Virginia, in a proposition of her legislature, in January, 1786, for a
convention of delegates to establish such a system of commercial
relations as would promote general harmony and prosperity. The above
proposal was cordially approved by Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
and New York, and delegates were accordingly appointed by them, in
addition to Virginia. These convened at Annapolis, September, 1786;
but they had scarcely entered into a discussion of topics, which
naturally forced themselves into view, before they discovered the
powers with which they were intrusted to be so limited, as to tie up
their hands from effecting any purpose that could be of essential
utility. On this account, as well as from the circumstance that so few
states were represented, they wisely declined deciding on any
important measures in reference to the particular subject for which
they had come together. This convention is memorable, however, as
having been the prelude to the one which followed. Before the
commissioners adjourned, a report was agreed upon, in which the
necessity of a revision and reform of the articles of the old federal
compact was strongly urged, and which contained a recommendation to
all the state legislatures "for the appointment of deputies, to meet
at Philadelphia, with more ample powers and instructions." This report
was sent to congress, as well as to the several states.
In the appointment of delegates, agreeably to the foregoing
recommendation, Virginia took the lead. February, 1787, the subject
claimed the attention of congress, and the following preamble and
resolution were adopted:
"Whereas, there is provision, in the articles of confederation and
perpetual union, for making alterations therein, by the assent of a
congress of the United States, and of the legislatures of the several
states; and whereas experience hath evinced that there are defects in
the present confederation, as a means to remedy which, several of the
states, and particularly the state of New York, by express instruction
to their delegates in congress, have suggested a convention for the
purpose expressed in the following resolution, and such convention
appearing to be the most probable means of establishing in these
states a firm national government--
"_Resolved_, That, in the opinion of congress, it is expedient, that, on
the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have
been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the
sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, and
reporting to congress and the several legislatures such alterations and
provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in congress, and confirmed
by the states, render the federal constitution adequate to the
exigencies of government, and the preservation of the union."
In consequence of this recommendation, all the states appointed
delegates to the convention, excepting Rhode Island.
On the day fixed for the meeting of the deputies in convention,
Monday, May 14th, 1787, a small number only had assembled. May 25th,
seven states were represented. The deputation from Pennsylvania,
proposed George Washington, Esq., late commander-in-chief, for
president of the convention,[58] and he was unanimously elected.
Tuesday, March 29th, the convention entered upon the solemn duties of
their commission. A question of serious magnitude early engrossed
their attention, viz: whether they should amend the old system, or
form a new one. For the former object, they had been appointed,
congress having limited their power to a revision of the articles of
the confederation. But the defects of the old system were so many,
and of such magnitude, that, at the session of the convention the
above day, Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, submitted fifteen
resolutions, as the basis of a new constitution. These resolutions,
denominated the _Virginia plan_, were debated and amended until the
15th of June, when Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey, presented a project
for revising the articles of confederation. This was called the
_Jersey plan_,[59] and, on motion of Mr. Patterson, was taken up--the
Virginia plan, meanwhile, being postponed.
On the 18th, Mr. Dickinson moved, in committee of the whole, to
"postpone the first resolution in Mr. Patterson's plan, in order to
take up the following, viz: 'that the Articles of Confederation ought
to be revised and amended, so as to render the government of the
United States adequate to the exigencies, the preservation, and the
prosperity of the union'--the postponement was agreed to by ten
states; Pennsylvania, divided." The following day, this substitute was
rejected by a vote of six states to four, and one divided. Mr.
Patterson's plan was again at large before the committee. Towards the
close of the session of the same day, the question was taken upon
postponing this latter plan, and carried by a vote of seven states to
three, and one divided. Mr. Randolph's, or the Virginia plan, came
again under consideration. This was now further discussed to the 23d
of June, when, on motion of Mr. Gerry, the proceedings of the
convention for the establishment of a national government, except the
part relating to an executive, were referred to a committee, to
prepare and report a constitution conformable thereto. This committee
consisted of Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Gorham, Mr. Ellsworth,
and Mr. Wilson. "On the 26th of the same month, those relating to the
executive having been adopted, they, with various other propositions
submitted by individuals, were referred to the same committee, and the
committee adjourned to the 6th of August, when the committee reported
a draft of a constitution. This was under debate until the 9th of
September, and underwent many material alterations. A committee,
consisting of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hamilton, G. Morris, Mr. Madison, and
Mr. King, was then selected 'to revise the style and arrange the
articles.' The manner in which these eminent scholars and statesmen
performed the duty assigned them, appears from the great precision and
accuracy of the language of the constitution, as well as the happy
arrangement of its various articles."
The report of this committee was made on the 12th of September, and
further debated till the 16th, when the constitution as amended was
agreed to by all states, and ordered to be engrossed.
On the following day, September 17th, after the reading of the
constitution as engrossed, the venerable Franklin rose, and putting a
written speech into the hands of Mr. Wilson, requested him to read it:
"_Mr. President_: I confess that there are several parts of this
constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I
shall never approve them; for having lived long, I have experienced
many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller
consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I
once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that,
the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to
pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men, indeed, as well
as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all
truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error.
Steele, a protestant, in a dedication, tells the pope, that the only
difference between our churches, in their opinions of the certainty of
their doctrines, is, 'the church of Rome is infallible, and the church
of England is never in the wrong.' But though many private persons
think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their
sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who, in a
dispute with her sister, said, 'I don't know how it happens, sister,
but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.'
"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this constitution, with all its
faults, if they are such, because I think a general government
necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a
blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe further,
that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and
can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when
the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government,
being incapable of any other. I doubt, too, whether any other
convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better constitution.
For when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their
joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble, with those men, all their
prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local
interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly, can a
perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, sir, to
find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I
think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to
hear that our councils are confounded, like those of the builders of
Babel; and that our states are on the point of separation, only to
meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus
I consent, sir, to this constitution, because I expect no better, and
because I am not sure that it is not the best. The opinions I have
had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never
whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were
born, and here they shall die. If every one of us, in returning to our
constituents, were to report the objections he has had to it, and
endeavor to gain partisans in support of them, we might prevent its
being generally received, and thereby lose all its salutary effects
and great advantages, resulting naturally in our favor among foreign
nations, as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent
unanimity. Much of the strength and efficiency of any government in
procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends on opinion--on
the general opinion of the goodness of the government, as well as of
the wisdom and integrity of its governors. I hope, therefore, that for
our own sakes, as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity,
we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this
constitution (if approved by congress and confirmed by the
conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future
thoughts and endeavors to the means of having it well administered.
"On the whole, sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member
of the convention, who may still have objections to it, would with me,
on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make
manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." He then
moved that the constitution be signed by the members, and offered the
following as a convenient form, viz: "Done in convention, by the
unanimous consent of the _states_ present, the 17th of September, &c.
In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names."
The motion of Dr. Franklin to sign by _states_ was objected to by
several of the members, but was agreed to--all the _states_ answering
"_ay_."
While the last members were signing their names, Dr. Franklin, looking
towards the president's chair, at the back of which a rising sun
happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that
painters had found it difficult to distinguish, in their art, a
rising from a setting sun. I have, said he, often and often, in the
course of the session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as
to its issue, looked at that behind the president, without being able
to tell whether it was rising or setting; but now, at length, I have
the happiness to know that it is a rising, and not a setting sun.[60]
[Illustration: Franklin.]
During the deliberations of the convention, several questions of deep
interest arose; but none, perhaps, more exciting than that which related
to the relative weight of the states in the two branches of the national
legislature. The small states, at length, consented that the right of
suffrage in the house should be in proportion to the whole number of
white or other free citizens in each, including those bound to service
for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons. While they
yielded this point, they insisted on an equal vote in the senate.
To this, the larger states objected; and, on this question, they
remained for a time about equally divided. "On the first trial, in
committee of the whole, six states against five decided that the right
of suffrage in the senate should be the same as in the house; the
states of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia, being in the affirmative, and Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland in the negative.
"On the 29th of June, the question was again presented to the
consideration of the convention, in a motion made by Mr. Ellsworth,
"that in the second branch, each state should have an equal vote." We
cannot pretend to give even an outline of the arguments in favor and
against this motion. The debate was warm and exciting. For several
days, the powers of mighty minds were in animated collision; and from
the strong ramparts behind which the respective parties had apparently
entrenched themselves, there was, for a time, little prospect of union
on the question.
"On the 23d of July, the question was taken, on the motion of Mr.
Ellsworth, that in the senate each state should have one vote; and
five states were in favor of it, five against it, and one divided; and
the motion was lost. This equal division on a subject of such
importance, accompanied with so much warmth on both sides, seemed to
present an insurmountable obstacle to further proceedings of the
convention, without some compromise. To effect this, Charles C.
Pinckney, of South Carolina, moved for the appointment of a committee,
to take into consideration the subject of both branches of the
legislature. This motion prevailed, though not without opposition.
Some of the members were in favor of appointing a committee, though
they had little expectation of a favorable result. Mr. Martin, of
Maryland, declared that each state must have an equal vote, or the
business of the convention was at an end.
"Mr. Sherman said, we have got to a point that we cannot move one way or
the other; a committee is necessary to set us right. Mr. Gerry
observed, that the world expected something from them: if we do nothing,
we must have war and confusion--the old confederation would be at an
end. Let us see if concessions cannot be made--accommodation is
absolutely necessary, and defects may be amended by a future convention.
"Thus the convention was at a stand. Hopes were indeed entertained
that unanimity of views might on some basis prevail; but the longer
continuance of the debate, in the then existing state of the
convention, it was apparent, was engendering no good."
Fully sensible that nothing could be effected but upon a principle of
compromise, the convention proceeded to elect, by ballot, a
committee[61] of one from each state, to report on this exciting
subject, and adjourned for three days. The interval was one of great
anxiety; neither party appeared inclined to recede from the position
it had taken, and the great objects for which the convention had
assembled were apparently to be lost. And who could foresee the
result? But at this most critical juncture, God did not forsake the
nation. He had borne her forward, and now his spirit was felt in his
becalming influence upon the convention. On rëassembling, the above
committee made a report, which being accepted, the deliberations of
the convention proceeded with greater unanimity, until, at length, a
constitution was agreed upon.
The convention recommended that the constitution should be submitted
to state conventions, and that as soon as the same should have been
ratified by a constitutional majority, congress should take measures
for the election of a president, and fix the time for commencing
proceedings under it. Among the states, great diversity of opinion
prevailed respecting this constitution; and, for a time, it was
doubtful whether it would receive the approbation of a majority. But,
at length, not only this number was obtained, but all gave their
assent, and in the following order:
By convention of Delaware, December 7, 1787
" " Pennsylvania, December 12, 1787
" " New Jersey, December 18, 1787
" " Georgia, January 2, 1788
" " Connecticut, January 9, 1788
" " Massachusetts, February 6, 1788
" " Maryland, April 28, 1788
" " South Carolina, May 23, 1788
" " New Hampshire, June 21, 1788
" " Virginia, June 26, 1788
" " New York, July 26, 1788
" " North Carolina, November 21, 1789
" " Rhode Island, May 29, 1790
"At the first session of the first congress, the senate and house of
representatives, two-thirds concurring, recommended to the states the
adoption of twelve amendments to the constitution, chiefly relating to
the freedom of speech and of the press--the right of petition--trial
by jury--bail--election of president, &c. Ten of these amendments were
adopted by three-fourths of the legislatures of the states, and became
a part of the constitution. Subsequently, two other amendments were
added."
"The peaceable adoption of this government," says Chancellor Kent,
"under all the circumstances which attended it, presented the case of
an effort of deliberation, combined with a spirit of amity and mutual
concession, which was without example. It must be a source of just
pride, and of the most grateful recollection to every American who
reflects seriously on the difficulty of the experiment, the manner in
which it was conducted, the felicity of its issue, and the fate of
similar trials in other nations of the earth."
The opinions which prevailed in the convention of 1787, as to the
addition of new states, are worthy of notice. On one occasion, Mr.
Sherman said, "there is no probability that the number of future
states will exceed that of the existing states. If the event should
ever happen, it is too remote to be taken into consideration at this
time." But little more than half a century has elapsed, and the
original number has more than doubled, as may be seen by the following
account of the states admitted:
Vermont, March 4, 1791.
Kentucky, June 1, 1791.
Tennessee, June 1, 1796.
Ohio, November 29, 1802.
Louisiana, April 8, 1812.
Indiana, December 11, 1816.
Mississippi, December 10, 1817.
Illinois, December 3, 1818.
Alabama, December 14, 1819.
Maine, March 15, 1820.
Missouri, August 10, 1821.
Arkansas, June 15, 1836.
Michigan, January 26, 1837.
Florida, March 3, 1845.
Texas, December 29, 1845.
Iowa, December 28, 1846.
Wisconsin, May 29, 1848.
Congress assumed jurisdiction over the District of Columbia,
Feb. 27, 1801.
The constitution, of the formation and adoption of which we have thus
given an account, has been in existence more than sixty years.
Meanwhile, what changes in empires and governments have been effected in
other portions of the globe! Monarchs have been hurled from their
thrones--or have waged war, and expended millions to retain them. Their
subjects, degraded and oppressed, have sighed and struggled for liberty,
but only to find the chains of servitude drawn more closely around them.
Not until recently, have the nations of Europe seemed to realize that an
improvement in their political condition was possible. They are, indeed,
just now making an effort to throw off the yoke and fetters; but what
will be the result of their experiments, no sagacity can well foresee.
The American people may well congratulate themselves upon the
realization of so many of their early hopes. God has helped them; and
never should his kind and protecting care be overlooked; nor his
interpositions in days of darkness and perplexity be forgotten. That was
a glorious struggle, through which they passed, and which resulted in
their emancipation from British oppression. But I know not whether the
intervening hand of Providence was more conspicuous in that contest,
than in leading our statesmen to the formation of the constitution, or
so many independent states, whose interests were apparently so
conflictive, or whose minds were so diverse, to its unanimous adoption.
And why has it lasted? Why have we not presented to the world, the
same feverish and changeful disposition, which has characterized our
sister republics of the South? Not one of the latter, scarcely, has
passed a single ten years, without intestine commotions--or some
change of their constitutions--or some radical alteration of their
political principles. And their people--what portions of them have
dwelt securely--or experienced a moiety of the advantages and
prosperity that have blessed this Northern confederacy?
The constitution of the United States has been, and is, the wonder and
admiration of the civilized world. How is such a national sovereignty
as that constitution contemplates and creates, compatible with so many
independent state sovereignties! Who could imagine that there could
exist such efficiency in the one, and yet such harmony among the
others! To the friends of monarchy, the mystery is nearly
inexplicable; and it seems quite impossible for the statesmen of other
countries, however desirous they may be, so to understand the theory
and practice of our national and state governments, as to conform them
to the circumstances of any other people on the globe.
If it be inquired how the framers of our constitution should have
devised such a government, and shaped it to meet the wants of a people
in some respects one, and in other respects so diverse, the most
intelligent and truthful answer is--God superintended and guided them;
not by immediate inspiration, but they served a long training; from
the very settlement of the country, and in the circumstances which led
our fathers to these shores, there was a work of preparation. And when
the time came, there was the patriotism--the self-denial--the
intelligence--the political wisdom--which were necessary to devise and
perfect our glorious constitution.
But will it last?--Last! Should an American citizen ever indulge a
thought to the contrary? But such thoughts will crowd in, and cause
anxiety to the patriot. When he looks over the pages of past history,
and reads the rise and fall of ancient republics--and by what means they
perished--by their own hands--and by means of their prosperity--and then
casts his eyes over his own country, and witnesses the thrift, the
wealth, the expanding strength and glory of that country--he will ask,
will our constitution stand?--will it continue to unite a people
separated into so many and so distant states? Especially will he have
reason for solicitude and doubt, when he dwells upon the great and grave
questions which are rising up, and are dividing the North and the
South--the East and the West. Our congress is already nearly a
battle-field. Our presses, in different sections, are waging war upon
one another, fierce and vindictive; our whole people are divided up into
parties--with sectional interests and sectional jealousies.
Will the constitution, then, stand? We cannot say that there is no
danger; but there is ground of hope and courage. Let the religion and
patriotism of our fathers, be cultivated--let our unquenchable love of
liberty, and a profound reverence for the constitution and the union,
be instilled into the minds of our children from their earliest days
of thought and reflection, and that noble instrument, and that
glorious union, will continue for generations to come.