The framing of the Constitution of the United States
Farrand, Max, 1869-1945
S S * A 4s£j^4£&t^**Cj4+*. &*+*/ (&>-+ *W*W. &+»*rsx <&Z2H*t*. <x/%& •» — ^-<i^»*<-‘<~'« *****£/< »£U £~£*?4t<U~m.. ' * ' f /^s%ty ?&s*££ ***£,<& i£prw? jp^l+Mucr 4*4^x'/u.vcgtM*&*pp &,&,mt ** -4 ***m,«4 *+**&+* A&at pH mwt jfe^&*prp'y+& ^«^*y*yuf mfa**£ifal **JS Ap#'' /& fA**— /tP-VS , <£/&*& <-v£m*Pjp*»+<e f&ifrffaM*** &.&&*■. y *->^riaAZ>*r i-A-*? Ae mmtP'gPe. UPtiu 5? pf'l £a*- jpfCxr*y*-&**K fHOngs/ ^vtrS <sa&>. i^H—^^iJu£yPs4e^ A&f+— jpi'rvP *m*; p.s £*Mp£x»+ps/&>t- mwi Z^hPm**-V gf«<sryn** £&** s%f&t *** ytp£, **>*p &>&»&, ■*!* ^WtW - - “- - ' ' ' * " ' ^ ^S5"ws»*'>5 *'<£‘&&rr* &pfS4/«*v**4 '/*M*~*tM£-. L^awr £&**p0P>r w*M! pat**/; <wiw/« B-.JP. -vi* 8\*£'. ^.-^^srx*&P*«Ak4- *y$&w- s#!p /-P-tAf /£ pd«-*w&&i/ *** $5m-pvs*#**x p&1*p£*&f £&&&&*. '*&yws4*oi/ i& -&** ia^-4-^ *£*•%& s#&* £^~^*6<*C~*** -*** *Pp+*~r & <**& *6 4**& s%&m . JP&ex -hAZ&s \--C*tf y£k '/fa (t^xr&K —pgA? t&af- Mn * -.%*!$ MAvdpP <6 P'o&vtp 4*i«'*-Aiz ■ Jj&& c:i frtt iiffi-f- j.-fttfti-^- -!<--— . f&j ■" jf‘A C --r — r-'r fy r- f Tmr r , li ii.^Pts x*irymrnc,.<rr tt r . ,. ,r pCePr M^pfri -4* 4—L*& —o* tr— 4t* sg$<X- p - - 1*4, *t jL 'Crt&~x *4 ’ v^// ~ rt&C » ^ ^S^w, &J&S& **u/Apf<p*»-**' <sx2" '*S& <* nf-i - /»gjf ^T j|-r ]ftf!r' l-.-i or. -«^t<i m> _ w^ /, £ *£ X^r/UL. - - - ^ r«tC»^ur i&44-***r- &&?*.■*# 0%£. ^*-*-4 g, yftCjf/id &yry£ r™*y<x4<*-t.p &*** 4pS*L- ~***a j$£- * &U "JT’jr '~ - - ^ ✓ » a JZ-xZy&ri*-*!? iJf a& ^Z*pc**4*xb Y4& -w y*faf' -*~ -jf itftifav - S i»« /('*£- #^f yZ~A .~*^~*^* « / v > x ^5? *A'. ;' . ~ ~ * £ *^4 - ^ w~» *■/ veAM/efa. >w~4€s?((x .-.-.-..n-ngir-J-TJ- r ----r- c— r r r .n -...-..-r i . „l - G-U-t'lJ&t**** fc^a*^ eilf* v*-& w*sy . ,~~j , ^ _ _ _/ <*. _rOv^. '7*4 mL' Pl&t*** g* * (SkteA tsv #***!' ,r4a£/Ay^A pr*«' y^' ' ^ x ^ ■ : ,,^*Z At44^,^&£ t*U4~r4£~4-~>~ft' t^uty/--% A4-*^iu^rA*i- iVfT tspu- 1 4, 4*-»*&rtW/ cw. /l4Zp&**’*t4z4' .4jp' ,im—7**.y £r «^CT- s?<£*** y*4-*x iXiy v, n***' A> e***p —*C- r t&ty&CA n. as* '*€**+' t e94mdfa6**** Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation https://archive.org/details/framingofconstitOOOOunse THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES BY MAX FARRAND NEW HAVEN AND LONDON YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS Copyright 1913 by Yale University Press Twenty-first printing, November 1965 Printed in the United States of America by The Carl Purington Rollins Printing-Office of the Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. A. LAWRENCE LOWELL PREFACE F or over ten years the writer has been engaged in collecting and editing the material available upon the work of the convention that framed the constitution of the United States. Collating of texts is a wearisome and often merely a mechani¬ cal task, but in the process the editor becomes more or less familiar with the content of the docu¬ ments. In the present instance the form in which the work finally shaped itself required a knowledge of the proceedings of the convention not merely as a whole, but from day to day, and it necessitated a familiarity with the thought and expressions of the individual members. When to this was added an acquaintance with the person¬ alities of the more important delegates, a mental picture of the convention was formed which de¬ veloped into a conviction as to what the delegates were trying to do and what they actually accom¬ plished. It is with no idea of attempting the final his¬ tory of the formation of the constitution that the present book is written. If there be any truth in the epigrammatic definition that “history is past politics,” it is equally true that, in the case [ vii ] PREFACE of an institution still existing, history is present politics as well. So long as it remains the instru¬ ment under which the government of the United States is conducted, it is doubtful that any one, any American at least, can write the final word regarding the framing of our constitution. Nor is this intended to be a complete history. It is a brief presentation of the author’s personal interpretation of what took place in the federal convention. It is merely a sketch in outline, the details of which each student must fill out according to his own needs. This book is founded upon the work the author has already referred to as edited by himself, The Records of the Federal Convention (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1911. 3 vols.). In the writing of it scarcely anything else has been used. The Records are so arranged as to render most of the citations easily found, and accordingly, with few exceptions, all footnote references have been omitted. During the years that the work of editing and writing has been in progress, the author has pre¬ sented this subject for study to classes, both graduate and undergraduate, at different institu¬ tions. To the members of those classes who have endured the exploitation of his pet theories and ideas, who have themselves suggested new points of view, and who have stimulated him to his best [ viii ] PREFACE efforts, the author would acknowledge his grate¬ ful indebtedness. Mr. E. Byrne Hackett, in his capacity as manager of the Yale University Press, has taken the greatest interest in the mechanical make-up of this book. In a personal and purely friendly way he also read the entire manuscript and made suggestions which resulted in its better¬ ment. F or his co-operation the author is heartily appreciative. M. F. New Haven, November 8, 1912. CONTENTS Preface. CHAPTER I- The Calling of the Federal Convention II. The Convention and Its Members III. The Defects of the Confederation IV. The Organization of the Convention V. The Virginia Plan. VI. The New Jersey Plan .... VII. The Great Compromise .... VIII. After the Compromise .... IX. The Committee of Detail .... X. Details and Compromises .... XI. The Election of the President XII. Finishing the Work. XIII. The Completed Constitution. Appendix : I. The Articles of Confederation II. The Virginia Plan. III. The New Jersey Plan .... IV. The Constitution of the United States V. The Amendments to the Constitution Index. vii PAGE 1 14 42 54 68 84 91 113 124 134 160 176 196 211 225 229 233 252 261 THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES CHAPTER T THE CALLING OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION Democratic government was on trial before the world. Thirteen British colonies had asserted and established their independence be¬ cause they declared the form of government under which they had been living was destructive of their “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Each of those colon¬ ies had established a government of its own, and together they had formed a union of “The United States of America” by means of certain articles of confederation. The individual state govern¬ ments were proving fairly satisfactory, but the union was not. Its inadequacy had become more and more evident as the war for independence had continued and the strain of the struggle had grown harder to endure. As long as the war was in progress, the states had held together through sheer necessity; but as soon as the war was over, the selfishness of the individual states was assert¬ ing itself and the union was in danger of disinte¬ gration. The thirteen united states of America had renounced their allegiance to Great Britain, THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION because the latter country no longer governed them well, and it now appeared as if they were unable to govern themselves. If the people of the United States were to prove their right “to assume among the Powers of the earth, the sepa¬ rate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,” they must show themselves capable of establishing and maintaining an efficient government. To justify themselves before the world and to justify them¬ selves in their own eyes, an effective union was essential. The articles of confederation represented the first essay in united government that the newly independent states had made. When their con¬ gress in June, 1776, appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence, it appointed another committee to prepare a “form of con¬ federation,” and the latter committee made its report shortly after the Declaration of Independ¬ ence was adopted. The difficulty of establishing a union may be inferred from the fact that the plan submitted by the committee was the subject of intermittent discussion in congress for over a year and when the amended plan was referred to the states for ratification it was over three years before the approval of all could be secured. Although the articles of confederation were thus not formally in operation until 1781, congress [2] CALLING OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION seems to have followed a procedure in accordance with them, so that the experience of the confed¬ eration extended over a longer time than the official dates indicate, and really began with the establishment of independence. The one central organ of the newly established government was a congress, which might well have been termed a congress of states : in it all the states were upon an equal footing, each with a single vote, and the delegation from each state was composed of not less than two nor more than seven members, who were appointed annually in whatever way the legislature of each state directed, who were maintained at the expense of their respective states, and who were. subject to recall at any moment. To the congress thus con¬ stituted quite extensive powers were granted, but with two important limitations : none of the more important powers could be exercised “unless nine States assent to the same,” which was equivalent to requiring a two-thirds vote; and when a deci¬ sion had been reached there was nothing to compel the states to obedience except the mere declaration in the articles that “every State shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled.” Executive _there_was. none, beyond the committees which the congress might establish to work under its own direction, and the only federal courts were such as congress m THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION might appoint for the trial of piracy and felony on the high seas and for determining appeals in cases of prize capture. Under such conditions the decisions of con¬ gress were little more than recommendations. This was amply shown in the all-important matter of obtaining funds. The articles pro¬ vided that the national treasury should “be supplied by the several States, in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted to or surveyed for any person.” Congress was to determine the amount of money needed and to apportion to each state its share. Congress did so, but the states honored the requisitions exactly to the extent that each saw fit, and congress had qo power and no right to enforce payment. What was the result? If one may judge by the com¬ plaints that were entered, it was more profitable to disobey than to obey. In the dire straits for funds to which it found itself reduced, congress took advantage of the lack of information on land values to juggle with the estimates, so as to demand more of those states that had previously shown a willingness to pay. The financial situation was so serious that early in 1781, before the articles had been finally ratified, congress had already proposed to the states an amendment authorizing the levy of a five per cent duty upon imports and upon goods [4] CALLING OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION condemned in prize cases. The amendment was agreed to by twelve states. But another weak¬ ness of the confederation was here revealed, in that the articles could only be amended with the consent of all of the thirteen states. The refusal of Rhode Island was sufficient to block a measure that was approved of by the twelve others. In 1783 congress made another attempt to obtain a revenue by requesting authority for twenty-five years to levy certain duties, and by recommend¬ ing for the same term of twenty-five years that the states should contribute in proportion $1,500,000 annually, the basis of apportionment being changed from land values to numbers of population, in which three-fifths of the slaves should be counted. In three years only nine of the states had given their consent and some of those had consented in such a way as would have hampered the effectiveness of the plan. It was, however, the only relief in sight and in 1786 congress made a special appeal to the remaining states to act. Before the end of the year, all of the states had responded with the exception of New York. Again the inaction of a single state effectually blocked the will of all the others. Matters of commerce were inseparably asso¬ ciated with those of finance and were at this time of equal moment. In 1784 congress made an appeal to the states in which it was said: “The [5] THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION situation of Commerce at this time claims the attention of the several states, and few objects of greater importance can present themselves to their Notice. The fortune of every Citizen is interested in the success thereof; for it is the constant source of wealth and incentive to indus¬ try; and the value of our produce and our land must ever rise or fall in proportion to the pros¬ perity or adverse state of trade.” The people of the United States seemed to be surprised and even resentful that their political independence had resulted in placing them outside of the British colonial system. As British colonists they had protested against the restrictions of the navigation acts, but they found those acts still more obnoxious when enforced against them¬ selves as foreigners. Trade was adjusting itself to the new conditions and seeking new outlets, but until this had developed to a sufficient extent to make itself felt, the only possible policy, according to the prevailing conceptions of the time, was that of retaliation. The purpose of retaliation was to force other countries, and Great Britain in particular, to make concessions in favor of the United States. It was for this purpose that congress appealed to the states in 1784. It was virtually a navigation act for which power was requested and only for the term of fifteen years. All of the states responded, but [6] CALLING OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION with so many conflicting qualifications and conditions that the attempt was again a failure. Pending a grant of power to congress over matters of commerce, the states acted individu¬ ally. A uniform policy was necessary, and while a pretense was made of acting in unison to achieve a much desired end, it is evident that selfish motives frequently dictated what was done. Any state which enjoyed superior condi¬ tions to a neighboring state was only too apt to take advantage of that fact. Some of the states, as James Madison described it, “having no convenient ports for foreign commerce, were subject to be taxed by their neighbors, through whose ports their commerce was carried on. New Jersey, placed between Philadelphia and New York, was likened to a cask tapped at both ends; and North Carolina, between Virginia and South Carolina, to a patient bleeding at both arms.” The Americans were an agricultural and a trading people. Interference with the arteries of commerce was cutting off the very life-blood of the nation, and something had to be done. The articles of confederation provided no remedy, and it was evident that amendments to that document, if presented in the ordinary way, were not likely to succeed. Some other method of procedure was necessary, and a promising way had already opened. m THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION Virginia and Maryland had come to a working agreement regarding the navigation of Chesa¬ peake Bay and some of its tributary waters, and those two states had requested the co-operation of Pennsylvania and Delaware. This whole pro¬ ceeding was distinctly unconstitutional, for the articles of confederation specified that all such agreements must receive the consent of congress and that had not been obtained. But whether illegal or not it seemed to be an effective way of working, and in 1786 it was tried on a larger scale. Early in that year Virginia appointed commissioners ‘‘to meet such commissioners as may be appointed in the other states of the Union, at a time and place to be agreed on, to take into consideration the trade of the United States.” This proposal for a general trade con¬ vention seemed to meet with approval, and the Virginia commissioners, two of whom were James Madison and Edmund Randolph, then named Annapolis and the first Monday in September, 1786, as the place and the time. In spite of the apparently favorable attitude towards it, when the time for the convention arrived only five states were represented. At least four other states had appointed com¬ missioners, but the individuals had not hastened their attendance. With so small a number pres¬ ent it was impossible for the convention to accom- [8] CALLING OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION plish the purpose of its meeting; but with the advance in public opinion, the commissioners did not hesitate to recommend another convention of wider scope. The French representative in this country wrote home to his government, what was evidently whispered among the elect, that there was no expectation and no intention that any¬ thing should be done by the convention beyond preparing the way for another meeting, and that the report was hurried through before sufficient states were represented to be embarrassing. Alexander Hamilton was greatly interested in this whole movement for the betterment of con¬ ditions ; he took a leading part in the Annapolis trade convention, and is supposed to have drafted its report. Whether or not there is any truth in the assertion above, that Hamilton thought it advisable to conceal his purposes, there is no doubt that the Annapolis convention was an all- important step in the progress of reform. Its recommendation was the direct occasion of the gathering of the convention that framed the constitution of the United States. ''The recommendation, which the Annapolis delegates made, took the form of a report to the legislatures of their respective states, in which they referred to but did not enumerate “impor¬ tant defects in the System of the Fcederal Gov¬ ernment/' which were “of a nature so serious as, [9] THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION ... to render the situation of the United States* delicate and critical, calling for an exertion of the united Virtues and Wisdom of all the Mem¬ bers of the Confederacy.” They were accord¬ ingly “of Opinion, that a Convention of Depu¬ ties from the different States, for the special and sole purpose of entering into this investigation [of determining what the defects were] and digesting a Plan for supplying such defects” was the best method of procedure. To give their proposal a more concrete form they finally sug¬ gested that their respective states should “use their endeavours to procure the concurrence of the other States, in the Appointment of Com¬ missioners to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next, to take into Consideration the situation of the United States to devise such further Provisions as shall appear to them neces¬ sary to render the Constitution of the Foederal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an Act for that pur¬ pose to the United States in Congress Assem¬ bled, as when ‘agreed to by them and afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State’ will effectually provide for the same.” The Virginia legislature acted promptly upon this recommendation and, as no method was specified, very naturally followed its practice in providing for the representation of the state [10] CALLING OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION jrr\ <0*/3r in congress by appointing a similar delegation to go to Philadelphia. This ^precedent of appointing a delegation similar to its delegation in congress was followed by the other states. New Jersey took action almost at the same time as Virginia, and actually named her deputies in advance of that state. Within a few weeks, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Delaware, and Georgia had also made appointments. As yet congress had not given its approval of the plan, and many people in the United States doubted that such a meeting could accomplish anything without having the sanction of the only body authorized by the articles of confederation to propose amendments. This last obstacle was removed, however, on February 21, 1787, when congress adopted a resolution in favor of a con¬ vention, and embodied the suggestions of the Annapolis report as to time and place. Before the time fixed for the meeting of the Philadelphia convention, or shortly after that date, all of the other states had appointed depu--// ties with the exception of New Hampshire and pttlyy Rhode Island. New Hampshire was favorably ^ disposed towards the meeting, but owing to local conditions failed to act before the convention was well under way. Its deputies, however, arrived in time to share in some of the most important proceedings. Rhode Island alone fill THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION refused to take part, though a letter signed by a committee of merchants, tradesmen, and others, was sent to the convention expressing their regret at Rhode Island’s failure to be represented and pledging their influence to have the result of the deliberations approved and adopted by the state. The federal convention was thus summoned to meet in Philadelphia on the second Monday of May, 1787. It was authorized by congress, and it was shared in by twelve of the thirteen states comprising the confederation. Whatever complex of causes there may have been, the sequence of events resulting in this convention was, as outlined, the apparent impossibility of ^obtaining from the states the necessary amend¬ ments to vest in congress adequate powers in taxation and commerce, the calling of a trade convention, and then the calling of *\ general convention. f 1*1 CALLING OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION NOTE The Thirteen United States with Dates of Their First Constitutions New Hampshire . . . 1776 South Carolina .... 1776 Rhode Island1 .... 1776 Virginia ..... 1776 New Jersey .... 1776 Delaware ..... 1776 Pennsylvania .... 1776 Connecticut2 .... 1776 Maryland .... 1776 North Carolina .... 1776 Georgia . 1777 New York .... 1777 Massachusetts . . . . 1780 1 Continued under charter of 1663. 2 Continued under charter of 1662. [13] CHAPTER II THE CONVENTION AND ITS MEMBERS Virginia had been the first state to act upon the suggestion of the Annapolis report and it followed its practice in providing for the state’s representation in congress. The appointment of seven deputies was ordered by joint ballot of both houses of the legislature, any three of whom were authorized to join with the deputies from other states “in devising and discussing all such Alterations and farther Provisions as may be necessary to render the Fcederal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union and in reporting such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress as when agreed to by them and duly confirmed by the several States will effectually provide for the same.” It will be noticed that the wording of this appointment is very similar to that in the Annapolis report. The modifications are slight and if they have any significance, they indicate a willingness on the part of Virginia to render the work of the convention effective. At the head of its deputation Virginia placed the leading citizen of the state, and the leading [14] THE CONVENTION AND ITS MEMBERS citizen of the United States as well, George Washington. He was then fifty- five years of age and at the height of his popularity. The suc¬ cessful outcome of the Revolution had effectually silenced all criticism of his conduct of the war and his retirement to Mount Vernon had appealed to the popular imagination. The grati¬ tude of a people, as yet unmixed with envy and undiminished by the rancor of party bitterness, placed him upon the very pinnacle of public favor. The feeling towards him was one of devo¬ tion, almost of awe and reverence. His presence in the convention was felt to be essential to the success of its work and, much against his will, Washington was finally persuaded to accept the appointment. Patrick Henry was the second on the list, but declined to serve. The next year he came out in bitter opposition to the constitution. Dr. Grigsby, the historian of the Virginia state con¬ vention of 1788, reports that when asked why he had not taken his seat in the federal convention and helped to make “a good Constitution instead of staying at home and abusing the work of his patriotic compeers? Henry, with that magical power of acting in which he excelled all his contemporaries, and which before a popular assembly was irresistible, replied: T smelt a Rat.’ ” To the vacancy caused by Henry’s [15] THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION refusal the governor appointed Dr. James McClurg, a learned physician, but with little experience in public life. Richard Henry Lee and Thomas Nelson were also elected but declined to serve. The next on Virginia’s list was the governor of the state, Edmund Randolph. Thirty-four years old, portly and nearly six feet tall, he had a remarkably handsome face with large and bril¬ liant dark eyes. His manners were dignified and polished. He usually showed an excellent command of language and appeared well in debate. As a leader he was wanting in decision, as a figurehead he was splendid. Then came John Blair, whose learning and ability had made him a judge in the highest courts of Virginia. Courteous, gentle- mannered, and particular in dress, he was, as one of his fellow-delegates, Pierce of Georgia, remarked, “one of the most respectable Men in Virginia, both on account of his Family as well as fortune.”1 He was no orator, and he never played a conspicuous part, “but his good sense, and most excellent principles, compensate for other deficiences.” 1 William Pierce of Georgia left a series of brief character sketches or notes of his fellow-delegates, evidently jotted down at the time. Original, and very interesting, they have been of material service in the preparation of this chapter. Most of the direct quotations are taken therefrom. [16] THE CONVENTION AND ITS MEMBERS James Madison was the most inconspicuous of the Virginia delegation. He was slender, under medium height, retiring in manner and “always dressed in black.” He was a student of history, methodical and indefatigable. But Madison took an active part in public affairs, and at thirty-six he had held various official posi¬ tions in Virginia and twice represented his state in congress. Pierce described him by saying that “every Person seems to acknowledge his great¬ ness. He blends together the profound poli¬ tician with the Scholar. . . . and tho’ he cannot be called an Orator, he is a most agreeable, eloquent and convincing Speaker. . . . The affairs of the United States, he perhaps, has the most correct knowledge of, of any man in the Union.” Madison was essentially a scholar in politics. Two notable men completed this remarkable , deputation. One was George Wythe, fifty- five years old, a signer of the Declaration of Inde¬ pendence, “the famous professor of law” at William and Mary, and for ten years a chan¬ cellor of the state. The other was George Mason, the author of the Virginia Bill of Rights and at sixty-two the rival of Patrick Henry in popular estimation as the champion of the rights of the people and of the states. According to Madison, he possessed “the greatest talents for [17] THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION debate of any man he had ever seen or heard speak.” He was a gentleman of the old school, courtly but self-willed. New Jersey., the next state to act, appointed four commissioners and later increased the num¬ ber to six, any three of whom were to represent the state “for the purpose of taking into Con¬ sideration the state of the Union, as to Trade and other important Objects, and of devising such other Provisions as shall appear to be neces¬ sary to render the Constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies thereof.” The delegation from this state was hardly equal to that of Virginia either in reputation or ability, although it contained some notable men. David Brearley, forty-one years old, was the chief justice of the state. He was an able, though not a brilliant man, and of a tempera¬ ment and character that won and retained for him the complete respect of the people. William C. Houston, for twelve years a professor of mathematics at Princeton, admitted to the bar after he was forty, had been appointed clerk of the state supreme court, and had been one of the delegates to the Annapolis convention. William Paterson, born at sea of Irish parents, now a man of a little over forty and another of the delegates to Annapolis, had been a member of the continental congress. He had also been [18] THE CONVENTION AND ITS MEMBERS attorney-general of his state for eleven years. Short in stature, unassuming in appearance and manner, Paterson was all the more astonishing in debate, where he revealed wide knowledge and great ability. William Livingston, the governor of the state, who was also noted as a wit and writer, was appointed by the legislature in the place of John Neilson, who had declined. He was independent in action as well as in speech, but he was suffi¬ ciently admired and respected to have been regu¬ larly re-elected governor of his state since the beginning of the Revolution. In person he was so tall and thin that he was frequently referred to as the “whipping post.” Pierce admired him as being “about sixty years old, and remarkably healthy,” but he criticized him for seeming “rather to indulge a sportiveness of wit, than a strength of thinking.” Abraham Clark, who was appointed at this time, never attended, and the delegation was completed with the selection of Captain J ona- than Dayton, who had served with distinction in the Revolution. At twenty-seven, he was one of the youngest men appointed, and occasionally revealed a hasty temper which was characteristic of him but was not in harmony with the general tone of the convention. He was a member of JKe state legislature, but he and Brearley were [19] THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION the only attending delegates from New Jersey who had not served in congress. Pennsylvania in appointing seven deputies, any four of whom were authorized to represent the state, specifically cited Virginia’s act and vested its representatives with powers that were phrased like those of Virginia. At the head of the delegation was General Thomas Mifflin, a former member and president of congress. At forty-three he was still ex¬ tremely popular in spite of the fact that he had been a member of the cabal against W ashington in favor of Gates. Next came “Bob” Morris^ large, florid, and pleasantly impressive. Al¬ though foreign-born, he had served his adopted country well as a member of congress, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and as the financier of the Revolution. Much was expected of him in the convention because of the financial situation and the definite ideas he was known to possess upon that subject, and also because of the reputation that “when he speaks in the Assembly of Pennsylvania, he bears down all before him.” The less conspicuous members of the Pennsyl¬ vania delegation, although they had all been in congress, were: George Clymer, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, able but extremely diffident, and never heard to speak ill of anyone ; [20] THE CONVENTION AND ITS MEMBERS Jared Ingersoll, the ablest jury lawyer in Phila¬ delphia; and Thomas Fitzsimons, of Irish birth, now a prominent and successful merchant in Philadelphia. James Wilson was the strongest member of this delegation and Washington considered him to be one of the strongest men in the convention. Born and educated in Scotland, he came to America when twenty-three years old. He had served several times in congress, and had been one of the signers of the Declaration of Inde¬ pendence. At forty-five he was regarded as one of the ablest lawyers in America. Tall and large featured, his nearsightedness compelling the use of glasses and adding a touch of sternness to his appearance, he had won the respect of many but the affection of few. “James the Caledonian,” as he was sometimes called, was rather a tribute to his character and his oratory than a mark of popularity. Gouverneur Morris was probably the most brilliant member of the Pennsylvania delegation and of the convention as well. Sharp-witted, clever, startling in his audacity, and with a won¬ derful command of language, he was admired more than he was trusted, for he was inconsistent and he was suspected of being lax in morals as well as lacking in principles. A crippled arm and a wooden leg might detract from his per- [21] THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION sonal appearance, but they could not suppress his spirit. This story is told in various forms and doubtless has a foundation of truth, and the ver¬ sion which attaches the incident to the federal convention is as good as another: Morris was one day boasting in the presence of several delegates that he was afraid of no one, when Hamilton offered to bet him a dinner and wine for the com¬ pany that he would not dare to treat General Washington familiarly by slapping him on the shoulder. Hamilton lost the bet, but Morris in recounting his experience said that he had never won a bet which cost him so dearly, and Wash¬ ington had only “looked at” him. Shortly before the convention met, by a special act of the legislature, the aged Benjamin Franklin, president of the state, was added to the Pennsylvania delegation. “The American Socrates” was second only to Washington in reputation and popularity, but at eighty-one his powers were failing. Pierce notes with apparent surprise“that “he does not shine much in public Council, — he is no Speaker, nor does he seem to let politics engage his attention. He is, however, a most extraordinary Man, and tells a story in a style more engaging than anything I ever heard.” North Carolina appointed five deputies, any three of whom were to represent the state, and [22] THE CONVENTION AND ITS MEMBERS who were authorized “to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remove the defects of our Foederal Union, and to procure the en¬ larged Purposes which it was intended to effect.” This delegation was not the equal of those that had been previously appointed from the other states. Governor Richard Caswell and Willie Jones declined commissions. When substitutes had been appointed, the head of the delegation was Ex-Governor Alexander Martin. He had been dismissed from the army for cowardice in the battle of Germantown, but he had shown himself to be a good politician in that he had succeeded, in spite of his disgrace, in being governor of his state from 1782 to 1785. Next came William R. Davie. Not yet thirty years old and one of the youngest members in the convention, with a winning personality, he was popular but not prominent. About the middle of June various Philadelphia papers gave “an exact list of the members of the convention.” First came those who had risen to the title of “His Excellency,” the “Honorable Governor,” etc. Then were given those who were or had been “honorable Delegates to Congress.” Lastly came those who were classified as “the following respectable Characters.” Davie was essentially in this class. Richard D. Spaight was also under thirty, t 23 ] THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION and if he had not been a delegate to congress, would doubtless have been classed among the “respectable characters.” Pierce described him as “a worthy man, of some abilities, and fortune.” Doctor Hugh Williamson had been a preacher and then a professor of mathematics in the col¬ lege of Philadelphia before taking up the study of medicine. He was eccentric but good- humored, and without being a good speaker he was very fond of debating. One of his contem¬ poraries reported that it was hard to know his character well, it was even possible that he hadn’t any. Perhaps Pierce characterized him aptly when he said that “in his manners there is a strong trait of the Gentleman.” William Blount, twice a delegate to congress, faithful, but without “any of those talents that make men shine . . . plain, honest and sincere,” completed this mediocre delegation. The Delaware commission was copied after those of Pennsylvania and Virginia, but with the important proviso “that such Alterations or further Provisions, or any of them, do not extend to that part of the Fifth Article of the Con¬ federation . . . which declares that ‘In determin¬ ing Questions in the United States in Congress Assembled each State shall have one Vote.’ ” Five deputies were appointed, any three of whom were to represent the state. [24] THE CONVENTION AND ITS MEMBERS At the head of the delegation was George Read, then in his fifty-fourth year. Short, slight, and with an appearance of physical weakness, he made but a poor impression as a speaker, although he had great ability as a lawyer. He commanded the implicit confidence of his state, which among other capacities he had repre¬ sented in congress, and as a signer of the Decla¬ ration of Independence, and in the Annapolis convention. Gunning Bedford had a great reputation as an advocate, but though an eloquent, he was also a nervous speaker and apt to be hasty and impetu¬ ous. His epitaph reads that “his form was goodly,” which is a euphemistic way of describing what Pierce called being “very corpulant,” and to Pierce he did not look his forty years. He, too, had represented his state in congress. The most noted of the Delaware deputation was John Dickinson, author of the “Farmer’s Letters,” and chairman of the committee of con¬ gress that framed the articles of confederation. He was able, scholarly, and sincere, but nervous, ’Sensitive, and cautious to the verge of timidity. His refusal to sign the Declaration of Indepen¬ dence TiaA cost him his popularity. Though he “ was afterwards returned to congress and became president successively of Delaware and Pennsyl¬ vania, he never succeeded in completely regain- THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION ing the public confidence. A shadow of mistrust was always visible. He appeared older than his fifty-five years would warrant. Richard Bassett and Jacob Broom completed the delegation. They were about the same age of thirty-five, and came under the classification of “respectable characters.” Pierce regarded the former with curiosity or misgiving as “a religious enthusiast, lately turned Methodist,” but he commended him, and Broom as well, for having sense enough not to talk in the convention. Georgia also modeled its commission on that of Virginia and appointed six commissioners, any two of whom were to represent the state. Ex-Governor George Walton and Nathaniel Pendleton either declined or failed to attend and the delegation was thus reduced to four. William Few was a self-made man who had been admitted to the bar, and his colleague Pierce thought that “from application” he had “acquired some knowledge of legal matters.” He had done more than that, however, and though socially he was at a disadvantage he was evidently well thought of in his state, for he was a member of the state legislature and twice had been a delegate to congress. Abraham Baldwin, thirty- three years old, was the ablest member of the delegation. Born in [26] THE CONVENTION AND ITS MEMBERS Connecticut, educated at Yale and a tutor there for several years, he had served during the Revo¬ lution as a chaplain in the army. After the war he had moved to Georgia, where he was admitted to the bar and became a member of the state legislature. He originated and put through the plan for the University of Georgia and then became its president. He had twice been a member of congress. William Pierce, whose comments on his fellow- delegates have been so frequently quoted, was nearly fifty years old. He had served with dis¬ tinction during the Revolution, and was at this time a delegate to congress. Although he did not attempt to describe his own character, but left it for “those who may choose to speculate on it, to consider it in any light that their fancy or imagination may depict,” he was evidently blessed with a sense of humor. 