[90]
Chapter 3:
- Ratification of the Constitution by the States -- organization of the New Government -- accession of North Carolina and Rhode Island -- correspondence between General Washington and the Governor of Rhode Island.
The amended system of union, or confederation (the terms are employed indiscriminately and interchangeably by the statesmen of that period), devised by the convention of 1787, and embodied, as we have seen, in the Constitution which they framed and have set forth, was now to be considered and acted on by the people of the several states. This they did in the highest and most majestic form in which the sanction of organized communities could be given or withheld—not through ambassadors, or legislatures, or deputies with limited powers, but through conventions of delegates chosen expressly for the purpose and clothed with the plenary authority of sovereign people. The action of these conventions was deliberate, cautious, and careful. There was much debate, and no little opposition to be conciliated. Eleven states, however, ratified and adopted the new Constitution within the twelve months immediately following its submission to them. Two of them positively rejected it, and although they afterward acceded to it, remained outside of the Union in the exercise of their sovereign right, which nobody then denied—North Carolina for nine months, Rhode Island for nearly fifteen, after the new government was organized and went into operation. In several of the other states the ratification was effected only by small majorities. The terms in which this action was expressed by the several states and the declarations with which it was accompanied by some of them are worthy of attention. Delaware was the first to act. Her convention met on December 3, 1787, and ratified the Constitution on the 7th. The readiness of this least in population and next to the least in territorial extent of all the states, to accept that instrument, is a very significant fact when we remember the jealous care with which she had guarded against any infringement of her sovereign statehood. Delaware alone had given special instructions to her deputies in the convention not to consent to any sacrifice of the principle of equal representation in Congress. The promptness and unanimity of her people in adopting the new Constitution prove very clearly, not only that they were satisfied with the preservation of that principle in the federal Senate, but that they did not understand the [91] Constitution, in any of its features, as compromising the “sovereignty, freedom, and independence” which she had so especialy cherished. The ratification of their convention is expressed in these words:
We, the deputies of the people of the Delaware State, in convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the deputies of the United States at a General Convention held at the city of Philadelphia on the 17th day of September, A. D. 1787, have approved of, assented to, and ratified and confirmed, and by these presents do, in virtue of the powers and authority to us given for that purpose, for and in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, fully, freely, and entirely, approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm the said Constitution. Done in convention at Dover, December 7, 1787.This, and twelve other like acts, gave to the Constitution “all the life and validity it ever had, or could have, as to the thirteen united or associated States.” Pennsylvania acted next (December 12, 1787), the ratification not being finally accomplished without strong opposition, on grounds which will be referred to hereafter. In announcing its decision, the convention of this state began as follows:
In the name of the people of Pennsylvania. Be it known unto all men that we, the delegates of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in General Convention assembled,etc., etc., concluding with these words: “By these presents, do, in the name and by the authority of the same people, and for ourselves, assent to and ratify the foregoing Constitution for the United States of America.” In New Jersey the ratification, which took place on December 18, was unanimous. This is no less significant and instructive than the unanimity of Delaware, from the fact that the New Jersey delegation, in the convention that framed the Constitution, had taken the lead in behalf of the federal, or state rights, idea, in opposition to that of nationalism or consolidation. William Patterson, a distinguished citizen (afterward governor) of New Jersey, had introduced into that convention what was known as “the Jersey plan,” embodying these state-rights principles, as distinguished from the various “national” plans presented. In defending them, he had said, after calling for the reading of the credentials of delegates:
Can we, on this ground, form a national Government? I fancy not. Our commissions give a complexion to the business; and can we suppose that, when we exceed the bounds of our duty, the people will approve our proceedings? We are met here as the deputies of thirteen independent, sovereign States, for federal purposes. Can we consolidate their sovereignty and form one nation, and annihilate the sovereignties of our States, who have sent us here for other purposes?[92] Again, on a subsequent day, after stating that he was not there to pursue his own sentiments of government, but of those who had sent him, he had asked:
Can we, as representatives of independent States, annihilate the essential powers of independency? Are not the votes of this Convention taken on every question under the idea of independency?The fact that this state, which, through her representatives, had taken so conspicuous a part in the maintenance of the principle of state sovereignty, ratified the Constitution with such readiness and unanimity, is conclusive proof that, in her opinion, that principle was not compromised thereby. The conclusion of her ordinance of ratification is in these words:
Now be it known that we, the delegates of the State of New Jersey, chosen by the people thereof for the purpose aforesaid, having maturely deliberated on and considered the aforesaid proposed Constitution, do hereby, for and on behalf of the people of the said State of New Jersey, agree to, ratify, and confirm the same, and every part thereof. Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the members present, this 18th day of December, A. D. 1787.Georgia next, and also unanimously, on January 2, 1788, declared, through “the delegates of the State of Georgia, in convention met, pursuant to the provisions of the [act of the] Legislature aforesaid, . . . in virtue of the powers and authority given us [them] by the people of the said State, for that purpose,” that they did “fully and entirely assent to, ratify, and adopt the said Constitution.” Connecticut (on the 9th of January) declares her assent with equal distinction of assertion as to the source of the authority: “In the name of the people of the State of Connecticut, we, the delegates of the people of the said State, in General Convention assembled, pursuant to an act of the Legislature in October last . . . . do assent to, ratify, and adopt the Constitution reported by the Convention of delegates in Philadelphia.” In Massachusetts there was a sharp contest. The people of that state were then—as for a long time afterward—exceedingly tenacious of their state independence and sovereignty. The proposed Constitution was subjected to a close, critical, and rigorous examination with reference to its bearing upon this very point. The convention was a large one, and some of its leading members were very distrustful of the instrument under their consideration. It was ultimately adopted by a very close vote (187 to 168), and then only as accompanied by certain proposed amendments, the object of which was to guard more expressly against any sacrifice or [93] compromise of state sovereignty, and under an assurance, given by the advocates of the Constitution, of the certainty that those amendments would be adopted. The most strenuously urged of these was that ultimately adopted (in substance) as the tenth amendment to the Constitution, which was intended to take the place of the second Article of Confederation, as an emphatic assertion of the continued freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the states. This will be considered more particularly hereafter. In terms substantially identical with those employed by the other states, Massachusetts thus announced her ratification:
In convention of the delegates of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. The Convention having impartially discussed and fully considered the Constitution for the United States of America, reported [etc.], . . . do, in the name and in behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, assent to and ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America.This was accomplished on February 7, 1788. Maryland followed on April 28, and South Carolina on May 23, in equivalent expressions, the ratification of the former being made by “the delegates of the people of Maryland,” speaking, as they declared, for ourselves, and in the name and on the behalf of the people of this State; that of the latter, “in convention of the people of the State of South Carolina, by their representatives, . . . in the name and behalf of the people of this State.” But South Carolina, like Massachusetts, demanded certain amendments, and for greater assurance accompanied her ordinance of ratification with the following distinct assertion of the principle afterward embodied in the tenth amendment:
This Convention doth also declare that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the States do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union.“The delegates of the people of the State of New Hampshire,” in convention on June 21, “in the name and behalf of the people of the State of New Hampshire,” declared their approval and adoption of the Constitution. In this state, also, the opposition was formidable (the final vote being 57 to 46), and, as in South Carolina, it was “explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised.” The debates in the Virginia convention were long and animated. Some of the most eminent and most gifted men of that period took part in them, and they have ever since been referred to for the exposition [94] which they afford of the interpretation of the Constitution by its authors and their contemporaries. Among the members were Madison, Mason, and Randolph, who had also been members of the convention at Philadelphia. Madison was one of the most earnest advocates of the new Constitution, while Mason was as warmly opposed to its adoption; so also was Patrick Henry, the celebrated orator. It was assailed with great vehemence at every vulnerable or doubtful point, and was finally ratified June 26, 1788, by a vote of 89 to 79—a majority of only ten. This ratification was expressed in the same terms employed by other states, by “the delegates of the people of Virginia, . . . in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia.” In so doing, however, like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, Virginia demanded certain amendments as a more explicit guarantee against consolidation, and accompanied the demand with the following declaration:
That the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will, etc.Whether, in speaking of a possible resumption of powers by “the people of the United States,” the convention had in mind the action of such a people in the aggregate— a political community which did not exist, and of which they could hardly have entertained even an ideal conception—or of the people of Virginia, for whom they were speaking, and of the other United States then taking similar action—is a question which scarcely admits of argument, but which will be more fully considered in the proper place. New York, the eleventh state to signify her assent, did so on July 26, 1788, after an arduous and protracted discussion, and then by a majority of but three votes—30 to 27. Even this small majority was secured only by the recommendation of certain material amendments, the adoption of which by the other states it was at first proposed to make a condition precedent to the validity of the ratification. This idea was abandoned after a correspondence between Hamilton and Madison, and, instead of conditional ratification, New York provided for the resumption of her grants; the amendments were put forth with a circular letter to the other states, in which it was declared that “nothing but the fullest confidence of obtaining a revision” of the objectionable features of the Constitution, “and an invincible reluctance to separating from our sister States, could have prevailed upon a sufficient number to ratify it without stipulating for previous amendments.” [95] The ratification was expressed in the usual terms, as made “by the delegates of the people of the State of New York, . . . in the name and in behalf of the people” of the said state. Accompanying it was a declaration of the principles in which the assent of New York was conceded, one paragraph of which runs as follows:
That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the said Constitution, clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution, but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers or as inserted for greater caution.The acceptance of these eleven states having been signified to the Congress, provision was made for putting the new Constitution in operation. This was effected on March 4, 1789, when the government was organized, with George Washington as President, and John Adams, Vice-President; the Senators and Representatives elected by the states which had acceded to the Constitution organizing themselves as a Congress. Meantime two states were standing, as we have seen, unquestioned and unmolested, in an attitude of absolute independence. The convention of North Carolina, on August 2, 1788, had rejected the proposed Constitution, or, more properly speaking, had withheld her ratification until action could be taken upon the subject matter of the following resolution adopted by her convention:
Resolved, That a declaration of rights, asserting and securing from encroachment the great principles of civil and religious liberty, and the unalienable rights of the people, together with amendments to the most ambiguous and exceptionable parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be laid before Congress and the Convention of the States that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said Constitution, for their consideration, previous to the ratification of the Constitution aforesaid on the part of the State of North Carolina.More than a year afterward, when the newly organized government had been in operation for nearly nine months, and when—although no convention of the states had been called to revise the Constitution— North Carolina had good reason to feel assured that the most important provisions of her proposed amendments and “declaration of rights” would be adopted, she acceded to the amendment compact. On November 21, 1789, her convention agreed, “in behalf of the freemen, citizens, [96] and inhabitants of the State of North Carolina,” to “adopt and ratify” the Constitution. In Rhode Island the proposed Constitution was at first submitted to a direct vote of the people, who rejected it by an overwhelming majority. Subsequently—that is, on May 29, 1790, when the reorganized government had been in operation for nearly fifteen months, and when it had become reasonably certain that the amendments thought necessary would be adopted—a convention of the people of Rhode Island acceded to the new Union, and ratified the Constitution, though even then by a majority of only two votes in sixty-six—34 to 32. The ratification was expressed in substantially the same language as that which has now been so repeatedly cited:
We, the delegates of the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in convention, . . . in the name and behalf of the people of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution.It is particularly to be noted that, during the intervals between the organization of the federal government under the new Constitution and the ratification of that Constitution by North Carolina and Rhode Island respectively, those states were absolutely independent and unconnected with any other political community, unless they be considered as still representing the “United States of America,” which by the Articles of Confederation had been declared a “perpetual union.” The other states had seceded from the former union—not in a body, but separately, each for itself—and had formed a new association, leaving these two states in the attitude of foreign though friendly powers. There was no claim of any right to control their action, as if they had been mere geographical or political divisions of one great consolidated community or “nation.” Their accession to the Union was desired, but their freedom of choice in the matter was never questioned. And then it is to be noted, on their part, that, like the house of Judah, they refrained from any attempt to force the seceding sisters to return. As illustrative of the relations existing during this period between the United States and Rhode Island, it may not be uninstructive to refer to a letter sent by the government of the latter to the President and Congress, and transmitted by the President to the Senate, with the following note:
Some extracts from the communication1 referred to are annexed:
