X tribes, by entering into alliances among themselves without the CHAP. assent of Congress, by ignoring obligations created by treaties negotiated by Congress, by (in effect) regulating the value of money through making their paper issues legal tender. Congress was powerless to prevent these infractions by military, judicial, or other means, and its moral authority carried little weight. In the final analysis, the union was, as Madison declared in 1789, "nothing more than a treaty of amity, of commerce, and of alliance between independent and sovereign states." It was a failure, Washington tersely remarked, because of the "absence of coercive power." It has been pointed out that even before the Articles took effect men who had the country's welfare at heart felt that a government so devoid of power could not succeed. The most they could hope for was that a brief trial of the new plan would convince the people of its inadequacy and would lead to the stronger system from which the states at present drew back. In 1780 Hamilton, in a remarkable letter addressed to James Duane and intended for the use of a committee of Congress which was charged with preparing a plan for executive departments, lucidly discussed the Articles' faults and proposed that a general convention be called to prepare a frame of government providing for a "solid coercive union." 2 Washington, Madison, Jay, Pelatiah Webster, and other leaders repeatedly affirmed that the government would have to be strengthened, and in 1782 the assembly of New York added its voice in favor of a convention. When Congress took up its stupendous task, the difficulties that had been predicted promptly appeared; yet its urgent requests for more financial power, and for increased authority in one or two other directions, were refused. These requests involved, indeed, only slight changes in the Articles. But amendments could be adopted only with the assent of all of the states; and one or more states blocked every proposal. Throughout 1784 members of Congress occasionally discussed among themselves the wisdom of calling a convention, and in the following year the Massachusetts General Court formally requested that such a call be issued, although the state's representatives in Congress refused to present the resolution. Matters were fast going from bad to worse, and in Writings (Hunt's ed.), II, 363. See the notable criticism of the Articles contained in this paper. Early pro posals for a revision Articles of the Considera tion of the matter in Congress CHAP. X Virginia and Mary tiate on the of the Potomac 1786 Congress, in making a final appeal for the financial amendment proposed three years earlier, told the people of the states frankly that the government was at the end of its tether and that only immediate action could save the country from ruin. "A crisis has arrived," it was solemnly asserted, "when the people of the United States, by whose will and for whose benefit the federal government was instituted, must decide whether they will support their rank as a nation by maintaining the public faith at home and abroad, or whether, for the want of a timely exertion in establishing a general revenue and thereby giving strength to the Confederacy, they will hazard not only the existence of the Union but of those great and invaluable privileges for which they have so arduously and so honorably contended." Meanwhile a chain of events was started which led, more or less land nego accidentally, to the long-talked-about convention. From as far back as 1777 Virginia and Maryland had been trying to arrive at an understanding regarding the navigation of the Potomac. Washington and Madison were especially interested in the matter, and at their instigation Virginia appointed commissioners in 1784 to renew the negotiations. Maryland took similar action in 1785, and an agreement was promptly reached. Maryland thereupon suggested that other issues between the two states be taken up. If navigation questions could be settled by conference, why not tariff difficulties? Furthermore, if two states could confer to advantage, why not four-especially in view of the fact that Pennsylvania and Delaware were vitally concerned in most of the problems to be considered? The upshot was that, in January, 1786, Madison got through the Virginia legislature a resolution appointing commissioners to meet such commissioners as might be appointed by other states to take into consideration the trade of the Union and “to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their permanent harmony." A formal invitation was thereupon issued to all of the states to send delegates to a convention to be held at Annapolis in the following September. At the appointed time representatives appeared from only five convention, states. Four other states had, indeed, appointed delegates, who failed to attend; four states took no notice of the call. This was a discouraging beginning, and it was agreed that it was useless to enter upon the discussions that had been intended. Some members felt that the project might as well be dropped. Madison and 1 Writings of Madison (Hunt's ed.), II, 218. The Annapolis 1786 1 X Hamilton, however, thought otherwise, and before disbanding the CHAP. delegates unanimously adopted a report prepared by the latter calling attention afresh to the critical situation of the country and proposing that a convention of delegates, from three to seven in each case, from all of the states should meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday of May, 1787. The purpose, furthermore, was no longer merely to achieve uniformity of commercial regulations. Rather it was "to take into consideration the situation of the United States," with a view to such general reconstruction as would make the government adequate; although the report naturally did not stress the amount of change that this might be found to entail. Congress was by this time grasping at straws, and on February 21, 1787, it resolved that the proposed convention should be held "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 government and the preservation of the Union." Congress had fallen into general disrespect. But the activities of Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, and others in behalf of the plan carried weight, and all of the states except Rhode Island eventually followed Virginia's example and named delegates, although New Hampshire failed to act until the convention was well under way. In some cases the legislatures elected, in others they authorized the governors to appoint; in no instance were the delegates chosen directly by the people. Little or nothing was said about making a new constitution. The instructions given the delegates plainly assumed that nothing would be done beyond revising the Articles; indeed, in most cases they expressly limited the delegates' powers to this task, and Delaware went so far as to forbid her representatives to agree to any proposal which would take away the equal votes of the states. If any people expected a new constitution to be madeand probably some did so-they discreetly kept their hopes to themselves, lest apprehensions be aroused and the project ruined. Most observers must, none the less, have felt with Madison that unless "some very strong props" were applied the existing union would "quickly tumble to the ground." 1 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, 1854), I, 120. The Philaconvention delphia called СНАР. X REFERENCES F. A. Walker, The Making of the Nation (New York, 1895), Chap. I. A. Johnson, Readings in American Constitutional History (Boston, 1912), J. Fiske, Critical Period of American History (Boston, 1888), Chaps. III-V. A. C. McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution (New York, 1905), G. T. Curtis, Constitutional History of the United States (New York, 1889) I, J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (4th ed., A. S. Bolles, Financial History of the United States from 1774 to 1885 (New CHAPTER XI THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION The convention was announced to meet on the second Monday of May. But when that day arrived only a few delegates had appeared in Philadelphia, and since it was useless to begin until a majority of the states were represented, the opening session was delayed until May 25. Much has been written to the general effect that the convention brought together a remarkable group of men; and there is no denying that it did so. The group was notable, however, not for a uniformly high level of statesmanlike ability, but rather for its varied, and therefore broadly representative, character. There were members of great political sagacity: Washington and Madison of Virginia,1 Franklin and James Wilson of Pennsylvania, Alexander Hamilton of New York, John Dickinson of Delaware, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut. There were delegates of fair, but not exceptional, ability: Rufus King of Massachusetts, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, William Paterson of New Jersey, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, the two Pinckneys of South Carolina. And there were a few members of narrow vision and mediocre talent: Lansing and Yates of New York, and Luther Martin of Maryland. Lawyers predominated; and several of the delegates were reasonably well acquainted, not only with the history of English law and politics, but with the governmental systems of continental Europe. Men of age and maturity were present, notably Franklin, who was almost eighty-two. But a large proportion of the most active and influential delegates were decidedly young: Madison, the master-builder, was thirty-six, Gouverneur Morris was thirty-five, Hamilton was but thirty. The convention's chief qualification for its task lay, however, in the fact that almost without exception its members were experienced in public affairs. Practically all of them had been active in the politics of their respective states. Many had helped frame constitutions, sat as members of legislatures, or held executive or 'Jefferson was on a diplomatic mission in Europe; otherwise he would undoubtedly have been a member. |