[Sidenote: Madison and Marshall prevail and Virginia ratifies, June 25.]

The sound policy of the Federal Convention in adopting the odious compromise over the slave-trade was now about to bear fruit. In Virginia there had grown up a party which favoured the establishment of a separate southern confederacy. By the action of South Carolina all such schemes were now nipped in the bud. Of the states south of Mason and Dixon's line, three had now ratified the Const.i.tution, so that any separate confederacy could now consist only of Virginia and North Carolina. The reason for this short-lived separatist feeling in Virginia was to be found in the complications which had grown out of the attempt of Spain to close the Mississippi River. It will be remembered that only two years before Jay had actually recommended to Congress that the right to navigate the lower Mississippi be surrendered for twenty-five years, in exchange for a favourable commercial treaty with Spain. The New England states, caring nothing for the distant Mississippi, supported this measure in Congress; and this narrow and selfish policy naturally created alarm in Virginia, which, in her district of Kentucky, touched upon the great river. Thus to the vague dread of the southern states in general, in the event of New England's controlling the commercial policy of the government, there was added, in Virginia's case, a specific fear.

If the New England people were thus ready to barter away the vital interests of a remote part of the country, what might they not do? Would they ever stop at anything so long as they could go on building up their commerce? This feeling strongly influenced Patrick Henry in his desire for a separate confederacy; and we have seen how Randolph and Mason, in the Federal Convention, were so disturbed at the power given to Congress to regulate commerce by a simple majority of votes that they refused to set their names to the Const.i.tution. They alleged further reasons for their refusal, but this was the chief one. They wanted a two thirds vote to be required, in order that the south might retain the means of protecting itself. Under these circ.u.mstances the opposition to the Const.i.tution was very strong, and but for the action of South Carolina the party in favour of a separate confederacy might have been capable of doing much mischief. As it was, since that party had actively intrigued both in South Carolina and Maryland, the ratification of the Const.i.tution by both these states was a direct rebuff. It quite demoralized the advocates of secession. The paper-money men, moreover, were handicapped by the fact that two of the most powerful Antifederalists, Mason and Lee, were determined opponents of a paper currency, so that this subject had to be dropped or very gingerly dealt with. The strength of the Antifederalists, though impaired by these causes, was still very great. The contest was waged with all the more intensity of feeling because, since eight states had now adopted the Const.i.tution, the verdict of Virginia would be decisive. The convention met at Richmond on the 2d of June, and Edmund Pendleton was chosen president. Foremost among the Antifederalists was Patrick Henry, whose eloquence was now as zealously employed against the new government as it had been in bygone days against the usurpations of Great Britain. He was supported by Mason, Lee, and Grayson, as well as by Benjamin Harrison and John Tyler, the fathers of two future presidents; and he could count on the votes of most of the delegates from the midland counties, from the south bank of the James River, and from Kentucky. But the united talents of the opposition had no chance of success in a conflict with the genius and tact of Madison, who at one moment crushed, at another conciliated, his opponent, but always won the day. To Madison, more than any other man, the Federalist victory was due. But he was ably seconded by Governor Randolph, whom he began by winning over from the opposite party, and by the favourite general and eloquent speaker, "Light-Horse Harry." Conspicuous in the ranks of Federalists, and unsurpa.s.sed in debate, was a tall and gaunt young man, with beaming countenance, eyes of piercing brilliancy, and an indescribable kingliness of bearing, who was by and by to become chief justice of the United States, and by his masterly and far-reaching decisions to win a place side by side with Madison and Hamilton among the founders of our national government. John Marshall, second to none among all the ill.u.s.trious jurists of the English race, was then, at the age of thirty-three, the foremost lawyer in Virginia. He had already served for several terms in the state legislature, but his national career began in this convention, where his arguments with those of Madison, reinforcing each other, bore down all opposition. The details of the controversy were much the same as in the states already pa.s.sed in review, save in so far as coloured by the peculiar circ.u.mstances of Virginia. After more than three weeks of debate, on the 25th of June, the question was put to vote, and the Const.i.tution was ratified by the narrow majority of 89 against 79.

Amendments were offered, after the example of Ma.s.sachusetts, which had already been followed by South Carolina and the minority in Maryland; and, as in Ma.s.sachusetts, the defeated Antifederalists announced their intention to abide loyally by the result.

[Sidenote: New Hampshire had already ratified, June 21.]

The discussion had lasted so long that Virginia lost the distinction of being the ninth state to ratify the Const.i.tution. That honour had been reserved for New Hampshire, whose convention had met on the anniversary of Bunker Hill, and after a four days' session, on the 21st of June, had given its consent to the new government by a vote of 57 against 46. The couriers from Virginia and those from New Hampshire, as they spurred their horses over long miles of dusty road, could shout to each other the joyous news in pa.s.sing. Though the ratification of New Hampshire had secured the necessary ninth state, yet the action of Virginia was not the less significant and decisive. Virginia was at that time, and for a quarter of a century afterward, the most populous state in the Union, and one of the greatest in influence. Even with the needed nine states all in hand, it is clear that the new government could not have gone into successful operation with the leading state, the home of Washington himself, left out in the cold. The New Roof, as men were then fond of calling the Federal Const.i.tution, must speedily have fallen in without this indispensable prop. When it was known that Virginia had ratified, it was felt that the victory was won, and the success of the new scheme a.s.sured. The 4th of July, 1788, witnessed such loud rejoicings as have perhaps never been seen before or since on American soil. In Philadelphia there was a procession miles in length, in which every trade was represented, and wagons laden with implements of industry or emblematic devices alternated with bands of music and gorgeous banners.

There figured the New Roof, supported by thirteen columns, and there was to be seen the Ship of State, the good ship Const.i.tution, made out of the barge which Paul Jones had taken from the shattered and blood-stained Serapis, after his terrible fight. As for the old scow Confederacy, Imbecility master, it was proclaimed she had foundered at sea, and "the sloop Anarchy, when last heard from, was ash.o.r.e on Union Rocks." All over the country there were processions and bonfires, and in some towns there were riots. In Providence the Federalists prepared a barbecue of oxen roasted whole, but a mob of farmers, led by three members of the state legislature, attempted to disperse them, and were with some difficulty pacified. In Albany the Antifederalists publicly burned the Const.i.tution, whereupon a party of Federalists brought out another copy of it, and nailed it to the top of a pole, which they planted defiantly amid the ashes of the fire their opponents had made.

Out of these proceedings there grew a riot, in which knives were drawn, stones were thrown, and blood was shed.

[Sidenote: The struggle in New York.]

[Sidenote: The "Federalist."]

Such incidents might have served to remind one that the end had not yet come. The difficulties were not yet surmounted, and the rejoicing was in some respects premature. It was now settled that the new government was to go into operation, but how it was going to be able to get along without the adhesion of New York it was not easy to see. It is true that New York then ranked only as fifth among the states in population, but commercially and militarily she was the centre of the Union. She not only touched at once on the ocean and the lakes, but she separated New England from the rest of the country. It was rightly felt that the Union could never be cemented without this central state. So strongly were people impressed with this feeling that some went so far as to threaten violence. It was said that if New York did not come into the Union peacefully and of her own accord, she should be conquered and dragged in. That she would come in peacefully seemed at first very improbable.

When the state convention a.s.sembled at Poughkeepsie, on the 17th of June, more than two thirds of its members were avowed Antifederalists.

At their head was the governor, George Clinton, hard-headed and resolute, the bitterest hater of the Const.i.tution that could be found anywhere in the thirteen states. Foremost among his supporters were Yates and Lansing, with Melanchthon Smith, a man familiar with political history, and one of the ablest debaters in the country. On the Federalist side were such eminent men as Livingston and Jay; but the herculean task of vanquishing this great hostile majority, and converting it by sheer dint of argument into a majority on the right side, fell chiefly upon the shoulders of one man. But for Alexander Hamilton the decision of New York would unquestionably have been adverse to the Const.i.tution. Nay, more, it is very improbable that, but for him, the good work would have made such progress as it had in the other states. To get the people to adopt the Const.i.tution, it was above all things needful that its practical working should be expounded, in language such as every one could understand, by some writer endowed in the highest degree with political intelligence and foresight. Upon their return from the Federal Convention, Yates and Lansing had done all in their power to bring its proceedings into ill-repute. Pamphlets and broadsides were scattered right and left. The Const.i.tution was called the "triple-headed monster," and declared to be "as deep and wicked a conspiracy as ever was invented in the darkest ages against the liberties of a free people." It soon occurred to Hamilton that it would be well worth while to explain the meaning of all parts of the Const.i.tution in a series of short, incisive essays. He communicated his plan to Madison and Jay, who joined him in the work, and the result was the "Federalist," perhaps the most famous of American books, and undoubtedly the most profound and suggestive treatise on government that has ever been written. Of the eighty-five numbers originally published in the "Independent Gazetteer," under the common signature of "Publius,"

Jay wrote five, Madison twenty-nine, and Hamilton fifty-one. Jay's papers related chiefly to diplomatic points, with which his experience abroad had fitted him to deal. The first number was written by Hamilton in the cabin of a sloop on the Hudson, in October, 1787; and they continued to appear, sometimes as often as three or four in a week, through the winter and spring. Madison would have contributed a larger share than he did had he not been called early in March to Virginia to fight the battle of the Const.i.tution in that state. The essays were widely and eagerly read, and probably accomplished more toward insuring the adoption of the Const.i.tution than anything else that was said or done in that eventful year. They were hastily written,--struck out at white heat by men full of their subject. Doubtless the authors did not realize the grandeur of the literary work they were doing, and among the men of the time there were few who foresaw the immortal fame which these essays were to earn. It is said of one of the senators in the first Congress that he made the memorandum, "Get the 'Federalist,' if I can, without buying it. It isn't worth it." But for all posterity the "Federalist" must remain the most authoritative commentary upon the Const.i.tution that can be found; for it is the joint work of the princ.i.p.al author of that Const.i.tution and of its most brilliant advocate.

In nothing could the flexibleness of Hamilton's intellect, or the genuineness of his patriotism, have been more finely shown than in the hearty zeal and transcendent ability with which he now wrote in defence of a plan of government so different from what he would himself have proposed. He made Madison's thoughts his own, until he set them forth with even greater force than Madison himself could command. Yet no arguments could possibly be less chargeable with partisanship than the arguments of the "Federalist." The judgment is as dispa.s.sionate as could be shown in a philosophical treatise. The tone is one of grave and lofty eloquence, apt to move even to tears the reader who is fully alive to the stupendous issues that were involved in the discussion. Hamilton was supremely endowed with the faculty of imagining, with all the circ.u.mstantial minuteness of concrete reality, political situations different from those directly before him; and he put this rare power to n.o.ble use in tracing out the natural and legitimate working of such a Const.i.tution as that which the Federal Convention had framed.

[Sidenote: Hamilton wins the victory, and New York ratifies, July 26.]

When it came to defending the Const.i.tution before the hostile convention at Poughkeepsie, he had before him as arduous a task as ever fell to the lot of a parliamentary debater. It was a case where political management was out of the question. The opposition were too numerous to be silenced, or cajoled, or bargained with. They must be converted. With an eloquence scarcely equalled before or since in America until Webster's voice was heard, Hamilton argued week after week, till at last Melanchthon Smith, the foremost debater of Clinton's party, broke away, and came to the Federalist side. It was like crushing the centre of a hostile army. After this the Antifederalist forces were confused and easily routed. The decisive struggle was over the question whether New York could ratify the Const.i.tution conditionally, reserving to herself the right to withdraw from the Union in case the amendments upon which she had set her heart should not be adopted. Upon this point Hamilton reinforced himself with the advice of Madison, who had just returned to New York. Could a state once adopt the Const.i.tution, and then withdraw from the Union if not satisfied? Madison's reply was prompt and decisive. No, such a thing could never be done. A state which had once ratified was in the federal bond forever. The Const.i.tution could not provide for nor contemplate its own overthrow. There could be no such thing as a const.i.tutional right of secession. When Melanchthon Smith deserted the Antifederalists on this point, the victory was won, and on the 26th of July, New York ratified the Const.i.tution by the bare majority of 30 votes against 27. Rejoicings were now renewed throughout the country. In the city of New York there was an immense parade, and as the emblematic federal ship was drawn through the streets, with Hamilton's name emblazoned on her side, it was doubtless the proudest moment of the young statesman's life.

[Sidenote: The laggard states, North Carolina and Rhode Island.]

New York, however, dogged her acceptance by proposing, a few days afterward, that a second Federal Convention be called for considering the amendments suggested by the various states. The proposal was supported by the Virginia legislature, but Ma.s.sachusetts and Pennsylvania opposed it, as having a dangerous tendency to reopen the whole discussion and unsettle everything. The proposal fell to the ground. People were weary of the long dispute, and turned their attention to electing representatives to the first Congress. With the adhesion of New York all serious anxiety came to an end. The new government could be put in operation without waiting for North Carolina and Rhode Island to make up their minds. The North Carolina convention met on the 21st of July, and adjourned on the 1st of August without coming to any decision. The same objections were raised as in Virginia; and besides, the paper-money party was here much stronger than in the neighbouring state. In Rhode Island paper money was the chief difficulty; that state did not even take the trouble to call a convention. It was not until the 21st of November, 1789, after Washington's government had been several months in operation, that North Carolina joined the Federal Union. Rhode Island did not join till the 29th of May, 1790. If she had waited but a few months longer, Vermont, the first state not of the original thirteen, would have come in before her.

The autumn of 1788 was a season of busy but peaceful electioneering.

That remarkable body, the Continental Congress, in putting an end to its troubled existence, decreed that presidential electors should be chosen on the first Wednesday of January, 1789, that the 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. This latter day fell, in 1789, on the 4th of the month, and accordingly, three years afterward, Congress took it for a precedent, and decreed that thereafter each new administration should begin on the 4th of March. It was further decided, after some warm debate, that until the site for the proposed federal city could be selected and built upon, the seat of the new government should be the city of New York.

[Sidenote: First presidential election, Jan. 7, 1789.]

In accordance with these decrees, presidential elections were held on the first Wednesday in January. The Antifederalists were still potent for mischief in New York, with the result that, just as that state had not joined in the Declaration of Independence until after it had been proclaimed to the world, and just as she refused to adopt the Federal Const.i.tution until after more than the requisite number of states had ratified it, so now she failed to choose electors, and had nothing to do with the vote that made Washington our first president. The other ten states that had ratified the Const.i.tution all chose electors. But things moved slowly and c.u.mbrously at this first a.s.sembling of the new government. The House of Representatives did not succeed in getting a quorum together until the 1st of April. On the 6th, the Senate chose John Langdon for its president, and the two houses in concert counted the electoral votes. There were 69 in all, and every one of the 69 was found to be for George Washington of Virginia. For the second name on the list there was nothing like such unanimity. It was to be expected that the other name would be that of a citizen of Ma.s.sachusetts, as the other leading state in the Union. The two foremost citizens of Ma.s.sachusetts bore the same name, and were cousins. There would have been most striking poetic justice in coupling with the name of Washington that of Samuel Adams, since these two men had been indisputably foremost in the work of achieving the independence of the United States. But for the hesitancy of Samuel Adams in indorsing the Federal Const.i.tution, he would very likely have been our first vice-president and our second president. But the wave of federalism had now begun to sweep strongly over Ma.s.sachusetts, carrying everything before it, and none but the most ardent Federalists had a chance to meet in the electoral college. Voices were raised in behalf of Samuel Adams.

While we honour the American Fabius, it was said, let us not forget the American Cato. It was urged by some, with much truth, that but for his wise and cautious action in the Ma.s.sachusetts convention, the good ship Const.i.tution would have been fatally wrecked upon the reefs of Shaysism.

His course had not been that of an obstructionist, like that of his old friends Henry and Lee and Gerry; but at the critical moment--one of the most critical in all that wonderful crisis--he had thrown his vast influence, with decisive effect, upon the right side. All this is plain enough to the historian of to-day. But in the political fervour of the election of 1789, the fact most clearly visible to men was that Samuel Adams had hesitated, and perhaps made things wait. These points came out most distinctly on the issue of his election to the Federal Congress, in which he was defeated by the youthful Fisher Ames, whose eloquence in the state convention had been so conspicuous and useful; but they serve to explain thoroughly why he was not put upon the presidential list along with Washington. His cousin, John Adams, had just returned from his mission to England, weary and disgusted with the scanty respect which he had been able to secure for a feeble league of states that could not make good its own promises. His services during the Revolution had been of the most splendid sort: and after Washington, he was the second choice of the electoral college, receiving 34 votes, while John Jay of New York, his nearest compet.i.tor, received only 9. John Adams was accordingly declared vice-president.

[Sidenote: Inauguration of Washington, April 30.]

On the 14th of April Washington was informed of his election, and on the next day but one he bid adieu again to his beloved home at Mount Vernon, where he had hoped to pa.s.s the remainder of his days in that rural peace and quiet for which no one yearns like the man who is burdened with greatness and fame unsought for. The position to which he was summoned was one of unparalleled splendour,--how splendid we can now realize much better than he, and our grandchildren will realize it better than we,--the position of first ruler of what was soon to become at once the strongest and the most peace-loving people upon the face of the earth.

As he journeyed toward New York, his thoughts must have been busy with the arduous problems of the time. Already, doubtless, he had marked out the two great men, Jefferson and Hamilton, for his chief advisers: the one to place us in a proper att.i.tude before the mocking nations of Europe; the other to restore our shattered credit, and enlist the moneyed interests of all the states in the success of the Federal Union.

Washington's temperament was a hopeful one, as befitted a man of his strength and dash. But in his most hopeful mood he could hardly have dared to count upon such a sudden and wonderful demonstration of national strength as was about to ensue upon the heroic financial measures of Hamilton. His meditations on this journey we may well believe to have been solemn and anxious enough. But if he could gather added courage from the often-declared trust of his fellow-countrymen, there was no lack of such comfort for him. At every town through which he pa.s.sed, fresh evidences of it were gathered, but at one point on the route his strong nature was especially wrought upon. At Trenton, as he crossed the bridge over the a.s.sunpink Creek, where twelve years ago, at the darkest moment of the Revolution, he had outwitted Cornwallis in the most skilful of stratagems, and turned threatening defeat into glorious victory,--at this spot, so fraught with thrilling a.s.sociations, he was met by a party of maidens dressed in white, who strewed his path with sweet spring flowers, while triumphal arches in softest green bore inscriptions declaring that he who had watched over the safety of the mothers could well be trusted to protect the daughters. On the 23d he arrived in New York, and was entertained at dinner by Governor Clinton.

One week later, on the 30th, came the inauguration. It was one of those magnificent days of clearest sunshine that sometimes make one feel in April as if summer had come. At noon of that day Washington went from his lodgings, attended by a military escort, to Federal Hall, at the corner of Wall and Na.s.sau streets, where his statue has lately been erected. The city was ablaze with excitement. A sea of upturned eager faces surrounded the spot, and as the hero appeared thousands of c.o.c.ked hats were waved, while ladies fluttered their white handkerchiefs.

Washington came forth clad in a suit of dark brown cloth of American make, with white silk hose and shoes decorated with silver buckles, while at his side hung a dress-sword. For a moment all were hushed in deepest silence, while the secretary of the Senate held forth the Bible upon a velvet cushion, and Chancellor Livingston administered the oath of office. Then, before Washington had as yet raised his head, Livingston shouted,--and from all the vast company came answering shouts,--"Long live George Washington, President of the United States!"

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

The bibliography of the period covered in this book is most copiously and thoroughly treated in the seventh volume of Winsor's _Narrative and Critical History of America_, Boston, 1888. For the benefit of the reader who may not have ready access to that vast storehouse of information, the following brief notes may be of service.

The best account of the peace negotiations is to be found in chapter ii.

of Winsor's volume just cited, written by Hon. John Jay, who had already discussed the subject quite thoroughly in his _Address before the New York Historical Society on its Seventy-Ninth Anniversary_, Nov. 27, 1883. Of the highest value are Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice's _Life of Lord Shelburne_, 3 vols., London, 1875-76, and Adolphe de Circourt, _Histoire de l'action commune de la France et de l'Amerique, etc._, tome iii., _Doc.u.ments originaux inedits_, Paris, 1876. See also Sparks, _Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution_, 12 vols., Boston, 1829-30; Trescot's _Diplomacy of the American Revolution_, N.Y., 1852; Lyman's _Diplomacy of the United States_, Boston, 1826; Elliot's _American Diplomatic Code_, 2 vols., Washington, 1834; Chalmers's _Collection of Treaties_, 2 vols., London, 1790; Lord Stanhope's _History of England_, vol. vii., London, 1853; Lecky's _History of England_, vol. iv., London, 1882; Lord John Russell's _Memorials of Fox_, 4 vols., London, 1853-57; Albemarle's _Rockingham and his Contemporaries_, 2 vols., London, 1852; Walpole's _Last Journals_, 2 vols., London, 1859; Force's _American Archives_, 4th series, 6 vols., Washington, 1839-46; John Adams's _Works_, 10 vols., Boston, 1850-56; Rives's _Life of Madison_, 3 vols., Boston, 1859-68; Madison's _Letters and other Writings_, 4 vols., Phila., 1865; the lives of Franklin, by Bigelow and Parton; the lives of Jay, by Jay, Flanders, and Whitelocke; Morse's _John Adams_, Boston, 1885; _Correspondence of George III. with Lord North_, 2 vols., London, 1867; Wharton's _Digest of International Law_, Washington, 1887, _Appendix_ to vol. iii.; Hale's _Franklin in France_, 2 vols., Boston, 1888. The view of the treaty set forth in 1830 by Sparks, according to which Jay and Adams were quite mistaken in their suspicions of the French court, we may now regard as disposed of by the evidence presented by Circourt and Fitzmaurice. It has led many writers astray, and even with all the lights which Mr. Bancroft has had, the account in the last revision of his _History of the United States_, vol. v., N.Y., 1886, though in some respects one of the best to be found in the general histories, still leaves much to be desired.

The general condition of the United States under the articles of confederation is well sketched in the sixth volume of Bancroft's final revision, and in Curtis's _History of the Const.i.tution_, 2 vols., N.Y., 1861. An excellent summary is given in the first volume of Schouler's _History of the United States under the Const.i.tution_, of which vols, i.-iii. (Washington, 1882-85) have appeared. Mr. Schouler's book is suggestive and stimulating. The work most rich in details is Professor McMaster's _History of the People of the United States_, of which the first volume rather more than covers the period 1783-89. The author is especially deserving of praise for the diligence with which he has searched the newspapers and obscure pamphlets of the period. He has thus given much fresh life to the narrative, besides throwing valuable light upon the thoughts and feelings of the men who lived under the "league of friendship." I take pleasure in acknowledging my indebtedness to Professor McMaster for several interesting ill.u.s.trative details, chiefly in my third, fourth, and seventh chapters. At the same time one is sorely puzzled at some of his omissions, as in the account of the Federal Convention, in which one finds no allusion whatever to the all-important question of the representation of slaves, or to the compromise by which New England secured to Congress full power to regulate commerce by yielding to Georgia and South Carolina in the matter of the African slave-trade. So the discussion as to the national executive is carried on till July 26th, when it was decided that the president should be chosen by Congress for a single term of seven years; then the subject is dropped, and the reader is left to suppose that such was the final arrangement. Instances of what seems like carelessness are sufficiently numerous to make the book in some places an unsafe guide to the general reader, but in spite of such defects, which a careful revision might remedy, its value is great. Further general information as to the period of the Confederation may be found in Morse's admirable _Life of Alexander Hamilton_, 3d ed., 2 vols., Boston, 1882; J.C.

Hamilton's _Republic of the United States_, 7 vols., Boston, 1879; Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_, Boston, 1872, chapter xii.; Von Holst's _Const.i.tutional History_, 5 vols., Chicago, 1877-85, chapter i.; Pitkin's _History of the United States_, 2 vols., New Haven, 1828, vol.

ii.; Marshall's _Life of Washington_, 5 vols., Phila., 1805-07; _Journals of Congress_, 13 vols., Phila., 1800; _Secret Journals of Congress_, 4 vols., Boston, 1820-21.

On the loyalists and their treatment, the able essay by Rev. G.E. Ellis, in Winsor's seventh volume, is especially rich in bibliographical references. See also Sabine's _Loyalists of the American Revolution_, 2 vols., Boston, 1864; Ryerson's _Loyalists of America_, 2 vols., Toronto, 1880; Jones's _New York during the Revolution_, 2 vols., N.Y., 1879.

Although chiefly concerned with events earlier than 1780, the _Journal and Letters of Samuel Curwen_, 4th ed., Boston, 1864, and especially the _Diary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson_, 2 vols., Boston, 1884-86, are valuable in this connection.

For the financial troubles the most convenient general survey is to be found in A.S. Bolles's _Financial History of the United States_, 1774-1789, N.Y., 1879; Sparks's _Life of Gouverneur Morris_, 3 vols., Boston, 1832; Pelatiah Webster's _Political Essays_, Phila., 1791; Phillips's _Colonial and Continental Paper Currency_, 2 vols., Roxbury, 1865-66; Varnum's _Case of Trevett v. Weeden_, Providence, 1787; Arnold's _History of Rhode Island_, 2 vols., N.Y., 1859-60. The best account of the Shays rebellion is G.R. Minot's _History of the Insurrections in Ma.s.sachusetts_, Worcester, 1788; see also Barry's _History of Ma.s.sachusetts_, 3 vols., Boston, 1855-57; Austin's _Life of Gerry_, 2 vols., Boston, 1828-29. A new and interesting account of the northwestern cessions and the Ordinance of 1787 is B.A. Hinsdale's _Old Northwest_, N.Y., 1888; see also Dunn's _Indiana_, Boston, 1888; Cutler's _Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Mana.s.seh Cutler_, 2 vols., Cincinnati, 1887.

In the _Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science_, the following articles bear especially upon subjects here treated and are worthy of careful study: II., v., vi., H.C. Adams, _Taxation in the United States_, 1789-1816; III., i., H.B. Adams, _Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States_; III., ix., x., Davis, _American Const.i.tutions_; IV., v., Jameson's _Introduction to the Const.i.tutional and Political History of the Individual States_; IV., vii.-ix., Shoshuke Sato's _History of the Land Question in the United States_.

For the proceedings of the Federal Convention in framing the Const.i.tution, and of the several state conventions in ratifying it, the great treasure-house of authoritative information is Elliot's _Debates in the Conventions_, 5 vols., originally published under the sanction of Congress in 1830-45; new reprint, Phila., 1888. The contents of the volumes are as follows:--

I. Sundry preliminary papers, relating to the ante-revolutionary period, and the period of the Confederation; journal of the Federal Convention; Yates's minutes of the proceedings; the official letters of Martin, Yates, Lansing, Randolph, Mason, and Gerry, in explanation of their several courses; Jay's address to the people of New York; and other ill.u.s.trative papers.

II, III., IV. Proceedings of the several state conventions; with other doc.u.ments, including the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798, and data relating thereto.

V. Madison's journal of debates in the Congress of the Confederation, Nov. 4, 1782-June 21, 1783, and Feb. 19-April 25, 1787; Madison's journal of the Federal Convention; letters from Madison to Washington, Jefferson, and Randolph, Sept. 1787-Nov.

1788; and other papers.

The best edition of the "Federalist" is by H.C. Lodge, N.Y., 1888. See also Story's _Commentaries on the Const.i.tution_, 4th ed., 3 vols., Boston, 1873; the works of Daniel Webster, 6 vols., Boston, 1851; Hurd's _Theory of our National Existence_, Boston, 1881. The above works expound the Const.i.tution as not a league between sovereign states but a fundamental law ordained by the people of the United States. The opposite view is presented in _The Republic of Republics_, by P.C. Centz [Plain Common Sense, pseudonym of B.J. Sage of New Orleans], Boston, 1881; the works of Calhoun, 6 vols., N.Y., 1853-55; A.H. Stephens's _War between the States_, 2 vols., Phila., 1868; Jefferson Davis's _Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government_, 2 vols., N.Y., 1881.

Several volumes of the "American Statesmen" contain interesting accounts of discussions in the various conventions, as Tyler's _Patrick Henry_, Hosmer's _Samuel Adams_, Lodge's _Hamilton_, Magruder's _Marshall_, Roosevelt's _Morris_. Gay's _Madison_ falls far below the general standard of this excellent and popular series. No satisfactory biography of Madison has yet been written, though the voluminous work of W.C.

Rives contains much good material. For judicial interpretations of the Const.i.tution one may consult B.R. Curtis's _Digest of Decisions_, 1790-1854; Flanders's _Lives of the Chief Justices_, Phila., 1858; Marshall's _Writings on the Federal Const.i.tution_, ed. Perkins, Boston, 1839; see also Pomeroy's _Const.i.tutional Law_, N.Y., 1868; Wharton's _Commentaries_, Phila., 1884; Von Holst's _Calhoun_, Boston, 1882; Tyler's _Letters and Times of the Tylers_, 2 vols., Richmond, 1884-85.

Among critical and theoretical works, Fisher's _Trial of the Const.i.tution_, Phila., 1862, and Lockwood's _Abolition of the Presidency_, N.Y., 1884, are variously suggestive; Woodrow Wilson's _Congressional Government_, Boston, 1885, is a work of rare ability, pointing out the divergence which has arisen between the literary theory of our government and its practical working. Walter Bagehot's _English Const.i.tution_, revised ed., Boston, 1873, had already, in a most profound and masterly fashion, exhibited the divergence between the literary theory and the actual working of the British government. Some points of weakness in the British system are touched in Albert Stickney's _True Republic_, N.Y., 1879; see also his _Democratic Government_, N.Y., 1885. The const.i.tutional history of England is presented, in its earlier stages, with prodigious learning, by Dr.

Stubbs, 3 vols., London, 1873-78, and in its later stages by Hallam, 2 vols., London, 1842, and Sir Erskine May, 2 vols., Boston, 1862-63; see also Freeman's _Growth of the English Const.i.tution_, London, 1872; _Comparative Politics_, London, 1873; _Some Impressions of the United States_, London, 1883; Rudolph Gneist, _History of the English Const.i.tution_, 2 vols., London, 1886; J.S. Mill, _Representative Government_, N.Y., 1862; Sir H. Maine, _Popular Government_, N.Y., 1886; S.R. Gardiner's _Introduction to the Study of English History_, London, 1881. In this connection I may refer to my own book, _American Political Ideas_, N.Y., 1885; and my articles, "Great Britain," "House of Lords,"

and "House of Commons," in Lalor's _Cyclopaedia of Political Science_, 3 vols., Chicago, 1882-84. It is always pleasant to refer to that cyclopaedia, because it contains the numerous articles on American history by Prof. Alexander Johnston. One must stop somewhere, and I will conclude by saying that I do not know where one can find anything more richly suggestive than Professor Johnston's articles.

MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.

The names of those who for various reasons were absent when the Const.i.tution was signed are given in italics; the names of those who were present, but refused to sign, are given in small capitals.

New Hampshire John Langdon.

Nicholas Gilman.

Ma.s.sachusetts ELBRIDGE GERRY.

Nathaniel Gorham.