bordered almost on temerity. Much was indeed gained when the convention, with something approaching unanimity, could recommend the proposed constitution to the people; but there yet remained difficulties to be overcome equal at least to those which the convention had surmounted.

4

The convention had, it is true,-unlike the articles of confederation, which on all the more important questions demanded unanimity,-declared that the consent of nine states should give force to the new constitution, so far as these nine states were concerned; but it was extremely doubtful whether even this number could be won over to it. In the convention itself, and up to the very last moment, it had been impossible to effect a reconciliation of the opposing views. Franklin had purposely given his motion an ambiguous meaning, in order that the final balhot might have the semblance of entire harmony. This might, for the first moment, have the advantage of making a good impression upon the people. The next in-stant, however, every one must have known that Mason, Randolph, Gerry, and others had decidedly opposed the project and refused it their signature; and then the ruse might have an effect directly opposed to that which Franklin had contemplated. There could be no doubt that the dissenting delegates would endeavor to justify themselves before the public and seek to win public opinion in their favor. Besides, the little phalanx on whom the weight of the battle with the prejudices of the people and with theorizing fanatics and demagogues was to rest, was hopelessly divided. The best names were, it is true, subscribed to the constitution; but there was a good-. ly number of names which were not there and which stood second only to the best. The consequence was that the prestige which would have been gained for the proposed constitution by actual unanimity, was lost. The success of its advocates in the several states depended mainly on

the grounds which could be advanced in its favor; but the disinclination to follow the exposition and development of these grounds attentively and calmly and to weigh the arguments for it against the actual state of affairs, was greater than even the most pusillanimous had feared.'

The reason of this was not a change for the better in the situation which had occurred in the meantime. Nothing, indeed, had happened to make internal discord and distress greater than they had been or to demonstrate how well justified was the vexatious and suspicious contempt with which European powers regarded the republic. Everything remained very nearly in statu quo. But this very fact caused a radical change in the constitution to appear so urgent, that the one proposed met with ardent support at the eleventh hour from parties whom one might have expected to see in the front rank of its opponents. For instance, Randolph, who could not be induced on any account to subscribe to it in Philadelphia, was one of its most powerful defendants in the Virginia convention, although even there he frankly and energetically gave expression to his objections to it.2

The mass of the particularists combined to wage a most acrimonious opposition,the moment the proposed constitu

The reproof given by Lee, of Westmoreland, to Patrick Henry, and the warning he addressed him, might have applied equally to all the speeches of the Anti-Federalists; "Instead of proceeding to investigate the merits of the new plan of government, the worthy charac ter informed us of horrors which he felt, of apprehensions to his mind, which made him tremblingly fearful of the fate of the commonwealth. Mr. Chairman, was it proper to appeal to the fears of this house? The question before us belongs to the judgment of this house. I trust he is come to judge and not to alarm." Elliott, Deb., III., p. 42.

"As with me the only question has ever been between previous and subsequent amendments [to the constitution], so I will express my apprehensions that the postponement of this convention to so late a day has extinguished the probability of the former without inevitable ruin to the Union, and the Union is the anchor of our political salvation." Elliott, Deb., III., p. 25.

FIGHT OF THE PARTICULARISTS.

55

tion was made public. All moderation, we might almost say all reason, seemed to forsake them the instant they saw that the strengthening of the central government and the proportionate consolidation of the states were no longer a theme of stimulating discussion, but that the machinery was already at work to effect the one and the other. The most fanatical assumed the lead; men for whom no weapon was too blunt or brutal so long as they could use it. Their arguments bordered on the extremest absurdity. and their assumptions might have excited the loudest merriment, were it not that the question was one of life or death to the nation. All the bitter experience of the war, and all that followed on its close, was denied and ridiculed as an idle phantom. Out of the proposed constitution, on the other hand, its most harmless provisions not excepted, the same phantom was conjured up day after day; a vague, indefinable something, to which a name understood by everybody was applied, that of "consolidated government," which meant something horrible and to which all that had hitherto been dear to Americans must fall a prey. The same Patrick Henry who, at the outbreak of the Revolution, declared with so much emphasis that he was no longer a Virginian, but an American, asserted now with equal emphasis that under the articles of confederation the people had enjoyed the greatest amount of security and contentment, and that by the resolution to alter the constitution this happy state of affairs had been disturbed and the continuance of the union endangered.1

1 "I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal convention at Philadelphia, a gencral peace and universal tranquillity prevailed in this country, but since that period they are exceedingly uneasy and disqui

To obtain a victory over such opponents, was no easy matter. In several of the states, and in the most import-. ant, the particularists constituted a majority in the conventions which eventually had to decide on the adoption or rejection of the constitution. The prospects of the Federalists were, therefore, gloomy in the highest degree. It is impossible, in fact, to discover more than one reason why the latter did not in these states, immediately after the results of the elections were known or after the, first debates on the subject, give up all further struggle as useless. The nature of their weapons was not such as to inspire them with the hope of overcoming the opposing majority. They fought with the understanding and the negative results of experience. Under ordinary circumstances, these are certainly the strongest of all weapons. But the edge was taken off them here, for the particularists had not come to: weigh, to examine and to judge, but to declaim and spread alarm.' There was no desire to be governed by the dictates

eted. When I wished for an appointment of this convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this federal jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government-a proposał that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states a proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with other nations." Elliott, Deb., III., p. 21. Pendleton sharply replied: "If the public mind was then [be. fore the meeting of the federal convention] at ease, it did not result from a conviction of being in a happy and easy situation; it must have been an inactive, unaccountable stupor." Ibid., III., p. 36.

1 One instance will illustrate the degree of insipidity which declamation had reached at the time. In the Massachusetts convention a certain Nason thus gave vent to his feelings: "And here, sir, I beg the indulgence of this honorable body to permit me to make an apostrophe to liberty. 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 the brightest of jewels tarnished-a jewel worth ten thousand worlds; and shall we part with it so soon? Oh, no!" Elliott, Deb., II., p. 133.

· FEDERALIST TRIUMPH.

57

of reason, no desire to learn from experience at the expense of the complete sovereignty of the states and of the theories which people had become accustomed to invest with the character of unimpeachable dogmas.

This assertion seems to be in conflict with the fact that the constitution was finally adopted, although in several of the conventions the particularists were in a majority. But the question was not one of will: necessity it was that decided it. It was this which prevented the Federalists from ever losing courage entirely, and which ultimately won óver a sufficient number of the opposing majority. Madison and several other members of the Virginia convention. say repeatedly, in their letters, that they were in the minority and they complain yet more frequently that the majority would not be persuaded. And yet they constantly, returned to the attack, because they were rightly' convinced that necessity would in the end compel even Patrick Hen-> ry to acknowledge that some change in the constitution was inevitable. But when this much was gained, it was to be expected that at least some of the particularists would further agree that, at that moment, there was no alternative but to renounce the idea of making any change whatever and leave things to take care of themselves, or to accept this constitution unconditionally, good or bad as it might be, This calculation of the Federalists turned out, on the whole, to be right. Rhode Island, indeed, refused to call a convention, and the convention of North Carolina dis solved without giving its assent to the constitution, al

2

Elliott, Deb., III., p. 399 and passim.

* By 184 to 84 votes. Elliott, Deb., IV., p. 251. The constitution was not adopted by North Carolina until the end of 1789, or by Rhode Is land until the middle of 1790. As an interesting instance of the length to which American political doctrinarians of the period extending from the time of the Missouri compromise to the outbreak of the civil war, have gone, we may quote the assertion of Brownson (The American Rep., p. 288): Hence, if nine states had ratified the constitution, and the other four had stood out and refused to do it, which was within their