invitation, commissioners from the two States met at Mount Vernon, to discuss these matters. There it was decided to hold another meeting to which Pennsylvania also should be invited, as she, too, was interested in Chesapeake Bay. Washington had suggested that the proposed meeting, since it concerned improvement in the means of commerce, should consider also the possibility of uniform duties on that commerce. Maryland expressed approval, and asked whether it might not be well to invite other States to the proposed conference; and Virginia finally issued an invitation to all the States to send representatives to Annapolis, September 1, 1786.

335. Only five States appeared at this Annapolis Convention. Even Maryland failed to choose delegates. But New Jersey had instructed her representatives to try to secure, not only uniform duties, but also other measures which might render the Confederation adequate to the needs of the times. This thought was made the basis of a new call. The delegates at Annapolis adopted an address (drawn by Hamilton) urging all the States to send Commissioners to Philadelphia the following May,"to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union," and to report to Congress such an act "as when agreed to by them [Congress], and confirmed by the legislatures of every State, will effectually provide for" those exigencies.

At first this call attracted little attention. But the sudden increase of anarchy in the fall of 1786 brought men to recognize the need for immediate action (§ 329). Here was the opportunity. Madison persuaded the Virginia legislature to appoint delegates and to head the list with the name of Washington. Other States followed promptly; and the Philadelphia Convention became a fact.

Even in Virginia there was warm opposition to a convention. Patrick Henry refused to attend, and the young Monroe called the meeting unwise. Washington thought of declining his appointment, not because the meeting was not needed, but because he expected it to turn out a fizzle. Not until late in March did he agree to go, after three months of hesitation.

§ 337]

THE FEDERAL CONVENTION

285

336. The famous Philadelphia Convention lasted four monthsfrom May 25, 1787, to September 17. The debates were guarded by the most solemn pledges of secrecy. Most that we know about them comes from Madison's notes. Madison had been disappointed in the meager information regarding the establishment of earlier confederacies, and he believed that upon the success of the federation now to be formed "would be staked ... possibly the cause of liberty throughout the world.” Accordingly, he determined to preserve full records of its genesis. Missing no session, he kept careful notes of each day's proceedings and of each speaker's arguments; and each evening he wrote up these notes more fully, submitting them sometimes to the speakers for correction. In 1837, when every member of the Convention had passed away, Congress bought this manuscript from Mrs. Madison, and published it as " Madison's Journal of the Constitutional Convention." A few other members took imperfect notes and several wrote letters that throw light upon the attitude of certain men.1

Seventy-three

337. Fifty-five men sat in the Convention. delegates were appointed; but eighteen failed to appear. Twenty-nine of the fifty-five had benefited by college life; but among those who had missed that training were Franklin and Washington. With few exceptions the members were young men, several of the most active being under thirty. The entire body was English by descent and traditions. Three notable members - Alexander Hamilton of New York, and James Wilson and Robert Morris of Pennsylvania-had been born English subjects outside the United States; and the great South Carolina delegates, Rutledge and the Pinckneys, had been educated in England.

Virginia and New Jersey were to give their names to the two schemes that contended for mastery in the Convention; and their delegations, therefore, are of special interest. Virginia sent seven members. Among them were Washington, George

All these sources are collected and edited by Professor Max Farrand in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787.

Mason (who eleven years before had drawn the first State constitution), Edmund Randolph, her brilliant young Governor, and Madison, who was to earn the title "Father of the Constitution." New Jersey sent four delegates, all tried statesmen : Livingstone, eleven times her Governor; Patterson, ten times her Attorney-General; Brearly, her great Chief Justice, who had taken the greatest step in America so far toward magnifying the function of the courts (§ 352, b, note); and Houston, many times her Congressman.

These delegations were typical. "Hardly a man in the Convention," says McMaster, "but had sat in some famous assembly, had filled some high place, or had made himself conspicuous for learning, for scholarship, or for signal service rendered in the cause of liberty."

338. But this illustrious company felt a deep distrust of democracy. They did not believe in a "government of the people and by the people." In their political thought, they were much closer to John Winthrop than to Abraham Lincoln. They wished a government for the people, but by what they were fond of calling "the wealth and intelligence of the country." At best, they were willing only so far to divide power between "the few" and "the many " as to keep each class from oppressing the other, and they felt particular tenderness for "the few." The same causes that made them desire a stronger government · made them wish also a more aristocratic government. It seemed an axiom to them that the unhappy conditions of their country were due (as Gerry1 phrased it) to "an excess of democracy."

Necessarily the men of the Convention belonged to the eighteenth century, not the twentieth. But, more than that, they represented the crest of a reactionary movement of their own day. In the early Revolutionary years, the leaders had been forced to throw themselves into the arms of democracy for protection against England (§ 231), and those years had been

1 Elbridge Gerry was one of the four delegates from Massachusetts, perhaps the most democratic of them, and, some years later, a real democratic leader.

§ 338]

DISTRUST OF DEMOCRACY

287

marked by a burst of noble enthusiasm for popular government. But, when the struggle was over, the "leaders of society " began to look coldly upon further partnership with distasteful allies no longer needed; and this inevitable tendency was magnified by the unhappy turbulence of the times. By 1785, especially among the professional and commercial classes, a conservative reaction had set in; and this expressed itself emphatically in the Philadelphia Convention. Says Woodrow Wilson (Division and Reunion, 12):—

"The Federal government was not by intention a democratic government. In plan and in structure it had been meant to check the sweep and power of popular majorities. . [It] had in fact been originated and organized upon the initiative, and primarily in the interest, of the mercantile and wealthy classes.”

May 31, the second day of debate, Gerry declared that he “abhorred” pure democracy as "the worst of all political evils.” 1 The same day, Roger Sherman of Connecticut objected to the popular election of the members even of the lower House of Congress, because "the people, immediately, should have as little to do as may be about the government"; and Randolph explained that the Senate, in the Virginia plan, was designed as "a check against this tendency" [democracy]. In tracing to their origin the evils under which the country labored, "every man," he affirmed, "had found [that origin] in the turbulence and follies of democracy." Two days later, Dickinson declared " a limited monarchy. one of the best governments in the world. It was not certain that equal blessings were derivable from any other form.... A limited monarchy, however, was out of the question. The spirit of the times forbade the experiment. . . . But though a form the most perfect perhaps in itself be unattainable, we must not despair"; and he proceeded to suggest ways to make property count in the new government. June 6, he returned to this theme, urging that the Senate should be "carried through such a refining process [viz., indirect elections

...

1 The following quotations in this chapter all come from Madison's Journal. unless otherwise indicated.

and property qualifications] as will assimilate it, as nearly as may be, to the House of Lords in England."

Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, one of the most brilliant and effective men in the Convention, also believed it essential that the Senate should be "an aristocratic body," composed of

rich men holding office for life. Said he, "It must have great personal property; it must have the aristocratic spirit; it must love to lord it through pride." Morris, Rufus King of Massachusetts, and Rutledge strove strenuously to have wealth represented in the lower House also, affirming, each of them, that "property is the main object of government"; nor did this claim, so un-American to our ears, call forth one protest that government should concern itself as much with human rights as with property rights.

Hamilton held, perhaps, the most extreme ground against democracy. He " acknowledged himself not to think favorably of republican government. . . . He was sensible at the same time that it would be unwise [for the convention] to propose one of any other form. But in his private opinion, he had no scruple in declaring, supported as he was by the opinion of so many of the good and wise, that the British government was the best in the world, and he doubted much whether anything short of it would do in America." It was "the model to which we should approach as nearly as possible." The House of Lords he styled "a most noble institution," especially commending it as "a permanent barrier against every pernicious innovation."

1

339. Such statements went almost unchallenged. Dissent, if expressed at all, cloaked itself in apologetic phrase. This was due to the unfortunate absence of a group of splendid figures

1 Hamilton then presented a detailed plan, which, he said, represented his own views of what was desirable in America: - an Executive for life, with extreme monarchic powers (including an absolute veto), chosen by indirect election; a Senate for life, chosen by indirect election; and a representative assembly chosen by freeholders; this government was to appoint the governors of the States, and, through them, to exercise an absolute veto upon all State legislation.