[1152] Elliott, iii, 1.

[1153] _Ib._, 5-6; also, Journal of the Convention, 7-11.

[1154] Grigsby, i, 69-70. In the descriptions of the dress, manners, and appearance of those who took part in the debate, Grigsby's account has been followed. Grigsby took infinite pains and gave many years to the gathering and verifying of data on these picturesque subjects; he was personally intimate with a large number of the immediate descendants of the members of the Convention and with a few who were eye-witnesses; and his reconstruction of the scenes in the Convention is believed to be entirely accurate.

[1155] Elliott, iii, 3.

[1156] Mason's clause-to-clause resolve was, "contrary to his expectations, concurred in by the other side." (Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, footnote to 124.) And see Washington's gleeful report to the New York Const.i.tutionalists of Mason's error: "This [Mason's resolve] was as unexpected as acceptable to the federalists, and their ready acquiescence seems to have somewhat startled the opposite side for fear they had committed themselves."

(Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 271.)

[1157] Elliott, iii, 4.

[1158] Grigsby, i, 77.

[1159] For a discussion of this tactical blunder of the opponents of the Const.i.tution, see Grigsby, i, 72.

[1160] Elliott, iii, 4.

[1161] Grigsby, i, 75.

[1162] Elliott, iii, 6.

[1163] _Ib._

[1164] Grigsby, i, 77.

[1165] _Ib._, 79.

[1166] _Ib._, 78, 79, 140, 141, 246, 247.

[1167] Elliott, iii, 7-21.

[1168] Grigsby, i, 76.

[1169] Elliott, iii, 21-23.

[1170] Grigsby, i, 83-84.

[1171] Madison was the real designer of the Virginia plan. (Rives, ii, chap. xxvii.)

[1172] This was the point Washington had made to Randolph. It is interesting that, throughout the debate, Randolph, over and over again, used almost the exact language of Washington's letter.

[1173] Elliott, iii, 23-29. Randolph's speech was apologetic for his change of heart. He was not "a candidate for popularity": he had "satisfied his conscience," etc.

[1174] Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 124.

[1175] Jefferson to Short, Sept. 20, 1788; quoting a private letter from Virginia of July 12; _Works_: Ford, v, 431.

[1176] Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 271.

[1177] Bland to Lee, June 13, 1788; Rowland, ii, 243-44. Evidently the opposition was slow to believe that Randolph had irrevocably deserted them; for Bland's letter was not written until Randolph had made his fourth extended speech ten days later.

[1178] Scott, 160.

[1179] Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 271.

[1180] From this delay Randolph's enemies have charged that his letter to Clinton was not posted in time. Much as Randolph had to answer for, this charge is unjust. Letters between Richmond and New York sometimes were two or three months on the way. (See _supra_, chap. VII.)

[1181] Clinton to Randolph, May 8, 1788; Conway, 110-12.

[1182] Clinton to Randolph, May 8, 1788; Conway, 110-12; Henry, ii, 363; Rowland, ii, 276-79; and see _infra_, chap. XII.

[1183] Randolph's change was ascribed to improper motives. Mason was almost offensive in his insinuations during the debate and Henry openly so, as will appear. Randolph's last words to the Convention were explanatory and defensive.

Washington made Randolph his first Attorney-General and he exercised great power for a time. "The Government is now solely directed by Randolph," complained Jefferson. (Conway, 140.) While Washington certainly did not appoint Randolph as a reward for his conduct in the struggle over the Const.i.tution, it is a reasonable inference that he would not have been made a member of the Cabinet if he had not abandoned his opposition, supported the Const.i.tution, and suppressed Clinton's letter.

Virginia had the head of the Cabinet in Jefferson as Secretary of State; Washington himself was from Virginia; and since there were numerous men from other States as well as or better equipped than Randolph for the Attorney-Generalship, his selection for that place is, at least, noteworthy. It gave Virginia the Presidency and two members of a Cabinet which numbered only four in all.

When the Attorney-Generalship was tendered to Randolph, he wrote to Madison bitterly resenting "the load of calumny which would be poured upon" him if he should accept. "For," writes Randolph, "it has been insinuated ... that my espousal of the Const.i.tution had alienated even its friends from me, who would not elect me to the house of representatives. The insinuation has been carried so far as to apply it to the disposal of offices under the government." (Randolph to Madison, July 19, 1789; Conway, 127-28.)

[1184] Rowland, ii, 308.

[1185] Elliott, iii, 29-34.

[1186] Elliott, iii, 34-35.

[1187] Grigsby, i, 99.

[1188] Those who supported the Const.i.tution were called "Federalists"

and its opponents "Anti-Federalists"; but, for sake of clearness, the terms "Const.i.tutionalists" and "Anti-Const.i.tutionalists" are employed in these chapters.

[1189] Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, footnote to 123-24.

[1190] Grigsby, i, footnote to 46.

[1191] Grigsby, i, 101-02. Scenes of a similar character occurred several times in both Senate and House between 1900 and 1911, when one of our elder statesmen, who plainly was nearing the end of life, rose to speak. More than one notable contest, during that decade, was decided by the sympathetic votes of aged friends who answered the call of long years of affection.

[1192] Elliott, iii, 35-41.

[1193] See _infra_, chap, III; also Grigsby, i, 105-06.

[1194] _Ib._, 106-09.

[1195] Elliott, iii, 41-43.

[1196] Elliott, iii, 44. The word "revolution" is printed "resolution"

in Elliott's _Debates_. This is a good example of the inaccuracy of Elliott's reprint of Robertson's stenographic report. In Robertson's _Debates_, published in 1805, the word is correctly printed "revolution." I have cited Elliott only because it is accessible. Even Robertson's report is admittedly meager and unsatisfactory; all the more, therefore, is it to be regretted that Elliott's reprint should be so inaccurate.