Con

67. Expiration of the Confederation (1788). During the session of the convention in Philadelphia Congress had continued to sit in New York, and the The old Northwest Ordinance was passed at this time Congress. (§ 52). On Sept. 13, 1788, Congress voted that the Constitution had been ratified, and that elections should proceed for the officers of the new government, which was to go into operation the first Wednesday in March, 1789.

Since Congress and the President must meet somewhere, it became the duty of the old Congress to fix, Seat of at least temporarily, the seat of government. government. Trenton, Lancaster, Princeton, and New York were suggested. Baltimore was voted; then, with its usual inconsistency, two days later Congress voted for New York. An attempt was made to settle the accounts of Congress; but all that could be ascertained was that they were in great confusion, and that vouchers had not yet been turned in for the expenditure of large sums. Congress On October 23 is the last official record: expires. "Two States attended." During the next five months the only evidences of national life were the perfunctory service of a few executive officers, the feeble movements of the army, now reduced to about six hundred men, and the steady accumulation of unpaid interest.

Rhode Island and North Carolina.

What, meantime, was the situation of the two States, Rhode Island and North Carolina, which had not ratified the Constitution, and which were, therefore, not entitled to take part in the elections? They had in 1781 entered into a constitution which was to be amended only by unanimous consent; their consent was refused; legally they had a right to insist on the continuance of the old Congress. The new

1788.]

Expiration of the Confederation.

133

Constitution was, strictly speaking, unconstitutional; it had been ratified by a process unknown to law. The situation was felt to be delicate, and the States were for the time being left to themselves. North Carolina came into the Union by a ratification of Nov. 21, 1789. It was suggested that the trade of States which did not recognize Congress should be cut off, and Rhode Island yielded. May 19, 1790, her ratification completed the Union.

68. Was the Constitution a Compact ?

The third attempt to form an organic union was now successfully carried out. The irregular authority of the The Constitu- Continental Congress had been replaced by tion irregular. the legal but inefficient Confederation; to this was now to succeed an organized government, complete in all its departments, and well endowed with powers. How had this Constitution been adopted? What was the authority which had taken upon itself to diminish the powers of the States, and to disregard the clauses which required unanimous consent to amendments? Was the new Constitution an agreement between eleven States, or was it an instrument of government for the whole people? Upon this question depends the whole discussion about the nature of the Union and the right of secession.

The first theory is that the Constitution was a compact made between sovereign States. Thus Hayne in 1830 Compact declared that "Before the Constitution each theory. State was an independent sovereignty, possessing all the rights and powers appertaining to independent After the Constitution was formed, they remained equally sovereign and independent as to all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government. . . . The true nature of the Federal Constitution, therefore, is

nations. .

a compact to which the States are parties." The

pri

importance of the word "compact" is that it means an agreement which loses its force when any one of the parties ceases to observe it; a compact is little more than a treaty. Those who framed the Constitution appeared to consider it no compact; for on May 30, 1787, Mr. Randolph moved that "no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual sovereignties, would be sufficient." In fact, the reason for the violent opposition to the ratification of the Constitution was that when once ratified, the States could not withdraw from it.

Another view is presented by Webster in his reply to Hayne: "It is, sir, the people's Constitution, the people's Constitution government, made for the people, made by the theory. people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law." It is plain that the Constitution does not rest simply upon the consent of the majority of the nation. No popular vote was taken or thought of; each act of ratification set forth that it proceeded from a convention of the people of a State.

The real nature of the new Constitution appears in the light of the previous history of the country. The Basis of the Articles of Confederation had been a comConstitution. pact. One of the principal reasons why the Confederation was weak was that there was no way of compelling the States to perform their duties. The new Constitution was meant to be stronger and more permanent. The Constitution was, then, not a compact, but an instrument of government similar in its origin to the constitutions of the States. The difference was that, by general agreement, it was not to take effect until it was shown that in at least nine States the people were willing to live under it. Whatever the defects of the Confederation, however humiliating its weakness to our national

ed we

the

go

1788.]

Was the Constitution a Compact?

135

pride, it had performed an indispensable service: it had educated the American people to the point where they were willing to accept a permanent federal union. As the "Federalist" put it, “A nation without a national government is an awful spectacle."

17

CHAPTER VII.

ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
(1789-1793).

69. References.

Bibliographies. W. E. Foster, References to Presidential Administrations, 1-5; References to the Constitution, 18, 19; Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, VII. 299-309, 323-329, 413418, 446, 454, VIII. App.; P. L. Ford, Bibliotheca Hamiltonia; Channing and Hart, Guide, §§ 157-161.

Historical Maps. Nos. 1 and 3, this volume, and No. 1 in W. Wilson, Division and Reunion (Epoch Maps, Nos. 6, 7, and 8); T. MacCoun, Historical Geography; Scribner, Statistical Atlas, Plate 13. General Accounts. J. B. McMaster, People of the United States, I. 525-604; II. 1–88; R. Hildreth, United States, IV. 25-410; J. Schouler, United States, I. 74-220; H. Von Holst, Constitutional History, I. 64-111; T. Pitkin, Political and Civil History, II. 317355; Geo. Tucker, United States, I. 384-503: J. S. Landon, Constitutional History, 97-119; Bryant and Gay, Popular History, IV. 100-123.

Special Histories. - George Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, I. 28–88; J. C. Hamilton, History of the Republic, IV.; W. G. Sumner, Alexander Hamilton; H. C. Adams, Taxation in the United States (1789-1816); W. G. Sumner, Financier and Finances of the American Revolution, II. chs. xvii.xxxii.; J. T. Morse, Life of Hamilton, I. chs. vii.-xii. ; M. P. Follet, Speaker; H. C. Lodge, Hamilton, 88-152, and Washington, II. 1-128; J. T. Morse, John Adams, 241-264, and Jefferson, 96-145; S. H. Gay, Madison, 128-192.

Contemporary Accounts. W. Maclay, Journal (1789–1791) (a racy account of the Senate in the First Congress); Thomas Jefferson, Anas, in Works, ix. 87-185 (confessedly made up twenty-five years later); William Sullivan, Familiar Letters on Public Characters, 3647 (written in reply to Jefferson); Joel Barlow, Vision of Columbus, 1787 (an epic poem); correspondence in works of Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and John Jay; newspapers, especially the Columbian Centinel, Gazette of the United States, National Gazette. - Reprints in American History told by Contemporaries, III.