was also doubtful whether they could change the Federal Constitution by their own direct action. To these difficulties was to be added the further hazard, that, if the report of the convention should be made to Congress, as proposed, they might not finally adopt it, and if it should be rejected, that fatal consequences would ensue.1

The report of the Annapolis commissioners was, however, taken into consideration; and in the course of the following winter a report upon it was made in Congress, which conceded the fact that the Confederation required amendments, and that the proposed convention was the most eligible mode of effecting them. But this report had to encounter the objection, entertained by many members, that the measure proposed would tend to weaken the federal authority, by lending the sanction of Congress to an extra-constitutional proceeding. Others considered that a more summary mode of proceeding was advisable, in the form of a direct appeal to the people of every State to institute State conventions, which should choose delegates to a general convention, to revise and amend, or change, the federal system, and to publish the new constitution for general observance, without any reference to the States, for their acceptance or confirmation.3 There were

1 Abstract of an Address made to the Legislature of Massachusetts, by the Hon. Rufus King, in October, 1786. Boston Magazine for the year 1786, p. 406.

2 Mr. Madison's Notes of De

bates in the Congress of the Confederation. Elliot, V. 96.

3 This was the opinion of Mr. Jay. He thought that no alterations should be attempted, unless deduced from the only source of

still others, who preferred that Congress should take up the defects of the existing system, point them out to the legislatures of the States, and recommend certain distinct alterations to be adopted by them.1

It was no doubt true, that a convention originating with the State legislatures was not a mode pointed out by the Articles of Confederation for effecting amendments to that instrument. But it was equally true, that the mere amendment of that instrument was not what the critical situation of the country required. On the other hand, a convention originating with the people of the States would undoubtedly rest upon the authority of the people, in its inception; but, if the system which it might frame were to go into operation without first being adopted by the people, it would as certainly want the true basis of their consent. These difficulties were felt in and out of Congress. But it does not seem to have occurred to those who raised them, that the source from which the convention should derive its powers to frame and recommend a new system of government was of far less consequence, than that the mode in which the system recommended should be adopted, should be one that would give it the

just authority, the people. He seems to have considered that, if the people of the States, acting through their primary conventions, were to send delegates to a general convention, with authority to alter the Articles of Confederation, the new system would rest upon the authority of the people,

without further sanction. See his letter to General Washington, of date January 7, 1787. Writings of Washington, IX. 510.

1 Letter of General Knox to General Washington, January 14, 1787. Writings of Washington, IX. 513.

full sanction and authority of the people themselves. A constitution might be framed and recommended by any body of individuals, whether instituted by the legislatures or by the people of the States; but if adopted and ordained by the States in their corporate capacities, it would rest on one basis, and if adopted and ordained by the people of the States, acting upon it directly and primarily, it would obviously rest upon another, a different, and a higher authority.

The latter mode was not contemplated by Congress when they acted upon the recommendation of the Annapolis commissioners. Accustomed to no other idea of a union than that formed by the States in their corporate capacities as distinct and sovereign communities; belonging to a body constituted by the States, and therefore officially related rather to the governments than to the people of the States; and entertaining a becoming and salutary fear of departing from a constitution which they had been appointed to administer, -the members of the Congress of 1786-87 were not likely to go beyond the Annapolis recommendation, which in fact proposed that the new system should be confirmed by the legislatures of the States.

But the course of events tended to a different result, to an actual, although a peaceable revolution, by the quiet substitution of a new government in place of the old one, and resting upon an entirely different basis. While Congress were debating the objections to a convention, the necessity for action

became every day more stringent. The insurrection in Massachusetts, which had followed the meeting of the commissioners at Annapolis and had reached a dangerous crisis when their report was before Congress, had alarmed the people of the older States by the dangers of an anarchy with which the existing national government would be obviously unable to cope. The peril of losing the navigation of the Mississippi, and with it the Western settlements, through the inefficiency of Congress, was also at that moment impending; while, at the same time, the commerce of the country was nearly annihilated by a course of policy pursued by England, which Congress was utterly unable to encounter. Under these dangers and embarrassments, a state of public opinion was rapidly developed, in the winter of 1787, which drove Congress to action. The objections to the proposal before them yielded gradually to the stern requirements of necessity, and a convention was at last accepted, not merely as the best, but as the only practicable, mode of reaching the first great object by which an almost despairing country might be reassured of its future welfare.

The final change in the views of Congress in regard to a convention was produced by the action of the legislature of New York. In that body, as we have seen, the impost system had been rejected, in the session of 1786, and the Governor of the State had even refused to reassemble the legislature for the reconsideration of this subject. A new session commenced in January, 1787, in the city of New York,

where Congress was also sitting. A crisis now occurred, in which the influence of Hamilton was exerted in the same manner that it had been in the former session, and with a similar result. On that occasion he had followed up the rejection of the impost system with a resolve for the appointment of commissioners to attend the meeting at Annapolis. It was now his purpose, in case the impost system should be again rejected, to obtain the sanction of Congress to the recommendation of a convention, made by the Annapolis commissioners. This, he was aware, could be effected only by inducing the legislature of New York to instruct the delegates of their State in Congress to move and vote for that decisive The majority of the members of Congress were indisposed to adopt the plan of a convention; and although they might be brought to recommend it at the instance of a State, they were not inclined to do so spontaneously. The crisis required, therefore, all the address of Hamilton and of the friends of the Union, to bring the influence of one of these bodies to bear upon the other.

measure.

The reiterated recommendation by Congress of the impost system, now addressed solely to the State of New York, who remained alone in her refusal, necessarily occupied the earliest attention of the new legislature. A warm discussion upon a bill intro

1 Madison. Elliot, V. 96.

2 It was brought before them by the speech of the Governor (Clinton), informing them of the resolutions of Congress, which had requested an immediate call of the

66

legislature to consider the revenue system, a subject," he observed, "which had been repeatedly submitted to them, and must be well understood."