USA > Massachusetts > The history of Massachusetts, the commonwealth period. 1775-1820 v. III > Part 27
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
recommendation of Bowdoin, and the strong resolutions of Massachusetts, (then one of the three great states of the confederacy,) in 1785, were most important steps in this momentous federal movement. They preceded, by more than a year, the resolutions of Virginia, to which so deserved a prominence has always been given; and they should not be suffered to be omitted, as they too often hitherto have been, from the history of the rise and progress of the constitution of the United States."
Curtis's Hist. of the Const. i. 338. 3 Madison Papers, ii. 694, 695 ; Sparks's Washington, ix. 507, 508; Marshall's Washington, v. 90, 91; Curtis's Hist. of the Const. i. 340, 343.
267
PREPARATORY STEPS TO A CONVENTION.
a convention to be holden at Annapolis,1 aided in calling CHAP attention afresh to the defects of the government; but this VII. convention, when gathered, was found to be too small to 1786. Sep. 11.
accomplish any desirable result, and ended with a formal Sep. 14. proposal to the states, draughted by Hamilton, for calling a general convention to take into consideration the situa- tion of the country. This recommendation was variously received. In Congress, it at first met with very little favor ; but in Virginia, it was immediately and cordially approved.3 and 23 Nov. 9 The delegates from Massachusetts objected to it on the ground that the legislatures " could not adopt any scheme which might be proposed by a convention ; and if it were submitted to the people, it was not only doubtful what degree of assent on their part would make it valid, but it was also doubtful whether they could change the federal constitution by their own direct action." To these difficulties, it was also urged, was " to be added the further hazard that, if the report of the convention should be made to Congress, as proposed, and if it should be rejected, fatal consequences would ensue." 4
1 Life of Hamilton, ii. 374, 375; Austin's Life of Gerry, ii. 4; Brad- ford, ii. 253; Curtis's Hist. of the Const. i. 345, 346.
2 Madison Papers, ii. 697-703; Worcester Mag. Nos. 27 and 28, for Oct. 1786; Elliot's Debates, i. 116; Letters of the Federal Farmer, 7; Hamilton's Works, i. 432, ii. 336; Sparks's Washington, ix. 223, 226, 513; Marshall's Washington, v. 97 ; Statesman's Manual, ii. 1501-1505 ; the Federalist, No. xl. ; Pitkin's Statistics of the U. S. 32; N. Am. Rev. for Oct. 1827, 261-266; Hil- dreth's U. S. iii. 478; Bradford, ii. 253; Curtis's Hist. of the Const. i. 347. Five only of the states - New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Del- aware, and Virginia - were represent- ed in this convention ; four others - Massachusetts, N. Hampshire, Rhode Island, and North Carolina - ap-
pointed commissioners, who neglected to attend ; and the remaining four - Connecticut, Maryland, South Caro- lina, and Georgia - made no appoint- ments. The delegates from Massa- chusetts were "Lieutenant Governor Cushing, Elbridge Gerry, Francis Dana, and Stephen Higginson." Aus- tin's Life of Gerry, ii. 5.
3 Madison Papers, ii. 703-706. The resolutions of Virginia were draughted by Madison, passed in the House November 9, and in the Senate November 23, and delegates were appointed December 4, 1786.
4 Madison Papers, ii. 587; Journal of the Confederation ; Abstract of an Address to the Legislature of Mass. by Rufus King, in the Boston Mag. for 1786, 406; Curtis's Hist. of the Const. i. 355. The proposal for a convention was not a new thing, but had been suggested so early as 1781,
268
CONGRESS CONSENTS TO CALL A CONVENTION.
CHAP. VII. The fact, however, that the confederation needed amend- ments was becoming more evident every day ; and that the 1787. proposed convention was the most eligible means of effecting these changes was equally evident. Congress itself admitted these truths ; but, when the report of the grand committee Feb. 21. was presented embodying these views, it was objected to by many members, and a variety of propositions was submitted to obviate these difficulties.1 A resolution was at length introduced by the Massachusetts delegation, and passed, sanc- tioning the calling of a convention ; and delegates from all the states were chosen to attend it.2
The point thus gained was of great importance. It was not the design of the statesmen of America to act precipi- tately, and cut loose from one form of government, however imperfect, without making provision for the establishment of a better. The old confederacy, notwithstanding its defects, was still revered by the wise and thoughtful for the good it had done. In the history of the country, it had proved more
by Pelatiah Webster; in 1783, by Col. Hamilton ; by R. H. Lee, in 1784, and by Noah Webster, in the winter of 1784-5. Madison Papers, ii. 706 -708.
1 Madison Papers, ii. 587 ; Jour- nal of the Confederation ; Madison's Notes, in Elliot's Debates, v. 96; Sparks's Washington, ix. 510, 513; Statesman's Manual, ii. 1505; Cur- tis's Hist. of the Const. i. 355, 356. The report of the grand committee, it should be observed, was agreed to by a majority of one only, though the subject had been long under consider- ation. The principal objections to the proposed convention were, that it tended to weaken the federal author- ity, by lending its sanction to an extra constitutional mode of proceeding, and that the interposition of Congress would be considered by the jealous as betraying an ambitious wish to get power into their hands.
2 Madison Papers, ii. 589, 590,
619; Journals, xii. 15-17; Sparks's Washington, ix. 246, 247, notes; El- liot's Debates, v. 96; Marshall's Wash- ington, v. 125; Hildreth's U. S. iii. 478; Statesman's Manual, ii. 1506; Curtis's Hist. of the Const. i. 358. Several of the states- as New Jer- sey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Delaware - had appointed their delegates to the convention before it was sanctioned by Congress ; and this, probably, had some influence upon the decision of that body. Madison Papers, ii. 617; Elliot's Debates, i. 126-137. It has been asserted in reference to this convention, that the members were chosen " for the sole and express purpose of revising and amending the confederation ; " " not a word was said about destroying the old' constitution and making a new one." Letters from the Federal Farmer, 7; Austin's Life of Gerry, ii. 9.
269
WISDOM OF THIS MEASURE.
than "a name with which to conjure ;" it had brought into CHAP: existence and established the independence of the thirteen VII. United States, and as such was entitled to respectful consider- 1787 ation. Had it been hastily set aside, and had the nation embarked upon the uncertain sea of political experiment, anarchy and confusion might have ensued ; for who could tell, in such case, "what projects, what schemes, and what influ- ences might arise to jeopard those great principles of republi- can liberty on which the political fabric had rested from the declaration of independence to the present hour of danger and distress " ? 1
But if there was wisdom in the policy which approved the convention, it was felt and admitted by the most discerning that the failure of that body to agree upon a well-balanced system of government adapted to the preexisting system of confederated states, capable of pervading the entire country with an efficient control, and essentially republican in its prin- ciples and form, would result immediately in a dissolution of. the Union, and an attempt to establish a monarchical govern-
1 Madison Papers, ii. 589, 590 ; Curtis's Hist. of the Const. i. 363, 364. " It appeared from the debates," says Madison, "and still more from the conversation among the members, that many of them considered this resolution as a deadly blow to the existing confederation. Dr. Johnson, who voted against it, particularly de- clared himself to that effect. Others viewed it in the same light, but were pleased with it as the harbinger of a better confederation. The reserve of many of the members made it difficult to decide their real wishes and expec- tations from the present crisis of our affairs. All agreed and owned that the federal government, in its exist- ing shape, was inefficient, and could not last long. The members from the Southern and Middle States seem generally anxious for some republican organization of the system, which would preserve the Union, and give
due energy to the government of it., Mr. Bingham alone avowed his wishes that the confederacy might be divided into several distinct confederacies, its great extent and various interests be- ing incompatible with a single govern- ment. The eastern members were suspected of leaning towards some anti-republican establishment, (the ef- fect of their late confusions,) or of being less desirous or hopeful of pre- serving the unity of the empire. For the first time the idea of separate confederacies had got into the news- papers. It appeared to-day, under the Boston head. Whatever the views of the leading men in the Eastern States may be, it would seem that the great body of the people, particularly in Connecticut, are equally indisposed either to dissolve the confederacy, or to submit to any anti-republican in- novations."
270
CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAILURE OF THE CONVENTION.
CHAP. ment. The consequences of such an attempt it was frightful VII. to contemplate. Civil war and social convulsions must inevi-
1787. tably ensue ; for could it be supposed that the people, who had long been jealous of arbitrary power, and who had fought seven years to secure their freedom, would surrender it at the dictation of a portion of the community ? To count upon such surrender by peaceable means was to charge the people with preposterous madness ; nay, it would have been an evi- dence of such imbecility on their part as to have proved them unworthy of the blessings of liberty.1 Happily for the coun- try, the views of those whose hopes predominated over their fears were not doomed to be disappointed, nor was the con- vention itself destined to fail. The talent it embraced was a pledge of its success ; for if a Washington, a Madison, a Ham- ilton, a Franklin, a Morris, a Pinckney, a Randolph, a Wilson, a Gerry, a Strong, a Dana, a King, a Sherman, a Livingston, a Dickinson, were incompetent as "cunning artificers," to whom could the country look with more confidence ? They were the men who had shared in its perils. Their own inter- ests and the interests of their posterity were involved. And if they failed, it was hopeless - nay, useless - to expect others to succeed.2
Under these auspices, though many were doubtful of the
1 Hamilton's Works, i. 435; Mar- shall's Washington, v. 94-97, es- pecially 96 ; Letters of the Federal Farmer, 6. " It gives me great pleas- ure," wrote Washington, Writings, ix. 250, "to hear that there is a proba- bility of a full representation of the states in convention ; but if the dele- gates come to it under fetters, the salutary ends proposed will be greatly embarrassed and retarded, if not al- together defeated. I am desirous of knowing how this matter is, as my wish is that the convention may adopt no temporizing expedients, but probe the defects of the constitution to the bottom, and provide a radical cure,
whether they are agreed to or not. A conduct of this kind will stamp wisdom and dignity on their proceed- ings, and hold up a light which sooner or later will have its influence."
2 Comp. Sparks's Washington, ix. 223-236, 258, 260, 508-520; Cur- tis's Hist. of the Const. i. 366-370; the Federalist, No. ii. For a list of the delegates, see Statesman's Man- ual, ii. 1507; Curtis's Hist. of the Const. i. 516-518. The members from Massachusetts were Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, and Caleb Strong; but Mr. Dana did not attend.
271
THE CONVENTION ASSEMBLES IN PHILADELPHIA.
tendency of the experiment, and some questioned the legiti- CHAP. macy of the meeting, the convention assembled in Phila- VII. delphia, and, on the motion of Robert Morris, of Pennsylva- 1787. nia, was organized by the choice of George Washington for May 25. president.1 There was little for the statesmen of that day to look to, in the history of other nations, in the way of theories which had been practically proved to be sound and useful.2 They must originate for themselves a consolidated system adapted to the wants of their country. And it is proof of their wisdom, and of the extent of their political knowledge, that time and experience have abundantly demonstrated the general excellence of the system devised, and that few altera- tions have since been required in it. They came to the task with a consciousness of the difficulties besetting their path, but with a full determination to act for the interests of the entire republic. Personal preferences might be urged, and the freest interchange of opinion was desirable. But no one could insist upon, nor did any one press, the adoption of his own views, to the exclusion of all others. It was the council of the nation, the arbiter of the destinies of unborn millions. Every thing depended upon the wisdom of its measures, and upon the con- ciliatory spirit which governed its deliberations. The assem-
1 Madison Papers, ii. 635, 643, 721 et seq. ; Marshall's Washington, v. 98 et seq. ; Statesman's Manual, ii. 1506. Sixty-five persons were elected members of the convention ; and of these, fifty-five attended its sessions. Six of the number had affixed their signature to the Declaration of Inde- pendence. Austin's Life of Gerry, ii. 9.
2 "Never was there, before the American revolution, an instance of a nation forming its own government on the original foundations of human rights, revealed by a study of the laws of nature, and creating every civil organ agreeably to the three acts which constitute just government. Never did there exist such a scene
as that on which the revolution took place in America, where the people, by their own act, without any usur- pation or turn of parties, on a sudden found themselves in a state of the most civilized and complicated asso- ciations, without government ; and in that state formed the original con- vention, on grounds of undisputed equality ; framed a form of civil gov- ernment, founded in the rights of nature, unobscured by charters, privi- leges, or monopolies of power; and then bound themselves by the third and last tie of allegiance. The demo- cratic form was the only one a people so situated could adopt." Political Sketches, inscribed to his Excellency John Adams, &c., 5, 6, ed. 1787.
272
RULES OF THE CONVENTION.
CHAP. bly could be useful only in proportion to its superiority to VII. partial views and interests.1 .
1787. The rules of the convention were copied chiefly from those of Congress. No state was allowed to cast more than one vote, and seven states constituted a quorum for business. The sessions were to be held with closed doors; and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret - so much so that the members were prevented from corresponding freely and confi- dentially with eminent political characters in the different states upon the subjects under consideration ; nor were they allowed even to take copies of resolutions, or of the entries on the journal, " without formally moving for and obtaining permission, by a vote of the convention for that purpose." 2
Delegates from less than seven states were present on the May 14. day appointed for the opening of the convention, nor was it May 25. until eleven days after that that number appeared ; but early June 2. in June, eleven states were represented by about fifty dele- gates, who were among the most distinguished men of the country.3 Three parties, it was soon found, existed among
1 Comp. Madison Papers, ii. 621. There is a slight degree of rhetorical embellishment in the statement of Judge Jay, Federalist, No. ii., that, "in the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, un- interrupted, and daily consultations ; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any pas- sion, except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous counsels." It was a season of peace in one sense ; but the waves were surging as at sea after a storm. The debates were not always " cool and uninterrupted ; " passion was not always dormant and quiet ; nor was the plan produced by a "very unanimous counsel." If, however, all this is admitted, it was not altogether " so much of a lucky
accident" that the new constitution was framed. It was something more than an accident, nor would it have occurred had there not been wisdom at the bottom. Comp. N. Am. Rev. for July, 1841, 43.
2 Madison Papers, ii. 724-726, 728; Martin's Speech before the Legis. of Md., in Secret Proceedings, &c., 4, 32; N. Am. Rev. for July, 1841, 53 ; Marshall's Washington, v. 128; Hil- dreth's U. S. iii. 482. Notwithstand- ing these restrictions, several of the members took notes of the proceed- ings of the convention; and those of Yates, of New York, and Madison, of Virginia, have since been published. The Journal has also been published, by order of Congress.
3 The states represented on the 25th were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina,
3
273
DIVISION OF PARTIES.
the members, of exceedingly different sentiments and views. CHAP. To the first belonged those " whose object and wish it was to VII. . abolish and annihilate all state governments, and to bring 1787. forward one general government, over this extensive conti- nent, of a monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations." The second " was not for the abolition of the state governments, nor for the introduction of a monarchical government under any form; but they wished to establish such a system as could give their own states undue power and influence in the government over the other states." And the third, which was " considered truly federal and republican," was " nearly equal in number with the other two, and was composed of the delegates from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and in part from Maryland, also of some individuals from other representations." 1
It is foreign to the province of this history to relate circum- stantially the proceedings of this convention. It is only necessary to say that its sessions were continued for the space of four months ; that its debates were spirited, and occasion-
with one each from Massachusetts and Georgia ; the other delegates from Massachusetts, and those from Con- necticut, and other states, appeared on the 28th; and the rest took their seats from the 29th of May to the 9th of June. Madison Papers, ii. 721 et seq. ; Yates, in Secret Proceedings, &c., 99-101, 103, 105; Letters from the Federal Farmer, 8. "The non- attendance," says the latter authority, " of eight or nine men, who were ap- pointed members of the convention, [ shall ever consider as a very un- fortunate event to the United States. Had they attended, I am pretty clear hat the result of the convention would not have been that strong tendency o aristocracy now discernible in every art of the plan. There would not lave been so great an accumulation f powers, especially as to the internal olice of the country, in a few hands, VOL. III. 18
as the constitution reported proposes to vest in them. The young, visionary men, and the consolidating aristocracy, would have been more restrained than they have been."
Martin's Speech to the Legis. of Md., in Secret Proceedings, &c. 13, 14. Comp. N. Am. Rev. for July, 1841, 52, 53 ; Austin's Life of Gerry, ii. 19, 20 ; the Olive Branch, by M. Carey, 81, ed. 1817. The favorers of a monarchical government were not very numerous, nor did they press their views with great pertinacity. "The ideas of men who speculate upon the dismemberment of the empire," as is said in the Federalist, No. xiii., " seem generally turned towards three confederacies ; one consisting of the four Northern, another of the four Middle, and a third of the five South- ern States."
-
274
DIFFICULTY OF FRAMING A PERFECT SYSTEM.
CHAP. ally spicy ; that, in more than one instance, there was danger VII. of a dissolution without the accomplishment of the business 1787. for which it had assembled ; 1 and that nothing but the cool- ness and gravity of the prudent, and the consciousness of the necessity of a spirit of compromise, persuaded the members to yield punctilious points of honor, and to forget the individual and the inordinate pride of state importance for the one great purpose of national union.2 It is easy for the philosopher to frame, in his study, a theory of government which shall seem to himself a perfect Utopia ; but practical statesmen find some difficulties in attempting to harmonize the visions of specu- latists, and in evolving from the Babel-like " confusion of tongues " a judicious, a well-balanced, and pertinent system, adapted to the wants of a living community, and capable of being carried into efficient operation. It is a mistake to sup- pose that the science of government can be learned by the brightest mind in a few hours' study. For its just compre- hension, a varied experience is needed - an experience based upon a life-long acquaintance with the nature of man ; a liberal culture, which has sprung from the survey of the history of the past, of all the great nations of ancient and modern times ;
1 Hamilton's Works, i. 437.
2 Marshall's Washington, v. 129; Letters from the Federal Farmer, 8. " The plan proposed," says the latter, "is a plan of accommodation ; and it is only in this way, and by giving up a part of our opinions, that we can ever expect to obtain a government founded in freedom and compact." Madison also wrote to Edmund Ran- dolph, April 8, 1787, in Madison Pa- pers, ii. 631, " I am perfectly of your opinion, that, in framing a system, no material sacrifices ought to be made to local or temporary prejudices. I think, with you, that it will be well to retain as much as possible of the old confederation, though I doubt whether it may not be best to work the valu-
able articles into the new system, in- stead of ingrafting the latter on the former. I am not sure that it will ber practicable to present the several parts of the reform in so detached a man- ner to the states, as that a partial adoption will be binding. Particular states may view different articles as conditions of each other, and would only ratify them as such. Others might ratify them as independent propositions. The consequence would be that the ratifications of both would go for nothing. In truth, my ideas of a reform strike so deeply at the old confederation, and lead to such a systematic change, that they scarcely admit of the expedient."
275
DIFFICULTY OF FRAMING A PERFECT SYSTEM.
and that intuitive discernment and keen-sighted sagacity which CHAP. can hold in their grasp the subtilest elements of political power, VII. until the whole are resolved into definite forms. No one man 1787. can be expected to possess such various knowledge in so emi- nent a degree as to entitle his opinions to be regarded as infallible. The combined experience of a number of men is needed to frame a system of government adapted to a free country, with its diversified interests. " Hence it is," as has been truly observed, " that, wherever this mighty work is to be successfully accomplished, there must be a high sense of jus- tice ; a power of concession ; the qualities of magnanimity and patriotism ; and that broad moral sanity of the intellect which is farthest removed from fanaticism, intolerance, or self- ish adhesion either to interest or to opinion." 1 Happily for the country, these qualities were possessed in an eminent degree by the members of the federal convention and the framers of the constitution. That instrument was the product of their united deliberations. It was not hastily and blindly project- ed. It was matured and perfected by the suggestions of all. Every point in it was subjected to scrutiny ; every article was thoroughly scanned. And when the scheme was completed, it ' was concurred in by the whole.2
1 Curtis's Hist. of the Const. i. 387. "High qualities of character are requisite to the formation of a system of government for a wide country with different interests. Mere talent will not do it. Intellectual power and ingenuity alone cannot compass it. There must be a moral completeness in the characters of those who are to achieve such a work ; for it does not consist solely in devising schemes, or creating offices, or parcelling out ju- risdictions and powers. There must be the recognition and admission of great expedients, and the sacrifice, often, of darling objects of ambition, or of local policy, to the vast central purpose of the greatest happiness of the greatest number."
2 Comp. N. Am. Rev. for July, 1841, 52, and Letters of the Federal Farmer, 4. " Whatever," says Mad- ison, Papers, ii. 718, 719, "may be the judgment pronounced on the com- petency of the architects of the con- stitution, or whatever may be the destiny of the edifice prepared by them, I feel it a duty to express my profound and solemn conviction, de- rived from my intimate opportunity of observing and appreciating the views of the convention, collectively and individually, that there never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them, than
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.