Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

lays were justified under various pretexts; some plausible, as being founded on the alleged injustice and inequality of the provisions of the Articles of Confederation, as well as the importance of its omissions. But the leading statesmen of the day were unceasing in their calls upon the different States, to satisfy first the just demands upon them, and to sustain the credit and honour of the Confederation, and then to discuss their individual claims and

[ocr errors]

grievances. Many solemn and affecting appeals" were made to them by Congress, and also by individuals. Mr. Jay, writing to Washington, on the 27th of January, 1786, says, in a letter full of apprehensions for the future,— "There is doubtless much reason to think and to say that we are woefully, and in many instances wickedly misled. Private rage for property suppresses public considerations, and personal rather than national interests have become the great objects of attention."* Washington had before expressed his apprehensions

*Correspondence of the American Revolution, by Professor Jared Sparks, Boston, 1853, vol. iv. p. 136.

that the course of things was tending to "anarchy and confusion," and that so many sacrifices might prove to have been made in vain.* "The domestic debt sunk down to about one-tenth of its nominal value."+ Serious dissensions arose among the States themselves, "and were fostered to a high degree, so as to threaten at once the peace and safety of the Union."+

* § 256. Marshall's "Life of Washington,” vol. v. p. 47. + § 257.

* § 260.

CHAPTER IV.

THE CONSTITUTION.

It was, therefore, not until after thirteen years of trial and of struggle, of tentative efforts in the new career of self-government, and failures in the difficult task of adjusting conflicting powers and reconciling adverse interests, that on the 17th of September, 1787, the Convention, to which the whole subject had been referred, finally adopted the plan of the present Constitution. This was again referred by Congress to a "convention of delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof;" and the proposed plan having been ratified by eleven out of the thirteen States, Congress appointed the 4th of March, 1789, "for the first meeting under the new Constitution." On the 6th of April Washington was elected

president, "and on the 30th he was sworn into office, and the Government went into full operation in all its departments."

[ocr errors]

But the Constitution had not come into existence without encountering many difficulties and much violent opposition. It was carried in six out of the thirteen States by only small majorities, and in three out of those six, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, "by little more than a preponderating vote."† One party throughout the Union was in favour of a constitution embodying the powers proposed, because they were anxious for the "exact observance of public and private engagements;' another strong and active party was violently hostile to it, because disposed to evade both.‡ It was stigmatised as unequal, unjust, and oppressive; by some of the large States from fear of losing their importance; by some of the smaller from apprehension of being over

*North Carolina adopted the Constitution in November, 1789, and Rhode Island in May, 1790. "Thus all the thirteen original States became parties to the new Government," § 278. § 286.

+ § 281.

borne. It was, however, finally acquiesced in as "a system of compromise and conciliation," in which the strictness of abstract theory was made to yield to a just consideration for particular interests and even prejudices, and some "inequality of benefit" was submitted to "for the common good."

It has been a matter of much discussion by the statesmen and public writers of the various parties in the United States, whether the Constitution is to be considered as a treaty between independent States, or a federal, or a social compact, or both? And the inclination of the public mind on this question has been, from time to time, a subject of great importance, in reference to the conflicting interests and opinions of the North and the South, on vital objects of public policy. If, as has been argued, it is a treaty or a compact only, then any State might withdraw from the confederation at pleasure and dissolve the connection; and thus the Government of the Union would

[blocks in formation]
« PředchozíPokračovat »