Reform legis lation. Economic conditions. Hunt, G., Madison and Religious Liberty (Am. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1901, 1, 163-171). Jameson, J. F., Introduction to the Study of the Constitutional and Political History of the United States (Johns Hopkins Hist. Studies, IV, no. 5). Jameson, J. F., Essays on the Constitutional History of the United States, no. 5. Thorpe, F. W., Constitutional History of the American People, I, 60-132. Williams, G. W., History of the Negro Race, chs. XXVI-XXXI. Bates, F. G., Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union (Columbia University Studies in Political Science, etc., vol. X, no. 2). McLaughlin, The Confederation, 138-168. McMaster, United States, I, 299-354. Minot, G. R., The Shays's Rebellion. Warren, J. W. P., The Confederation and the Shays's Rebellion (Am. Hist. Review, XI, 42–68). CHAPTER III THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION tive tend encies. ALTHOUGH On the surface all was disorder and dissolution, Construcduring the period of the Confederation, tendencies were at work in favor of a stronger union. An illustration of such nationalizing influences was the action of various religious bodies. The Episcopalians and the Methodists adopted national constitutions. The Catholics received from the Pope a national organization, while the Presbyterians adapted their system, already national in character, to the conditions of independence and formed a partial alliance with the Congregationalists of New England. Far-sighted thinkers became more and more convinced that the only remedy for the existing political evils also lay in creating a stronger central government. Franklin had, in fact, in a preliminary draft for the Articles of Confederation, sketched a much stronger government than that adopted; and even before the Articles were in force, Hamilton had begun an attack upon them, based on their insufficiency. The leader of the strong government party, however, was Washington, who, with the difficulties of waging war in the disorganized condition of the country fresh in his mind, continued to impress upon his wide circle of personal acquaintances the need of action, and who found in young James Madison a lieutenant that spared no labor in collecting and marshaling facts and arguments. Every year there were added to these leaders, supporters from among the business, property-holding, and professional classes. Some of these thought that only a monarchy could save the country, while the disorders in Attempts to amend the Articles. Calling of the convention. Characteris tics of the convention. Rhode Island and Massachusetts convinced many, even decided Republicans, that the central government must be at least strong enough to preserve order. At first, in 1781, it was attempted to amend the Articles by giving Congress power to collect an import duty of five per cent to pay the debt. This was defeated by Rhode Island on the claim that "The power of the purse is the touchstone of freedom." The real reason was that Rhode Island was attracting trade by underbidding its neighbors by means of a lower tariff. Then in 1783 Congress requested power to lay certain duties for twenty-five years. This was defeated by New York, where the state treasury was growing rich from duties on goods imported to be used in other states, and there was consequently jealousy of a federal impost. A third request, to allow Congress to pass navigation acts against countries refusing favorable commercial treaties, was discussed for three years without tangible result. The failure of these attempts at amendment strengthened the demand for more radical action. Hamilton, Thomas Paine, Pelatiah Webster, and others called for a constitution to be drawn, as later state constitutions had been, by a convention summoned for that special purpose. The first step was taken in 1785 at Mount Vernon, where commissioners from Virginia and Maryland had met to settle a dispute as to the navigation of the Potomac River. As a result of discussion there, Virginia asked the states to send delegates to Annapolis to consider the condition of commerce generally. The meeting at Annapolis, held in 1786, was attended by delegates from only five states, and it recommended that a convention be held the next spring at Philadelphia for the purpose of devising amendments to the Articles. This call was indorsed by Congress after some hesitation, and on May 25, 1787, the convention met. The Philadelphia convention was a very different body from any that had previously assembled in America. Fifty THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 33 five members attended, and thirty-nine signed the Constitution. Of the thirty-nine, only six had signed the Declaration of Independence, and only four the Articles of Confederation. The members represented not a younger generation, but another element in the same generation. They were less democratic, many distrusted the people, and nearly all cared less about political theory than about good government. The majority of the members were well educated; there were many graduates of American colleges, four had been students of law in the Temple in London, James Wilson of Pennsylvania had attended three Scotch universities. There was much legal knowledge, and Blackstone, the expounder of the common law, was used more than Locke, the political philosopher and the guide of the Revolutionary statesmen. The great majority belonged to the rising strong government party; partly because the Revolutionary leaders, such as Clinton, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry, did. not care to attend. The men who preached the Revolution were not to be the leaders in raising up a new government. interests. The constitution drawn up by this convention was not, Conflicting as is often claimed, an inspiration; rather it was a compromise. There is hardly an important clause which was not the result of mutual concession, and not a member was entirely satisfied. There was a conflict of interest between the large and the small states, between the states with a large slave population and those with few or no slaves, between the commercial and the agricultural districts, between those members who wanted the central government to be as strong as possible and those who wished it to be only as strong as was necessary. Though the latter were outnumbered in the convention, they spoke with weight, for they represented those powerful leaders who were not present, and many voters whose acquiescence it would be necessary to secure before putting any plan into effect. Leaders. Temper of convention. Madison, as the mouthpiece of Washington and the drafter of the Virginia plan which was presented as a sort of starting point for work, was the most active leader of the strong government party. Hamilton's views were so extreme as to deprive him of some of the weight he might otherwise have possessed, and Franklin elected to play the part of peacemaker. Roger Sherman of Connecticut and James Wilson of Pennsylvania contributed much practical experience and legal knowledge, while a number of younger men, as Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, who came with a well-developed plan of his own, and Rufus King of Massachusetts, were constantly on the floor. Mason of Virginia, Luther Martin of Maryland, and Paterson of New Jersey, who also presented a model of his own, were among the most consistent representatives of the weak government party. With Washington as presiding officer, and with closed doors, which allowed the discussion to become confidential, the convention went to work to harmonize the conflicting interests. No body of men ever worked more conscientiously or with a more sincere desire of coming to an agreement, but again and again it seemed as if their differences would prove absolutely irreconcilable; time and again points were voted in committee of the whole only to be reconsidered and determined differently in the regular session. On June 28 Franklin referred to "the diversity of opinion that had prevailed throughout the deliberations of the convention. . . . In this situation groping as we were in the dark, how has it happened that nobody has thought of applying for light to that powerful friend who alone can supply it?" His proposal for prayers, however, was rejected lest the public take alarm. By September the long four months' debate had cleared the minds of the delegates as to many of the fundamental problems of government, and when at length an instrument was framed the majority found more joy in its successful com |