It was even a disputable point whether the colonists were already a nation or only the raw material out of which a nation might be formed.1 There were elements of unity, there were also elements of diversity. All spoke the same language. All, except a few descendants of Dutchmen and Swedes in New York and Delaware, some Germans in Pennsylvania, some children of French Huguenots in New England and the middle States, belonged to the same race. All, except some Roman Catholics in Maryland, professed the Protestant religion. All were governed by the same English Common Law, and prized it not only as the bulwark which had sheltered their forefathers from the oppression of the Stuart kings, but as the basis of their more recent claims of right against the encroachments of George III. and his colonial officers. In ideas and habits of life there was less similarity, but all were republicans, managing their affairs by elective legislatures, attached to local self-government, and animated by a common pride in their successful resistance to England, which they then hated with a true family hatred, a hatred to which her contemptuous treatment of them added a sting.

must bring it to perfection; and the feeling of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they inevitably fall into in their first trials and experiments." Words strikingly verified in the history of the United States from 1777 downwards.

one.

1 Mr. Wilson said in the Pennsylvania Convention of 1787: "By adopting this Constitution we shall become a nation: we are not now We shall form a national character: we are now too dependent on others." He proceeds with a remarkable prediction of the influence which American freedom would exert upon the Old World.—Elliot's Debates, vol. ii. p. 526.

2 The Irish, a noticeable element in North Carolina and parts of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Hampshire, were not Catholic Celts but Scoto-Irish Presbyterians from Ulster, who, animated by resentment at the wrongs and religious persecution they had suffered at home, had been among the foremost combatants in the Revolutionary War.

On the other hand their geographical position made communication very difficult. The sea was stormy in winter, the roads were bad, it took as long to travel by land from Charleston to Boston as to cross the ocean to Europe, nor was the journey less dangerous. The wealth of some States consisted in slaves; of others in shipping; while in others there was a population of small farmers, characteristically attached to old habits. Manufactures had hardly begun to exist. The sentiment of local independence showed itself in intense suspicion of any external authority; and most parts of the country were so thinly peopled that the inhabitants had lived practically without any government, and thought that in creating one they would be forging fetters for themselves. But while these diversities and jealousies made union difficult, two dangers were absent which have beset the framers of constitutions for other nations. There were no reactionary conspirators to be feared, for every one prized liberty and equality. There were no questions between classes, no animosities against rank and wealth, for rank and wealth did not exist.

It was inevitable under such circumstances that the Constitution, while aiming at the establishment of a durable central power, should pay great regard to the existing centrifugal forces. It was and remains what its authors styled it, eminently an instrument of compromises; it is perhaps the most successful instance in history of what a judicious spirit of compromise may effect.1 Yet out of

1 Hamilton observed of it in 1788: "The result of the deliberations of all collective bodies must necessarily be a compound as well of the errors and prejudices as of the good sense and wisdom of the individuals of whom they are composed. The compacts which are to embrace thirteen distinct States in a common bond of amity and union must as necessarily be a compromise of as many dissimilar interests and inclinations. How can perfection spring from such materials?"—Federalist, No. lxxxv.

the points which it was for this reason obliged to leave unsettled there arose fierce controversies, which after two generations, when accumulated irritation and incurable misunderstanding had been added to the force of material interests, burst into flame in the War of Secession.

The draft Constitution was submitted, as its last article provided, to conventions of the several States (i.e. bodies specially chosen by the people for the purpose) for ratification. It was to come into effect as soon as nine States had ratified, the effect of which would have been, in case the remaining States, or any of them, had rejected it, to leave such States standing alone in the world, since the old Confederation was of course superseded and annihilated. Fortunately all the States did eventually ratify the new Constitution, but two of the most important, Virginia and New York,' did not do so till the middle of 1788, after nine others had already accepted it; and two, North Carolina and Rhode Island, at first refused, and only consented to enter the new Union more than a year later, when the government it had created had already come into operation."

There was a struggle everywhere over the adoption of the Constitution, a struggle which gave birth to the two great parties that for many years divided the

1 Virginia was then much the largest State (population in 1790, 747,610). New York was reckoned among the smaller States (population 340,120) but her central geographical position made her adhesion extremely important.

2 Mr. Justice Miller observes that the refusal of Rhode Island seems to have been largely due to her desire that "her superior advantages of location, and the possession of what was then supposed to be the best harbour on the Atlantic coast, should not be subjected to the control of a Congress which was by that instrument expressly authorized to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and provide that no preference should be given to the ports of any State."-Memorial Oration, ut supra.

American people. The chief source of hostility was the belief that a strong central government endangered both the rights of the States and the liberties of the individual citizen. Freedom, it was declared, would perish, freedom rescued from George III. would perish at the hands of her own children.1 Consolidation (for the word centralization had not yet been invented) would extinguish the State governments and the local institutions they protected. The feeling was very bitter, and in some States, notably in Massachusetts and New York, the majorities were dangerously narrow. Had the decision been left to what is now called "the voice of the people," that is, to the mass of the citizens all over the country, voting at the polls, the voice of the people would probably have pronounced against the Constitution. But this modern method of taking the popular verdict had not been invented. The question was referred to conventions in the several States. ventions were composed of able men, who listened to weighty arguments, and were themselves influenced by the authority of their leaders. The judgment of the wise prevailed over the prepossessions of the multitude. Yet this judgment would hardly have prevailed but for a cause which is apt to be now overlooked. This was the dread of foreign powers. The United States had at

3

The con

1 In the Massachusetts Convention of 1788 Mr. Nason delivered himself of the following pathetic appeal: "And here, sir, I beg the indulgence of this honourable body to permit me to make a short apostrophe to Liberty. O Liberty, thou greatest good! thou fairest property! with thee I wish to live with thee I wish to die! Pardon me if I drop a tear on the peril to which she is exposed. I cannot, sir, see this highest of jewels tarnished—a jewel worth ten thousand worlds; and shall we part with it so soon? Oh no."-Elliot's Debates, ii. 133.

2 Especially if the question had been voted on everywhere upon the same day. The later decisions in doubtful States were influenced by the approval which other States had already given.

3 The other chief cause was the economic distress and injury to trade

that time two European monarchies, Spain and England, as its neighbours on the American continent. France had lately held territories to the north of them in Canada, and to the south of them in Louisiana.1 She had been their ally against England, she became in a few years again the owner of territories on the lower Mississippi. The fear of foreign interference, the sense of weakness, both at sea and on land, against the military monarchies of Europe, was constantly before the mind of American statesmen, and made them anxious to secure at all hazards a national government capable of raising an army and navy, and of speaking with authority on behalf of the new republic. It is remarkable that the danger of European aggression or complications was far more felt in the United States from 1783 down till about 1820, than it has been during the last half century when steam has brought Europe five times nearer than it then was.

Several of the conventions which ratified the Constitution accompanied their acceptance with an earnest recommendation of various amendments to it, amendments designed to meet the fears of those who thought that it encroached too far upon the liberties of the people. Some of these were adopted, immediately after the original instrument had come into force, by the method it prescribes, viz. a two-thirds majority in Con

consequent on the disorganized condition of several States. See the observations of Mr. Wilson in the Pennsylvania Convention (Elliot's Debates, ii. 524). He shows that the case was one of necessity, and winds up with the remark, "The argument of necessity is the patriot's defence as well as the tyrant's plea."

1 The vast territory then called Louisiana was transferred by France to Spain in 1762, but Spanish government was not established there till 1789. It was ceded by Spain to France in 1800, and purchased by the United States from Napoleon in 1803. Spain held Florida from its discovery till 1819, when she sold it to the United States.

VOL. I

D