Organized and ready, the Federalists at first carried all before them, securing ratification during December and January in Delaware, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, and, after a bitter struggle, in Pennsylvania. A long debate and the tardy aid of Sam Adams converted a hostile majority in Massachusetts, by a close vote; and somewhat later, Maryland and South Carolina were added to the list, making eight States.

Ratification

tions

The remaining States were long doubtful or opposed. North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to ratify. They could be spared,—as perhaps could have been New by conven- Hampshire, whose convention had adjourned for some months without action; but a failure in New York or Virginia would have upset the whole movement. In the conventions of both these States, as in that of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, there was at first a strong hostile majority; and, after many weeks of argument and persuasion, to have defeated ratification would have required in Narrow the final vote a change in Virginia, of only 5 out majorities of 168, and in New York, of 2 out of 57. Even these slim majorities for the Constitution were obtained only by pledges from the Federalists that they would join in getting certain desired amendments as soon as the new government should be in working order.

In general the commercial centers favored the Constitution, while the agricultural and especially the western sections opposed it. In all the critical States a direct vote of the people would surely have rejected it. There was only one such test. The Rhode Island legislature, instead of calling a convention, distributed copies of the Constitution among the voters and provided for a popular vote. The Federalists, certain of defeat, declaimed against this method, and remained away from the polls. The vote stood 2708 to 232, against ratification. Two years later, a convention accepted the Constitution, 34 to 32.

The New Hampshire convention changed its mind, and ratified on June 15, 1788 (making the ninth State); but

the absolutely essential accession of Virginia did not take place until June 25, just in time for word to reach the North for the Fourth of July celebrations. At Albany the news caused the wildest excitement. The Federalists celebrated by firing ten guns for the new government. The Antis retorted with thirteen guns for the Confederation, which, they claimed, was still the constitutional government. Afterwards, they made a bonfire of a copy of the new Constitution and of the handbills announcing Virginia's ratification. In the ashes, the rallied Federalists planted a lofty pole with another copy of the Constitution nailed to the top. This Federalist jubilation was justified. The

From the Boston Independent Chronicle, June 12, 1788. (The Chronicle guessed wrong as to the order of the 9th and 10th states.)

by States

Who ratified the Constitution? The several States, as States? Or one consolidated people? The second view rests wholly on the opening words of the pre- Ratification amble: "We, the people of the United States. . . do ordain and establish this constitution." Merely or Nation? as language, these words have no more value than the Fifth Article of the Constitution, which says twice that the ratifying parties are the States: and such slight significance as the preamble might otherwise have disappears upon tracing its history.

The preamble appeared first in the report of the Committee of Detail; but it then read "We, the people of the

States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island [and so on through the list] do ordain," etc. Plainly, this did not mean a consolidated nation. It meant thirteen peoples, each acting directly, not through legislatures. The Convention accepted this wording without debate. Almost at the close of the Convention, the Committee on Style changed the words to their present form. No explanation was ever made by a member of the Convention for the change, but it explains itself. The Convention had now decided to put the new government into operation between the first nine States ratifying. It was impossible to name these in advance, and it would be highly improper to name any which might not come in; so all names were dropped out. No change of meaning was designed. The new form, like the first, was accepted without debate.

Outside the Convention, however, this was at first not understood; and States-rights men feared that the wording did mean a consolidated people, until Madison assured them that it did not. Samuel Adams wrote to Richard Henry Lee, "I stumble at the threshold." And in the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry exclaimed, — “What right had they to say, 'We, the people' . . . instead of ‘We, the States'? If the States be not the parties to this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the States." Madison answered: "Who are the parties? The people; but not the people as composing one great body: the people as composing thirteen sovereignties." Otherwise, he adds in proof, a majority would bind all the States; "but, sir, no State is bound, as it is, without its own consent." And he went on to explain that the words mean only that in each State the people were to act in the most solemn way, not merely through the usual legislative channel.

In the Federalist (No. 39) Madison amplified this thought: Ratification “is to be given by the people, not as individuals, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is the assent and rati

fication of the several States, derived from the Supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves [not merely from the subordinate authority of the State legislature] . . . Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act." This answer was final at the time. But thirty years later, the doctrine of ratification by a consolidated people was revived by Chief Justice Marshall. It was soon given added emphasis by the massive oratory of Daniel Webster, and the idea took its place in the mind of the North as an essential article in the creed of patriotism. The plain historical fact, however, is that the thirteen States, looking upon themselves as thirteen distinct sovereignties, and, feeling absolutely free either to accept or reject the Constitution, did decide to accept it, — and, by so doing, made possible the future development of one nation. Says William McDonald (Jacksonian Democracy, 109, 110):

"Webster's doctrine of 'the people' was a glorious fiction. It has entered into the warp and woof of our constitutional creed; but it was fiction, nevertheless. If anything is clear in the history of the United States, it is that the Constitution was established by the States, acting through conventions authorized by the legislatures thereof, and not by the people of the United States, in any such sense as Webster had in mind. . . . No theory could have a slighter foundation."

CHAPTER XVI

FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION

I. MAKING THE CONSTITUTION MOVE

SEPTEMBER 13, 1786, the dying Continental Congress proIvided for elections under the new Constitution. Nine States were present when that vote was taken. A week later, the attendance had sunk to six States. Thereafter, to keep up a shadow of government, a few delegates met day by day, had their names recorded in the journal, and then adjourned to some favorite tavern. Congress expired for want of a quorum several months before the new government was organized.

The election

ton

The elections that made Washington President were very different from elections in a presidential campaign now. Rhode Island and North Carolina had not yet of Washing- come into the union, and New York lost her vote (as explained on the next page). Thus only ten States took part. In six of these, the legislatures chose the presidential electors. Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia chose them by popular vote, in districts. Massachusetts used a quaint union of these two methods (the people in each Congressional district nominating three electors from whom the legislature chose one with two more at large to make up the proper number). In no State did the people elect directly, on one general ticket, as is almost always done to-day.

Two legislatures gave forceful illustrations of the bitterness of party spirit and of disregard of the people's will by Peculiarities "delegated" government. In elections by legisla tures, custom favored a joint ballot (the two Houses voting as one body); and this method was used without question in five of the six States which chose electors by legislatures. But in New Hampshire, the upper House

of the election