as the

nation. Hence the name of federal, implying the support of a league that is, a league between the states true form of a general government. All this the national party opposed. We are not met, they reasoned, to fashion a Constitution out of the states or for the states, but to create a Constitution for the people; it is the people, not the states, who are to be governed and united; it is the people, moreover, from whom the power required for the Constitution is to emanate. At the same time, the national members, with a few exceptions, were far from denying the excellence of state governments. These, they urged, are precisely what we want to manage the local affairs of the different portions of the country; in this capacity, the states will be truly the pillars of the Union.

Votes of

These views had entered largely into the debates states. already decided by the adoption of a national plan for the Constitution. They were again brought forward, and with renewed earnestness, in relation to a question now coming up for decision. Before the Confederation, and after it, the votes of the states in Congress had been equal, each state having a single vote, and no more. This was the rule, as has been mentioned, of the Convention. But when the point was reached in the constitutional debates, the national party insisted upon an entirely different sysThe votes to be taken in the legislative branches of the new government are not, it was asserted, the votes of the states, but the votes of the people; let them, therefore, be given according to the numbers of the people, not of the states. Not so, replied the federal members, and they had reason to be excited, for it was from apprehension on this very point that they had opposed the national plan,not so, they replied, or our states, with their scanty votes, will be utterly absorbed in the larger states. One of the small states, Delaware, sent her representatives, as may

tem.

be remembered, with express instructions to reserve her equal vote in the national legislature. But the federal party, already disappointed, found itself doomed to a fresh disappointment. Abandoning, or intimating that it was willing to abandon, the claim of an equal vote in both branches of the legislature, it stood the firmer for equality in one of the branches the Senate of the Constitution. Even this more moderate demand was disregarded by the majority, intent upon unequal votes in both the branches.

Agitation.

Great agitation followed. "We will sooner submit to foreign power!" cried a representative from one of the small states. But for the reference of the matter to a committee, who, at the instance of Franklin, adopted a compromise, making the votes of the states equal in the Senate, the work of the Convention would have come to a sudden close. As it was, the report of the committee hardly allayed the tumultuous passions that had been aroused. It but partly satisfied the small states, while it kindled the wrath of the large, secure as these thought themselves, upon the point which they were now required to yield. "If no compromise should take place," asked Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, "what will be the consequence? A secession will take place, for some gentlemen seem decided on it." It was the federal party that talked of secession. The national party, no wiser, as a whole, spoke of the dismemberment and absorption of the smaller states, hinting at the sword. Two of the New York delegation, incensed or dejected by the triumphant course of the national members, deserted the Convention. "We were on the verge of dissolution," said Luther Martin, a member from Maryland, "scarce held together by the strength of a hair." Fortunately, peace prevailed. The compromise was accepted, and both national and federal members united in determining on an equal vote in the Senate and an unequal vote in the House that were to be.

Parties:

Another division besides that between the large north and and the small states had now appeared. It sepasouth. rated the north from the south. How many

reasons there were for the separation has been remarked; but the reason of all, the one so strong as to lead men to acknowledge that the division between the north and the south was wider than any other in the Convention, the great reason was slavery. This system, pierced, if not overthrown, in all the Northern and in some of the Central States, was still cherished in the south. The scanty numbers of the free population in the Southern States seemed to make slaves a necessity there.

Appor

of repre

sentation.

The first struggle upon the point arose with retionment spect to the apportionment of representation. It was to be decided how the people were to be represented, in what proportions, and in what classes. Upon this subject all other questions yielded to one, namely, whether slaves should be included with freemen, not, of course, as voting, but as making up the number entitled to representation. The extreme party of the south said that they must be, and on the same terms, being equally valuable as the free laborers of the north. On the other hand, the extreme party of the north declared that slaves should never be taken into account until they were emancipated, as they ought to be. The necessity for compromise was again evident. The moderate members of either side came together, and agreed that three fifths of the slave population should be enumerated with the whole of the white population in apportioning the representatives amongst the different states.

The slave A graver point was raised. In the draught of the trade. Constitution now under debate, there stood a clause forbidding the general government to lay any tax or prohibition upon the migrations or the importations authorized

by the states. This signified that there was to be no interference with the slave trade. "It is inconsistent," exclaimed Martin, of Maryland, "with the principles of the revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution!" "Religion and humanity," answered John Rutledge, of South Carolina, "have nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle of nations. The true question at present is, whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union." Charles C. Pinckney, calmer than his colleague, took broader ground. "If the states be left at liberty on this subject, South Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland have already done." The opposition to the claims of the extreme south came from the Central States, especially from Virginia, not from the north. The north, intent upon the passage of acts protective of its large shipping interests, was quite ready to come to an understanding with the south. The consequence was that, instead of imitating the example of earlier years and declaring the slave trade at an end, the Convention protracted its existence for twenty years, (till 1808.) At the same time, the restriction upon acts relating to commerce was stricken from the Constitution. Dark as this transaction seems, it was still a compromise. To extend the slave trade for twenty years was far better than to leave it without any limit at all. It was at the close of these discussions that the draught of the clause respecting fugitive slaves was introduced, and accepted without discussion. The word slaves, however, was avoided here, as it had been in all the portions of the Constitution relating to slavery.

Details

There is no occasion in this place for dwelling and dis- upon the details and the discussions of the Convention. Wherever there was a detail, there was al

cussions.

most invariably a discussion; but the interest in the debates generally was altogether subordinate to that excited by the questions which have been mentioned. On these, as the questions involving compromise, it was felt that the Constitution depended. "The Constitution which we now present”—thus ran the draught of a letter proposed to be addressed to Congress-"is the result of a spirit of amity and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." "I can well recollect," said James Wilson to his constituents of Pennsylvania, "the impression which on many occa、 sions was made by the difficulties which surrounded and pressed the Convention. The great undertaking sometimes seemed to be at a stand; and other times its motions seemed to be retrograde."

of the

tion.

At length, after nearly four months' perseverance Adoption through all the heat of summer, the Convention Constitu- agreed to the Constitution, (September 15.) As soon as it could be properly engrossed, it was signed by all the delegates, save Gerry, of Massachusetts, who hinted at civil war being about to ensue, Randolph and George Mason, of Virginia, (September 17.) As the last members were signing, Franklin pointed to a sun painted upon the back of the president's chair, saying, "I have often and often, in the course of the session and the vicissitude of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that sun behind the president, without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting; but now, at length, I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun."

Opposition in the nation.

The dawn was still uncertain. Presented to Congress, and thence transmitted to the states, to be by them accepted or rejected, the Constitution was received with very general murmurs. Even some members of the Convention, on reaching home, declared,