

_Taxation in the United States_, 1789-1816; III., i., H.B. Adams,

_Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States_; III.,

ix., x., Davis, _American Constitutions_; IV., v., Jameson's

_Introduction to the Constitutional and Political History of the

Individual States_; IV., vii.-ix., Shoshuke Sato's _History of the Land

Question in the United States_.

For the proceedings of the Federal Convention in framing the

Constitution, and of the several state conventions in ratifying it, the

great treasure-house of authoritative information is Elliot's _Debates

in the Conventions_, 5 vols., originally published under the sanction of

Congress in 1830-45; new reprint, Phila., 1888. The contents of the

volumes are as follows:--

I. Sundry preliminary papers, relating to the ante-revolutionary

period, and the period of the Confederation; journal of the Federal

Convention; Yates's minutes of the proceedings; the official

letters of Martin, Yates, Lansing, Randolph, Mason, and Gerry, in

explanation of their several courses; Jay's address to the people

of New York; and other illustrative papers.

II, III., IV. Proceedings of the several state conventions; with

other documents, including the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of

1798, and data relating thereto.

V. Madison's journal of debates in the Congress of the

Confederation, Nov. 4, 1782-June 21, 1783, and Feb. 19-April 25,

1787; Madison's journal of the Federal Convention; letters from

Madison to Washington, Jefferson, and Randolph, Sept. 1787-Nov.

1788; and other papers.

The best edition of the "Federalist" is by H.C. Lodge, N.Y., 1888. See

also Story's _Commentaries on the Constitution_, 4th ed., 3 vols.,

Boston, 1873; the works of Daniel Webster, 6 vols., Boston, 1851; Hurd's

_Theory of our National Existence_, Boston, 1881. The above works

expound the Constitution as not a league between sovereign states but a

fundamental law ordained by the people of the United States. The

opposite view is presented in _The Republic of Republics_, by P.C. Centz

[Plain Common Sense, pseudonym of B.J. Sage of New Orleans], Boston,

1881; the works of Calhoun, 6 vols., N.Y., 1853-55; A.H. Stephens's _War

between the States_, 2 vols., Phila., 1868; Jefferson Davis's _Rise and

Fall of the Confederate Government_, 2 vols., N.Y., 1881.

Several volumes of the "American Statesmen" contain interesting accounts

of discussions in the various conventions, as Tyler's _Patrick Henry_,

Hosmer's _Samuel Adams_, Lodge's _Hamilton_, Magruder's _Marshall_,

Roosevelt's _Morris_. Gay's _Madison_ falls far below the general

standard of this excellent and popular series. No satisfactory biography

of Madison has yet been written, though the voluminous work of W.C.

Rives contains much good material. For judicial interpretations of the

Constitution one may consult B.R. Curtis's _Digest of Decisions_,

1790-1854; Flanders's _Lives of the Chief Justices_, Phila., 1858;

Marshall's _Writings on the Federal Constitution_, ed. Perkins, Boston,

1839; see also Pomeroy's _Constitutional Law_, N.Y., 1868; Wharton's

_Commentaries_, Phila., 1884; Von Holst's _Calhoun_, Boston, 1882;

Tyler's _Letters and Times of the Tylers_, 2 vols., Richmond, 1884-85.

Among critical and theoretical works, Fisher's _Trial of the

Constitution_, Phila., 1862, and Lockwood's _Abolition of the

Presidency_, N.Y., 1884, are variously suggestive; Woodrow Wilson's

_Congressional Government_, Boston, 1885, is a work of rare ability,

pointing out the divergence which has arisen between the literary theory

of our government and its practical working. Walter Bagehot's _English

Constitution_, revised ed., Boston, 1873, had already, in a most

profound and masterly fashion, exhibited the divergence between the

literary theory and the actual working of the British government. Some

points of weakness in the British system are touched in Albert

Stickney's _True Republic_, N.Y., 1879; see also his _Democratic

Government_, N.Y., 1885. The constitutional history of England is

presented, in its earlier stages, with prodigious learning, by Dr.

Stubbs, 3 vols., London, 1873-78, and in its later stages by Hallam, 2

vols., London, 1842, and Sir Erskine May, 2 vols., Boston, 1862-63; see

also Freeman's _Growth of the English Constitution_, London, 1872;

_Comparative Politics_, London, 1873; _Some Impressions of the United

States_, London, 1883; Rudolph Gneist, _History of the English

Constitution_, 2 vols., London, 1886; J.S. Mill, _Representative

Government_, N.Y., 1862; Sir H. Maine, _Popular Government_, N.Y., 1886;

S.R. Gardiner's _Introduction to the Study of English History_, London,

1881. In this connection I may refer to my own book, _American Political

Ideas_, N.Y., 1885; and my articles, "Great Britain," "House of Lords,"

and "House of Commons," in Lalor's _Cyclopædia of Political Science_, 3

vols., Chicago, 1882-84. It is always pleasant to refer to that

cyclopædia, because it contains the numerous articles on American

history by Prof. Alexander Johnston. One must stop somewhere, and I will

conclude by saying that I do not know where one can find anything more

richly suggestive than Professor Johnston's articles.

MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.

The names of those who for various reasons were absent when the

Constitution was signed are given in italics; the names of those who

were present, but refused to sign, are given in small capitals.

New Hampshire John Langdon.

Nicholas Gilman.

Massachusetts ELBRIDGE GERRY.

Nathaniel Gorham.

Rufus King.

_Caleb Strong._

Connecticut William Samuel Johnson.

Roger Sherman.

_Oliver Ellsworth._

New York _Robert Yates._

Alexander Hamilton.

_John Lansing._

New Jersey William Livingston.

David Brearley.

_William Churchill Houston._

William Paterson.

Jonathan Dayton.

Pennsylvania Benjamin Franklin.

Thomas Mifflin.

Robert Morris.

George Clymer.

Thomas Fitzsimmons.

Jared Ingersoll.

James Wilson.

Gouverneur Morris.

Delaware George Read.

Gunning Bedford.

John Dickinson.

Richard Bassett.

Jacob Broom.

Maryland James McHenry.

Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer.

Daniel Carroll.

_John Francis Mercer._

_Luther Martin._

Virginia George Washington.

EDMUND RANDOLPH.

John Blair.

James Madison.

GEORGE MASON.

_George Wythe._

_James McClurg._

North Carolina _Alexander Martin._

_William Richardson Davie._

William Blount.

Richard Dobbs Spaight.

Hugh Williamson.

South Carolina John Rutledge.

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.

Charles Pinckney.

Pierce Butler.

Georgia William Few.

Abraham Baldwin.

_William Pierce._

_William Houstoun._

Of those who signed their names to the Federal Constitution, the six

following were signers of the Declaration of Independence:--

Roger Sherman,

Benjamin Franklin,

Robert Morris,

George Clymer,

James Wilson,

George Read.

The ten following were appointed as delegates to the Federal

Convention, but never took their seats:--

New Hampshire John Pickering.

Benjamin West.

Massachusetts Francis Dana.

New Jersey John Nelson.

Abraham Clark.

Virginia Patrick Henry (declined).

North Carolina Richard Caswell (resigned).

Willie Jones (declined).

Georgia George Walton.

Nathaniel Pendleton.

No delegates were appointed by Rhode Island. In a letter addressed to

"the Honourable the Chairman of the General Convention," and dated

"Providence, May 11, 1787," several leading citizens of Rhode Island

expressed their regret that their state should not be represented on so

momentous an occasion. At the same time, says the letter, "the result of

your deliberations ... we still hope may finally be approved and adopted

by this state, for which we pledge our influence and best exertions."

The letter was signed by John Brown, Joseph Nightingale, Levi Hall,

Philip Allen, Paul Allen, Jabez Bowen, Nicholas Brown, John Jinkes,

Welcome Arnold, William Russell, Jeremiah Olney, William Barton, and

Thomas Lloyd Halsey. The letter was presented to the Convention on May

28th by Gouverneur Morris, and, "being read, was ordered to lie on the

table for further consideration." See Elliot's _Debates_, v. 125.

The Constitution was ratified by the thirteen states, as follows:--

1. Delaware Dec. 6, 1787.

2. Pennsylvania Dec. 12, 1787.

3. New Jersey Dec. 18, 1787.

4. Georgia Jan. 2, 1788.

5. Connecticut Jan. 9, 1788.

6. Massachusetts Feb. 6, 1788.

7. Maryland April 28, 1788.

8. South Carolina May 23, 1788.

9. New Hampshire June 21, 1788.

10. Virginia June 25, 1788.

11. New York July 26, 1788.

12. North Carolina Nov. 21, 1789.

13. Rhode Island May 29, 1790.

PRESIDENTS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS.

1. Peyton Randolph of Virginia Sept. 5, 1774.

2. Henry Middleton of South Carolina Oct. 22, 1774.

Peyton Randolph May 10, 1775.

3. John Hancock of Massachusetts May 24, 1775.

4. Henry Laurens of South Carolina Nov. 1, 1777.

5. John Jay of New York Dec. 10, 1778.

6. Samuel Huntington of Connecticut Sept. 28, 1779.

7. Thomas McKean of Delaware July 10, 1781.

8. John Hanson of Maryland Nov. 5, 1781.

9. Elias Boudinot of New Jersey Nov. 4, 1782.

10. Thomas Mifflin of Pennsylvania Nov. 3, 1783.

11. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia Nov. 30, 1784.

12. Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts June 6, 1786.

13. Arthur St. Clair of Pennsylvania Feb. 2, 1787.

14. Cyrus Griffin of Virginia Jan. 22, 1788.

INDEX.

Acadians, 205.

Adams, Herbert B., 192.

Adams, John, arrives in Paris, 22;

his indignation at the pusillanimous instructions from Congress, 36;

condemns the Cincinnati, 116;

tries in vain to negotiate commercial treaty with Great Britain, 139-141;

negotiates a treaty with Holland, 155;

obtains a loan there, 156, 157;

his interview with the envoy from Tripoli, 161;

absent from the United States at the time of the Federal Convention, 223;

elected vice-president of the United States, 348.

Adams, Samuel, his devotion to local self-government, 57, 318;

his committees of correspondence, 92;

opposes Washington's proposal for pensioning officers, 106;

but at length supports the Commutation Act, 114;

condemns the Cincinnati, 116, 118;

approves the conduct of the Massachusetts delegates, 143;

opposes pardoning the ringleaders in the Shays insurrection, 184;

not a delegate to the Federal Convention, 225;

"the man of the town meeting," 318;

in the Massachusetts convention, 324, 326-328;

why not selected for the vice-presidency, 347.

Albany, riot in, 339.

Amendments to Constitution, 302, 330, 338.

Ames, Fisher, 319, 326, 348.

Amis, North Carolinian trader, 210.

Amphiktyonic council, 249.

Annapolis convention, 216.

Antagonisms between large and small states, 244-252;

between east and west, 255;

between north and south, 256-267.

Antifederalist party, 309;

in Pennsylvania, 310;

in Massachusetts, 317, 324;

in South Carolina, 334;

in Virginia, 335-337;

in New York, 340, 341, 346.

Antipathies between states, 62.

Aranda, Count, his prophecy, 19.

Aristides, pseudonym, 312.

Aristocracy, 283.

Aristotle, 225.

Arkwright, Sir Richard, 267.

Armada, the Invincible, 235.

Armstrong, John, 109, 150.

Army, dread of, 105, 321.

Arnold, Benedict, 28, 106, 151.

Asbury, Francis, 85.

Ashburton, Lord, 5.

Ashburton treaty, 26.

Assemblies, 65.

Assunpink Creek, 349.

Augustine, 158.

Backus, Rev. Isaac, 322.

Bagehot, Walter, 291.

Baldwin, Abraham, 251.

Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 213.

Baptists persecuted in Virginia, 80.

Barbary pirates, 157-161.

Barré, Isaac, 41.

Bedford, Gunning, 249.

Bennington, 321.

Bernard, Sir Francis, 298.

Biennial elections, 327.

Bill of rights demanded, 329.

Blackstone, Sir William, 290, 291, 297.

Bossuet on slavery, 72.

Boston Gazette, quoted, 328.

Boundaries of United States as settled by the treaty, 25.

Bowdoin, James, 143, 180-184, 319, 324.

Boyd, Lieutenant, 122.

Braddock, Edward, 305.

Bradshaw's Railway Guide, 171.

Brearley, David, 229, 246.

Bribery, charges of, 328.

British army departs, 51.

British Constitution compared with American, 290-298.

Buff and blue colours, 2.

Burgesses, House of, in Virginia, 65.

Burke, Ædanus, 116.

Burke, Edmund, his sympathy with the Americans, 2;

could not see the need for parliamentary reform, 6;

his invective against Shelburne, 17;

on the slave-trade, 72.

Butler, Pierce, 258.

Cabinet, the president's, 299.

Cabinet government, growth of, in England, 296.

Camden, Lord, 5.

Canada, Franklin suggests that it should be ceded to the United

States, 9, 14.

Carleton, Sir Guy, 50, 131.

Carlisle, Pa., disturbances at, 315.

Carpet-bag governments, 270.

Carr, Dabney, 92.

Carrington, Edward, 204, 307.

Carroll, Daniel, 228.

Carrying trade, 163, 263.

Cartwright, Edmund, 267.

Catalonian rebels indemnified, 29.

Catholics in the United States, 87.

Cato, pseudonym, 312.

Cavendish, Lord John, 5, 16.

Censors, council of, in Pennsylvania, 150.

Centinel, pseudonym, 313.

Cervantes, Miguel de, 159.

Charles II., 29.

Chase, Samuel, 322.

Chatham, Lord, 188.

Cherry Valley, 122.

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, 213.

Chittenden, Thomas, 121.

Cincinnati, order of the, 114-118.

Cincinnati, the city, original name of, 197.

Cincinnatus, pseudonym, 312.

Clan system, 62.

Clergymen in the Massachusetts convention, 319;

their liberal spirit, 322.

Cleveland, Grover, his tariff message, 294.

Clinton, George, favours persecution of Tories, 123;

an enemy to closer union of the states, 145;

defeats impost amendment, 220;

opposes the Constitution, 340;

entertains President Washington at dinner, 350.

Clinton, Sir Henry, 322.

Clymer, George, 311.

Coalition ministry, 38-46.

Coeur-de-Lion and Saladin, 161.

Coinage, 165.

Coke, Thomas, 86.

Columbia College, 125.

Commerce, control of, given to Congress, 263.

Common law in the United States, 69.

Commons, House of, in England, 68, 290-298;

in North Carolina, 65.

Compromises of the Federal Constitution, 250-267.

Confederation, articles of, 92-98.

Congress, Continental, its instructions to the commissioners at Paris, 35;

its weakness, 56, 98, 102-113, 234;

its anomalous character, 92;

its presidents, 96;

driven from Philadelphia by drunken soldiers, 112;

flees to Princeton, 113;

unable to enforce the provisions of the treaty, 119-131, 154;

unable to regulate commerce, 140-144;

afraid to interfere openly in the Shays rebellion, 185;

passes ordinance for government of northwestern territory, 203-206;

refuses to recommend a convention for reforming the government, 218;

reconsiders its refusal, 221;

in some respects a diplomatic rather than a legislative body, 237;

its migrations, 271, 306;

debates on the Constitution, 307;

submits it to the states, 308;

comes to an end, 345.

Congress, Federal, powers granted to, 270;

choice of president by, 282-284;

counting electoral votes in, 284, 285, 289.

Connecticut, government of, 65;

quarrels with New York and Pennsylvania, 146-151;

keeps almost entirely clear of paper money, 172;

western claims of, 189, 194;

ratifies the Constitution, 316.

Connecticut compromise, the, 250-255.

Conservative character of the American Revolution, 64.

Constitution, emblematic federal ship, 339, 344.

Convention, the Federal, 154, 222-305.

Conway, Gen. Henry, 5.

Cooper, Dr. Myles, 126.

Cornwallis, Lord, 22, 51, 349.

Council, privy, 299.

Cowardice of American politicians, 231.

Crawford, William, 51.

Curtis, B.R., 276.

Cutler, Manasseh, 203.

Dane, Nathan, 204, 217, 307.

Dayton, Jonathan, 225, 229.

Debt, imprisonment for, 173.

Debts to British creditors, 27, 131.

Delaware, government of, 65;

ratifies the Constitution, 314.

Democratic-Republican party, 309.

Dickinson, John, 93, 112, 228, 242, 243, 281, 283, 299, 312.

Dissolution of Parliament, 298.

Dollar, the Spanish, 165.

Dunmore, Lord, 298.

Election by lot, 281;

first presidential, 346-348.

Electoral college in Maryland, 66;

device adopted for choosing the president, 281-287;

its practical working, 288.

Elliot, Sir Gilbert, 3.

Ellsworth, Oliver, 228, 249, 250, 267, 269, 274, 276, 280, 300.

Embargo acts, 142.

Eminent domain, 194.

Episcopal church, 77-85.

Erie Canal, 212, 228.

Executive, federal, 241, 277;

length of term, 279;

how elected, 279-285;

corresponds to sovereign, not to prime minister, 290, 299.

Exports not to be taxed, 264, 270.

"Federal," the word preferred to "national," 254.

Federal city under federal jurisdiction, 271, 320.

"Federal Farmer" (letters by R.H. Lee), 314.

Federal Street in Boston, 331.

"Federalist," the, 235, 341-343.

Federalist party, 238, 309.

Field, S.J., 275.

Fisheries, question of, 20, 26, 37, 139, 163.

Fitzherbert, Alleyne, 22, 45.

Florida surrendered by Great Britain to Spain, 37;

disputes about boundary of, 208.

Folkland, 187, 207.

Fox, C.J., his sympathy with the Americans, 2;

quarrels with Shelburne, 6, 14;

resigns, 15;

waywardness of his early career, 16;

coalition with North, 38-42;

mistake in opposing a dissolution, 48.

France, treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, 37.

Franklin, Benjamin, negotiates with Oswald, 9;

overruled by Jay and Adams, 23;

his arguments against compensating the loyalists, 30;

ridicules the Cincinnati, 116;

returns from France, 138;

in the Federal Convention, 225, 250, 277, 299, 303, 305;

lays the Constitution before the Pennsylvania legislature, 306;

called a dotard by the Antifederalists, 313.

Franklin, state of, 200, 209.

Frederick the Great, on republics, 58.

Free trade, 4, 134-139.

French army embarks at Boston, 51.

Froissart, 153.

Frontier posts to be surrendered by Great Britain, 51;

why not surrendered, 152.

Fugitive slaves, 206, 267, 333.

Fur trade, 132, 164.

Gadsden, C., 122, 334.

Gallatin, A., 125, 134.

Galloway, Joseph, 248.

Gardoqui, Diego, 209.

Gates, Horatio, 108-111, 180.

George III. threatens to abdicate, 3;

his disgust at the coalition, 44;

rebuked by House of Commons, 46;

his personal government overthrown, 48;

hopes the Americans will repent of their folly, 58, 141;

resists the movement for abolishing slave-trade, 72;

his personal government, 297.

Georgia takes the lead in making the judiciary elective, 69;

abandons that evil practice, 69;

issues paper money, 169;

ratifies the Constitution, 316.

Germaine, Lord George, 39.

Gerry, Elbridge, 118, 229, 243, 251, 252, 256, 269, 279, 282, 298, 303,

304, 328, 347.

Gibbon, Edward, 38, 39.

Gibraltar, 17, 36.

Gladstone, W.E., 223, 292, 294.

Gorham, Nathaniel, 252, 253, 319.

Governors, colonial, unpopularity of, 67.

Gower, Lord, 44.

Grafton, Duke of, 5.

Grantham, Lord, 17.

Granville, Lord, 293.

Grasse, Count, defeated by Rodney, 12, 13.

Grayson, William, 162, 205, 337.

Green Dragon tavern, 327.

Greene, Nathanael, 94, 102, 108, 116, 122, 225.

Grenville, Thomas, 11.

Guadaloupe, 36.

Guilford, Earl of, 44.

Half-pay controversy, 106.

Hamilton, Alexander, his early life, 124-126;

attacks the Trespass Act, 128;

calls for a federal convention, 217;

advocates the impost amendment, 220;

in the Federal Convention, 225, 226, 243, 244, 246, 249, 254, 279, 303,

304;

on inconvertible paper, 274;

on the electoral college, 287;

called a boy by the Antifederalists, 313;

authorship of the "Federalist," 341-343;

supports the Constitution in the New York convention, 343, 344;

his financial measures, 349.

Hancock, John, 104, 184, 318, 319, 330.

Hannibal, 158.

Hargreaves, James, 267.

Harrington, James, 64.

Harrison, Benjamin, 337.

Hartington, Lord, 293.

Hartley, David, 45.

Hawks, F.L., 82.

Heath, Gen. William, 319.

Henry, Patrick, 80, 225, 331, 335, 336, 347.

Hint Club, 169.

Impost amendment, 218-240.

India bill, 46.

Insurrections, suppression of, 269.

Intercitizenship, 94.

Iroquois league, 190.

Irreconcilables in the Federal Convention, 225, 242, 244, 246, 254.

Isolation of states a century ago, 62.

Jay, John, thwarts Vergennes, 21, 35;

tries to establish free trade between United States and Great Britain,

26;

condemns persecution of Tories, 122;

on compensation for slaves, 132;

consents to the closing of the Mississippi River for twenty-five years,

210;

why not sent as delegate to Federal Convention, 225;

supports the Constitution in New York convention, 340;

contributes articles to the "Federalist," 341;

receives nine electoral votes for the vice-presidency, 348.

Jefferson, Thomas, opposed to slavery, 72;

favours religious freedom, 81;

minister to France, 138, 155;

assists Gouverneur Morris in arranging our decimal currency, 166;

his plan for the government of the northwestern territory, 196;

wishes to prohibit slavery in the national domain, 198, 205;

his purchase of Louisiana, 207;

absent from United States at the time of the Federal Convention, 225;

his faith in the people, 226, 337;

his opinion of the Constitution, 309;

approves the action of the Massachusetts convention, 331.

Johnson, W.S., 229.

Johnston, Alexander, 223.

Jones, Paul, 339.

Jonesborough, convention at, 200.

Judiciary, elective, 69;

federal, 242, 300, 301.

Juilliard _vs._ Greenman, 275.

Kentucky, 18, 189, 199, 202, 209, 210.

Keppel, Lord, 5, 16, 45.

King, Rufus, 217, 221, 228, 246, 249, 250, 256, 261, 276, 279, 282, 324,

326.

King's Mountain, 28, 200, 321.

Kings, election of, in Poland, 279.

Know Ye men and Know Ye measures, 177, 243.

Knox, Henry, 114.

Lafayette, 50, 54.

Langdon, John, 229, 269, 274, 276, 283, 346.

Lansing, John, 225, 242, 244, 246, 254, 340, 341.

Laurens, Henry, 2, 22.

Lecky, W., 103.

Ledyard, Isaac, 128.

Lee, Henry, 307, 337.

Lee, Richard Henry, 57, 143, 204, 205, 225, 307, 313, 318, 328, 336, 337,

347.

"Letters from a Federal Farmer," by R.H. Lee, 314.

Lexington, 50, 321.

Lincoln, Abraham, 72, 198, 207.

Lincoln, Benjamin, 181-183, 319, 332.

Livingston, Robert, 36, 340, 350.

Livingston, William, 171, 229.

Locke, John, 64, 225.

Long Lane becomes Federal Street, 331.

Long Parliament, 92, 235.

Lords, House of, 66, 68;

contrasted with Senate, 295.

Lowndes, Rawlins, 332-334.

Loyalists, compensation of, 28-33;

persecution of, 120-130;

did not form, in any proper sense of the word, an opposition party, 308.

Luzerne, Chevalier de, 35, 54.

Lykian League, 249.

Macdougall, Alexander, 107.

McDuffle, George, 60.

McKean, Thomas, 316.

McMaster, J.B., 151.

Madison, James, and the Religious Freedom Act, 81;

on right of coercion, 100;

advocates five per cent. impost, 104;

on the ordinance of 1787, 206;

moves that a convention be held to secure a uniform commercial policy,

214;

succeeds in getting delegates appointed, 220;

his character and appearance, 226, 227;

his journal of the proceedings, 229;

chief author of the Virginia plan, 233, 267;

one of the first to arrive at the fundamental conception of our partly

federal and partly national government, 239;

approves at first of giving Congress the power to annul state laws, 241;

opposes the New Jersey plan, 246;

declares that the real antagonism is between slave states and free

states, 249, 256;

author of the three fifths compromise, 260, 261;

condemns paper money, 275;

disapproves of election of the executive by the legislature, 279;

approves of a privy council, 299;

supports the Constitution in Congress, 307;

called a boy by the Antifederalists, 313;

supports the Constitution in the Virginia convention, 337;

part author of the "Federalist," 341, 342;

denies that there can be a constitutional right of secession, 344.

Maine as part of Massachusetts, 317.

Manchester, Duke of, 45.

Marbois, François de Barbé, 22, 35.

Marion, Francis, 122.

Marshall, John, 82, 276, 301, 337.

Martin, Luther, 229, 242-244, 246, 249, 250, 254, 275, 322.

Maryland, government of, 65;

insists upon cession of northwestern lands, 93, 192, 195;

paper money in, 170;

message to Virginia, 215;

ratifies the Constitution, 332.

Mason, George, 229, 243, 252, 264, 265, 275, 276, 277, 279, 281, 282, 283,

299, 303, 304, 335, 337.

Massachusetts, government of, 67;

abolishes slavery, 75;

religious bigotry, 76;

on the five per cent. duty, 104;

tries to propose a convention for increasing the powers of Congress, 142;

lays claim to a small part of Vermont, 152;

paper money in, 172-179;

western claims of, 189;

changes her attitude, 221;

local self-government in, 317;

debates on the Constitution, 320-330;

ratifies it, suggesting amendments, 331.

Massachusetts Chronicle, quoted, 120.

Massacre, Boston, 321.

Mayhew, Jonathan, 92.

Meade, William, 79, 83.

Mentor and Phocion, 128.

Mercer, J.F., 274.

Methodists, 85.

Middletown convention, 113.

Mifflin, Thomas, 52.

Minisink, 122.

Mirabeau, Count de, 116.

Mississippi River, attempt to close it, 209-211, 335;

valley of the, 18, 188.

Monroe, James, 216.

Montesquieu, C., 225, 291.

Moonshiners, 334.

Morris, Gouverneur, 108, 166, 228, 242, 251, 261, 264, 269, 273, 276, 279,

282, 303.

Morris, Robert, 108, 167, 228, 312.

Moultrie, William, 143, 334.

Muley Abdallah, 158.

Mutiny act, 321.

Names of persons and places, fashions in, 197.

Nantucket, 163.

Nason, Samuel, 321.

Naval eminence of New England, 20, 139.

Navigation acts, 138-143, 164.

Negroes carried away by British fleet, 131.

Nelson, Samuel, 276.

New Connecticut, 152.

New Hampshire lays claim to Vermont, 151-153;

riots in, 183;

hesitates to ratify the Constitution, 331;

ratifies it, 338.

New Jersey quarrels with New York, 146;

paper money in, 171;

opposes the attempt to close the Mississippi, 211;

instructs her delegates to the Annapolis convention, 217;

her plan for amending the articles of confederation, 245;

ratifies the Constitution, 315.

New Roof, 338.

New York passes navigation and tariff acts directed against neighbouring

states, 146;

lays claim to Vermont, 151-153;

paper money in, 170;

western claims of, 190, 193;

defeats the impost amendment, 218-220;

debates on the Constitution, 340-344;

ratifies it, 344;

asks for a second convention, 344;

fails to choose electors, 346.

New York Central Railroad, 212.

Newburgh address, 108-112, 118.

Nicola, Louis, his letter to Washington, 107, 118.

Non-importation agreement, 142.

North, Frederick, Lord, fall of his ministry, 1;

coalition with Fox, 38-42;

his blindness, 41;

his proposals after Saratoga, 91;

his subservience to the king, 297.

North Carolina issues paper money, 169;

cedes her western lands to the United States, 199;

repeals the act of cession, 201;

delays her ratification of the Constitution, 345.

Ohio, 203-206.

Old Sarum, 249.

Old South Church, 321.

Onslow, George, 2.

Ordinance of 1787, 199, 203-206.

Oregon, 60.

Oswald, Richard, 9-14, 22-26, 32, 45.

Paine, Thomas, 50, 55, 191.

Paper currency, 163-179, 205, 218, 273-276.

Parker, Theodore, 264.

Parsons, Samuel Holden, 203.

Parsons, Theophilus, 319, 324.

Parties, formation of, 308.

Paterson, William, 229, 245-248, 255, 258, 274.

Patterson, militia officer in Wyoming, 149.

Payson, Rev. Philip, 322.

Pendleton, Edmund, 336.

Pennsylvania, government of, 65;

first tariff act, 142;

quarrels with Connecticut, 148-150;

paper money in, 170;

opposes the closing of the Mississippi, 211;

contest over the Constitution, 309-314;

ratifies it, 315.

Petersham, scene of Shays's defeat, 182, 319.

Philadelphia, Congress driven from, 112;

Federal Convention meets at, 222;

unparliamentary proceedings in legislature, 311;

celebrates ratification by ten states, 339.

Phocion and Mentor, 128.

Pinckney, Charles, 228, 243, 261, 265, 266, 269, 276, 277, 334.

Pinckney, Cotesworth, 228, 243, 258, 261, 263, 265, 266, 276, 333, 334.

Pitt, Thomas, 44.

Pitt, William, chancellor of exchequer, 16;

denounces the coalition, 39;

defends the treaty, 43;

refuses to form a ministry, 44;

character, 47;

prime minister, 47;

wins a great political victory, 48;

favours free trade with the United States, 136.

Polish kings, election of, 279.

Population as an index of wealth, 257.

Portland, Duke of, 16, 45.

Potomac, navigation of, 213-216.

Poughkeepsie, convention at, 340-344.

Powers granted to federal government, 268.

Presbyterians, 81, 86.

Presidents of Continental Congress, 96.

Prevost's march against Charleston, 27.

Prime minister contrasted with president, 292-294.

Primogeniture, abolition of, 71.

Proprietary governments, 65, 71.

Providence, R.I., barbecue and mob at, 339.

Public lands, 188.

Putnam, Israel, 151.

Putnam, Rufus, 203.

Quebec act, 18.

Quesnay, François, 141.

Quorum, how to make a, 311.

Railroads, political influence of, 60.

Randolph, Edmund, 229, 233, 235, 239, 242, 246, 265, 269, 275, 276, 277,

282, 300, 303, 335, 337.

Rayneval, Gérard de, 21.

Read, George, 242, 274.

Reform, parliamentary, 6.

Religious freedom, progress in, 76-87.

Religious tests opposed by Massachusetts clergymen, 322.

Representation of slaves, 258-262.

Representatives, House of, 236, 252.

Republican party, 238.

Republics, old notion that they must be small in area, 59.

Reserve, Connecticut's western, 194.

Revenue bills, 270.

Revere, Paul, 327.

Revolution, American, its conservative character, 64;

the French, 64, 118.

Rhode Island, government of, 65;

extends franchise to Catholics, 77;

on the five per cent. duty, 104;

paper money in, 172-177;

opposes the closing of the Mississippi, 211;

does not send delegates to Philadelphia, 222;

delays her ratification of the Constitution, 345.

Richmond, Duke of, 2, 16.

Rittenhouse, David, 111.

Rockingham, Marquis of, 4;

instability of his ministry, 5;

its excellent work, 7;

his death, 15.

Rodney's victory over Grasse, 12, 13.

Roman republic not like the United States, 59.

Rousseau, J.J., 64, 117.

Rutgers, Elizabeth, 127.

Rutledge, John, 228, 243, 261, 265, 278, 279, 281, 300, 334.

St. Clair, Arthur, 197, 206.

Saladin and Coeur-de-Lion, 161.

Sandy Hook light-house, 147.

Sargent, Winthrop, 203.

Schuyler, Philip, 126, 146, 151, 193.

Scott, Sir Walter, 153.

Scottish representation in Parliament, 249.

Seabury, Samuel, 84.

Secession, threats of, 211, 218;

no constitutional right of, 344.

Secrecy of the debates in Federal Convention, 230.

Sedgwick, Theodore, 122, 319.

Self-government, 57, 63, 88.

Senate, federal, made independent of lower house, 253;

contrasted with House of Lords, 295.

Senates, origin of, 66.

Seven Years' War, 13, 188.

Sevier, John, 200.

Shattuck, Job, 180.

Shays rebellion, 180-182, 218, 243, 316, 319, 325.

Sheffield, Lord, protectionist, 137;

on the Barbary pirates, 160.

Shelburne, William, Earl of, his character, 4;

his memorandum on proposed cession of Canada, 11;

prime minister, 16;

approached by Rayneval and Vaughan, 22;

misjudged by Fox, 40;

defends the treaty, 43;

resigns, 44;

his conduct justified by his enemies, 45;

understood the principles of free trade, 4, 134.

Shepard, William, 180, 181.

Sherman, Roger, 229, 243, 250, 255, 267, 274, 276, 279, 283, 299, 313;

his suggestion as to relations of the executive to the legislature, 278,

280, 298.

Shillings, 165.

Ship-building in New England, 137-139.

Shute, Rev. Daniel, 322.

Sidney, Algernon, 64.

Singletary, Amos, 322, 324, 325.

Six Nations, 190, 203.

Slave-trade, foreign, permitted for twenty years, 264, 323, 333.

Slavery in the several states, 72-75, 266;

prohibited in northwestern territory, 205;

discussions about it in Federal Convention, 257-267;

condemned by George Mason, 264.

Slaves, representation of, 258-262;

numbers of, in the several states, 266.

Small states converted to federalism by the Connecticut compromise, 255,

315.

Smith, Adam, 125, 134, 135.

Smith, Capt. John, 191.

Smith, Jonathan, 324-326.

Smith, Melanchthon, 340, 343, 344.

Smugglers, 135.

South Carolina, Episcopal church in, 78, 82;

revokes five per cent. impost, 108;

issues paper money, 169;

absolute need of conciliating her, 259, 260;

makes bargain with New England states, 262-267;

debates on the Constitution, 332-334;

ratifies it, 334.

Sovereignty never belonged to separate states, 90.

Spain, treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, 36;

attempts to close Mississippi River, 208-211, 218, 335.

Spanish dollar, why it superseded English pound as unit of value in

America, 166.

Spermaceti oil, 139, 163.

Springfield arsenal, 181, 185.

States, powers denied to, 272.

Stormont, Lord, 45.

Story, Joseph, 276.

Strachey, Sir Henry, 22.

Strong, Caleb, 228, 252, 279, 324, 327.

Succession disputed, 289.

Suffrage, limitations upon, 70.

Sugar trade, 138.

Temple, Lord, 44, 46.

Tennessee, 18, 189, 199.

Thayendanegea, 50.

Thomas, Isaiah, 165.

Thompson, Gen., in Massachusetts convention, 324.

Thurlow, Lord, 5.

Thurston, member of Virginia legislature, 144.

Tithing-men in New England, 76.

Tobacco as currency in Virginia, 165.

Tories, American; see Loyalists.

Tories, British, 42.

Townshend, Thomas, 17.

Trade, barbarous superstitions about, 134.

Travelling, difficulties of, a century ago, 61.

Treaty of 1783, difficulties in the way of, 8;

strange character of, 24;

provisions of, 25-33;

a great diplomatic victory for the Americans, 34, 189;

secret article relating to Florida boundary, 33, 208;

adopted, 45;

news arrives in America, 50;

Congress unable to carry out its provisions, 119-132, 154.

Trespass Act in New York. 123-128.

Trevett _vs._ Weeden, 176.

Tucker, Josiah, 58, 141.

Tyler, John, the elder, 214, 337.

Union, sentiment of, 55.

Unitarianism, 86.

University men in Federal Convention, 224.

Vaughan, Benjamin, 22, 35.

Vergennes, Count de, 12;

wishes to satisfy Spain at the expense of the United States, 18-21;

thwarted by Jay, 22;

accuses the Americans of bad faith, 33;

tired of sending loans, 104.

Vermont, troubles in, 151-153;

riots in connection with the Shays rebellion, 183.

Vice-presidency, 282.

Victoria, Queen, 293.

Vincennes, riot in, 210.

Violence of political invective, 39.

Virginia, church and state in, 78-85;

on five per cent. impost, 104;

paper money in, 170;

takes possession of northwestern territory, 188-191;

cedes it to the United States, 194;

plan for new federal government, 233-242;

its reception by the convention, 242;

compromise as to representation of slaves, 259-262;

resents the compromise between South Carolina and the New England

states, 265;

debates on the Constitution, 335-337;

ratifies it, 337.

"Visionary young men," i.e., Hamilton, Madison, Gouverneur Morris,

etc., 318.

Waddington, Joshua, 127.

Walpole, Horace, 16.

Walpole, Sir Robert, 296.

War, the Civil, 55, 256, 262;

contrast with Revolutionary, 101-103;

cost of Revolutionary, 166.

Washington, George, marches from Yorktown to the Hudson River, 51;

disbands the army, 51;

resigns his command, 52;

goes home to Mount Vernon, 53;

his "legacy" to the American people, 54;

on the right of coercion, 100;

urges half-pay for retired officers, 106;

supposed scheme for making him king, 107;

his masterly speech at Newburgh, 110;

president of the Cincinnati, 115;

on the weakness of the confederation, 162;

wishes to hang speculators in bread-stuffs, 164;

disapproves of Connecticut's reservation of a tract of western land, 193;

approves of Ohio Company, 203;

his views on the need for canals between east and west, 212;

important meeting held at his house, 214;

is chosen delegate to the Federal Convention, 221;

president of the convention, 229;

his solemn warning, 231, 303;

his suggestion as to the basis of representation, 252;

asks if he shall put the question on the motion of Wilson and Pinckney,

277;

disapproves of electing executive by the legislature, 279;

sends draft of the Constitution to Congress, 307;

called a fool by the Antifederalists, 313;

approves of amendments, but opposes a second convention, 329;

unanimously chosen president of the United States, 346;

his journey to New York, 349;

his inauguration, 350.

Washington, William, 334.

Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, 83.

Watt, James, 60, 267.

Wayne, Anthony, 50.

Wealth as a basis of representation, 257.

Webster, Daniel, 56, 206, 276.

Webster, Pelatiah, 101, 222.

Weems, Mason, 83.

Wesley, John, 85.

West, Rev. Samuel, 322.

West India trade, 138, 164.

Whigs, British, sympathize with revolutionary party in America, 2.

Whiskey as currency in North Carolina, 165.

White, Abraham, 324.

Whitefield, George, 85.

Whitehill, Robert, 313.

Whitney, Eli, 267.

William the Silent, 55.

Wilson, James, 228, 243, 246, 248, 251, 261, 274, 277, 279, 281, 282, 299,

300, 312, 313, 316.

Witenagemot, 66.

Worcester Spy, 165.

Wraxall's Memoirs, 2.

Wyoming, troubles in, 148-150.

Wythe, George, 228.

Yates, Robert, 225, 242, 244, 246, 254, 340, 341.

Yazoo boundary, 33, 208.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] In recent years Georgia has been one of the first states to abandon

this bad practice.

[2] I suppose it was this same Mason Weems that was afterward known in

Virginia as Parson Weems, of Pohick parish, near Mount Vernon. See

_Magazine of American History_, iii. 465-472; v. 85-90. At first an

eccentric preacher, Parson Weems became an itinerant violin-player and

book-peddler, and author of that edifying work, _The Life of George

Washington, with Curious Anecdotes equally Honourable to Himself and

Exemplary to his Young Countrymen_. On the title-page the author

describes himself as "formerly rector of Mount Vernon Parish,"--which

Bishop Meade calls preposterous. The book is a farrago of absurdities,

reminding one, alike in its text and its illustrations, of an overgrown

English chap-book of the olden time. It has had an enormous sale, and

has very likely contributed more than any other single book toward

forming the popular notion of Washington. It seems to have been this

fiddling parson that first gave currency to the everlasting story of the

cherry-tree and the little hatchet.

[3] _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_, iii. 447.

[4] A very interesting account of these troubles may be found in the

first volume of Professor McMaster's _History of the People of the

United States_.

[5] This subject has been treated in a masterly manner by Mr. H.B.

Adams, in an essay on Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the

United States, published in the Third Series of the admirable _Johns

Hopkins University Studies in History and Politics_. I am indebted to

Mr. Adams for many valuable suggestions.

[6] It would be in the highest degree erroneous, however, to suppose

that the Constitution of the United States is not, as much as any other,

an instance of evolution from precedents. See, in this connection, the

very able article by Prof. Alexander Johnston, _New Princeton Review_,

Sept., 1887, pp. 175-190.

[7] The slave-population of the United States, according to the census

of 1700, was thus distributed among the states:--

_North._

New Hampshire 158

Vermont 17

Massachusetts --

Rhode Island 952

Connecticut 2,759

New York 21,324

New Jersey 11,423

Pennsylvania 3,737

------

40,370

_South._

Delaware 8,887

Maryland 103,036

Virginia 293,427

North Carolina 100,572

South Carolina 107,094

Georgia 29,264

Kentucky 11,830

Tennessee 3,417

-------

657,527

Total 697,897.

[8] Since this was written, this last and most serious danger would seem

to have been removed by the acts of 1886 and 1887 regulating the

presidential succession and the counting of electoral votes.

[9] The history of President Cleveland's tariff message of 1887,

however, shows that, where a wise and courageous president calls

attention to a living issue, his party, alike in Congress and in the

country, is in a measure compelled to follow his lead.