Union under the Articles of Confederation The work of the second Congress had scarcely opened before the boldest of the leaders began to urge that independence was inevitable, and that it should be accompanied by confederation and negotiations with foreign powers. As early as July 21, 1775, the Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole to take into consideration the state of America, and Dr. Franklin submitted a draft of a plan for confederation. Under the stress of the conflict without, Congress was compelled to postpone the immediate discussion and completion of the union, and it was not until the summer of the following year, June 11, 1776, that a committee was appointed to prepare articles of confederation. The report of this committee made about one month later was then the subject of intermittent and lengthy debates. The report of the committee to the effect that, in determining all questions, each colony should have one vote, gave rise to a spirited discussion. Dr. Franklin urged that if the smaller colonies gave equal money and men they should have equal votes, and advocated that votes should be in proportion to numbers. Franklin was supported by Dr. Rush, who represented the strong nationalist feeling, and made a national plea against the doctrine that the states were equal. "It will tend," he said, "to keep up colonial distinctions. We are now a new nation. Our trade, language, customs, manners don't differ more than they do in Great Britain. The more a man aims at serving America, the more he serves his colony. It will promote factions in Congress and in the States; it will prevent the growth of freedom in America; we shall be loth to admit new colonies into the confederation. If we vote by numbers, liberty will be always safe. . . . We are dependent on each other, not totally independent States. . . . When I entered that door, I considered myself a citizen of America." 2 The view of Franklin and Rush was not shared by the majority of the Congress, however. Mr. Sherman urged that they were representatives of states, not of individuals, though he was willing to see devised a system by which the states and John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 503-510. 2 Ibid., pp. 496 ff. individuals should both be represented. The Congress at last decided that each state retained "its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right" not expressly granted to the United States in Congress assembled, and provided that in Congress each state, regardless of its area, population, and wealth, should have one vote. Other questions, notably taxation,' were thoroughly considered and the final draft approved in November, 1777. On the day that the agreement was reached, the Articles, accompanied by a long and eloquent letter urging ratification, were submitted to the legislatures of the states. The framers pointed out the difficulty involved in the formation of a permanent union accommodated to the opinions and wishes of the delegates of so many states differing in habits, produce, commerce, and internal police; and recommended that the state legislatures review their work "under a sense of the difficulty of combining in one general system the various sentiments and interests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and independent communities, under a conviction of the absolute necessity of uniting all our councils and all our strength to maintain and defend our common liberties." 2 Notwithstanding the discouragements of the war then in progress and the imperative need for a closer coöperation to secure the independence declared in 1776, the states were slow in ratifying the Articles. It is true, eleven states accepted the plan of union within a year, but of these New York added a proviso that its acceptance should not be binding until the others had agreed, and some proposed alterations in the draft submitted. It was not until the opening of 1781 that Maryland, which had so long abstained from ratification on account of the western land question, finally accepted the Articles of Confederation. At noon on March 1 of that year the roar of cannon from the ships of war in the Delaware announced to the world that the Union "begun by necessity" had been "indissolubly cemented." The government provided by the Articles of Confederation, as we shall see, became more famous for its weakness and short 1 Jefferson, Works (Ford Ed.), Vol. I, pp. 38 ff. comings than for its positive achievements. The management of the general interests of the United States was vested under the Articles in a Congress composed of not less than two nor more than seven delegates from each state, appointed as the state legislatures should direct, serving subject to recall at any time, and meeting annually. In this Congress, each state was given one vote and had to assume the expense of maintaining its delegates. No president or permanent executive was provided, but Congress was authorized to appoint a committee to serve during its recesses and discharge such duties as might be intrusted to it. No confederate court was erected, but Congress was authorized to act as a court of appeal in cases of disputes between states, or provide for the creation of a special committee to try such causes on request. With this government, limited in its taxing and commercial powers, the states attempted to conduct their common business for a period of eight years with results that made inevitable a constitutional revolution.2 Formation of State Governments During the revolutionary conflict the colonial governments, regularly established under the authority of the British crown, broke down or passed into the possession of the popular party. From the royal province, the governor fled before the uprising of the people, and with his departure the executive and judicial branches in their higher ranges went to pieces. The New Hampshire constitution of 1776, for example, complained of "the sudden and abrupt departure of his Excellency John Wentworth, Esq., our late governor, and several of the council, leaving us destitute of legislation and no executive courts being open to punish criminal offenders; whereby the lives and property of the honest people of this colony are liable to the machinations and evil designs of wicked men." The New Hampshire assembly or lower house thereupon called a new congress, which was duly elected and assumed the powers of the government which had been thus abandoned. In Massachusetts, the royal governor summarily dissolved the assembly, and finding a new election, in September, 1774, resulting in the return of even 1 See Readings, pp. 25-34, for the Articles of Confederation. more contentious representatives, he annulled the writs of election; but in vain, for the men thus chosen met in spite of the governor's orders and assumed full authority of government in the commonwealth. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, where there were no royal governors to dissolve the assemblies, and in the proprietary colonies of Pennsylvania and Delaware, where such authority was not exercised by the governor, the assemblies, purged of the loyalist element, took charge of directing the work of the Revolution. As a Pennsylvania Revolutionist wrote in 1775, "we must esteem it a particular happiness that we have ȧ House of Assembly which from our constitution cannot be dissolved and which coincides with the [continental] Congress in the opposition to an arbitrary court." Whatever the form, each colony during the Revolution had a legislature, congress, or convention chosen in some fashion by the supporters of the American cause. Sometimes the assembly was elected by popular vote, royalists being excluded; sometimes the members were chosen by local meetings of Revolutionists; and sometimes by town authorities. These provisional assemblies seized on all the powers of government in their respective jurisdictions, made laws, levied taxes, raised troops, and directed the Revolution. For a few months at the opening of the contest with the mother country, while the future was uncertain and return to the old allegiance was not impossible, the colonists were at a loss to determine on just the form of government required by the situation. Under these circumstances, the provincial convention of Massachusetts, then serving as the provisional government of that colony, applied to the Congress at Philadelphia in May, 1775, for explicit instructions concerning the organization of a more regular government. To this request, Congress replied advising the convention that it was not bound by the late act of Parliament altering the charter of Massachusetts, and requesting it to ask the towns entitled to representation to choose their regular delegates to a new assembly which should act as the government until a royal governor could be secured who would obey the terms of the charter. The convention complied with this advice, and thus instituted a government 1 1 Force, American Archives, Fourth Series, Vol. III, p. 1410. which remained in power until 1780, when the state constitution was put into force. The action of Massachusetts was followed in the autumn of that year (1775) by applications from New Hampshire, Virginia, and South Carolina for instructions, to which the Congress replied advising them to "call a full and free representation of the people, in order to form such a form of government as, in their judgment, would best promote the happiness of the people and most effectually secure peace and good order in their provinces during the continuance of the dispute with Great Britain." In response to this advice, the temporary provincial convention in New Hampshire ordered a general election of delegates to a new convention empowered to assume the government under the direction of Congress for one year, and this new convention, as soon as it met, drew up a form of government to "continue during the present unhappy and unnatural contest with Great Britain." Declaring that they would rejoice in reconciliation with the mother country, they nevertheless committed themselves to the care of the Continental Congress in whose wisdom and prudence they confided. This brief and fragmentary instrument, drawn up by men who could not foretell the outcome of the conflict then raging around them, remained the constitution of New Hampshire until after the establishment of peace, when it was replaced by the new and more elaborate instrument of 1784. South Carolina likewise followed the suggestion of Congress and drew up, in March, 1776, a constitution designed to serve until "an accommodation of the unhappy differences between Great Britain and America" could be obtained. Neither of these instruments was submitted for popular ratification, and neither was a state constitution, properly speaking, for both contemplated a possible return to the former allegiance. At length, in May, 1776, about two months before the formal Declaration of Independence, Congress, aware that such a step was inevitable, issued a general recommendation "to the respective assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs has been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall in the opinion of the representatives of the people best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular |