420 FEDERAL CONVENTION MEETS WITH FAVOR. Under its provisions, Virginia in December selected seven representatives*" to meet the delegates from the other States, at Philadelphia, in the following May, and to join with them in devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render a Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union." At the head of the Virginia delegation was George Washington, and upon news of his nomination, letters poured in upon him from all sections, urging his acceptance of the appointment.f Madison was one of those who urgently requested him to attend the convention, and in reply Washington said that while he had firmly decided never again to enter public life, yet he was willing to advance the interests of the country in every way possible. But at this time he was in a very unpleasant situation. He said: "I presume you heard that I was first appointed, and have since been re-chosen President of the Society of the Cincinnati; and you may have understood also, that the triennial general meeting of this body, is to be held in Philadelphia, the first Monday in May next. Some particular reasons, combining with the peculiar situation of my private concerns, the necessity of paying Rives, Life of Madison, vol. ii., p. 132; Madison's Works (Congress ed.), vol. iii., p. 587. * Washington, Patrick Henry, Edmund Randolph, John Blair, James Madison, George Mason and George Wythe. Henry, however, refused to go. See Tyler, Life of Patrick Henry, p. 277; Henry, Life of Patrick Henry, vol. ii., pp. 310311. Brooks, Life of Knox, p. 201. See his letters in Madison's Works (Congress ed.), vol. i., pp. 263-265, 267. attention to them, a wish for retirement, and relaxation from public cares, and rheumatic pains, which I begin to feel very sensibly, induced me on the 31st ultimo, to address a circular letter to each state society, informing them of my intention, not to be at the next meeting, and of my desire not to be re-chosen president. The vicepresident is also informed of this, that the business of the society may not be impeded by my absence. Under these circumstances, it will readily be perceived, that I could not appear at the same time and place, on any other occasion, without giving offence to a very respectable and deserving part of the community- the late officers of the American army." Nevertheless, as it was important that Washington attend the convention, the meeting of the Cincinnati was arranged for a week prior to the assembling of the Federal Convenboth, if he so desired.† tion, so that Washington could attend - The action of Virginia was soon followed by similar actions in other States, and even before Congress itself had given sanction to the Federal Convention, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina and Georgia had appointed delegates. The action of Massachusetts gave the advocates of the Convention great joy, for in no other State had the anti-federal feeling been so bitter and so strong. In 1786 that State had even proposed to go out of the Union and to form a *See Sparks' ed. of Washington's Writings, vol. ix., p. 212. See also his letters to Randolph, quoted in Conway, Edmund Randolph, pp. 62, 64, 66-67. Sparks, vol. ix., pp. 219, 243, note; Sparks, Life of Washington, pp. 397-400; Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., pp. 29-31. Their instructions will be found in Elliot, Debates, vol. i., p. 125 et seq. ACTION OF NORTHERN STATES; RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS. 421 Confederation of the New England States.* Shays's rebellion had been the chief agency in effecting this change. None seemed to care what action Rhode Island took or if she acted at all, for she was scarcely considered a member of the Union. Her name was a by-word and a reproach; she was nicknamed "Rogue's Island"; and her inhabitants were spoken of as "Know Ye" people, and her acts as 66 Know Ye" measures.† It was no disappointment, therefore, that she never sent delegates to the Convention. Connecticut debated the question for some time and did not act in the affirmative until May 12, two days before the Convention was to open. There was a little better feeling in the Middle States. New Jersey and Pennsylvania warmly approved of the Convention, and Delaware soon followed. New York held back for some time, but two days after having thrown out the impost measure (February 17) as previously related, Hamilton moved in the Assembly that the New York delegates in Congress be instructed to introduce a resolution recommending that the States send commissioners to Philadelphia. This motion was passed by both houses of McMaster, United States, vol. i., p. 391. Richman, Rhode Island, p. 252; Bates, Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union, pp. 130131; McMaster, United States, p. 392. Madison said that she could be " relied on for nothing that is good."- Madison's Works, vol. i., p. 275. Bates, pp. 151–152. | McMaster, pp. 394-397. the Legislature. The roundabout method by which New York thus assented to the Convention was chiefly the result of the argument that Congress itself had not yet approved the Convention, and to appoint delegates before Congress had considered the Annapolis report was, it was agreed, unseemingly hasty, and might possibly be useless if Congress did not take favorable action.* Congress had set aside February 21, 1787, as the day on which the report of the Annapolis convention should be considered. On that day one of the New York delegates moved that consideration of the Annapolis communicafion be postponed in order to substitute the resolution of his State, but this motion was defeated by a vote of eight States against three. Another similar motion by Nathaniel Dane, of Massachusetts, was also defeated. Congress thereupon, on February 21, passed the following resolution: "Whereas, there is provision in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union for making alterations therein, by the assent of a Congress of the United States, and of the legislatures of the several states; and whereas, experience hath evinced that there are defects in the present Confederation, as a means to remedy which several of the states, and particularly the State of New York, by express instructions to their delegates in Congress, have suggested a convention for the purpose expressed in the following Resolution; and such convention appearing to be the most probable means of establishing in these states a firm national government; Resolved, That in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next, Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., pp. 242-243. 422 THE ACTION OF CONGRESS. a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Phila delphia, 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." * Undoubtedly it was only the stern necessity of the case (of providing against a renewal of such affairs as the Shays' rebellion, etc., of losing the right of navigating the Mississippi, and of preventing further unrest in the western settlements) that brought Congress to a state of mind where they considered the convention not only imperative, but as actually the only method of preserving the Union. That it should forego the right of originating changes in the system of government; that it should advise the states to confer that power upon another Assembly, that it should sanction a general revision of the Federal Constitution, and the express declaration of its present inadequacy, were all preliminaries essential to a sucsuccessful reform." It still remained a fact that Congress, no matter how weak and inefficient it was, was still the only body which could legitimately take action on such a matter, and to have despised it, and cast off all control, would have been attended with dangers of the most serious nature. "But the reason for not moving *Journals of Congress, vol. xii., p. 17. † Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., p. 245. the revision of the system of government by Congress itself was one that could not be publicly stated. It was, that the highest civil talent of the country was not there. The men to whom the American people had been accustomed to look in great emergencies the men who were called into the Convention, and whose power and wisdom were signally displayed in its deliberations were then engaged in other spheres of public life or had retired to the repose which they had earned in the great struggle with England. Had the attempt been made by Congress itself to form a Constitution for the acceptance of the states, the controlling influence and wisdom of Washington, Franklin's wide experience and deep sagacity, the unrivalled capacities of Hamilton, the brilliant powers of Gouverneur Morris, Pinckney's fertility, and Randolph's eloquence, with all the power of their eminent colleagues and all the strength of principle and of character which they brought to the Convention, would have been withheld from the effort. One very important man, it is true, was still there. Madison was in Congress; and Madison's part in the framing of the Constitution was eminently conspicuous and useful. But without the concentration of talent which the Convention drew together, respecting every interest and every part of the Union, nothing could have been presented to the states, by the Congress of 1787, which would have commanded their assent. ALARMING CONDITIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS. The Constitution owed as much for its acceptance, to the weight of character of its framers, as it did to their wisdom and ability, for the intrinsic merits which that weight of character enforced."* It was a fortunate thing, however, that Congress did not attempt to define the powers of the Convention, for had the nature of its discussions been curtailed by any such limitation, such limitation, probably the Federal Constitution would not have been formulated at that time. As it was, and as many of the members of the Convention complained, that body went far beyond the original intention, at least as that intention was expressed in the call for delegates, and the result was the formation of our present Constitution. It can hardly be doubted that the action of the several States regarding this Convention was hastened by the alarming condition of affairs during the latter part of 1786, and the beginning of 1787, in the New England States, and particularly in Massachusetts. This State was passing through a period of gloom, chiefly due to the evil consequences of the war, for while the crops had been good, the farmers complained because they could not sell their produce to obtain money with which to buy food, clothing, etc. Money was becoming more and more scarce; the debts due 423 from individuals to each other amounted to about £1,300,000 sterling; the soldiers were creditors of the State to the extent of £250,000 sterling; and the State's portion of the Federal debt was £1,500,000, a total burden of more than £3,000,000.* In order to pay the State's portion of the Federal debt, the law provided that one third of it should be raised by taxes on the ratable polls, but as the ratable polls were less than 90,000 in number, it was readily seen that some other means must be devised. The state of manufactures, agriculture, and commerce was deplorable,† but certain classes asserted that commerce and not agriculture should bear the load, for they claimed the merchants had grown rich upon their gains from foreign traffic (especially those merchants who dealt in foreign articles of luxury and trumpery, for which there was now a large demand). American exports amounted to nothing at this time, and in order to satisfy the demands of importation, coin must be had. As America had not as yet developed any gold mines, it was seen that either commerce must be stopped in order to prevent the outflow of specie, or paper must be issued to take the place of the coin sent abroad. In addition to the cur *McMaster, United States, vol. i., p. 300; George R. Minot, History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts in the Year 1786, and the Rebellion Consequent Thereon, p. 6; Fiske, Critical Period, p. 177 et seq. Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., p. 180. 424 GRIEVANCES OF THE MALCONTENTS. rency agitation, complaints began to arise regarding the administration of justice in the State. After the war the courts were clogged with all kinds of civil suits to collect debts, mortgages, claims against Tories, etc., and the lawyers became overwhelmed with cases. As they always As they always exacted a retainer and were absolutely sure of their fees, they finally became wealthy, and were roundly denounced as blood-suckers, pickpockets, etc., even being accused of causing the burdens and distress that afflicted the State.† There was common complaint of the high salaries paid to public officials and the wasteful cost of litigation.‡ Therefore, when the Legislature met, a stormy session began. Many measures to redress the grievances of the multitude were debated and at last a bill was introduced to fix the fees of attorneys, to allow all persons of good character to practice before the court, and to restrain the practice of champerty, but the bill did not pass. The currency question was then introduced, the debate centering on a petition of seven Bristol towns, for the issuing of a paper currency that should never be redeemed, but should depreciate at stated intervals until the entire issue was extinguished. This bill was thrown out by a vote of 99 to 19, as was also a bill to make real and personal estate a legal tender, which measure was lost by a vote of 89 to 35. The legislature adjourned July 8, 1786, without taking any definite steps to redress the wrongs. The malcontents of Hampshire thereupon called a convention to meet at Hatfield, August 22, and when the convention met delegates from fifty towns were present. After forming themselves into a constitutional body, they adopted a report which detailed at great length the various measures by which they were oppressed. Their hostility was expressed most forcibly against the taxes,* the compensation promised to the army officers, and the administration of justice by the courts. They * Knox, however, in writing to Washington, said: "That taxes may be the ostensible cause is true, but that they are the true cause is as far remote from truth as light from darkness. The people who are the insurgents have never paid any or but very little taxes. But they see the weakness of government; they feel at once their own poverty compared with the opulent, and their own force, and they are determined to make use of the latter in order to remedy the former." See Brooks, Life of Knox, p. 194. Fiske, Critical Period, p. 179. The spirit behind the rebellion is shown by the speech of one of the leaders. "My boys," said he, "you are going to fight for liberty. If you wish to know |