Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER VII

FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION

The year 1781 saw three and one half million people scattered along the Atlantic seaboard from New Hampshire to Georgia. Nine-tenths of them were farmers, the majority of whom were well satisfied with existing political institutions although there was discontent with prevailing economic conditions, since the period was one of deflation. The Continental currency had in fact become practically worthless, with the result that there was less money in the country than there had been even in Revolutionary days. The scarcity of the commodity naturally made it more valuable, for money, like everything else, becomes increasingly valuable with scarcity. This meant, of course, that its exchange value was high and farm produce was correspondingly cheap, which in turn produced an inevitable reaction against the economic situation on the part of those adversely affected. But at no time was there widespread feeling in the rural areas that a change in the form of government was necessary.

How came it, then, that after only eight years' trial the Articles of Confederation were scrapped and a new Constitution was adopted? From dissident groups

come all movements that lead to change, and to the influence of such groups may be traced the transformation of the Articles of Confederation. There were several classes in the country, numerically small, but with a prestige extending far beyond their actual numbers, who were in a state of protest. First, the commercial interests. The fact that there existed no superior body to compose the quarrels between the various states had already led to a situation in which New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island were on the point of blows, and a tariff war was in progress. The fact that the Federal government had no power to compel the states to abide by its agreements with foreign nations had caused Europe generally to look askance at us and discriminate against our trade at will.1 The absence of a standard currency likewise complicated business. Not only were some of the states issuing bank notes, but upon the authority of the states hundreds of banks were steadily adding to the difficulties. The monetary situation affected also the banking classes. The success and threatened success of the "soft money men," that is those who desired to inflate

1 A glimpse of the European reaction to us can, perhaps, be caught from a quotation from the English Public Ledger of 1786. "Anarchy their King-laws disregarded-Justice driven from their dominions-roguery encouraged by their wild assemblies—a people disunited in all-their shipping rotting in their neglected ports-their Empire crumbling to atoms-treacherous -wretched and poor-harassed by the Aborigines-unable to avenge or protect themselves, they are insulted by all-they are a people not to be trusted—a people laughed at and despised by all nations—an example of rebellion and ingratitude!!!”

the currency, was alarming the vested interests generally. An inflated currency meant a decline in the purchasing power of money, a prospect not at all pleasing to those with money out at interest. Holders of governmental securities likewise found little to admire in a government too weak financially to redeem its pledges.

Akin in feeling were the speculators in Western lands. So long as the government was unable to protect life beyond the Alleghanies, so long would their anticipated profits be delayed. Even the slavocracy, always fearful of a slave revolt, would have felt more comfortable with a more powerful central government.

From these groups, powerful in influence, but by no means constituting a majority of the country, the movement to remedy the defects in the Articles of Confederation arose. They were, perhaps, the first pressure group in our history. The "vision of national unity which underlies the Constitution was after all the vision of an aristocracy conscious of a solidarity of interests transcending state lines.” 1

It was a conference between delegates from Maryland and Virginia to adjust some commercial difficulties on the Potomac, which developed into a convention at Annapolis, and then into the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. The purpose of this latter convention was to devise alterations necessary "to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of Union." All the states except Rhode Island participated. 1 Corwin, E. S. John Marshall and the Constitution, p. 126.

Rhode Island seemed to fear a revolution. And well she might, for the opening speeches boded ill for the Federal Constitution. "The confederation," said Randolph, "was made in the infancy of the science of constitutions, when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown; when no commercial discord had arisen among states; when no rebellion like that in Massachusetts had broken out; when foreign debts were not urgent; when the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen; when treaties had not been violated; and when nothing better could have been conceded by states jealous of their sovereignty." 1

Washington likewise let it be known that he did not believe that tinkering with the document would be sufficiently radical. "It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted," he said. "Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is the hand of God.” 2

And so with almost Cromwellian piety, the Articles of Confederation were dispatched.

The convention was practically unanimous in the belief that the central government should be strengthened and it is easy to understand why it was, for of the fifty-five members in attendance every one was a member of one or more of the dissident groups.

1 Fiske, John. Critical Period of American History, p. 2352 Fiske, op. cit., p. 232.

But they were by no means agreed upon the degree of centralization necessary, nor upon the amount of popular control desirable. Two proposals chiefly occupied the convention. They have been labeled the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan. The former, the work of Madison, provided for a single executive chosen by the national legislature and ineligible for a second term. Congress was to consist of two houses, the lower elected in proportion to population or wealth, the upper to be elected by the lower in like proportions. Then there was to be a national judiciary. For two weeks this plan was discussed in the committee of the whole, and obtained the approval of the majority of the delegates.

It was becoming apparent by this time, however, that a determined minority existed, composed of a bloc of small states. Eighteen days after the Virginia plan had been introduced, Patterson of New Jersey, representing this bloc, introduced a substitute plan. The chief difference between the two plans lay in the fact that the latter retained the confederate form of organization. The control was to rest in one house in which the states were to be represented as states. It was over this difference the most bitter fight of the convention took place.

"Let the smaller colonies give equal money and men and then have an equal vote. But if they have an equal vote without bearing equal burdens, a confederation upon such iniquitous principles will never last long." Such was the declaration of Franklin, and

« PreviousContinue »