The Making of the Constitution

The Articles of Confederation of the United States of America were finally ratified on the Ist of March, 1781, and announced to the public amid discharges of cannon on land and from the vessels in the Delaware, conspicuous among which was the Ariel frigate, Paul Jones commanding. Yet the Articles were scarcely confirmed, amid panegyrics both at home and abroad upon the government thus instituted, when they proved lamentably insufficient. Powers which had been before exercised by Congress were taken from it by the Articles,--particularly the control of commerce. Congress could obtain a revenue only by requisitions upon the States; it had no common executive, no machinery by which to enforce its decrees, and formed rather a consulting body than a governmental power.

Yet the Confederacy had its merits. It settled the long dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania,--One of the few instances of the adjustment of quarrels between independent States by an arbitrating body. It met the pressing needs of the time, and served as an educational institution whose defects were lessons of the utmost value to the statesmen of America. It soon became generally felt that a change was necessary. Adams, Hamilton, Washington, and others deplored the weakness of Congress. A bill was passed recommending the States to lay an impost of five per cent. on imported goods. Some States acceded to this measure; others failed to do so. Madison, consequently, urged "the necessity of arming Congress with coercive powers," in order to force the delinquent States to do their duty.

The conclusion of the war, and the establishment of peaceful relations between the United States and England, made the need of a revision of the governmental organization yet more clearly evident. Robert Morris wrote, "The necessity of strengthening our Confederacy, providing for our debts, and forming some federal constitution, begins to be most seriously felt." Great Britain adopted measures calculated to create disunion between the States, endeavoring to treat with them as individuals. The war was succeeded by a commercial conflict, in which the recent enemy of the States sought in every way to restrict and hamper their commerce, adopting measures which the Confederacy proved inadequate to combat.

It had become strikingly evident that a stronger government must be organized, and the legislators of the country applied themselves to the task. Most prominent among these advocates of a change of government were Hamilton and Madison. These two men, both of them of unusual intellectual ability and thorough education in statesmanship, radically differed in views. Hamilton supported the aristocratic sentiment, distrusted the capacity of the people for self-government, and tended towards the formation of a vigorously centralized nation. Madison held opposite opinions, and advocated democratic doctrines. Minor differences of opinion existed. Franklin held to his long-entertained view of a single legislative body. Richard Henry Lee objected to giving Congress the power to regulate commerce. Madison proposed to give Congress authority to veto State laws. He was also the first to propose a government for the Union acting upon individuals instead of upon States. Washington took an active part in these expressions of opinion, and wisely remarked, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged somewhere a power that will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner as the authority of the State governments extends over the several States." The succeeding events, which resulted in the formation and adoption of the Constitution of the United States, are admirably described in Frothingham's "Rise of the Republic of the United States," from which work we select a digest of this highly important legislative proceeding.]

THE method of obtaining an American Constitution through a representative convention was historical, and was suggested when the idea was to form a union that should be consistent with allegiance to the crown. It was renewed in the speculations on independence, and in "Common Sense," in 1776. When the aim was to reform the Confederation, a convention was suggested by Hamilton in 1780; by Pelatiah Webster in 1781; by the New York legislature in 1782; was named in Congress by Hamilton in 1783; was proposed by Richard Henry Lee in a letter in 1784; and was recommended by Governor Bowdoin in a speech to the Massachusetts legislature in 1785. No action, however, grew out of these suggestions. In 1786, the Assembly of Virginia, under the lead of Madison, appointed commissioners to meet in convention and consider the question of commerce, with the view of altering the Articles of Confederation; and it was made the duty of this committee to invite all the States to concur in the measure.

The convention met at Annapolis, with delegates from five States, on September II, 1786. The representation was so partial that no action was taken, other than to urge the appointment of commissioners from all the States, to meet in Philadelphia, on the second Monday of the next May, to consider such measures as were necessary' to adapt the Federal Constitution to the exigencies of the Union.

In the mean time, national affairs grew worse. To the chronic neglect to comply with the requisitions of Congress, the New Jersey legislature added positive refusal by an act of legislation. The legislatures of States having ports for foreign commerce taxed the people of other States trading through them; others taxed imports from sister States; in other instances the navigation-laws treated the people of other States as aliens. The authority of Congress was disregarded by violating not only the treaty of Paris, but treaties with France and Holland.