The Forces of Disunion XVII THE WORK OF THE FATHERS The conditions described in the last chapter caused thoughtful men to see that if the powers of the Central Government were not increased the Union would fall to pieces. So the statesmen of the time rallied their forces and secured for the United States a new Constitution, the one which we have to-day. What led to the formation of the new Constitution? What kind of a government did the new Constitution establish? What was the organization of that government and what were its powers? CONFLICTING FORCES Far-sighted statesmen, seeing that the Confederation had lost the respect of the people and that the Union was on the verge of a collapse, came forward with measures designed to strengthen the power of the Central Government and bind. the States in a closer union. But they undertook a difficult task. Powerful forces were operating to keep the States apart. Geographical conditions were unfavorable to union. Long distances and imperfect means of communication made it impossible for the people of one State to know much of the lives and the thoughts of the people of another. Men seldom passed beyond the boundaries of the State in which they were born. "Of the affairs of Georgia," wrote James Madison, of Virginia, in 1786, "I know as little as of those of Kamchatka." Then, too, the interests of one section of the country were opposed to the interests of another section. The North had manufacturing interests which it desired to protect and augment by imposing duties upon importations. The South, on the other hand, having no factories, welcomed the importation of foreign goods free of customs duties. Since this was so, how could a Central Government enact a customs law which would be equally acceptable to all the ports along the Atlantic coast? But the thing that operated most powerfully against union was the fact that the people almost everywhere feared the power of a Central Government. In 1787 the people of the United States were such lovers of liberty, were so enamoured of the rights of the individual, that they were loath to bestow power upon any government, whether local, state, or national. They were inclined to distrust government. Indeed, many people cherished an attitude of mind that was positively hostile to government. Jefferson, the greatest of the popular leaders, said in 1787: "I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical . . . it is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." Men who entertained such extreme individualistic notions-and they were probably in the majority-believed that to give the United States a strong Central Government would but set up an instrument of tyranny and oppression. Forces of But there were centripetal as well as centrifugal forces at The work. First, the States were alike in their social and political structure and were fitted for union by reason of their common origin; their common language, and the similarity of their laws, manners, and customs. Second, there was the great national domain beyond the mountains, the Northwest Territory. This belonged to the United States, and, if the States would only hold together, the countless acres of this vast heritage would be sold and the money would be turned into the treasury of the United States for the common benefit. But if the Union should be dissolved, most of the States would be shut out of all interest and claim in the western lands. So the possession of the Northwest Territory was a powerful factor in holding the Union together. Lastly, the very dangers of disunion were by 1786 drawing the States together. Shays's Rebellion and kindred acts of lawlessness opened men's eyes to the actual condition of affairs and caused them to see the evils of disunion in their true light. Men saw that if the Central Government should pass completely out of existence and each State should become an independent power, there would be scattered along the coast thirteen weak little nations instead of one strong one. In such a condition of disunion the country would be the easy prey of the invader. State would quarrel The Movement for Strengthening the Articles with State, and all the social, moral, and intellectual advantages which flow from union would be lost. Such were the forces of union and disunion when Washington and other statesmen began in earnest their efforts to infuse more life and power into the National Government. THE MOVEMENT FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION The movement to amend and strengthen the Articles began almost immediately after their adoption and continued from time to time in the years following, but every attempt of this kind ended in failure, because amendment required the consent of every State, and complete unanimity could in no case be secured. In 1785, however, there was taken the first of a series of steps that rapidly led to a complete change in the form of the American political system. Early in that year commissioners from Maryland and Virginia met at Washington's home at Mount Vernon to adjust some matters of interstate navigation. At this meeting Washington suggested that the two States ought to enter into an agreement for the regulation of interstate commerce in all particulars. The discussion following this suggestion showed that if there was to be any useful regulation of commerce between the States all the States must join. Accordingly, all the States were invited to appoint commissioners to meet in convention at Annapolis, in September, 1786, for the purpose of "taking into consideration the trade of the United States." When the time for the convention arrived only five States were represented. As this representation was considered too small for the accomplishment of the purpose for which the convention was called, the Annapolis meeting adjourned without taking decisive action. Before adjourning, however, it recommended that a convention of all the States be held at Philadelphia in May, 1787, "to take into consideration the situation of the United States and to devise such further provisions as shall appear necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union." The response to this recommendation encouraged the tutional tion friends of reform. Before the date fixed for the meeting all A Consti the States had agreed to send delegates to the proposed con- Convenvention, except New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Later Called New Hampshire appointed delegates, but Rhode Island persisted in her refusal to take part. In the selection of delegates to the convention no popular election was held; the selection was made in each case by the state legislature. Congress, seeing the drift of affairs, resolved in February, 1787, that it was expedient that in May a convention be held at Philadelphia "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and to report such alterations as should render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." Surely the forces of centralization were now moving swiftly enough; two years of agitation by the friends of strong government had resulted in the calling of a national constitutional convention, the first body of its kind that the world had ever seen. of Com Ability And it was a body of commanding ability that met at the A Body State-House in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. In the mem- manding bership of the Convention were the best men in America: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Rufus King, William Paterson, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, Oliver Ellsworth, John DickinOf the fifty-five delegates in attendance all were highminded patriotic Americans capable of conceiving their own interests in terms of the interest of the nation. son. THE WORK OF THE CONVENTION Govern Although the Convention was called for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, it was soon seen that a mere revision would be patchwork and would bring no relief to the country. So it was decided to strike out boldly Federal and plan an entirely new government that would have power ment to accomplish the purposes for which it was established. The new government was to be truly federal: it was to be sovereign in respect to matters which concerned the States taken collectively, while each separate State was to retain unim The paired its sovereignty in respect to those matters which concerned only itself. The power of this new federal government was to be real: it was to act independently of the States, and was not to be restrained by them; it was to have its own organization, its own laws, and its own officers; and in the execution of its laws it was to deal with individuals and not with States. Under the Articles of Confederation the Central Government (Congress) could deal only with the States, and over a State it could exert no real power. If Congress in 1785 had sent its officers to Massachusetts to compel that State to do something it did not wish to do, the officers of Congress would have been as fiercely resisted as the officers of George III were resisted ten years before. But the power of the new Federal Government was to be directed so as not to clash with the power of a State; it was to reach the individual directly, make laws for him, take money out of his pocket for taxes, try him in federal courts, and punish him if he violated federal laws. The new Government was to rest upon the power of the people (1),1 and was to be proclaimed as having been established by them. A new scheme of organization was regarded as necessary, for the existing framework was a mere shadow. A model for the organization of the new Federal Government was seen in the existing State governments (p. 166), and it was quickly determined by the Convention that the proposed Federal Government should consist of a legislative, an executive, and a judicial department. The legislative department was to be a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives (2). But how were the States to be represented in Congress? This question gave the Convention a vast amount of trouble. The large States wished to be represented according to population. The small States wished representation in the new Congress to be on the same basis as it was under the Confederation; that is, one State, large or small, was to have one vote and no more. After a long debate a compromise was 1 The numbers which hereafter occur in heavy-faced type refer to passages in the Constitution of the United States (Appendix A), which are distinguished by corresponding numbers on the margin. |