The Fathers of the Constitution Part 4

The increase of powers accruing to the executive office necessitated placing a corresponding check upon the exercise of those powers. The obvious method was to render the executive subject to impeachment, and it was also readily agreed that his veto might be overruled by a two-thirds vote of Congress; but some further safeguards were necessary, and the whole question accordingly turned upon the method of his election and the length of his term. In the course of the proceedings of the Convention, at several different times, the members voted in favor of an appointment by the national legislature, but they also voted against it. Once they voted for a system of electors chosen by the State legislatures and twice they voted against such a system. Three times they voted to reconsider the whole question. It is no wonder that Gerry should say: "We seem to be entirely at a loss."

So it came to the end of August, with most of the other matters disposed of and with the patience of the delegates worn out by the long strain of four weeks' close application. During the discussions it had become apparent to every one that an election of the President by the people would give a decided advantage to the large States, so that again there was arising the divergence between the large and small States. In order to hasten matters to a conclusion, this and all other vexing details upon which the Convention could not agree were turned over to a committee made up of a member from each State. It was this committee which pointed the way to a compromise by which the choice of the executive was to be entrusted to electors chosen in each State as its legislature might direct. The electors were to be equal in number to the State's representation in Congress, including both senators and representatives, and in each State they were to meet and to vote for two persons, one of whom should not be an inhabitant of that State. The votes were to be listed and sent to Congress, and the person who had received the greatest number of votes was to be President, provided such a number was a majority of all the electors. In case of a tie the Senate was to choose between the candidates and, if no one had a majority, the Senate was to elect "from the five highest on the list."

This method of voting would have given the large States a decided advantage, of course, in that they would appoint the greater number of electors, but it was not believed that this system would ordinarily result in a majority of votes being cast for one man. Apparently no one antic.i.p.ated the formation of political parties which would concentrate the votes upon one or another candidate. It was rather expected that in the great majority of cases-"nineteen times in twenty," one of the delegates said-there would be several candidates and that the selection from those candidates would fall to the Senate, in which all the States were equally represented and the small States were in the majority. But since the Senate shared so many powers with the executive, it seemed better to transfer the right of "eventual election" to the House of Representatives, where each State was still to have but one vote. Had this scheme worked as the designers expected, the interests of large States and small States would have been reconciled, since in effect the large States would name the candidates and, "nineteen times in twenty," the small States would choose from among them.

Apparently the question of a third term was never considered by the delegates in the Convention. The chief problem before them was the method of election. If the President was to be chosen by the legislature, he should not be eligible to reelection. On the other hand, if there was to be some form of popular election, an opportunity for reelection was thought to be a desirable incentive to good behavior. Six or seven years was taken as an acceptable length for a single term and four years a convenient tenure if reelection was permitted. It was upon these considerations that the term of four years was eventually agreed upon, with no restriction placed upon reelection.

When it was believed that a satisfactory method of choosing the President had been discovered-and it is interesting to notice the members of the Convention later congratulated themselves that at least this feature of their government was above criticism-it was decided to give still further powers to the President, such as the making of treaties and the appointing of amba.s.sadors and judges, although the advice and consent of the Senate was required, and in the case of treaties two-thirds of the members present must consent.

The presidency was frankly an experiment, the success of which would depend largely upon the first election; yet no one seems to have been anxious about the first choice of chief magistrate, and the reason is not far to seek. From the moment the members agreed that there should be a single executive they also agreed upon the man for the position. Just as Washington had been chosen unanimously to preside over the Convention, so it was generally accepted that he would be the first head of the new state. Such at least was the trend of conversation and even of debate on the floor of the Convention. It indicates something of the conception of the office prevailing at the time that Washington, when he became President, is said to have preferred the t.i.tle, "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties."

The members of the Convention were plainly growing tired and there are evidences of haste in the work of the last few days. There was a tendency to ride rough-shod over those whose temperaments forced them to demand modifications in petty matters. This precipitancy gave rise to considerable dissatisfaction and led several delegates to declare that they would not sign the completed doc.u.ment. But on the whole the sentiment of the Convention was overwhelmingly favorable. Accordingly on Sat.u.r.day, the 8th of September, a new committee was appointed, to consist of five members, whose duty it was "to revise the stile of and arrange the articles which had been agreed to by the House." The committee was chosen by ballot and was made up exclusively of friends of the new Const.i.tution: Doctor Johnson of Connecticut, Alexander Hamilton, who had returned to Philadelphia to help in finishing the work, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, and Rufus King. On Wednesday the twelfth, the Committee made its report, the greatest credit for which is probably to be given to Morris, whose powers of expression were so greatly admired. Another day was spent in waiting for the report to be printed. But on Thursday this was ready, and three days were devoted to going over carefully each article and section and giving the finishing touches. By Sat.u.r.day the work of the Convention was brought to a close, and the Const.i.tution was then ordered to be engrossed. On Monday, the 17th of September, the Convention met for the last time. A few of those present being unwilling to sign, Gouverneur Morris again cleverly devised a form which would make the action appear to be unanimous: "Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the states present... in witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names." Thirty-nine delegates, representing twelve States, then signed the Const.i.tution.

When Charles Biddle of Philadelphia, who was acquainted with most of the members of the Convention, wrote his "Autobiography," which was published in 1802, he declared that for his part he considered the government established by the Const.i.tution to be "the best in the world, and as perfect as any human form of government can be." But he prefaced that declaration with a statement that some of the best informed members of the Federal Convention had told him "they did not believe a single member was perfectly satisfied with the Const.i.tution, but they believed it was the best they could ever agree upon, and that it was infinitely better to have such a one than break up without fixing on some form of government, which I believe at one time it was expected they would have done."

One of the outstanding characteristics of the members of the Federal Convention was their practical sagacity. They had a very definite object before them. No matter how much the members might talk about democracy in theory or about ancient confederacies, when it came to action they did not go outside of their own experience. The Const.i.tution was devised to correct well-known defects and it contained few provisions which had not been tested by practical political experience. Before the Convention met, some of the leading men in the country had prepared lists of the defects which existed in the Articles of Confederation, and in the Const.i.tution practically every one of these defects was corrected and by means which had already been tested in the States and under the Articles of Confederation.

CHAPTER VIII. THE UNION ESTABLISHED

The course of English history shops that Anglo-Saxon tradition is strongly in favor of observing precedents and of trying to maintain at least the form of law, even in revolutions. When the English people found it impossible to bear with James II and made it so uncomfortable for him that he fled the country, they shifted the responsibility from their own shoulders by charging him with "breaking the original Contract between King and People." When the Thirteen Colonies had reached the point where they felt that they must separate from England, their spokesman, Thomas Jefferson, found the necessary justification in the fundamental compact of the first settlers "in the wilds of America" where "the emigrants thought proper to adopt that system of laws under which they had hitherto lived in the mother country"; and in the Declaration of Independence he charged the King of Great Britain with "repeated injuries and usurpations all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

And so it was with the change to the new form of government in the United States, which was accomplished only by disregarding the forms prescribed in the Articles of Confederation and has been called, therefore, "the Revolution of 1789." From the outset the new const.i.tution was placed under the sanction of the old. The movement began with an attempt, outwardly at least, to revise the Articles of Confederation and in that form was authorized by Congress. The first breach with the past was made when the proposal in the Virginia Resolutions was accepted that amendments made by the Convention in the Articles of Confederation should be submitted to a.s.semblies chosen by the people instead of to the legislatures of the separate States. This was the more readily accepted because it was believed that ratification by the legislatures would result in the formation of a treaty rather than in a working instrument of government. The next step was to prevent the work of the Convention from meeting the fate of all previous amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which had required the consent of every State in the Union. At the time the committee of detail made its report, the Convention was ready to agree that the consent of all the States was not necessary, and it eventually decided that, when ratified by the conventions of nine States, the Const.i.tution should go into effect between the States so ratifying.

It was not within the province of the Convention to determine what the course of procedure should be in the individual States; so it simply transmitted the Const.i.tution to Congress and in an accompanying doc.u.ment, which significantly omitted any request for the approval of Congress, strongly expressed the opinion that the Const.i.tution should "be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof." This was nothing less than indirect ratification by the people; and, since it was impossible to foretell in advance which of the States would or would not ratify, the original draft of "We, the People of the States of New Hampshire, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island,..." was changed to the phrase "We, the People of the United States." No man of that day could imagine how significant this change would appear in the light of later history.

Congress did not receive the new Const.i.tution enthusiastically, yet after a few days' discussion it unanimously voted, eleven States being present, that the recommendations of the Convention should be followed, and accordingly sent the doc.u.ment to the States, but without a word of approval or disapproval. On the whole the doc.u.ment was well received, especially as it was favored by the upper cla.s.s, who had the ability and the opportunity for expression and were in a position to make themselves heard. For a time it looked as if the Const.i.tution would be readily adopted.

The contest over the Const.i.tution in the States is usually taken as marking the beginning of the two great national political parties in the United States. This was, indeed, in a way the first great national question that could cause such a division. There had been, to be sure, Whigs and Tories in America, reproducing British parties, but when the trouble with the mother country began, the successive congresses of delegates were recognized and attended only by the so-called American Whigs, and after the Declaration of Independence the name of Tory, became a reproach, so that with the end of the war the Tory party disappeared. After the Revolution there were local parties in the various States, divided on one and another question, such as that of hard and soft money, and these issues had coincided in different States; but they were in no sense national parties with organizations, platforms, and leaders; they were purely local, and the followers of one or the other would have denied that they were anything else than Whigs. But a new issue was now raised. The Whig party split in two, new leaders appeared, and the elements gathered in two main divisions-the Federalists advocating, and the Anti-Federalists opposing, the adoption of the new Const.i.tution.

There were differences of opinion over all the questions which had led to the calling of the Federal Convention and the framing of the Const.i.tution and so there was inevitably a division upon the result of the Convention's work. There were those who wanted national authority for the suppression of disorder and of what threatened to be anarchy throughout the Union; and on the other hand there were those who opposed a strongly organized government through fear of its destroying liberty. Especially debtors and creditors took opposite sides, and most of the people in the United States could have been brought under one or the other category. The former favored a system of government and legislation which would tend to relieve or postpone the payment of debts; and, as that relief would come more readily from the State Governments, they were naturally the friends of State rights and State authority and were opposed to any enlargement of the powers of the Federal Government. On the other hand, were those who felt the necessity of preserving inviolate every private and public obligation and who saw that the separate power of the States could not accomplish what was necessary to sustain both public and private credit; they were disposed to use the resources of the Union and accordingly to favor the strengthening of the national government. In nearly every State there was a struggle between these cla.s.ses.

In Philadelphia and the neighborhood there was great enthusiasm for the new Const.i.tution. Almost simultaneously with the action by Congress, and before notification of it had been received, a motion was introduced in the Pennsylvania a.s.sembly to call a ratifying convention. The Anti-Federalists were surprised by the suddenness of this proposal and to prevent action absented themselves from the session of the a.s.sembly, leaving that body two short of the necessary quorum for the transaction of business. The excitement and indignation in the city were so great that early the next morning a crowd gathered, dragged two of the absentees from their lodgings to the State House, and held them firmly in their places until the roll was called and a quorum counted, when the House proceeded to order a State convention. As soon as the news of this vote got out, the city gave itself up to celebrating the event by the suspension of business, the ringing of church bells, and other demonstrations. The elections were hotly contested, but the Federalists were generally successful. The convention met towards the end of November and, after three weeks of futile discussion, mainly upon trivial matters and the meaning of words, ratified the Const.i.tution on the 12th of December, by a vote of forty-six to twenty-three. Again the city of Philadelphia celebrated.

Pennsylvania was the first State to call a convention, but its final action was antic.i.p.ated by Delaware, where the State convention met and ratified the Const.i.tution by unanimous vote on the 7th of December. The New Jersey convention spent only a week in discussion and then voted, also unanimously, for ratification on the 18th of December. The next State to ratify was Georgia, where the Const.i.tution was approved without a dissenting vote on January 2, 1788. Connecticut followed immediately and, after a session of only five days, declared itself in favor of the Const.i.tution, on the 9th of January, by a vote of over three to one.

The results of the campaign for ratification thus far were most gratifying to the Federalists, but the issue was not decided. With the exception of Pennsylvania, the States which had acted were of lesser importance, and, until Ma.s.sachusetts, New York, and Virginia should declare themselves, the outcome would be in doubt. The convention of Ma.s.sachusetts met on the same day that the Connecticut convention adjourned. The sentiment of Boston, like that of Philadelphia, was strongly Federalist; but the outlying districts, and in particular the western part of the State, where Shays' Rebellion had broken out, were to be counted in the opposition. There were 355 delegates who took part in the Ma.s.sachusetts convention, a larger number than was chosen in any of the other States, and the majority seemed to be opposed to ratification. The division was close, however, and it was believed that the att.i.tude of two men would determine the result. One of these was Governor John Hanc.o.c.k, who was chosen chairman of the convention but who did not attend the sessions at the outset, as he was confined to his house by an attack of gout, which, it was maliciously said, would disappear as soon as it was known which way the majority of the convention would vote. The other was Samuel Adams, a genuine friend of liberty, who was opposed on principle to the general theory of the government set forth in the Const.i.tution. "I stumble at the threshold," he wrote. "I meet with a national government, instead of a federal union of sovereign states." But, being a shrewd politician, Adams did not commit himself openly and, when the tradesmen of Boston declared themselves in favor of ratification, he was ready to yield his personal opinion.

There were many delegates in the Ma.s.sachusetts convention who felt that it was better to amend the doc.u.ment before them than to try another Federal Convention, when as good an instrument might not be devised. If this group were added to those who were ready to accept the Const.i.tution as it stood, they would make a majority in favor of the new government. But the delay involved in amending was regarded as dangerous, and it was argued that, as the Const.i.tution made ample provision for changes, it would be safer and wiser to rely upon that method. The question was one, therefore, of immediate or future amendment. Pressure was accordingly brought to bear upon Governor Hanc.o.c.k and intimations were made to him of future political preferment, until he was persuaded to propose immediate ratification of the Const.i.tution, with an urgent recommendation of such amendments as would remove the objections of the Ma.s.sachusetts people. When this proposal was approved by Adams, its success was a.s.sured, and a few days later, on the 6th of February, the convention voted 187 to 168 in favor of ratification. Nine amendments, largely in the nature of a bill of rights, were then demanded, and the Ma.s.sachusetts representatives in Congress were enjoined "at all times,... to exert all their influence, and use all reasonable and legal methods, To obtain a ratification of the said alterations and provisions." On the very day this action was taken, Jefferson wrote from Paris to Madison: "I wish with all my soul that the nine first conventions may accept the new Const.i.tution, to secure to us the good it contains; but I equally wish that the four latest, whichever they may be, may refuse to accede to it till a declaration of rights be annexed."

Boston proceeded to celebrate as Philadelphia, and Benjamin Lincoln wrote to Washington, on the 9th of February, enclosing an extract from the local paper describing the event:

"By the paper your Excellency will observe some account of the parade of the Eighth the printer had by no means time eno' to do justice to the subject. To give you some idea how far he has been deficient I will mention an observation I heard made by a Lady the last evening who saw the whole that the description in the paper would no more compare with the original than the light of the faintest star would with that of the Sun fortunately for us the whole ended without the least disorder and the town during the whole evening was, so far as I could observe perfectly quiet."*

*Doc.u.mentary History, vol. IV, pp. 488-490.

He added another paragraph which he later struck out as being of little importance; but it throws an interesting sidelight upon the customs of the time.

"The Gentlemen provided at Faneul Hall some biscuit & cheese four qr Casks of wine three barrels & two hogs of punch the moment they found that the people had drank sufficiently means were taken to overset the two hogspunch this being done the company dispersed and the day ended most agreeably"*

* Ibid.

Maryland came next. When the Federal Convention was breaking up, Luther Martin was speaking of the new system of government to his colleague, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, and exclaimed: "I'll be hanged if ever the people of Maryland agree to it!" To which his colleague retorted: "I advise you to stay in Philadelphia, lest you should be hanged." And Jenifer proved to be right, for in Maryland the Federalists obtained control of the convention and, by a vote of 63 to 11, ratified the Const.i.tution on the 26th of April.

In South Carolina, which was the Southern State next in importance to Virginia, the compromise on the slave trade proved to be one of the deciding factors in determining public opinion. When the elections were held, they resulted in an overwhelming majority for the Federalists, so that after a session of less than two weeks the convention ratified the Const.i.tution, on the 28th of May, by a vote of over two to one.

The only apparent setback which the adoption of the Const.i.tution had thus far received was in New Hampshire, where the convention met early in February and then adjourned until June to see what the other States might do. But this delay proved to be of no consequence for, when the time came for the second meeting of the New Hampshire delegates, eight States had already acted favorably and adoption was regarded as a certainty. This was sufficient to put a stop to any further waiting, and New Hampshire added its name to the list on the 21st of June; but the division of opinion was fairly well represented by the smallness of the majority, the vote standing 57 to 46.

Nine States had now ratified the Const.i.tution and it was to go into effect among them. But the support of Virginia and New York was of so much importance that their decisions were awaited with uneasiness. In Virginia, in spite of the support of such men as Washington and Madison, the sentiment for and against the Const.i.tution was fairly evenly divided, and the opposition numbered in its ranks other names of almost equal influence, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason. Feeling ran high; the contest was a bitter one and, even after the elections had been held and the convention had opened, early in June, the decision was in doubt and remained in doubt until the very end. The situation was, in one respect at least, similar to that which had existed in Ma.s.sachusetts, in that it was possible to get a substantial majority in favor of the Const.i.tution provided certain amendments were made. The same arguments were used; strengthened on the one side by what other States had done, and on the other side by the plea that now was the time to hold out for amendments. The example of Ma.s.sachusetts, however, seems to have been decisive, and on the 25th of June, four days later than New Hampshire, the Virginia convention voted to ratify, "under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Const.i.tution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification."

When the New York convention began its sessions on the 17th of June, it is said that more than two-thirds of the delegates were Anti-Federalist in sentiment. How a majority in favor of the Const.i.tution was obtained has never been adequately explained, but it is certain that the main credit for the achievement belongs to Alexander Hamilton. He had early realized how greatly it would help the prospects of the Const.i.tution if thinking people could be brought to an appreciation of the importance and value of the new form of government. In order to reach the intelligent public everywhere, but particularly in New York, he projected a series of essays which should be published in the newspapers, setting forth the aims and purposes of the Const.i.tution. He secured the a.s.sistance of Madison and Jay, and before the end of October, 1787, published the first essay in "The Independent Gazetteer." From that time on these papers continued to be printed over the signature of "Publius," sometimes as many as three or four in a week. There were eighty-five numbers altogether, which have ever since been known as "The Federalist." Of these approximately fifty were the work of Hamilton, Madison wrote about thirty and Jay five. Although the essays were widely copied in other journals, and form for us the most important commentary on the Const.i.tution, making what is regarded as one of America's greatest books, it is doubtful how much immediate influence they had. Certainly in the New York convention itself Hamilton's personal influence was a stronger force. His arguments were both eloquent and cogent, and met every objection; and his efforts to win over the opposition were unremitting. The news which came by express riders from New Hampshire and then from Virginia were also deciding factors, for New York could not afford to remain out of the new Union if it was to embrace States on either side. And yet the debate continued, as the opposition was putting forth every effort to make ratification conditional upon certain amendments being adopted. But Hamilton resolutely refused to make any concessions and at length was successful in persuading the New York convention, by a vote of 30 against 27, on the 26th of July, to follow the example of Ma.s.sachusetts and Virginia and to ratify the Const.i.tution with merely a recommendation of future amendments.

The satisfaction of the country at the outcome of the long and momentous struggle over the adoption of the new government was unmistakable. Even before the action of New York had been taken, the Fourth of July was made the occasion for a great celebration throughout the United States, both as the anniversary of independence and as the consummation of the Union by the adoption of the Const.i.tution.

The general rejoicing was somewhat tempered, however, by the reluctance of North Carolina and Rhode Island to come under "the new roof." Had the convention which met on the 21st of July in North Carolina reached a vote, it would probably have defeated the Const.i.tution, but it was doubtless restrained by the action of New York and adjourned without coming to a decision. A second convention was called in September, 1789, and in the meantime the new government had come into operation and was bringing pressure to bear upon the recalcitrant States which refused to abandon the old union for the new. One of the earliest acts pa.s.sed by Congress was a revenue act, levying duties upon foreign goods imported, which were made specifically to apply to imports from Rhode Island and North Carolina. This was sufficient for North Carolina, and on November 21, 1789, the convention ratified the Const.i.tution. But Rhode Island still held out. A convention of that State was finally called to meet in March, 1790, but accomplished nothing and avoided a decision by adjourning until May. The Federal Government then proceeded to threaten drastic measures by taking up a bill which authorized the President to suspend all commercial intercourse with Rhode Island and to demand of that State the payment of its share of the Federal debt. The bill pa.s.sed the Senate but stopped there, for the State gave in and ratified the Const.i.tution on the 29th of May. Two weeks later Ellsworth, who was now United States Senator from Connecticut, wrote that Rhode Island had been "brought into the Union, and by a pretty cold measure in Congress, which would have exposed me to some censure, had it not produced the effect which I expected it would and which in fact it has done. But 'all is well that ends well.' The Const.i.tution is now adopted by all the States and I have much satisfaction, and perhaps some vanity, in seeing, at length, a great work finished, for which I have long labored incessantly."*

* "Connecticut's Ratification of the Federal Const.i.tution," by B.

C. Steiner, in "Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society," April 1915, pp. 88-89.

Perhaps the most striking feature of these conventions is the trivial character of the objections that were raised. Some of the arguments it is, true, went to the very heart of the matter and considered the fundamental principles of government. It is possible to tolerate and even to sympathize with a man who declared:

"Among other deformities the Const.i.tution has an awful squinting. It squints toward monarchy;... your president may easily become a king.... If your American chief be a man of ambition and ability how easy it is for him to render himself absolute. We shall have a king. The army will salute him monarch."*

* "Connecticut's Ratification of the Federal Const.i.tution," by B.

C. Steiner, in "Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society," April 1915 pp. 88-89.

But it is hard to take seriously a delegate who asked permission "to make a short apostrophe to liberty," and then delivered himself of this bathos:

"O liberty!-thou greatest good-thou fairest property-with thee I wish to live-with thee I wish to die!-Pardon me if I drop a tear on the peril to which she is exposed; I cannot, sir, see this brightest of jewels tarnished! a jewel worth ten thousand worlds! and shall we part with it so soon? O no!"*

* Elliot's "Debates on the Federal Const.i.tution," vol. III. p.

144.

There might be some reason in objecting to the excessive power vested in Congress; but what is one to think of the fear that imagined the greatest point of danger to lie in the ten miles square which later became the District of Columbia, because the Government might erect a fortified stronghold which would be invincible? Again, in the light of subsequent events it is laughable to find many protesting that, although each house was required to keep a journal of proceedings, it was only required "FROM TIME TO TIME to publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy." All sorts of personal charges were made against those who were responsible for the framing of the Const.i.tution. Hopkinson wrote to Jefferson in April, 1788:

"You will be surprised when I tell you that our public News Papers have announced General Washington to be a Fool influenced & lead by that Knave Dr. Franklin, who is a public Defaulter for Millions of Dollars, that Mr. Morris has defrauded the Public out of as many Millions as you please & that they are to cover their frauds by this new Government."*

* "Doc.u.mentary History of the Const.i.tution," vol. IV, p. 563.

All things considered, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that such critics and detractors were trying to find excuses for their opposition.

The majorities in the various conventions can hardly be said really to represent the people of their States, for only a small percentage of the people had voted in electing them; they were representative rather of the propertied upper cla.s.s. This circ.u.mstance has given rise to the charge that the Const.i.tution was framed and adopted by men who were interested in the protection of property, in the maintenance of the value of government securities, and in the payment of debts which had been incurred by the individual States in the course of the Revolution. Property holders were unquestionably a.s.sisted by the mere establishment of a strong government. The creditor cla.s.s seemed to require some special provision and, when the powers of Congress were under consideration in the Federal Convention, several of the members argued strongly for a positive injunction on Congress to a.s.sume obligations of the States. The chief objection to this procedure seemed to be based upon the fear of benefiting speculators rather than the legitimate creditors, and the matter was finally compromised by providing that all debts should be "as valid against the United States under this Const.i.tution asunder the Confederation." The charge that the Const.i.tution was framed and its adoption obtained by men of property and wealth is undoubtedly true, but it is a mistake to attribute unworthy motives to them. The upper cla.s.ses in the United States were generally people of wealth and so would be the natural holders of government securities. They were undoubtedly acting in self-protection, but the responsibility rested upon them to take the lead. They were acting indeed for the public interest in the largest sense, for conditions in the United States were such that every man might become a landowner and the people in general therefore wished to have property rights protected.

In the autumn of 1788 the Congress of the old Confederation made testamentary provision for its heir by voting that presidential electors should be chosen on the first Wednesday in January, 1789; that these electors should meet and cast their votes for President on the first Wednesday in February; and that the Senate and House of Representatives should a.s.semble on the first Wednesday in March. It was also decided that the seat of government should be in the City of New York until otherwise ordered by Congress. In accordance with this procedure, the requisite elections were held, and the new government was duly installed. It happened in 1789 that the first Wednesday in March was the fourth day of that month, which thereby became the date for the beginning of each subsequent administration.

The acid test of efficiency was still to be applied to the new machinery of government. But Americans then, as now, were an adaptable people, with political genius, and they would have been able to make almost any form of government succeed. If the Federal Convention had never met, there is good reason for believing that the Articles of Confederation, with some amendments, would have been made to work. The success of the new government was therefore in a large measure dependent upon the favor of the people. If they wished to do so, they could make it win out in spite of obstacles. In other words, the new government would succeed exactly to the extent to which the people stood back of it. This was the critical moment when the slowly growing prosperity, described at length and emphasized in the previous chapters, produced one of its most important effects. In June, 1788, Washington wrote to Lafayette:

"I expect, that many blessings will be attributed to our new government, which are now taking their rise from that industry and frugality into the practice of which the people have been forced from necessity. I really believe that there never was so much labour and economy to be found before in the country as at the present moment. If they persist in the habits they are acquiring, the good effects will soon be distinguishable. When the people shall find themselves secure under an energetic government, when foreign Nations shall be disposed to give us equal advantages in commerce from dread of retaliation, when the burdens of the war shall be in a manner done away by the sale of western lands, when the seeds of happiness which are sown here shall begin to expand themselves, and when every one (under his own vine and fig-tree) shall begin to taste the fruits of freedom-then all these blessings (for all these blessings will come) will be referred to the fostering influence of the new government. Whereas many causes will have conspired to produce them."

A few months later a similar opinion was expressed by Crevecoeur in writing to Jefferson: