USA > Massachusetts > Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province and state, volume 3 > Part 35
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
THE FEDERAL GROUP
A third group of delegates occupied an intermediate position between the Nationalists and the Confederates. Like the members of the first group, these delegates desired a firm political structure with well-developed organs of government. They could not rest content with any mere revision of the Articles of Confederation. Like the Confederates, however, they wished to preserve a respectable position in the new Union for the separate States. They could not support a program designed to render the general government wholly independent of the State governments, and likely to reduce the latter to a manifestly subordinate position. For this group the term Federalist is most appropriate. To it the majority of the Massachusetts delegation belonged. Gerry
379
THE FEDERAL GROUP
and Gorham were among its most active members; and Strong, while less active, proved one of the most steadfast adherents of the moderate policy which this group favored. Other delegations which furnished active and influential sup- port for the Federalist program were those from Connecticut and South Carolina. At the outset, however, the most prom- inent member of this group was John Dickinson of Delaware.
The influence of the Federalists in the earlier stages of the Convention was greatly impaired by their division into two further groups. One of these, consisting of delegates from the larger states, notably Massachusetts and South Caro- lina, was resolved to put an end to the equal representation of the states in the Congress. The other, in which the Con- necticut delegation eventually played the leading part, insisted that the states should retain an equal voice in at least one branch of the national legislature. The effect of these dissen- sions was to create four factions in the Convention with re- spect to the principal political issues that were destined to arise,-Nationalists, large-state Federalists, small-state Fed- eralists, and Confederates. Since these four factions had no relation to the four factions which grew out of the conflicting economic interests of the principal sections into which the country was divided, the politics of the Convention became exceedingly complicated.
Fortunately no organized national parties existed in the country at large which could commit a substantial portion of the delegates to any particular program before the Conven- tion met. The secrecy of the debates in the Convention and the lack of any official record of remarks by which changes of opinion could be subsequently made public to the disadvan- tage of the more conciliatory members, contributed to the candid interchange of views and to the eventual adjustment of differences. Thus the course of the proceedings was favor- able to the acceptance of compromises and tended to reduce the evils of partisanship and faction to a minimum. The con- ditions encouraged individual leadership and genuine delibera- tion. Yet all the great moral influence of a Washington and skilful diplomacy of a Franklin were needed to bring the Convention to a successful close.
1
380
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
FOUR PERIODS IN THE CONVENTION (1787)
The general course of the proceedings in the Federal Con- vention is well known and need not be related here. The special part played by the delegates from Massachusetts is less familiar and deserves more particular examination.
The proceedings of the Convention fall into four distinct periods. The first, which extended to about the middle of June, was the period of Nationalist supremacy. It began with the framing of the Nationalist plan for a more perfect Union by the Virginia delegation, and concluded with the adoption of that plan by the Convention sitting as a Committee of the Whole. During this period the Massachusetts delegation played a subordinate, but by no means negligible, part. It accepted the leadership of the Virginia delegation, but it made at least one independent contribution of supreme importance in the development of the American system of constitutional government.
The second period, which ended about the middle of July, was characterized by the triumph of Federalism over Nation- alism. First, the Confederates under the leadership of New Jersey, then the small-state Federalists under Connecticut leadership, rallied the opposition to the dominant Nationalists. Eventually the latter lost control of the Convention through the defection of a part of the large-state Federalists. Among these were two of the Massachusetts delegates. The Nation- alist leaders were forced to choose between yielding to the Federalists and breaking up the Convention. They reluctantly chose the former course. The split in the Massachusetts dele- gation, by weakening the authority of one of the leading large States, contributed not a little to the ultimate discomfiture of the Nationalists. Thus, by accident rather than design, Massa- chusetts played an influential, though hardly a decisive, part in this stage of the proceedings.
The next period, extending to the end of August, was marked by the clash of sectional interests. In the heat of the struggle an alliance was formed between New England and the Lower South against the Upper South and the Middle States. Massachusetts and South Carolina challenged the leadership of Virginia and Pennsylvania as aggressively as New Jersey and Connecticut had challenged it in the previous
381
NATIONALIST SUPREMACY
stage of the proceedings. With able support from Connecticut and New Hampshire (which had just made its belated ap- pearance ), the Massachusetts delegates procured adjustments of the sectional conflicts which brought all possible security to the special interests of the Northeastern States. This was the period of maximum influence for the Massachusetts dele- gation.
In the fourth period, which extended beyond the middle of September, the former Nationalists recovered the leadership of the Convention and endeavored to give the Federal Union as national a character as circumstances permitted. In this they were joined by most of the original Federalists, large- state men and small-state men alike, thus laying the foundation for the Federalist party which governed the new Union until the close of the century. But the Massachusetts delegation split again, and only two of its members-the same two who had fought against the great compromise to the last-finally signed the finished Constitution. One other had gone home before the Constitution was finished; one remained-the one who had been most eager for the great compromise-to regis- ter his final disapproval of what the Convention had done.
PERIOD OF NATIONALIST SUPREMACY (MAY - JUNE, 1787)
Washington and Franklin are rightly credited with leading parts in the formation of the more perfect Union. The former had been a tower of strength in the campaign for a truly national government, throughout the critical period preceding the Philadelphia Convention. The latter, however, was the original Nationalist in American politics. His plan for a general government, submitted to the Continental Congress in July, 1775, furnished the basis for the first constitution of the United States, the so-called Articles of Confederation. Franklin had proposed a much more strongly articulated Un- ion than that actually established under the Articles, and was known to favor a firmer structure formed on national prin- ciples. But advanced age and growing infirmities prevented him from playing a leading part in the Convention. Wash- ington also preferred to leave the active management of the Nationalist cause to younger men. The chief draftsman of the Nationalist plan seems to have been James Madison, and
382
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
the principal leaders of the Nationalists on the floor of the Convention were Madison and James Wilson. The leadership could not have been in better hands.
Madison first sketched the Nationalist program in a letter to Jefferson, then in France, dated March 19, 1787. The foundation of the new system of government, he declared, should be laid "in such a ratification by the people themselves of the several States as will render it clearly paramount to their legislative authorities." Secondly, the national govern- ment should have not only full powers over all matters in which uniformity of action throughout the Union might be desirable, but also a veto upon State legislation "in all cases whatsoever." Thirdly, the States should be deprived of their equal voice in the Congress and the system of representation changed to correspond with the actual differences between the States. Fourthly, the powers to be conferred on the general government should be so distributed "as not to blend together those which ought to be exercised by different departments." This program was further elaborated in subsequent letters to General Washington and Governor Randolph. When the leading Virginia delegates reached Philadelphia, they must have had the outlines of such a program as Madison had sketched fairly well settled in their minds.
No States beside Virginia and Pennsylvania had anything like a full delegation on the ground at the time fixed for the opening of the Convention. While waiting for a quorum to appear, the Virginia delegation held daily meetings for the elaboration of its plan; and as other delegates arrived the leadership of Virginia among the Nationalists was firmly estab- lished. Noteworthy among the other delegates who were early on the ground and whose course in the Convention revealed their strong Nationalism were Alexander Hamilton and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. The only Massachusetts delegate to make his appearance before the actual organization of the Convention on May 25 was King. That he was a party to the Virginia plan may well be imagined.
Meanwhile the progress of the Nationalist program was causing alarm. May 21, Read of Delaware wrote to his tardy colleague, John Dickinson, urging him to hurry to Philadel- phia. "I am in possession of a copied draft," he declared,
383
THE VIRGINIA PLAN
of a plan "intended to be proposed, if something nearly simi- lar shall not precede it. Some of its principal features are taken from the New York system of government." And he proceeded to describe a frame of government, consisting of a congress with two branches, one to represent the people of the States in proportion to their numbers, the other to repre- sent, not the States, but four great districts into which the Union was to be divided. This novel scheme for an upper chamber was obviously designed to furnish a conservative balance against the more popular house. Read pointed out that such a plan would reduce Delaware to a position of little consequence. "I suspect it to be of importance to the small States," he concluded, "that their deputies should keep a strict watch upon the movements and propositions from the larger States, who will probably combine to swallow up the smaller ones ....
THE VIRGINIA PLAN (1787)
Immediately upon the organization of the Convention, the Virginia plan was introduced by Governor Randolph in the form of fifteen resolutions. May 30 the Convention went into Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the plan. The resolutions remained under discussion until June 13, when the Committee was ready to rise and report a plan for a new constitution in almost the very form in which it had been originally introduced by the Virginia delegation. It seemed a great triumph for the Nationalists.
During the deliberations of the Committee of the Whole the Massachusetts delegation cooperated with the Nationalists, its members being generally united in their support of the Virginia plan. Gerry, however, dissented occasionally in matters of detail. His course sometimes seemed erratic. When the election of members of the popular branch of the national legislature was under consideration, he opposed their election directly. by the people. "The evils we experience," he declared, according to Madison's notes on the debates, "flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots." He added that he had been too republican before, and, although he was still a republican, he had learned by experience the danger
384
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
of the levelling spirit. The majority of the Massachusetts delegation, however, favored popular elections.
Again a few days later, when the provision for a popular ratification of the proposed Articles of Union instead of ratifi- cation by the State legislatures, as under the existing Articles of Confederation, was under consideration, Gerry spoke against it. The people of Massachusetts, he said, "have at this time the wildest ideas of government in the world."
When the provision for a three-year term for representa- tives was under consideration, however, Gerry came out strongly for annual elections. "The people of New England," he declared, "will never give up the point of annual elections." He considered annual elections the chief defense of the people against tyranny. On this point the Massachusetts delegation deserted the Nationalists, who generally favored long terms for members of the national legislature. King was the only Massachusetts delegate who favored triennial elections for the popular branch. In general King was the most effective mem- ber of the Massachusetts delegation at this stage of the Con- vention's proceedings, Gorham being in the chair and Strong consistently silent.
CHANGES IN THE VIRGINIA PLAN (1787)
The general success of the Nationalists with the Virginia plan at this stage of the Convention was marred by two de- feats. One was in the matter of the election of members of the second branch of the national legislature. When the resolution, as originally introduced by Randolph, providing that the members of the second branch be elected by the first branch out of persons nominated by the State legislatures, came up for discussion, Dickinson of Delaware, seconded by Sherman of Connecticut, moved that it be amended to provide for election directly by the State legislatures. This amend- ment was strongly opposed by the Nationalist leaders, espe- cially Madison and Wilson, who saw that its adoption would open the door to a further amendment which would be most damaging to their plan, namely, the equal representation of the States in the second branch. Gerry favored the amend- ment, arguing that the election of the second branch by the State legislatures would be likely to provide a check in favor
385
CHANGES IN THE VIRGINIA PLAN
of the commercial interest against the landed, without which, he thought, oppression would take place.
"The people have two great interests," he declared, "the landed interest, and the commercial, including stock-holders. To draw both branches from the people will leave no security to the latter interest; the people being chiefly composed of the landed interest, and erroneously supposing that the other interests are adverse to it." He believed that the commercial interests would have greater influence with the legislatures than with the people. Without some means of protecting the commercial interests against oppression by the landed inter- ests, he feared that no free government could last long. Dick- inson's motion, despite the opposition of the Nationalist lead- ers, was carried by a unanimous vote of all the States. Gerry would have liked to proceed further in establishing the dependence of the national government upon the State gov- ernments, and actually proposed that the national executive should be elected by the State executives. But in this move he received no support.
The other defeat inflicted upon the Nationalists at this stage of the proceedings came in the matter of arming the national legislature with a veto over State legislation. Madison had originally suggested that the veto should apply "in all cases whatsoever" and be exercised by the national government according to its discretion; but the Virginia dele- gation had deemed it prudent to propose merely that the national legislature should negative such laws of the States as might be contrary to the Articles of Union or to treaties with foreign nations. This was accepted by the Committee of the Whole, but when Charles Pinckney moved to amend by giving the national legislature authority to negative all State laws which they should judge to be improper, he en- countered strong opposition from many of the Federalist members of the Convention. Gerry argued against it, sug- gesting that the national legislature might well have a power to negative State laws sanctioning the issue of paper money and similar measures, but that it would never do to authorize the national government to intervene in State affairs without limit. The States, he declared, "have different interests and are ignorant of each other's interests. The negative therefore
386
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
will be abused." Though Madison and Wilson supported Pinckney's motion as best they could, they could carry only three States, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and, despite Gerry's opposition, Massachusetts. It was evident that the thorough- going Nationalists constituted only a small minority of the Convention and, outside the three largest States, commanded only scattering support.
Another important alteration in the Virginia plan, which was made at this stage in the proceedings, related to the pro- posed Council of Revision. The plan, as originally presented by Randolph, provided that the executive and a convenient number of the national judiciary should compose a council for the purpose of revising the acts of the national legislature, and that acts which should fail to receive the approval of this council should not take effect unless reenacted by something more than an ordinary majority of the legislature. Gerry ob- jected to the inclusion of judges with the executive in the exercise of the veto power over legislation, urging; that the judges "will have a sufficient check against encroachments on their department by their exposition of the laws, which in- volves a power of deciding on their constitutionality." He added that "in some States the judges had actually set aside laws as being against the Constitution." He proposed that the veto power be vested in the executive alone, as was done in Massachusetts. King seconded Gerry, pointing out that "the judges ought to be able to expound the law as it should come before them, free from the bias of having participated in its formation." The Massachusetts plan of separate execu- tive and judicial review of legislation was stoutly opposed by Madison and Wilson, but was eventually adopted by the Con- vention. This alteration in the Virginia plan made possible the subsequent development of the executive veto by Andrew Jackson and of the judicial veto by John Marshall. It intro- duced the best check in the American system of separation of powers. It was the most important contribution which Massa- chusetts made to the new frame of government.
THE NEW JERSEY PLAN (JUNE, 1787)
The second period in the framing of the Federal Constitu- tion began June 14 when the Convention, instead of receiving
387
TRIUMPH OF THE FEDERALISTS
the report of the Committee of the Whole, adjourned at the request of Paterson of New Jersey, in order to give those opposed to the Nationalist program an opportunity to bring in a plan of their own. The following day the so-called New Jersey plan was introduced as a substitute for that of Vir- ginia. It was a plan embodying the ideas of the Confederates, with whom the small-state Federalists joined in order to de- feat the Nationalists.
The New Jersey plan contemplated a revision of the Articles of Confederation by conferring some additional powers upon the Congress, and by creating a permanent executive council (to be elected by the Congress) and a permanent Supreme Court. But the Congress was to vote by States, as before, provided that in important matters an exceptional majority of the "Confederated States" should be requisite. The intro- duction of this plan precipitated a great debate, in which the Massachusetts delegates took little part. Lansing of New York opened the case for the Confederates, arguing that the Convention had no right to consider such a plan as that of the Nationalists, since their powers extended only to a revi- sion of the existing Articles of Confederation; he was sure that, if they should adopt such a plan, the people would cer- tainly reject it. Madison, Wilson, and Hamilton replied for the Nationalists. The latter took the opportunity to present his own plan, proposing a consolidated general government under which the States would be reduced to the position of mere provinces. There was no open support for such extreme centralization except by Read of Delaware, who believed that, if the small States were to be gobbled up, the large States should be gobbled up also. Finally, June 19, the Confeder- ate plan was laid aside, and on motion of Rufus King the committee rose and reported the Virginia plan to the Conven- tion.
TRIUMPH OF THE FEDERALISTS (JUNE-JULY, 1787)
The leadership of the opposition to the dominant Nation- alists then passed from New Jersey and New York to Con- necticut, and a struggle began which ended a month later with the triumph of Federalism over Nationalism. The plan which ultimately prevailed through the efforts of the small-state wing
388
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
of the Federalists was first suggested in the Convention, June 2, by John Dickinson. "The American Farmer," as Dickinson is best known in history, was one of the most eminent Revo- lutionary statesmen. He had been chairman of the committee in the Continental Congress which framed the Articles of Confederation, and president of the Annapolis Convention which issued the call for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He had been governor of two States, Pennsylvania and Delaware. Despite his refusal to sign the Declaration of Independence, when he had the opportunity to be a signer, he brought to the Convention a high reputation for political sagacity and a prestige in which he was surpassed by few of its members. He had come to believe in a strong general government, but he considered the preservation of the State governments in a vigorous condition an essential of political stability. Observing that some of the delegates seemed de- sirous of abolishing the States altogether, he declared the "accidental lucky division of this country into distinct States" to be one of the principal safeguards against the development of tyranny. Referring to the differences concerning repre- sentation in the national legislature, he believed they must probably end in mutual concessions, and expressed the hope that each State would retain its equal voice in at least one of the branches of the proposed bicameral Congress. Dickin- son's suggestion was taken up by the Connecticut delegation and offered as an amendment to the Virginia plan, June 11, but was voted down, six States against five. Now the Con- necticut delegates brought the Dickinson proposal forward again, and insisted that it was necessary, in order to secure for the States a proper place in the new system. Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth assumed the leadership of the Federalist opposition; and by the end of June the Convention had come practically to a standstill.
THE GREAT COMPROMISE (JULY, 1787)
Franklin was the first to come forward on the Nationalist side with an offer to compromise. While his first proposals were not acceptable, they opened the way for the appoint- ment of a Grand Committee to find a formula for an agree- ment. This committee reported a scheme, which became the
389
THE GREAT COMPROMISE
basis of the arrangement finally adopted. The States were to have an equal voice in the Senate; but all money bills were to originate in the House and were not to be amended in the Senate. This proposal was far from satisfactory to most of the delegates who had supported the Nationalist program. Many of them would have preferred to vest special powers with respect to money bills in the Senate rather than in the House, since they had hoped to make the Senate the bulwark of the interests of property. Others believed the concession would have little practical value, since the Senate would be able to force amendments in money bills by rejecting them until altered according to its wishes by the House. Eventu- ally the provision concerning money bills was modified so as to lose most of its significance. Meanwhile (July 16), the important part of the "Great Compromise," as it has been called, the provision for equal representation of the States in the Senate, was finally adopted.
The Nationalists, for the most part, fought this great com- promise stubbornly to the bitter end. The final vote was five States against four, the Massachusetts delegation being pres- ent but not voting on account of the split in its ranks. Be- sides the two Massachusetts delegates, the advocates of compromise won over a majority of the North Carolina dele- gation. The other delegations, which had supported the Nationalist program, remained of the same mind as before.
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.