the convention of states—washington chosen president of the convention—randolph's speech and resolutions—number and names of delegates—notice of some of them—franklin in the convention of 1754—the leading speakers in the convention—position of the members in regard to precedents—synopsis of randolph's plan—pinckney's sketch—national and state-rights men—patterson's plan—virginia and new jersey plans—hamilton dissents from both—his character, speech, and scheme—all plans and amendments referred to a committee for revision—a constitution reported and adopted—critical periods in the convention—subjects for differences—washington's apprehensions and views—patriotism of hamilton—the constitution signed—remarks by washington and franklin—close of the convention. 1787 On Monday, the fourteenth day of May, 1787, those delegates to the convention called to revise the Articles of Confederation who were then in Philadelphia, assembled in the large room in the statehouse, since known as Independence hall; but it was not until Friday, the twenty-fifth, that seven states, the number required by Congress to form a quorum, were represented, and the convention was organized. On that day, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and North and South Carolina, were represented by an aggregate number of twenty-seven delegates; and on the nomination of Robert Morris, in behalf of the state of Pennsylvania, Washington was, by unanimous vote, elected president of the convention. William Jackson was chosen secretary; and on Monday, the twenty-eighth, Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, at the request of his colleagues, opened the business of the convention by an elaborate speech, in which he showed the defects of the Articles of Confederation, illustrated their utter inadequacy to secure the peace and safety of the Very soon after the commencement of the session, eleven states were represented. New Hampshire sent delegates at the close of June, but the Rhode Island assembly refused to elect any. Some of the most influential men of that little commonwealth united in a letter to the convention, in which they expressed warm sympathy with the movement. Sixty-one delegates had been appointed at the beginning of July, but only about fifty served in the convention. It is not proposed to consider in detail, nor even in a synoptical manner, the proceedings of that convention, which occupied several hours each day for four months. We will merely glance at the men and measures, contemplate the result, and leave the reader to seek, in special sources, for information concerning the important and interesting subject of the formation of our federal constitution. i0700 Next to Washington, the venerable Doctor Franklin, then a little over Dickinson, Johnson, and Rutledge, had been members of the stamp-act Congress in 1765. The first and last had been compatriots with Washington in the Congress of 1774, and Sherman, Livingston, Read, and Wythe, had shared the same honors. The two latter, with Franklin, Sherman, Gerry, Morris, Clymer, and Wilson, had signed the Declaration of Independence. Washington, Mifflin, Hamilton, and Cotesworth Pinckney, represented the continental army; and the younger members, who became prominent after the Declaration of Independence, were Hamilton, Madison, and Edmund Randolph. The latter was then governor of Virginia, having succeeded Patrick Henry. The leading speakers in the long and warm debates elicited by the resolutions of Governor Randolph and others, were King, Gerry, and Gorham, of Massachusetts; Hamilton and Lansing, of New York; Ellsworth, Johnson, and Sherman, of Connecticut; Paterson, of New Jersey, who presented a scheme counter to that of Randolph; Franklin, Wilson, and Morris, of Pennsylvania; Dickinson, of Delaware; Martin, of Maryland; Randolph, Madison, and Mason, of Virginia; Williamson, of North Carolina; and the Pinckneys, of South Carolina. Such were the men with whom Washington was associated in the contrivance and construction of a new system of government. “At that time,” says Curtis, “the world had witnessed no such spectacle as that of the deputies of a nation, chosen by the free action of great communities, and assembled for the purpose of thoroughly reforming its constitution, by the exercise and with the The great political maxim established by the Revolution was the original residence of all human sovereignty in the people; and the statesmen in the federal convention had scarcely any precedent, in theory or practice, by which they might be governed in parcelling out so much of that sovereignty as the people of the several states should be willing to dismiss from their local political institutions, in making a strong and harmonious federal republic, that should be at the same time harmless toward reserved state-rights. Randolph's resolutions proposed: First, To correct and enlarge the Articles of Confederation, so as to accomplish the original objects of common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare. Secondly, To make the right of suffrage in the national legislature proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as might seem best in different cases. Thirdly, To make the national legislature consist of two branches; the members of the first to be elected by the people of the several states at certain intervals for a specified term. They were to be of a prescribed age, entitled to liberal emolument for their public services, and to be ineligible to any office, state or federal, except such as pertained to the functions of that first branch, during their service; also to be ineligible to re-election until after a certain space of time succeeding their term of service. Fourthly, To have the members of the second branch elected by those of the first from among those who should be nominated by the state legislatures; to hold their offices “for a term sufficient to insure their independency;” to be liberally paid for their services, and to be subject to restrictions similar to those of the first. Fifthly, To have each branch invested with power to originate acts; to give the national legislature the right to legislate in all cases where the state governments might be incompetent, or in which the harmony of the confederation might Upon general principles, the scheme of Randolph, called the “Virginia plan,” was highly approved; but there were many zealous and pure-minded patriots in that convention, who regarded the preservation of state sovereignty, in all its integrity, as essential to the stability of the republic. Holding the “Virginia plan” to be The question arose at the beginning, and frequently recurred, “What limit has the convention in revising the Articles of Confederation? and has it power to prepare an entirely new system of government?” It was properly argued, that as a favorably-received resolution in Mr. Randolph's plan proposed to submit the matter finally to popular conventions in the several states, that question need not to be considered. The debates were carried on warmly, day after day, in committee of the whole house, and the convention soon became divided into national and state-rights men, the representatives of six of the states being in favor of the broad national view, and five for the state-rights view. Randolph's resolutions were taken up consecutively and debated for a fortnight, when, after many modifications, they were reported back to the house. Paterson, of New Jersey, then immediately brought forward a counter scheme, which was called the “New Jersey plan,” and embodied the peculiar views of the state-rights party. It proposed to preserve the continental Congress as the federal legislature, with additional power to levy duties on foreign importations; to impose stamp and postage taxes; to collect, without hinderance, requisitions not promptly met by the states; and to regulate commerce with foreign nations. It proposed a plural federal executive and a federal judiciary, and made acts of Congress and foreign treaties supreme laws. Paterson's plan and Randolph's modified resolutions were referred to a new committee, and the whole question concerning a national government was again considered. Again debates ran high. In the course of these, Hamilton, who had come into the convention with more courage and fixed plan than any other member, avowed his dissent from both the schemes before the committee. He was listened to with the most profound respect; and gray-haired men, Day after day and week after week the debates continued, sometimes with great courtesy, and sometimes with considerable acrimony, until the tenth of September, when all plans and amendments which had been adopted by the convention were placed in the hands of a committee for revision and arrangement. Hamilton, who had returned to the convention at the middle of August, was placed upon that committee, having for his associates Messrs. Madison, King, Johnson, and Gouverneur Morris. To the latter was intrusted the task of giving the finish to the style and arrangement of the instrument. It was then reported to the convention, taken up clause by clause, discussed, somewhat amended, and ordered to be engrossed. On the fifteenth it was agreed to as amended, by all the states present, and on the seventeenth a fair copy was brought in to receive the signatures of the members. Many times, during that long session of almost four months, there were serious apprehensions of failure, the views of members differed so essentially upon important points. One of the most exciting of these questions which elicited zealous debates, was a proposition for the general government to assume the debts of the respective states. The debts of the several commonwealths were vastly unequal, and But the most serious subject for difference was that of representation in the senatorial branch of the national legislature, the smaller states claiming, and the larger ones opposing, the exercise of the rule of equality. For a long time an equal division of votes on that point had been reiterated, and most of the members began to feel assured that no compromise could be effected. But the matter was finally adjusted by mutual concessions, and a plan for the construction of the senate upon the basis of an equal number of representatives from each of the states, large and small, was adopted. Frequently during the session of the convention, Washington had serious apprehensions concerning the result. He perceived with much anxiety a disposition to withhold power from the national legislature, which, in his opinion, was the chief cause of the inadequacy of the confederation to fulfil its mission. “Happy indeed will it be,” he wrote to David Stuart on the first of July, “if the convention shall be able to recommend such a firm and permanent government for this Union, that all who live under it may be secure in their lives, liberty, and property; and thrice happy would it be if such a recommendation should obtain. Everybody wishes, everybody expects something from the convention; but what will be the final result of its deliberations the book of fate must disclose. Persuaded I am, that the primary cause of all our disorders lies in the different state governments, and in the tenacity of that power which pervades the whole of their systems. Whilst independent sovereignty is so ardently contended for, whilst the local views of each state, and separate interests by which they are too much governed, will not yield to a more enlarged scale of politics, incompatibility in the laws of different states, and disrespect to those of the general government, must render the situation of this great country weak, inefficient, and disgraceful. It has already done so, almost “Thirteen governments,” he wrote on the fifteenth of August, “pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin on the whole; whereas, a liberal and energetic constitution, well checked and well watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence to which we had the fairest prospect of attaining.” And again: “I confess that my opinion of public virtue is so far changed, that I have my doubts whether any system, without means of coercion in the sovereign, will enforce due obedience to the ordinances of a general government, without which everything else fails.” Although Washington took no part in the debates of the convention, his opinions, concurrent with those of Hamilton, were firmly and strongly expressed, and had great influence. The constitution as finally framed and adopted did not receive his unqualified approval. He had decided objections to several of its features; but he accepted it as a whole, as the best that could be obtained under the circumstances, firmly persuaded that it was a great step in advance of the confederation, and that experience in its workings would suggest necessary amendments, for which ample provision was made. In fact, the instrument did not wholly please a single member of the convention. It was, to a considerable extent, a patchwork of compromises, and many doubted its being ratified by a majority of the states. Hamilton regarded the constitution as adopted with feelings of disappointment. It lacked the strength that he desired it to possess; but, like Washington, he yielded his private sentiments and impulses to the consideration of the public good. His own plan, which he had urged with all his eloquence and energy, differed radically from the one adopted; yet, with a nobleness of spirit which challenges our highest admiration, he sacrificed the pride of opinion, and when the constitution had passed the ordeal of severest criticism and amendment by the convention, he avowed himself ready to sign it, and urged others, who hesitated, to do the same A large majority of the members desired that the instrument should go forth to the people, not only as the act of the convention, but with the individual sanction and signatures of their representatives. Franklin, desirous of having it promulgated with such sanction, arose with a written speech in his hand when the engrossed copy was brought in, in which, with pleasant words, he endeavored to allay the irritated temper of some of the delegates, and procure for the constitution unanimous signature. Mr. Wilson read the speech, and it was closed with a form suggested by Gouverneur Morris, which might be signed without implying personal approval of the instrument: “Done by consent of the states present. In testimony whereof, we have subscribed,” et cetera. The appeals of Hamilton and Franklin, a few approving words of Washington, and the example of Madison and Pinckney, secured the signatures of several dissatisfied members; and all present, except Mason and Randolph of Virginia, and Gerry of Massachusetts, signed the constitution. “There is a tradition,” says Curtis, “that when Washington was about to sign the instrument, he rose from his seat, and holding The great convention adjourned on the seventeenth of September, after directing a copy of the constitution, with an accompanying letter, to be sent to the Congress. The journal of the convention was placed in the hands of Washington (by whom it was afterward deposited in the department of state); and on the following morning he wrote in his dairy: “The business being thus closed, the members adjourned to the City Tavern, dined together, and took a cordial leave of each other; after which, I returned to my lodgings, did some business with, and received the papers from, the secretary of the convention, and retired to meditate on the momentous work which had been executed, after not less than five, for a large part of the time six, and sometimes seven hours' sitting every day (except Sundays, and the ten days' adjournment to give a committee an opportunity and time to arrange the business) for more than four months.” FOOTNOTES: |