The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume I Part 8

The terms in which this action was expressed by the several States and the declarations with which it was accompanied by some of them are worthy of attention.

Delaware was the first to act. Her Convention met on December 3, 1787, and ratified the Const.i.tution on the 7th. The readiness of this least in population, and next to the least in territorial extent, of all the States, to accept that instrument, is a very significant fact when we remember the jealous care with which she had guarded against any infringement of her sovereign Statehood. Delaware alone had given special instructions to her deputies in the Convention not to consent to any sacrifice of the principle of equal representation in Congress. The promptness and unanimity of her people in adopting the new Const.i.tution prove very clearly, not only that they were satisfied with the preservation of that principle in the Federal Senate, but that they did not understand the Const.i.tution, in any of its features, as compromising the "sovereignty, freedom, and independence" which she had so especially cherished. [pg 105] The ratification of their Convention is expressed in these words:

"We, the deputies of the people of the Delaware State, in convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the Federal Const.i.tution proposed and agreed upon by the deputies of the United States at a General Convention held at the city of Philadelphia on the 17th day of September, A. D. 1787, have approved of, a.s.sented to, and ratified and confirmed, and by these presents do, in virtue of the powers and authority to us given for that purpose, for and in behalf of ourselves and our const.i.tuents, fully, freely, and entirely, approve of, a.s.sent to, ratify, and confirm the said Const.i.tution.

"Done in convention at Dover, December 7, 1787."

This, and twelve other like acts, gave to the Const.i.tution "all the life and validity it ever had, or could have, as to the thirteen united or a.s.sociated States."

Pennsylvania acted next (December 12, 1787), the ratification not being finally accomplished without strong opposition, on grounds which will be referred to hereafter. In announcing its decision, the Convention of this State began as follows:

"In the name of the people of Pennsylvania. Be it known unto all men that we, the delegates of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in General Convention a.s.sembled," etc., etc., concluding with these words: "By these presents, do, in the name and by the authority of the same people, and for ourselves, a.s.sent to and ratify the foregoing Const.i.tution for the United States of America."

In New Jersey the ratification, which took place on the 18th of December, was unanimous. This is no less significant and instructive than the unanimity of Delaware, from the fact that the New Jersey delegation, in the Convention that framed the Const.i.tution, had taken the lead in behalf of the federal, or State-rights, idea, in opposition to that of nationalism, or consolidation. William Patterson, a distinguished citizen (afterward Governor) of New Jersey, had introduced into that Convention what was known as "the Jersey plan," embodying these [pg 106] State-rights principles, as distinguished from the various "national" plans presented. In defending them, he had said, after calling for the reading of the credentials of delegates:

"Can we, on this ground, form a national Government? I fancy not. Our commissions give a complexion to the business; and can we suppose that, when we exceed the bounds of our duty, the people will approve our proceedings?

"We are met here as the deputies of thirteen independent, sovereign States, for federal purposes. Can we consolidate their sovereignty and form one nation, and annihilate the sovereignties of our States, who have sent us here for other purposes?"

Again, on a subsequent day, after stating that he was not there to pursue his own sentiments of government, but of those who had sent him, he had asked:

"Can we, as representatives of independent States, annihilate the essential powers of independency? Are not the votes of this Convention taken on every question under the idea of independency?"

The fact that this State, which, through her representatives, had taken so conspicuous a part in the maintenance of the principle of State sovereignty, ratified the Const.i.tution with such readiness and unanimity, is conclusive proof that, in her opinion, that principle was not compromised thereby. The conclusion of her ordinance of ratification is in these words:

"Now be it known that we, the delegates of the State of New Jersey, chosen by the people thereof for the purpose aforesaid, having maturely deliberated on and considered the aforesaid proposed Const.i.tution, do hereby, for and on behalf of the people of the said State of New Jersey, agree to, ratify, and confirm the same, and every part thereof.

"Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the members present, this 18th day of December, A. D. 1787."

Georgia next, and also unanimously, on January 2, 1788, declared, through "the delegates of the State of Georgia, in convention met, pursuant to the provisions of the [act of the] Legislature aforesaid ... in virtue of the powers and authority given [pg 107] us [them] by the people of the said State, for that purpose," that they did "fully and entirely a.s.sent to, ratify, and adopt the said Const.i.tution."

Connecticut (on the 9th of January) declares her a.s.sent with equal distinctness of a.s.sertion as to the source of the authority: "In the name of the people of the State of Connecticut, we, the delegates of the people of the said State, in General Convention a.s.sembled, pursuant to an act of the Legislature in October last ... do a.s.sent to, ratify, and adopt the Const.i.tution reported by the Convention of delegates in Philadelphia."

In Ma.s.sachusetts there was a sharp contest. The people of that State were then-as for a long time afterward-exceedingly tenacious of their State independence and sovereignty. The proposed Const.i.tution was subjected to a close, critical, and rigorous examination with reference to its bearing upon this very point. The Convention was a large one, and some of its leading members were very distrustful of the instrument under their consideration. It was ultimately adopted by a very close vote (187 to 168), and then only as accompanied by certain proposed amendments, the object of which was to guard more expressly against any sacrifice or compromise of State sovereignty, and under an a.s.surance, given by the advocates of the Const.i.tution, of the certainty that those amendments would be adopted. The most strenuously urged of these was that ultimately adopted (in substance) as the tenth amendment to the Const.i.tution, which was intended to take the place of the second Article of Confederation, as an emphatic a.s.sertion of the continued freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the States. This will be considered more particularly hereafter.

In terms substantially identical with those employed by the other States, Ma.s.sachusetts thus announced her ratification:

"In convention of the delegates of the people of the Commonwealth of Ma.s.sachusetts, 1788. The Convention having impartially discussed and fully considered the Const.i.tution for the United States of America, reported [etc.] ... do, in the name and in behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Ma.s.sachusetts, a.s.sent to and ratify the said Const.i.tution for the United States of America."

[pg 108]

This was accomplished on February 7, 1788.

Maryland followed on the 28th of April, and South Carolina on the 23d of May, in equivalent expressions, the ratification of the former being made by "the delegates of the people of Maryland," speaking, as they declared, for ourselves, and in the name and on the behalf of the people of this State; that of the latter, "in convention of the people of the State of South Carolina, by their representatives, ... in the name and behalf of the people of this State."

But South Carolina, like Ma.s.sachusetts, demanded certain amendments, and for greater a.s.surance accompanied her ordinance of ratification with the following distinct a.s.sertion of the principle afterward embodied in the tenth amendment:

"This Convention doth also declare that no section or paragraph of the said Const.i.tution warrants a construction that the States do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union."

"The delegates of the people of the State of New Hamps.h.i.+re," in convention, on the 21st of June, "in the name and behalf of the people of the State of New Hamps.h.i.+re," declared their approval and adoption of the Const.i.tution. In this State, also, the opposition was formidable (the final vote being 57 to 46), and, as in South Carolina, it was "explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Const.i.tution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."

The debates in the Virginia Convention were long and animated. Some of the most eminent and most gifted men of that period took part in them, and they have ever since been referred to for the exposition which they afford of the interpretation of the Const.i.tution by its authors and their contemporaries. Among the members were Madison, Mason, and Randolph, who had also been members of the Convention at Philadelphia. Mr. Madison was one of the most earnest advocates of the new Const.i.tution, while Mr. Mason was as warmly opposed to its adoption; so also was Patrick Henry, the celebrated orator. It was a.s.sailed with great vehemence at every vulnerable [pg 109] or doubtful point, and was finally ratified June 26, 1788, by a vote of 89 to 79-a majority of only ten.

This ratification was expressed in the same terms employed by other States, by "the delegates of the people of Virginia ... in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia." In so doing, however, like Ma.s.sachusetts, New Hamps.h.i.+re, and South Carolina, Virginia demanded certain amendments as a more explicit guarantee against consolidation, and accompanied the demand with the following declaration:

"That the powers granted under the Const.i.tution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will," etc., etc.

Whether, in speaking of a possible resumption of powers by "the people of the United States," the Convention had in mind the action of such a people in the aggregate-political community which did not exist, and of which they, could hardly have entertained even an ideal conception-or of the people of Virginia, for whom they were speaking, and of the other United States then taking similar action-is a question which scarcely admits of argument, but which will be more fully considered in the proper place.

New York, the eleventh State to signify her a.s.sent, did so on July 26, 1788, after an arduous and protracted discussion, and then by a majority of but three votes-30 to 27. Even this small majority was secured only by the recommendation of certain material amendments, the adoption of which by the other States it was at first proposed to make a condition precedent to the validity of the ratification. This idea was abandoned after a correspondence between Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison, and, instead of conditional ratification, New York provided for the resumption of her grants; but the amendments were put forth with a circular letter to the other States, in which it was declared that "nothing but the fullest confidence of obtaining a revision" of the objectionable features of the Const.i.tution, "and an invincible reluctance to separating from our [pg 110] sister States, could have prevailed upon a sufficient number to ratify it without stipulating for previous amendments."

The ratification was expressed in the usual terms, as made "by the delegates of the people of the State of New York ... in the name and in behalf of the people" of the said State. Accompanying it was a declaration of the principles in which the a.s.sent of New York was conceded, one paragraph of which runs as follows:

"That the powers of government may be rea.s.sumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the said Const.i.tution, clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Const.i.tution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is ent.i.tled to any powers not given by the said Const.i.tution, but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers or as inserted for greater caution."

The acceptance of these eleven States having been signified to the Congress, provision was made for putting the new Const.i.tution in operation. This was effected on March 4, 1789, when the Government was organized, with George Was.h.i.+ngton as President, and John Adams, Vice-President; the Senators and Representatives elected by the States which had acceded to the Const.i.tution, organizing themselves as a Congress.

Meantime, two States were standing, as we have seen, unquestioned and unmolested, in an att.i.tude of absolute independence. The Convention of North Carolina, on August 2, 1788, had rejected the proposed Const.i.tution, or, more properly speaking, had withheld her ratification until action could be taken upon the subject-matter of the following resolution adopted by her Convention:

"Resolved, That a declaration of rights, a.s.serting and securing from encroachment the great principles of civil and religious liberty, and the unalienable rights of the people, together with amendments [pg 111] to the most ambiguous and exceptionable parts of the said Const.i.tution of government, ought to be laid before Congress and the Convention of the States that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said Const.i.tution, for their consideration, previous to the ratification of the Const.i.tution aforesaid on the part of the State of North Carolina."

More than a year afterward, when the newly organized Government had been in operation for nearly nine months, and when-although no convention of the States had been called to revise the Const.i.tution-North Carolina had good reason to feel a.s.sured that the most important provisions of her proposed amendments and "declaration of rights" would be adopted, she acceded to the amended compact. On November 21, 1789, her Convention agreed, "in behalf of the freemen, citizens, and inhabitants of the State of North Carolina," to "adopt and ratify" the Const.i.tution.

In Rhode Island the proposed Const.i.tution was at first submitted to a direct vote of the people, who rejected it by an overwhelming majority. Subsequently-that is, on May 29, 1790, when the reorganized Government had been in operation for nearly fifteen months, and when it had become reasonably certain that the amendments thought necessary would be adopted-a convention of the people of Rhode Island acceded to the new Union, and ratified the Const.i.tution, though even then by a majority of only two votes in sixty-six-34 to 32. The ratification was expressed in substantially the same language as that which has now been so repeatedly cited:

"We, the delegates of the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in convention, ... in the name and behalf of the people of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do, by these presents, a.s.sent to and ratify the said Const.i.tution."

It is particularly to be noted that, during the intervals between the organization of the Federal Government under the new Const.i.tution and the ratification of that Const.i.tution by, North Carolina and Rhode Island, respectively, those States [pg 112] were absolutely independent and unconnected with any other political community, unless they be considered as still representing the "United States of America," which by the Articles of Confederation had been declared a "perpetual union." The other States had seceded from the former union-not in a body, but separately, each for itself-and had formed a new a.s.sociation, leaving these two States in the att.i.tude of foreign though friendly powers. There was no claim of any right to control their action, as if they had been mere geographical or political divisions of one great consolidated community or "nation." Their accession to the Union was desired, but their freedom of choice in the matter was never questioned. And then it is to be noted, on their part, that, like the house of Judah, they refrained from any attempt to force the seceding sisters to return.

As ill.u.s.trative of the relations existing during this period between the United States and Rhode Island, it may not be uninstructive to refer to a letter sent by the government of the latter to the President and Congress, and transmitted by the President to the Senate, with the following note:

"United States, September 26, 1789.

"Gentlemen of the Senate: Having yesterday received a letter written in this month by the Governor of Rhode Island, at the request and in behalf of the General a.s.sembly of that State, addressed to the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress a.s.sembled, I take the earliest opportunity of laying a copy of it before you.

(Signed) "GEORGE WAs.h.i.+NGTON."

Some extracts from the communication referred to are annexed:

"State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, In General a.s.sembly, September Session, 1789.

"To the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress a.s.sembled:

"The critical situation in which the people of this State are placed engages us to make these a.s.surances, on their behalf, of their attachment and friends.h.i.+p to their sister States, and of their [pg 113] disposition to cultivate mutual harmony and friendly intercourse. They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively viewed, and, although they now stand as it were alone, they have not separated themselves or departed from the principles of that Confederation, which was formed by the sister States in their struggle for freedom and in the hour of danger....

"Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of government formed and adopted by most of our sister States, we doubt not, has given uneasiness to them. That we have not seen our way clear to it, consistently with our idea of the principles upon which we all embarked together, has also given pain to us. We have not doubted that we might thereby avoid present difficulties, but we have apprehended future mischief....

"Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they [the people of this State] should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation?-to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments, before they could adopt it as a Const.i.tution of government for themselves and their posterity?...