USA > Massachusetts > Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province and state, volume 3 > Part 34
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53
Secondly, Massachusetts merchants wanted a general gov- ernment capable of regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. The power to regulate inter- state commerce was necessary to keep the home market throughout the Union open to domestic producers; and Massa- chusetts already was looking forward to the development of her local industries. The power to regulate foreign commerce was necessary to obtain favorable commercial treaties with foreign countries; and the prosperity of the fisheries and of the lumber and wood-working industries, as well as that of the carrying-trade, was largely dependent upon the develop- ment of foreign commerce.
Moreover, the commercial and professional classes gener- ally throughout the State had lost confidence in their ability to defend themselves without outside aid against threatening
368
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
agrarian legislation, especially laws to make paper money a legal tender in payment of debts and other measures tending to impair the obligation of contracts. A letter to Washington from Henry Knox, written at the time of Shays's Rebellion, clearly reveals what a menace the agrarian movement must have seemed to all those who had much at stake in the main- tenance of law and order. "Their creed," Knox wrote (refer- ring to the rebels), "is, that the property of the United States has been protected from the confiscation of Britain by the joint exertions of all; and therefore ought to be the common prop- erty of all; and he that attempts opposition to this creed is an enemy to equity and justice, and ought to be swept from off the face of the earth." Such "desperate and unprincipled men" were to be found in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, as well as in Massachusetts; and their reckless talk and lawless action threw the comparatively prosperous folk, with whom General Knox was associated, into a veritable panic. Some of the latter were guilty of equally reckless talk about the failure of self-government and the necessity of a monarchy. Most of them were ready to make conces- sions for the sake of a stronger general government, which would have seemed preposterous not long before.
To General Knox, Washington replied with his traditional composure and moderation. "It has been supposed," he wrote, "that the constitution of the State of Massachusetts was amongst the most energetic in the Union. May not these disorders then be ascribed to an indulgent exercise of the powers of administration? The same causes would pro- duce similar effects in any form of government, if the powers of it are not exercised." Agitation for a monarchy was checked in Massachusetts by a display of that energy which Washington recommended. Governor Bowdoin, when the is- sue of defense against anarchy could no longer be evaded, put his powers of administration to the test, and a judicious mixture of firmness and tact speedily restored the peace. Nevertheless the rulers of Massachusetts remained eager for the more perfect Union which their interests so plainly re- quired.
From print in the New York Public Library RUFUS KING
Courtesy of G. P. Putnam's Sons
369
AGITATION FOR CONVENTION
AGITATION FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION (1785 - 1787)
The necessity of a more perfect Union was recognized even before the Articles of Confederation went into effect; and by none more clearly than by members of the Congress itself. The propriety of organizing a special convention for the pur- pose, instead of proceeding in the manner provided in the Articles for their amendment, was more slowly admitted.
The first official suggestion that the Congress call a consti- tutional convention to revise the Confederation seems to have come from the legislature of New York. This action was taken in the summer of 1782 on the motion of General Schuy- ler, then a member of the State Senate. In the following spring Schuyler's son-in-law, Alexander Hamilton, then a mem- ber of the Congress, announced that he would propose a plan for a federal convention, but nothing more was heard of this project. The next State to move was Massachusetts.
In 1785 James Bowdoin was elected governor, and in his inaugural address, having pointed out the impotence of the Congress to protect the interests of American commerce, sug- gested the calling of a federal convention with power to propose amendments to the existing Articles of Confederation. The legislature endorsed this proposal, directing their dele- gates in the Congress to bring it to the attention of their fellow members and to make every effort to secure its adop- tion. But the delegates, Elbridge Gerry, Samuel Holten, and Rufus King, thought the time not ripe for such an enterprise, and refused to carry out the instructions of the legislature. "The cry for more power in Congress," they declared, "comes especially from those whose views are extended to an aris- tocracy that will afford lucrative employments, civil and mili- tary, and require a standing army, pensioners, and placemen. The present Confederation is preferable to the risk of general dissensions and animosities."
In vain Governor Bowdoin replied that "if in the Union discordant principles make it hazardous to trust Congress with powers necessary to its well-being, the Union can not long subsist." Gerry and King rejoined that no federal convention should be entrusted with power to report a new plan of govern- ment for the Union or even to make a general revision of
370
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
the Articles of Confederation. If such a convention were deemed necessary, it should be confined, in their judgment, to the revision of such parts of the existing Articles as were sup- posed to be most defective. There the matter was permitted to rest, and Massachusetts lost the opportunity to lead the way towards the more perfect Union.
In the following year (1786) Virginia assumed the leader- ship of the movement for a new constitution and called the convention which met at Annapolis in September. Nine states, including Massachusetts, appointed commissioners to take part in this convention, but the delegations from Massa- chusetts and three other states failed to attend. The other five delegations joined in issuing a call for a second conven- tion, to be held in Philadelphia on the second Monday in May, 1787, for the purpose of making a general revision of the existing system of government.
Meanwhile, the Congress could not ignore what was in effect a usurpation of its own authority. February 21, 1787, it adopted a resolution endorsing the proposed convention, "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 govern- ment and the preservation of the Union." This resolution was presented by the delegates from Massachusetts, Rufus King and Nathan Dane. The recent rebellion in that State had produced a decided change in the attitude of its delegates toward a federal convention. Throughout the Union, opinion had been similarly accelerated; and when the day fixed for the first meeting of the Convention arrived, delegations had been appointed in eleven States. New Hampshire delayed the selection of her delegates so that they did not reach Phila- delphia until midsummer. Rhode Island alone out of the Old Thirteen failed to send any delegation.
THE MASSACHUSETTS DELEGATION (1787)
The Massachusetts delegation consisted of five members : Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, and Caleb Strong, any three of whom were empowered to
371
MASSACHUSETTS DELEGATION
represent the Commonwealth in the Philadelphia Convention. One of the five, Dana, then a member of the Supreme Judicial Court and afterwards for many years its chief justice, did not attend the Convention. The other four delegates proceeded to Philadelphia and took an active part in its deliberations. Three of them remained until the end, and two signed the finished Constitution. Strong went home the latter part of August, and Gerry, though present on the last day (September 17th), refused to sign. Only Gorham and King obtained that unique immortality enjoyed by those whose names adorn the most precious constitutional document in American history.
The Massachusetts delegates were not the most eminent Massachusetts statesmen of the time. John Adams was the man whose work in the convention which framed the State constitution and whose writings on the science of govern- ment marked him as the most competent man in the Com- monwealth for service in a national constitutional convention. But that "colossus of independence" was in Europe on a dip- lomatic mission. His knowledge of political philosophy, his courage and general sturdiness of character, his towering strength in debate, were irreplaceable. John Hancock and Sam Adams would have brought to the delegation the match- less prestige of their great names and also their surpassing skill in the art of politics; but the famous "first signer" of the Declaration of Independence and the "father of the town meeting" did not care for such a mission at that time. Gov- ernor Bowdoin had demonstrated under trying circumstances a steadfastness of purpose and a practical sagacity that would have brought him a position of leadership at Philadelphia, but he could not desert his post at Boston. Hence lesser men were chosen to represent the leading State of New England in the "assembly of demi-gods," as Jefferson described it, which was to frame the "new roof" for the people of the United States.
If not demi-gods, the Massachusetts delegates were by no means unqualified for their task. All were men of good education and successful in their private affairs. Gorham, the oldest of the four, was born in Charlestown in 1738 and received a classical education designed to fit him for Harvard. Instead of proceeding to the University, he entered business
372
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
and became a leading merchant in his native town. The other three were all Harvard graduates; Gerry (born at Marblehead in 1744) in the class of 1762; Strong (born at Northampton in 1745) in the class of 1764; and King (born at Scarborough, Maine, in 1755) in the class of 1777. Gerry, like Gorham, was a successful merchant ; Strong was a leading lawyer ; and King, though still a young man, had already given clear evidence that he had a brilliant career before him.
All four delegates had gained solid experience in practical politics. Each of them had served in the General Court or the Provincial Congress, or in both. Gorham and Strong had also served in the convention which framed the state constitution. Gerry had served in the Continental Congress, having been one of the signers of the Declaration of Independ- ence and also of the Articles of Confederation. He had sub- sequently served in the Congress of the United States under the Articles. Gorham and King had likewise served in the Congress of the United States, the former having been presi- dent of that body during the preceding year. This, of course, was the highest political office in the land. Strong had had no previous connection with the federal government, but his service in the State government had included terms in the Senate and Executive Council as well as in the popular branch of the General Court. The delegation as a whole combined a thorough understanding of conditions in their State with a high degree of proficiency in the business of legislative bodies.
THE DELEGATES IN THE CONVENTION (1787)
At Philadelphia the Massachusetts delegates were attentive to the work of the Convention and diligent in the performance of their duties. Gerry and King were the most active in debate, and were surpassed in this kind of activity by not more than six or eight other members. Gorham spoke less fre- quently ; Strong, scarcely at all. Since most of the discussion on the floor of the Convention was carried on by about a dozen of the members, in addition to Gerry, King, and Gor- ham, it is evident that Massachusetts contributed its share to the flow of debate. But speech-making is not the only test of efficiency in the work of deliberative bodies. Committee- service, and other activities behind the scenes may be much
373
DELEGATES IN THE CONVENTION
more important. The Federal Convention like most other such bodies did its best work in committees.
Massachusetts, as befitted one of the greatest states in the Union, was represented on all the important committees. Gorham was chosen chairman of the Committee of the Whole, in which during the greater part of the month of June the Convention considered the various plans which were sub- mitted to it. This was the highest honor in the gift of the Convention next to the presidency, which was conferred upon Washington, and attests the respect which the Convention entertained both for Massachusetts and for her ranking dele- gate. Gorham was also a member of the very important Committee of Detail, to which was confided the task of putting together the first official draft of the new Constitution. "Few men," declared the worthy gentleman who pronounced the formal eulogy upon Gorham following his death nine years later, "were more perfect in the art of rendering themselves agreeable to public bodies." In the Federal Convention, the eulogy adds, "he was often useful in compromising difficulties, arising from the different interests of the States."
Gerry was a member and chairman of the Grand Com- mittee, consisting of one delegate from each State, which was appointed at the crisis of the Convention for the purpose of compromising the differences between the large and the small States. He took a leading part in the adjustment of those differences, and was one of the four or five delegates to whom the greatest of the compromises must be credited. King was a member of the Committee of Style and Arrange- ment, to which was entrusted the task of preparing the final draft of the finished Constitution. Strong was the only mem- ber of the delegation who failed to take a prominent part in the work of the Convention committees.
Nevertheless, although the Massachusetts delegation was active and influential, it was surpassed in both activity and influence by more than one of the other delegations. Gorham may have been chairman of the Committee of the Whole, but the Massachusetts delegates had little part in the prepara- tion of the plans for a new government which were considered by that committee. The plan which became the basis of the finished Constitution, as is well known, was prepared by
374
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
the Virginia delegation; and the only other plan which was seriously considered was prepared by a conference of dele- gates, in which those from New Jersey and certain other of the smaller States took the leading parts. Gerry may have been chairman of the Grand Committee, which worked out the great compromise, but the leadership of the compromisers on the part of the representatives of the large States was taken by Benjamin Franklin and the heaviest work was done by the delegates from Connecticut. Gorham served, to be sure, on the very important Committee of Detail, but his associates were John Rutledge, chairman, Oliver Ellsworth, Edmund Randolph, and James Wilson. These were all men whom history has pronounced of greater distinction. The appoint- ment of King to the Committee of Style and Arrangement was a mark of signal confidence, but even his great talents shone dimly in a body of which Dr. Johnson of Connecticut, the most cultivated member of the Convention, was chairman, and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris were members.
The conclusion must be that each of the great sections of the country sent at least one delegation as strong as, if not stronger than, that of Massachusetts. In prestige and in actual political capacity the strongest delegation was that from Vir- ginia, and second place must be awarded to the Pennsylvania delegation. There were no other delegations from the Mid- dle States and Upper South to be compared with these, though individuals like John Dickinson of Delaware and Alexander Hamilton of New York were conspicuous. From the Lower South came a strong South Carolina delegation, and even in New England the primacy of Massachusetts was challenged by Connecticut which sent its ablest representatives.
PRIVATE INTERESTS OF THE DELEGATES (1787)
The Massachusetts delegation, whatever may be thought of its general prestige and political capacity, was well chosen to represent the special interests which in that state had taken the lead in the campaign for a more perfect Union. Gorham and Gerry were successful merchants, and King was the son of a very successful business man, who had become the largest shipper of lumber from what is now the State of
From print in the New York Public Library
NATHANIEL GORHAM
375
ECONOMIC INTERESTS
Maine. Strong had a lucrative law practice and commanded the confidence of the more prosperous classes throughout the State, as his subsequent career demonstrated. The researches of Charles A. Beard show that all four possessed substantial investments, more or less speculative in character, which would be favorably affected by the establishment of a stronger gen- eral government. The records of the Treasury Department reveal that no less than forty of the fifty-five delegates who attended the Convention were creditors of the Government. Among those heavily interested in the public debt (taking the sum of $5000 as the criterion), Beard names twenty-four, including all four of the Massachusetts delegates. At least fourteen delegates were speculating in lands, which might well be expected to rise in value, if a stronger general gov- ernment were created. Among these were Gerry and Gorham. At last twenty-four delegates had substantial sums of money out at interest, among whom Beard names King of Massa- chusetts. Gerry, Gorham, and King were among the dozen of delegates who were personally interested in manufacturing or mercantile pursuits or in shipping. It is not conclusive to argue that these men were actuated mainly by their personal interests in their efforts to form a more perfect Union. It is enough to know that they were competent representatives of the class of people in Massachusetts who were most eager for the revision of the Articles of Confederation, whether for the general reasons which influenced opinion in all parts of the country or for the special reasons which were most in- fluential in Massachusetts.
STATE ECONOMIC INTERESTS (1787)
The opponents of such a program as Washington's were too few to attempt the organization of any opposition party in the Convention. An overwhelming majority of the dele- gates were committed in advance to broad national measures. The delegates were much less united with respect to the use of the general government in advancing the special interests of their own section of the country. At the same time they feared the grant of powers which could be utilized to advance the interests of other sections at the expense of their own. Thus the economic basis of partisanship in the Convention
.
376
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
tended to produce a division of the delegations into groups corresponding to the division of the country into sections; and to make intersectional controversies concerning the powers of the Congress the dominant issues in the Convention.
Massachusetts, and to a lesser extent the rest of New England, wanted a strong and vigorous general government with wide authority over interstate and foreign commerce, and broad powers of taxation. This policy was clearly in accord with New England interests. The Middle States shared this viewpoint, being also engaged to some extent in the carrying trade; but they were not engaged in the fisheries, like the Eastern States, and were much more interested in the export of domestic produce, especially grain and flour. Hence their policy toward the grant of additional powers to the Congress was not so clearly indicated as was that of Massa- chusetts. The staple of the Upper South, tobacco, called for a radically different policy.' Navigation acts, such as Massa- chusetts desired, could only bring new embarrassments to the tobacco planters, while the power to tax exports, if used to raise all the revenue the tobacco traffic would bear, might shift the entire burden of taxation to their shoulders.
The Lower South was bound by its interest in the export of rice and indigo to make common cause with Old Virginia and her neighbors in opposition to navigation acts and taxes on exports; but was separated from the Upper South by its supposed dependence on fresh supplies of cheap labor, which under the existing circumstances meant the importation of slaves. Virginia already had more slaves than she wanted, and might expect a better home market for her superfluous blacks, if the slave-trade were prohibited. Thus there were bound to be at least four distinct groups in the Convention, with four different points of view concerning the enlargement of the powers of the Congress. This was the fundamental basis of the internal politics and combinations of the Con- vention.
THE NATIONALISTIC GROUP OF DELEGATES
The second principal basis of controversy in the Conven- tion was political rather than economic. It related to the form of the general government rather than to the extent of its
377
NATIONALISTIC DELEGATES
powers. The two subjects, however, cannot be wholly separ- ated. Those who favored extensive powers for the general government ordinarily favored also a form of government designed to bear the stresses and strains to which it would inevitably be subjected by the exercise of such powers. That meant a firm political structure with well-developed organs. Such a form of government might also be favored by those with the best expectations of controlling it, once it were con- structed and set in operation. That included the political leaders from the largest states or from the states with the brightest hopes of future greatness.
These various considerations tended to produce an align- ment of the large states and most rapidly growing states against the smaller states and those with inferior prospects of future growth.
A "high-toned government," as it was sometimes called, would also be favored by men of imagination and ambition, regardless of the state they came from, as best suited to the honor and dignity, as well as to the interests, of a free and independent people with a brilliant career before them. Such delegates would wish to construct a government capable of doing what Washington had advocated in his letter to Jay, August, 1786; that is, of maintaining its authority through- out the Union "in as energetic a manner as the authority of the State governments extends over the several States." This meant a government deriving its powers directly from the people of the Union, and operating directly upon them, with out any dependence on the governments of the States. The advocates of such a government may best be described as Na- tionalists. Their most conspicuous leaders were Washington and Franklin; and their chief strength lay in the Virginia and Pennsylvania delegations. They gathered round them, how- ever, several of the brilliant young men whose talents graced the debates more perhaps than they influenced the counsels of the Convention. Noteworthy among these brilliant young men were Alexander Hamilton, Charles Pinckney of South Caro- lina, and King of Massachusetts. The views of the latter had expanded rapidly, once he committed himself to the compaign for a more perfect Union.
378
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
THE CONFEDERATE GROUP
At the opposite pole from the Nationalists were those who wished to make as little change as possible in the existing government under the Articles of Confederation. These dele- gates wished to follow strictly the terms of the resolution adopted by the Congress, and looked upon the plans of the Nationalists as unconstitutional and indeed revolutionary. They believed the Convention had no right to do more than report amendments to the Articles of Confederation for con- sideration by the Congress and the State legislatures. The adherents of this policy may best be described as Confederates, though that word was not heard in the Convention. Among them were the majority of the delegates from New York, New Jersey and Delaware. In the first stage of the Conven- tion's proceedings the ablest and most influential member of this group was Roger Sherman of Connecticut; but he pres- ently modified his opinions. In the later stages of the Con- vention Luther Martin of Maryland was the most conspicuous of the addicts to the Confederation. Of the others, some, like Yates and Lansing of New York, left the Convention when they found they were in a hopeless minority. The rest for the most part yielded eventually to the opinion of the majority or remained silent. None of the Massachusetts delegates belonged to this group.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.