Opposing forces. The Federalists. legislatures; it would give the federal Constitution in fact precisely the same sanction that the state constitutions had received, except in Massachusetts, where there had been a popular vote; but it would be in direct violation of the Articles of Confederation, which the convention had been called to amend, and which could be amended only by the consent of the legislature of every state. Congress, however, transmitted the draft, September 28, 1787, to the state legislatures with its recommendation, and thereupon began the most momentous political conflict ever waged in this country. One clause of the Constitution forbade the states to issue "bills of credit," and this brought against it all the paper-money party. It was opposed by many of the established state authorities, partly because it would diminish the importance of the state and partly because those in power represented those favoring weak government. George Clinton and Patrick Henry fought it in their states, and they were aided by men like Gerry and Martin, who attended the convention but refused to sign. They characterized it as a "continental exertion of the well born of America," and scented danger of monarchy, aristocracy, and oppression. The advocates of adoption were in the awkward position that they must defend every provision. It was easier to compromise the interests of a state in the convention, where all states and interests were represented, than to defend that compromise at home, where people saw only one side of the question. Men returning from the convention, however, had the advantage of thorough familiarity with all arguments pro and con, and they kept in touch with one another by correspondence. In the war of pamphlets which followed, the most efficacious were those entitled "Federalist and written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. This title was adopted by the party of the Constitution, and so they forced their opponents to assume that of Anti-Federalists. ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION 41 The Constitution was, on the whole, favorable to the small Adoption of the Constistates, and these were the first to accept it. First, Delaware; tution. then Pennsylvania, which, though not small, was by its central position nationalistic; then New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. In Massachusetts there was a struggle, but by clever management Samuel Adams and John Hancock were prevented from coming out against it, and on February 6, 1788, the convention accepted it by a vote of 187 to 167. Maryland, South Carolina, and New Hampshire followed, each after a hard contest. This brought the number up to nine, but the Constitution could hardly have gone into effect without Virginia and New York. In Virginia Patrick Henry led the opposition, and John Marshall, who was later to do so much toward interpreting the Constitution, was now one of its most effective supporters. The Federalists won, but it was with the understanding that they would do their best to secure certain amendments. In New York the country members still clung to the duties collected on goods imported for Connecticut and New Jersey. The city merchants thought that they would gain trade enough under the new system to more than make this up, and even proposed to secede from the state and join the new union. Hamilton, supporting the Constitution, conducted a legislative fight unequaled in American history, and forced it through a convention two thirds of whom had been opposed to it. With the assent of these eleven states the Constitution was assured a trial. Congress, on September 13, 1788, voted that it had been ratified, that elections should be held for the officers called for under the new government, and that they meet in New York on the first Wednesday of March, 1789. This done, the old Congress practically disappears from history, though it continued to meet until the next spring. North Carolina and Rhode Island were left in a peculiar position. Their associate states had repudiated the Articles, and they themselves had agreed to no substitute. In North Caro lina and Rhode Island. Amendments. North Carolina the influence of Patrick Henry was strong, and it was decided to stay out until certain amendments should be adopted. As Willie Jones, the Anti-Federalist leader, said: "We run no risk of being excluded from the union when we think proper to come in. Virginia, our next neighbor, will not oppose our admission. We have a common cause with her. She wishes the same alterations." Five states, in fact, when ratifying the Constitution, had proposed amendments. Many of these had to do with details, being devised to hedge about authority with limitations. The most important, however, were to supply what many felt to be a most serious omission, that is, a "bill of rights," such as preceded nearly all the state constitutions, setting forth those rights reserved by the people, and, in this case, by the states also, to themselves inviolably forever. This matter was at once taken up by the new Congress when it met. On September 25, 1789, it proposed to the states, for their acceptance, ten amendments, constituting such a bill of rights, and on November 21 North Carolina ratified the Constitution. These amendments were accepted by the states, but even they did not satisfy Rhode Island. There the paper-money party was still supreme, and the legislature refused even to call a convention, in spite of threats by the commercial element to bring about the secession of Providence. Congress dealt with her vigorously. Mr. Maclay, a Pennsylvania senator, wrote in his diary: "They admitted on all hands that Rhode Island was independent, and did not deny that the measures now taken were meant to force her into the adoption of the Constitution." These measures, consisting of tariff regulations, were successful, and on May 29, 1790, Rhode Island ratified the Constitution, and the union was complete. Thus was launched what has proved to be, up to the present time at least, the final and successful attempt at continental organization; a problem which for one hundred years had been attracting increasingly the best minds, first of the British Empire and then of America; and the importance of which merited, while the success of the solution justified, the attention devoted to it. The frame of government of no independent country, with the exception of Siam, has survived from 1789 to the present day with so few vital changes as has the Constitution of the United States. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES General source reading is probably more desirable and more Sources. easily possible than for any other period. The letters of Washington and Madison, Madison's Papers, Elliot's Debates, and The Federalist are and will remain the best reading on the subject. accounts. Bancroft, G., History of the United States, VI, 207-370. Beard, General C. A., An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Curtis, G. T., Constitutional History of the United States, I, chs. XV-XXXII. Farrand, M., Framing of the Constitution of the United States. Jameson, J. F., Studies in the History of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Am. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1902, vol. I, 89–161), containing a bibliography. McLaughlin, A. C., The Confederation, 221-277. Story, J., Commentaries, I, 470, 627-643. Thorpe, F. W., Constitutional History of the United States, ch. V. Boutell, L. H., Roger Sherman. Brown, W. G., Oliver Ellsworth. Biographies. Gay, S. H., James Madison. Lodge, H. C., George Washington. Morse, J. T., Alexander Hamilton. Roosevelt, T., Gouverneur Morris. Rowland, K. M., George Mason. Davis, J., Confederate Government, 86-103. Harding, S. B., Ratification of the Federal Constitution by the State of Massachusetts. Federalist (edited by P. L. Ford), 632-651 (amendments proposed by the states). Henry, W. E., Patrick Henry, II, chs. XXXVIXXXIX. Jameson, Essays on the Constitutional History of the United States, no. 2. Libby, O. G., Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States. McLaughlin, The Confederation, 277-310. McMaster, United States, I, 454-502. Roper, C. L., Why North Carolina at first refused to ratify the Federal Constitution (Am. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1905, vol. I, 99-108). Story, J., Commentaries, 308-372. Adoption of the Consti tution. "Conventions of the Constitution." Organization of Congress. CHAPTER IV THE ORGANIZATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THE national Constitution, as compared with the usual state constitution of to-day, was brief. It but sketched the general outlines of the government, and left the filling in to those who should be elected under it. It was fortunate, therefore, that the first election brought into power those who had favored its adoption and who were consequently most interested in proving it a success. This work was done with as much care as the framing of the original provisions, and many of the practices and customs adopted in the first few years have come to have a force almost as binding as that of the Constitution itself, and are known as "conventions of the Constitution." Congress had been called for the first Wednesday of March, 1789, but it was not until April that a quorum assembled, and it was April 6 before both houses were organized. Though it was a new government which was being founded, the majority of the members of Congress had had legislative experience. They were familiar with English parliamentary law, the ripe product of centuries of development, and they were accustomed to handling public affairs. Their methods they took, not so much from the practices of the contemporary British Parliament, though these were often quoted, as from those of the colonial and state legislatures and the Continental Congress, which were based on the older practice of the House of Commons during the Stuart period. Committees. From the first they made extensive use of committees, and |