FRANKLIN GIVES A DINNER 65
119 ment in the country, then coming into existence and be
coming self-conscious. Some of the philosophical radicals had been carried away with the political philosophy o f the Encyclopaedists in France, and had their influence been felt in the Convention it is not impossible that it would have termi
nated, as did the Assembly of Notables, then meeting in France, in a violent revolution. In the latter part o f the Eighteenth Century the spirit o f revolt was in the air and the very founda
tions o f society were about to be sapped by the French Revolution.
W ith this element it was not a question o f the relative power o f the States and the Nation, but rather a revolt o f the people against any form o f government which limited their activities.
The greatest o f the philosophical radicals was Thomas Jeffer
son. A very great leader, he united strength o f intellect w ith an emotional idealism that made him the greatest apostle of the democratic spirit. That his powerful and finely edu
cated mind would have been o f value in the Convention cannot be questioned, but his somewhat visionary idealism would have led him to propose many novel expedients in government which would have destroyed the simplicity o f the Constitution and impaired its efficiency. Had he been a delegate his influence would have been immeasurable, fo r the eloquent author of the Declaration o f Independence would not have lacked followers e\en in that conservative Convention. He was a natural poli
tician in the best sense o f the word and the great source of his strength was his ability to appeal to the popular imagina
tion, and, judging by his subsequent career, it may be ques
tioned whether, i f he had been in the Convention, its secrets would have been kept inviolate. His political methods were too often subterranean. Although a Virginian, he would have espoused in all probability the cause o f the smaller States, as he was always jealous of governmental power. His unequaled sagacity as a leader o f the people and his implicit faith in their judgment would probably have induced him in the critical hours o f the Convention to appeal to public opinion, and had this been the case the Convention would have come to a disastrous end. Fortunately, Jefferson
N E A R IN G T H E C R IS IS
was in France, and therefore could not attend the Conven
tion. Although absent he rendered no inconsiderable service to the cause of constitutional government, for it was partly at his instance that the B ill o f Rights, consisting of the first ten amendments, was adopted. But his presence in the Convention would probably have had as disastrous effect as marked his membership in Washington’s Cabinet.
It was also very fortunate that two other leaders in the Revolution were also absent, fo r Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry both declined to participate. As a fiery and impassioned agitator, Adams would have added little to the careful delibera
tions o f the Convention. We know what Patrick Henry’s attitude would have been, for when the Convention was pro
mulgated it had w ith the exception o f Luther M artin no more bitter opponent than the eloquent Virginian. As nearly all the great conclusions o f the Convention were reached by an almost evenly divided vote, it is easy to understand how the wise decisions which were generally reached would have been frus
trated, i f Patrick Henry had taken the floor and swept his audience w ith his “ torrents of sublime eloquence.”
The absence of those, who like Jefferson, Adams and Henry were either from philosophical considerations or class conscious
ness advanced radicals, was the salvation of the Convention.
Luther M artin tells us in his statement about the Maryland legislature that there were three parties in the Convention.
W hile his characterisation of them discloses his strong par
tisanship, yet it is of value in showing the factions as viewed by the leader o f one of them. He classifies them as follows :
“ One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring fo r
ward one general government, over this extensive con
tinent, o f a monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this senti
ment were, it is true, but few ; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there was a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others o f the Convention, considered as being in reality favorers o f that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly en-120 T H E C O N S T IT U T IO N
deavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.
The second party was not for the abolition of the State governments, nor for the introduction o f a monarchical government under any fo rm ; but they wished to establish such a system, as could give their own States undue power and influence in the government over the other States.
A th ird party was what I considered tru ly federal and republican; this party was nearly equal in number w ith the other two, and was composed o f the delegations from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and in part from M aryland; also of some individuals from other representations. This party, Sir, were for proceeding upon terms o f federal equality; they were fo r taking our present federal system as the basis of their proceedings, and, as far as experience had shown us that there were defects, to remedy those defects; as far as experience had shown that other powers were necessary to the federal government, to give those powers. They considered this the object for which they were sent by their States, and what their States expected from them; they urged, that, if, after doing this, experience should show that there still were defects in the system (as no doubt there would be), the same good sense that induced this Convention to be called, would cause the States, when they found it necessary, to call another; and, i f that Convention should act w ith the same moderation, the members of it would proceed to correct such errors and defects as experience should have brought to light. That, by proceeding in this train, we should have a prospect at length o f obtaining as perfect a system of federal government, as the nature of things would admit.
O f the first party thus characterised by M artin w ith some exaggeration Alexander Hamilton was the leader. He had a few sympathizers, like Gouverneur Morris, but no supporters, fo r he was the whole party.
The leaders on the floor of the second party were James Madison, Edmund Randolph and James Wilson, but its real leaders were George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.
N E A R IN G T H E C R IS IS 121
122 T H E C O N S T IT U T IO N
The leaders of the third party were undoubtedly Luther M artin and George Mason.
The strategy of the fight which was precipitated from the very beginning was of extraordinary interest. The real con
flict was between the second and third parties as characterised by Martin. Neither of these could be certain of a victory.
They may be called, and w ill be referred to hereafter, as the National Party and the States’ Rights Party. W hile the Nationalists were apparently in the minority, yet they had in their favor the potent argument o f the desperate con
ditions of the times. Upon the other hand the States’ Rights Party had the advantage o f superiority in numbers and the powerful traditions o f the past. I t was a contest between the past and the future, between traditions and the inexorable demands o f economic necessity.
Neither side had sufficient confidence to precipitate the issue at the beginning o f the Convention. Each moved w ith great caution. Had the Nationalists at that time submitted a con
crete plan o f the Constitution based upon their fifteen abstract propositions, it would unquestionably have been rejected or the Convention dissolved.
On the other hand, the States’ Rights Party could not safely submit an alternative scheme o f government because its in
adequacy to the critical conditions o f the times would become immediately apparent.
The Nationalists won the first skirmish by the rule of secrecy, fo r i f the States’ Rights Party had defeated this provi
sion they would have been omnipotent in the Convention.
The Nationalists preferred to open the fight by first sub
m itting abstract propositions, obviously to feel their way cau
tiously and see what plan o f government could finally be sub
mitted w ith some prospect o f success. The States’ Rights Party accepted this plan as advantageous fo r their own interests and the reason is given by Luther M artin in his explanation to the Maryland legislature as follows (p. 174) :
“ Hopes were formed, that the farther we proceeded in the examination o f the resolutions, the better the House
might be satisfied of the impropriety of adopting them, and that they would finally be rejected by a m ajority of the committee; i f on the contrary, a m ajority should re
port in their favor, it was considered, that it would not preclude the members from bringing forward and sub
m itting any other system to the consideration of the Con
vention; and accordingly, while those resolves were the subject o f discussion in the committee o f the whole House, a number o f the members, who disapproved them, were preparing another system, such as they thought more con
ducive to the happiness and welfare o f the States
N E A R IN G T H E C R IS IS 123
C H A P T E R X
T H E C R ISIS
“ Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide
In the strife o f truth w ith falsehood fo r the good or evil side.’’
— Lowell.
A
T times the debate became bitter in the extreme. James Wilson, a delegate o f Pennsylvania and a Scotchman by birth and education, turning to the representatives o f the little States, passionately said:“ W ill you abandon a country to which you are bound by so many strong and enduring ties ? Should the event happen, it w ill neither stagger my sentiments nor duty. I f the m inority o f the people refuse to coalesce w ith the ma
jo rity on just and proper principles, i f a separation must take place, it could never happen on better grounds.”
He referred to the demand of the larger States that repre
sentation should be proportioned to the population. To this Bedford, o f Delaware, as heatedly replied:
“ We have been told w ith a dictatorial air that this is the last moment fo r a fa ir trial in favour o f good gov
ernment. I t w ill be the last, indeed, i f the propositions reported by the committee go forth to the people. The large States dare not dissolve the Convention. I f they do, the small ones w ill find some foreign ally o f more honor and good faith, who w ill take them by the hand and do them justice.”
1 2 4
T H E C R IS IS 125