Hampshire will adopt this government. Then she will be the ninth State; and if Mr. Jefferson's advice is of any value, and this system requires amendments, we, who are to be one of the four remaining States, ought to reject it until amendments are obtained."1

Notwithstanding the efforts of Madison to counteract this artifice, it gave the opposition great strength, because it enabled them to throw the whole weight of their arguments against the alleged defects and dangers of the Constitution into the scale of an absolute rejection. Mr. Jefferson's subsequent opinion, formed after he had received intelligence of the course of Massachusetts, had not then been received, and indeed did not reach this country until after the convention of Virginia had acted.2 The opposition went on, therefore, with renewed vigor, to attack the Constitution in every part which they considered vulnerable.

1 Elliot, III. 314.

:

2 On the 27th of May, 1788, Mr. Jefferson wrote from Paris to Colonel Carrington, as follows: "I learn with great pleasure the progress of the new Constitution. Indeed, I have presumed it would gain on the public mind, as I confess it has on my own. At first, though I saw that the great mass and groundwork was good, I disliked many appendages. Reflection and discussion have cleared off most of those. You have satisfied me as to the query I had put to you about the right of direct taxation. My first wish was that nine States

would adopt it, and that the others might, by holding off, produce the necessary amendments. But the plan of Massachusetts is far preferable, and will, I hope, be followed by those who are yet to decide," &c. (Jefferson's Works, II. 404.) Colonel Carrington, the person to whom this letter was addressed, was a member of Congress, and received it at New York, about the 2d of July, when it was seen by Madison. (See a letter from Madison to E. Randolph of that date, among the Madison papers. Elliot, V. 573.)

Among the topics on which they expended a great deal of force was that of the navigation of the Mississippi. They employed this subject for the purpose of influencing the votes of members who represented the interests of that part of Virginia which is now Kentucky. They first extorted from Madison and other gentlemen, who had been in the Congress of the Confederation, a statement of the negotiations which had nearly resulted in a temporary surrender of the right in the Mississippi to Spain. They then made use of the following argument. It had appeared, they said, from those transactions, that the Northern and Middle States, seven in number,2 were in favor of bartering away this great interest for commercial privileges and advantages; that those States, particularly the Eastern ones, would be influenced further by a desire to supress the growth of new States in the Western country, and to prevent the emigration of their own people thither, as a means of retaining the power of governing the Union; and that the surrender of the Mississippi could be made by treaty, under the Constitution, by the will of the President and the votes of ten Senators,3 whereas, under the Confederation, it never could be done without the votes of nine States in Congress.

1 See an account of this matter, ante, Vol. I. Book III. Chap. V. pp. 309-327.

2 They meant the four New England States and New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. New Jersey and Delaware were sup

posed to be with the four Southern States on this question.

3 Ten would be two thirds of the constitutional quorum of fourteen; so that the argument supposed only a quorum to be pres

ent.

It must be allowed that there had been much in the history of this matter on which harsh reflections could be made by both sections of the Union. But it was not correct to represent the Eastern and Middle States as animated by a desire to prevent the settlement of the Western country, or to say that they would be ready at any time to barter away the right in the Mississippi. Seven of the States had consented, in a time of war and of great peril, to the proposal of a temporary surrender of the right to Spain, just when it was supposed that negotiations between Spain and Great Britain might result in a coalition which would deprive us of the river for ever, and when it was thought that a temporary cession would fix the permanent right in our favor.1 This was undoubtedly an error; but it was one from which the country had been saved, by the disputes which arose respecting the constitutional power of seven States to give instructions for a treaty, and by the prospect of a reconstruction of the general government. Now, therefore, that an entirely new constitutional system had been prepared, the real question, in relation to this very important subject, was one of a twofold character. It involved, first, the moral probabilities respecting the wishes and policy of a majority of the States; and, secondly, a comparison of the means afforded by the Constitution for protecting the national right to the Mississippi, with those afforded by the Confederation, —

1 See Mr. Madison's explanation in the convention of Virginia. Elliot, III. 346.

2 Ante, Book III. Chap. V., Vol. I. pp. 324–327.

assuming that any State or States might wish to surrender it.

Upon this question Mr. Madison made an answer to the opposition, which shows how accurately he foresaw the relations between the western and the eastern portions of the Union, and how justly he estimated the future working of the Constitution with respect to the preservation of the Mississippi, or any other national right.

If interest alone, he said, were to govern the Eastern States, they must derive greater advantage from holding the Mississippi than even the Southern States; for if the carrying trade were their natural province, it must depend mainly on agriculture for its support, and agriculture was to be the great employment of the Western country. But in addition to this security of local interest, the Constitution would make it necessary for two thirds of all the Senators present and those present would represent all the States, if all attended to their duty

to concur in every treaty. The President, who would represent the people at large, must also concur. In the House of Representatives, the landed, rather than the commercial interest, would predominate; and the House of Representatives, although not to be directly concerned in the making of treaties, would have an important influence in the government. A weak system had produced the project of surrendering the Mississippi; a strong one would remove the inducement.1

1 Debates in the Virginia Convention, Elliot, III. 344-347.

In the midst of these discussions, and while the opposition were making every effort to protract them until the 23d of June, -when the assembling of the legislature would afford a colorable pretext for an adjournment, -Colonel Oswald of Philadelphia arrived at Richmond, with letters from the AntiFederalists of New York and Pennsylvania to the leaders of that party at Richmond, for the purpose of concerting a plan for the postponement of the decision of Virginia until after the meeting of the convention of New York. It was supposed that, if this could be effected, the opponents of the Constitution in New York would be able to make some overture to the opposition in Virginia, for the same course of action in both States. If this could not be brought about, it was considered by the opposition at Richmond that the chances of obtaining a vote for previous amendments would be materially increased by delay. The parties in their convention were nearly balanced, at this time. Mr. Madison estimated the Federal majority at not more than three or four votes, if indeed the Federalists had a majority, on the 17th of June, the day on which the convention of New York was to meet.1

But we must now leave the convention of Virginia, and turn our eyes to the pleasant village on the banks of the Hudson, where the convention of New York was already assembling. Hamilton was

1 He thought at this moment that, if the Constitution should be lost, the Mississippi question would be the cause. The members from

Kentucky were then generally hostile. (See a letter from Madison to Hamilton, of June 16th, Hamilton's Works, I. 457.)