Ratification of the Constitution by the States.--Organization of
the New Government.--Accession of North Carolina and Rhode
Island.--Correspondence between General Washington and the
Governor of Rhode Island.
The amended system of union, or confederation (the terms are employed
indiscriminately and interchangeably by the statesmen of that period),
devised by the Convention of 1787, and embodied, as we have seen, in the
Constitution which they framed and have set forth, was now to be
considered and acted on by the people of the several States. This they
did in the highest and most majestic form in which the sanction of
organized communities could be given or withheld--not through
ambassadors, or Legislatures, or deputies with limited powers, but
through conventions of delegates chosen expressly for the purpose and
clothed with the plenary authority of sovereign people. The action of
these conventions was deliberate, cautious, and careful. There was much
debate, and no little opposition to be conciliated. Eleven States,
however, ratified and adopted the new Constitution within the twelve
months immediately following its submission to them. Two of them
positively rejected it, and, although they afterward acceded to it,
remained outside of the Union in the exercise of their sovereign right,
which nobody then denied--North Carolina for nine months, Rhode Island
for nearly fifteen, after the new Government was organized and went into
operation. In several of the other States the ratification was effected
only by small majorities.
The terms in which this action was expressed by the several States and
the declarations with which it was accompanied by some of them are
worthy of attention.
Delaware was the first to act. Her Convention met on December 3, 1787,
and ratified the Constitution on the 7th. The readiness of this least in
population, and next to the least in territorial extent, of all the
States, to accept that instrument, is a very significant fact when we
remember the jealous care with which she had guarded against any
infringement of her sovereign Statehood. Delaware alone had given
special instructions to her deputies in the Convention not to consent to
any sacrifice of the principle of equal representation in Congress. The
promptness and unanimity of her people in adopting the new Constitution
prove very clearly, not only that they were satisfied with the
preservation of that principle in the Federal Senate, but that they did
not understand the Constitution, in any of its features, as compromising
the "sovereignty, freedom, and independence" which she had so especially
cherished. The ratification of their Convention is expressed in these
words:
"We, the deputies of _the people of the Delaware State_, in
convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the
Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the deputies of
the United States at a General Convention held at the city of
Philadelphia on the 17th day of September, A. D. 1787, have
_approved of, assented to, and ratified and confirmed_, and by
these presents do, in virtue of the powers and authority to us
given for that purpose, for and in behalf of ourselves and our
constituents, fully, freely, and entirely, _approve of, assent
to, ratify, and confirm_ the said Constitution.
"Done in convention at Dover, December 7, 1787."
This, and twelve other like acts, gave to the Constitution "all the life
and validity it ever had, or could have, as to the thirteen united or
associated States."
Pennsylvania acted next (December 12, 1787), the ratification not being
finally accomplished without strong opposition, on grounds which will be
referred to hereafter. In announcing its decision, the Convention of
this State began as follows:
"In the name of _the people of Pennsylvania_. Be it known unto
all men that we, _the delegates of the people of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania_, in General Convention assembled,"
etc., etc., concluding with these words: "By these presents, do,
_in the name and by the authority of the same people_, and for
ourselves, assent to and ratify the foregoing Constitution for
the United States of America."
In New Jersey the ratification, which took place on the 18th of
December, was unanimous. This is no less significant and instructive
than the unanimity of Delaware, from the fact that the New Jersey
delegation, in the Convention that framed the Constitution, had taken
the lead in behalf of the federal, or State-rights, idea, in opposition
to that of nationalism, or consolidation. William Patterson, a
distinguished citizen (afterward Governor) of New Jersey, had introduced
into that Convention what was known as "the Jersey plan," embodying
these State-rights principles, as distinguished from the various
"national" plans presented. In defending them, he had said, after
calling for the reading of the credentials of delegates:
"Can we, on this ground, form a national Government? I fancy
not. Our commissions give a complexion to the business; and can
we suppose that, when we exceed the bounds of our duty, the
people will approve our proceedings?
"We are met here as the deputies of _thirteen independent,
sovereign States, for federal purposes. Can we consolidate their
sovereignty and form one nation_, and annihilate the
sovereignties of our States, who have sent us here for other
purposes?"
Again, on a subsequent day, after stating that he was not there to
pursue his own sentiments of government, but of those who had sent him,
he had asked:
"Can we, _as representatives of independent States_, annihilate
the essential powers of independency? Are not the votes of this
Convention taken on every question under the idea of
independency?"
The fact that this State, which, through her representatives, had taken
so conspicuous a part in the maintenance of the principle of State
sovereignty, ratified the Constitution with such readiness and
unanimity, is conclusive proof that, in her opinion, that principle was
not compromised thereby. The conclusion of her ordinance of ratification
is in these words:
"Now be it known that we, the delegates of _the State of New
Jersey_, chosen by the people thereof for the purpose aforesaid,
having maturely deliberated on and considered the aforesaid
proposed Constitution, do hereby, for and on behalf of the
_people of the said State of New Jersey_, agree to, ratify, and
confirm the same, and every part thereof.
"Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the members
present, this 18th day of December, A. D. 1787."
Georgia next, and also unanimously, on January 2, 1788, declared,
through "_the delegates of the State of Georgia_, in convention met,
pursuant to the provisions of the [act of the] Legislature aforesaid ...
in virtue of the powers and authority given us [them] by _the people of
the said State_, for that purpose," that they did "fully and entirely
assent to, ratify, and adopt the said Constitution."
Connecticut (on the 9th of January) declares her assent with equal
distinctness of assertion as to the source of the authority: "In the
name of _the people of the State of Connecticut_, we, the delegates of
_the people of the said State_, in General Convention assembled,
pursuant to an act of the Legislature in October last ... do assent to,
ratify, and adopt the Constitution reported by the Convention of
delegates in Philadelphia."
In Massachusetts there was a sharp contest. The people of that State
were then--as for a long time afterward--exceedingly tenacious of their
State independence and sovereignty. The proposed Constitution was
subjected to a close, critical, and rigorous examination with reference
to its bearing upon this very point. The Convention was a large one, and
some of its leading members were very distrustful of the instrument
under their consideration. It was ultimately adopted by a very close
vote (187 to 168), and then only as accompanied by certain proposed
amendments, the object of which was to guard more expressly against any
sacrifice or compromise of State sovereignty, and under an assurance,
given by the advocates of the Constitution, of the certainty that those
amendments would be adopted. The most strenuously urged of these was
that ultimately adopted (in substance) as the tenth amendment to the
Constitution, which was intended to take the place of the second Article
of Confederation, as an emphatic assertion of the continued freedom,
sovereignty, and independence of the States. This will be considered
more particularly hereafter.
In terms substantially identical with those employed by the other
States, Massachusetts thus announced her ratification:
"In convention of the delegates of _the people of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts_, 1788. The Convention having
impartially discussed and fully considered the Constitution for
the United States of America, reported [etc.] ... do, in the
name and in behalf of _the people of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts_, assent to and ratify the said Constitution for
the United States of America."
This was accomplished on February 7, 1788.
Maryland followed on the 28th of April, and South Carolina on the 23d of
May, in equivalent expressions, the ratification of the former being
made by "the delegates of _the people of Maryland_," speaking, as they
declared, for ourselves, and in the name and on the behalf of _the
people of this State_; that of the latter, "in convention of _the people
of the State of South Carolina_, by their representatives, ... in the
name and behalf of _the people of this State_."
But South Carolina, like Massachusetts, demanded certain amendments, and
for greater assurance accompanied her ordinance of ratification with the
following distinct assertion of the principle afterward embodied in the
tenth amendment:
"This Convention doth also declare that _no section or
paragraph_ of the said Constitution warrants a construction that
_the States do not retain every power not expressly relinquished
by them_ and vested in the General Government of the Union."
"The delegates of _the people of the State of New Hampshire_," in
convention, on the 21st of June, "in the name and behalf of _the people
of the State of New Hampshire_," declared their approval and adoption of
the Constitution. In this State, also, the opposition was formidable
(the final vote being 57 to 46), and, as in South Carolina, it was
"explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly
delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several
States, to be by them exercised."
The debates in the Virginia Convention were long and animated. Some of
the most eminent and most gifted men of that period took part in them,
and they have ever since been referred to for the exposition which they
afford of the interpretation of the Constitution by its authors and
their contemporaries. Among the members were Madison, Mason, and
Randolph, who had also been members of the Convention at Philadelphia.
Mr. Madison was one of the most earnest advocates of the new
Constitution, while Mr. Mason was as warmly opposed to its adoption; so
also was Patrick Henry, the celebrated orator. It was assailed with
great vehemence at every vulnerable or doubtful point, and was finally
ratified June 26, 1788, by a vote of 89 to 79--a majority of only ten.
This ratification was expressed in the same terms employed by other
States, by "the delegates of _the people of Virginia_ ... in the name
and in behalf of _the people of Virginia_." In so doing, however, like
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, Virginia demanded
certain amendments as a more explicit guarantee against consolidation,
and accompanied the demand with the following declaration:
"That the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived
from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them,
whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or
oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains
with them and at their will," etc., etc.
Whether, in speaking of a possible _resumption_ of powers by "the people
of the United States," the Convention had in mind the action of such a
people _in the aggregate_--political community which did not exist, and
of which they, could hardly have entertained even an ideal
conception--or of the people of Virginia, for whom they were speaking,
and of the other United States then taking similar action--is a question
which scarcely admits of argument, but which will be more fully
considered in the proper place.
New York, the eleventh State to signify her assent, did so on July 26,
1788, after an arduous and protracted discussion, and then by a majority
of but three votes--30 to 27. Even this small majority was secured only
by the recommendation of certain material amendments, the adoption of
which by the other States it was at first proposed to make a condition
precedent to the validity of the ratification. This idea was abandoned
after a correspondence between Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison, and,
instead of conditional ratification, New York provided for the
resumption of her grants; but the amendments were put forth with a
circular letter to the other States, in which it was declared that
"nothing but the fullest confidence of obtaining a revision" of the
objectionable features of the Constitution, "and an invincible
reluctance to separating from our sister States, could have prevailed
upon a sufficient number to ratify it without stipulating for previous
amendments."
The ratification was expressed in the usual terms, as made "_by the
delegates of the people of the State of New York_ ... in the name and in
behalf of the people" of the said State. Accompanying it was a
declaration of the principles in which the assent of New York was
conceded, one paragraph of which runs as follows:
"That the powers of government may be _reassumed_ by the people,
whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that
every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the said
Constitution, clearly delegated to the Congress of the United
States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to
the people of the several _States_, or to their respective State
governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that
those clauses in the said Constitution which declare that
Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply
that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said
Constitution, but such clauses are to be construed either as
exceptions to certain specified powers or as inserted for
greater caution."
The acceptance of these eleven States having been signified to the
Congress, provision was made for putting the new Constitution in
operation. This was effected on March 4, 1789, when the Government was
organized, with George Washington as President, and John Adams,
Vice-President; the Senators and Representatives elected by the States
which had acceded to the Constitution, organizing themselves as a
Congress.
Meantime, two States were standing, as we have seen, unquestioned and
unmolested, in an attitude of absolute independence. The Convention of
North Carolina, on August 2, 1788, had rejected the proposed
Constitution, or, more properly speaking, had withheld her ratification
until action could be taken upon the subject-matter of the following
resolution adopted by her Convention:
"_Resolved_, That a declaration of rights, asserting and
securing from encroachment the great principles of civil and
religious liberty, and the unalienable rights of the people,
together with amendments to the most ambiguous and exceptionable
parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be laid
before Congress and the Convention of the States that shall or
may be called for the purpose of amending the said Constitution,
for their consideration, previous to the ratification of the
Constitution aforesaid on the part of the State of North
Carolina."
More than a year afterward, when the newly organized Government had been
in operation for nearly nine months, and when--although no convention of
the States had been called to revise the Constitution--North Carolina
had good reason to feel assured that the most important provisions of
her proposed amendments and "declaration of rights" would be adopted,
she acceded to the amended compact. On November 21, 1789, her Convention
agreed, "in behalf of the freemen, citizens, and inhabitants of _the
State of North Carolina_," to "adopt and ratify" the Constitution.
In Rhode Island the proposed Constitution was at first submitted to a
direct vote of the people, who rejected it by an overwhelming majority.
Subsequently--that is, on May 29, 1790, when the reorganized Government
had been in operation for nearly fifteen months, and when it had become
reasonably certain that the amendments thought necessary would be
adopted--a convention of the people of Rhode Island acceded to the new
Union, and ratified the Constitution, though even then by a majority of
only two votes in sixty-six--34 to 32. The ratification was expressed in
substantially the same language as that which has now been so repeatedly
cited:
"We, the delegates of the people of the State of Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in convention,
... in the name and behalf of _the people of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations_, do, by these presents, assent to and
ratify the said Constitution."
It is particularly to be noted that, during the intervals between the
organization of the Federal Government under the new Constitution and
the ratification of that Constitution by, North Carolina and Rhode
Island, respectively, those States were absolutely independent and
unconnected with any other political community, unless they be
considered as still representing the "United States of America," which
by the Articles of Confederation had been declared a "perpetual union."
The other States had seceded from the former union--not in a body, but
separately, each for itself--and had formed a new association, leaving
these two States in the attitude of foreign though friendly powers.
There was no claim of any right to control their action, as if they had
been mere geographical or political divisions of one great consolidated
community or "nation." Their accession to the Union was desired, but
their freedom of choice in the matter was never questioned. And then it
is to be noted, on _their_ part, that, like the house of Judah, they
refrained from any attempt to force the seceding sisters to return.
As illustrative of the relations existing during this period between the
United States and Rhode Island, it may not be uninstructive to refer to
a letter sent by the government of the latter to the President and
Congress, and transmitted by the President to the Senate, with the
following note:
"United States, _September 26, 1789_.
"Gentlemen of the Senate: Having yesterday received a letter
written in this month by the Governor of Rhode Island, at the
request and in behalf of the General Assembly of that State,
addressed to the President, the Senate, and the House of
Representatives of the eleven United States of America in
Congress assembled, I take the earliest opportunity of laying a
copy of it before you."
(Signed) "GEORGE WASHINGTON."
Some extracts from the communication referred to are annexed:
"State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, _In General
Assembly, September Session, 1789_.
"_To the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives
of the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled:_
"The critical situation in which the people of this State are
placed engages us to make these assurances, on their behalf, of
their attachment and friendship to their sister States, and of
their disposition to cultivate mutual harmony and friendly
intercourse. They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively
viewed, and, although they now stand as it were alone, they have
not separated themselves or departed from the principles of that
Confederation, which was formed by the sister States in their
struggle for freedom and in the hour of danger....
"Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of
government formed and adopted by most of our sister States, we
doubt not, has given uneasiness to them. That we have not seen
our way clear to it, consistently with our idea of the
principles upon which we all embarked together, has also given
pain to us. We have not doubted that we might thereby avoid
present difficulties, but we have apprehended future
mischief....
"Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they
[the people of this State] should wait to see the proposed
system organized and in operation?--to see what further checks
and securities would be agreed to and established by way of
amendments, before they could adopt it as a Constitution of
government for themselves and their posterity?...
"We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether
considered as foreigners having no particular affinity or
connection with the United States; but that trade and commerce,
upon which the prosperity of this State much depends, will be
preserved as free and open between this State and the United
States, as our different situations at present can possibly
admit....
"We feel ourselves attached by the strongest ties of friendship,
kindred, and interest, to our sister States; and we can not,
without the greatest reluctance, look to any other quarter for
those advantages of commercial intercourse which we conceive to
be more natural and reciprocal between them and us.
"I am, at the request and in behalf of the General Assembly,
your most obedient, humble servant."
(Signed) "John Collins, _Governor_.
"_His Excellency, the President of the United States._"
[American State Papers, _Vol. I_, Miscellaneous.]