Charles :\. Beard ~l

- uon were "anxtcus above everythin~ else to safe~uard the rig'htsof private property a~ainstany leve"ln~ tendencies on the part of the propertyless masses." The fo"owin~ selection'contains Beard'soverview of the framin~ and adoption of the Constitution and hi~hli~hts hiseconomic theme and his belief in the antimajorttartan attributes of the Constitution.

3-----FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION

Charles A. BeardC:?J

'---

As Blackstone' shows by happy illustration the reason and spirit of a law are co be un-derstood only by an inquiry into the circumstances of its enactment. The underlyingpurposes of the Constitution [of the United Scates], therefore, are to be revealed onlyby a study of the conditions and events which led to its formation and adoption.

At the outset .it must be remembered that there were two great parties at thetime of the adoption of the Constirurion=-one laying emphasis on strength and ef-ficiency in government and the other on its popular aspects. Quite naturally themen who led in stirring up the revolt against Great Britain and in keeping the fight-ing temper of the Revolutionists at the proper heat were the boldest and most radi-cal thinkers-men like Samuel Adams. Thomas Paine. Patrick Henry. and ThomasJefferson. They were not, generally speaking, men of large property incerests or ofmuch practical business experience. In a time of disorder. they could consistentlylay more stress upon personal liberty than upon social control; and they pushed cothe extreme limits those doctrines of individual rights which had been evolved inEngland during the struggles of the small landed proprietors and commercial ctdSSesagainst royal prerogative. and which corresponded to the economic conditions pre-vailing in America at the close of the eighteenth century. They associated stronggovernment with monarchy. and came co believe that the best political system wasone which governed least. A majority of the radicals viewed all government. espe-cially if highly centralized. as a species of evil. tolerable only because necessary andalways to be kept down to an irreducible minimum by a jealous vigilance.

Jefferson put the doctrine in concrete form when he declared that he preferrednewspapers without government to government without newspapers. The Declara-tion of Independence. the first state Constitutions, and the Articles of Confedera-cion bore the impress of this philosophy. In their anxierv to defend the individual

r1i..:<>

~

'Compiler's Note: Blackstone. Sir William (1723-1 i80). Distinguished commentator onthe lawsof England. judge. and teacher.

~('"

'--

r-\'1

l2 Conscicunonat Government,~

against all federal interference and to preserve tu the srates <I l<tr\!e -phere ,\t 1,\1;,11autonomy, these Revolutioniscs had 5e( up a system C,\Ll weak (,I accomplish che <II;'

cepted objects otgovernmenr: namely, narional defense. che prorecnon lIt' propertv.and the advancement tlf commerce. Thev were nor unaware lIt (he character I Ittheir handiwork, bur rhev believed with jefferson that "man was a ranon.il animalendowed by nature with rights and with an innate sense ,It justice and rhur he <.:\\uklbe restrained trorn wrong and protected in righr by moderate powers C'lnt'iJeJ t\\persons of his own choice.' Occasional riots and disorders, chev held. were prefer-able co too much government.

The new American political system based on these doctrines had scarcelv \!\\neinto effect before it began co incur opposition trorn many sources, The close \,t' rheRevolutionary struggle removed the prime cause for radical agicacion and brouuht anew group of thinkers into prominence, Whl!n independence had beengained. thepractical work co be done was the maintenance of social order, the payment (It thepublic debt, the provision of a sound financial system, and the establishrnenr lIt'

conditions favorable to the development of (he economic resources \If the newcountry. The men who were principally concerned in this work ,If peaceful enter-prise were not the philosophers, but men of business and propertv and the holdersofpublic securities. For the most part they had had no quarrel with the svsrernofclass rule and the strong centralization of government which existed in England. Irwas on the question of policy, not of governrnenral structure, chat rhev had brokenwith the British authorities. By no means all of them, in face. had even resisted thepolicy of the mother country, for within the ranks of the conservatives were largenumbers of Loyalists who had remained in America, and, as was (L) have been ex-pected, cherished a bitter feeling against the Revolutionists. especially the radicalsection which had been boldest in denouncing the English system root and branch.In ocher words, after the heat and excitement of the War of In.Jerendence wereover and the new-government. state and national. was tested by rhe ordinarv expe-riences of traders, financiers, and manufacturers, it was found inadequate. <\Odthesegroups accordingly grew more and more determined co reconstruct the political svs-tern in such a fashion as co make it subserve their permanent interests"

Under the state constitutions and the Articles of Contederation establishedduring the Revolution, every powerfpl economic class in the nation suffered eitherimmediate losses or from impediments placed in the way ut the development \Ittheir enterprises. The holders of che- securities of the Confederate g,)\'emmenc Jidnot receive the interest on their loans, Those who owned Western lands or I,l"kedwith longing eyes upon the rich opporranities for speculation there chatfed at theweakness of the government and its delays in establishing order. on che tronciers.Traders and commercial men found their plans for commerce on a national sculeimpeded by local interference with interstate commerce. The currency "f the statesand the nation was hopelessly muddled, Creditors everywhere were an~ry about thedepreciated paper money which the agrarians had made and were attempcine toforce upon those from whom they had borrowed specie, In short, it was a WM be-tween business and populism, Under the Articles of Confederation populism had afree hand, for majorities in the state legislatures were ornrupocene. Anyone wn,lreads tbe economic history of the time will see why the solid conservative interests

T;;uJ

Charles .~. Beard }}

of che country were weary of calk about the "rights of the people" and bene upon es-tablishing firm guarantees for the righcs of property.

The Congress of the Confederation was not long in discovering ehe true charac-ter of the turtle authority which the Articles had conferred upon it. The necessity toeneW sources of revenue became apparent even while the struggle for independencewas yet undecided, and. in I i81. Congress carried a resolution to the effect char itshould be authorized to lay a duty of five percent on certain goods. This moderateproposition was defeated because Rhode Island rejected it on the grounds that "sheregarded ir the most precious jewel of sovereignty char no state shall be called uponEO open its purse but by the authority of the state and by her own officers." Two yearslacer Congress prepared another amendment EO the Articles providing for certainimport duties, the receipts from which, collected by state officers, were to be appliedco the payment of the public debt; but three years after rhe introduction of the mea-sure. four states, including New York, still held out against its ratification, and theprojecc was allowed to drop. At last, in t 786, Congress in a resolution declared thatthe requisitions for the last eight years had been so irregular in their operation, souncertain in their collection, and so evidently unproductive, that a reliance on themin the future would be no less dishonorable to the understandings of chose who en-tertained it than it would be dangerous co the welfare and peace of the Union. Con-gress. thereupon, solemnly added chat it had become its duty "to declare mostexplicidy that the crisis had arrived when the people of the United States, by whosewill and for whose benefic the federal government was institured, must decidewhether they will support their rank as a nation by maintaining the public faith athome and abroad, or whether for the wane of a timely exertion in establishing a gen-eral review and thereby giving strength to the Confederacy, they will hazard not onlythe existence of che Union but chose great and invaluable privileges for which theyhave so arduously and so honorably contended."

In fact, the Articles of Confederation had hardly gone into effect before theleading citizens also began to feel that the powers of Congress were wholly inade-quate. In li80, even before their adoption, Alexander Hamilcon proposed a generalconvention to frame a new constitution, and from that.time forward he laboredwith remarkable zeal and wisdom to extend and popularize the idea of a strong na-tional government. Two years later, the Assembly of che State of New York recom-mended a convention to revise the Articles and increase the power of Congress. Inl78J, Washington, in a circular letter to the governors, urged that it was indispens-able to che happiness of the individual states chat there should be lodged some-where a supreme power to regulate and govern the general concerns of theconfederation. Shortly afterward (li8S). Governor Bowdoin. of Massachusetts,suggested to his state legislature the advisability of calling a national assembly tosettle upon and define the powers of Congress: and the legislature resolved that thegovernment under the Articles of Confederation was inadequate and should be re-formed; but the resolution was never laid before Congress.

In January. t 786, Virginia invited all the other states to send delegates to a con-vention at Annapolis to consider the question of duties on imports and commerce ingeneral. \Vhen chis convention assembled in I 786, delegates from only five stateswere present, and they were disheartened at the limitations on their powers and the

'--

T .,;tl

14 Consntunonal Governrnenr

lack of interest che ocher states had shown in the project. Wirh characterisnc tore-sight, however . Alexander Hamilton seced the occasion to secure che adoption ur' ,lrecommendation advising the states co choose representatives tor another convert-tion co meet in Philadelphia che following year "co consider the Articles elfConted-erarion and co propose such changes therein as might render them adequate to cheexigencies of the union." This recommendation was cautiouslv worded, tor Hamil-ton did nut want to raise any unnecessarv alarm, He doubtless 'believed chat a cum-plete revolution in rhe old system was desirable, bur he knew that, in the existins;state of popular temper, it was not expedient coannounce his complete program. Ac-cordingly no general reconstruction of the political system was suggested; the Arri-des of Confederation were merely co be "revised"; and che amendments were co beapproved by the stare legislatures as provided by that instrument.

The proposal of the Annapolis convention was transmitted to the state iegisla-cures and laid before Congress. Congress thereupon resolved in February. 1i8 i. thata convention should be held for. the sale and express purpose of revising the Arti-cles of Confederation and reporting to itself and the legislatures of the several statessuch alterations and provisions as would when agreed to by Congress and confirmedby the states render the federal constitution adequate co the exigencies of govern-ment and the preservation of the union.

ln pursuance of this call, delegates to the new convention were chosen by thelegislatures of the states or by the governors in conformity to authority conferred bvthe legislative assemblies.' The delegates were given instructions of a general natureby their respective states. none of which, apparently, contemplated any very far-reaching changes. In fact, almost all of them expressly limited rheir representativesto a mere revision of the Articles of Confederation. For example, Connecricur au-thorized her delegates co represent and confer for the purpose mentioned in the res-olution of Congress and CO discuss such measures "agreeable co the generalprinciples of Republican government" as they should chink proper co render theUnion adequate. Delaware. however. went so far as to provide chat none of the pro-posed alterations should extend to the fifth part of the Articles of Contederationguaranteeing that each state should be entitled co one vote.

It was a truly remarkable assembly of men chat gathered in Philadelphia onMay l4, 1787. CO undertake the work of reconstructing rhe American system ofgovernment. It is not merely patriotic pride that compels one to assert chat never inthe history of assemblies has there been a convention of men richer in political ex-perience and in practical knowledge, or endowed with a profounder insight into thesprings of human action and the intimate essence of government. It is indeed an ,\S-

rounding fact that at one time so many men skilled in statecraft could be found onthe very frontiers of civilization among a population numbering about four millionwhites. It is no less a cause for admiration that their instrument of government

:Rhl.lde Island alone was unrepresented. In all. sixty-two delegates were appointed t-ythe states; fifty-five l.lfthese attended sometime Juring the sessions:bur cnlv thirty-ninesigned the finished document.

I,

~

-r-;z,'J...

Charles .-\. Bear.I I:;

'--

'----

shuuld have survived the trials and crises 1.)(' a century chat saw the wreck \.It" morech~n ,I score uf rarer constitutions .

.All the members had had a practical training in politics. Washingcun. (IS

cummctnder.in.chief of the Re"olutionary torces. had learned well the lessons <mJpn..lblemsof war. and mastered successfully rhe no less diftkult problems of adrninis-tration. The cwo Morrises had distinguished themselves in grappling wich fimmcial4uescions as crying and perplexing as any' which statesmen had ever been compelledto face. Seven of the delegates had gained political wisdom as governors of their na-rive states: and no less than twenrv-eighc had served in Congress either during theRevolution or under the Articles of Confederation. These were men trained in thelaw. versed in finance. skilled in administration, and learned in the political philcs-ophy of their own and all earlier times. Moreover. they' were men destined to continuepublic service under the governrnenc which they had met co construct-Presidents.Vice-Presidenes. heads of departments, justices of the Supreme Court were in thatimposing body....

As Woodrow Wilson had concisely put it. the framers of the Constitution rep-resented "a srrong and intelligent class possessed of unity and informed by a con-scious solidarity of inreresrs.?'. . .

The makers of the federal Constitution represented the solid. conservative.commercial and financial interests of the countrv-c-not the interests which de-nounced and proscribed judges in Rhode Island, New jersey, and North Carolina.and stoned their houses in New York. The conservative interests, made desperate bythe imbecilities of the Confederation and harried by state legislatures, roused them-selves from the lethargy, drew together in a mighty effort co establish a governmentchat would be strong enough to pay the national debt. regulate interstate and foreigncommerce, provide for national defense, prevent fluctuations in the currency createdby paper emissions, and control the propensities of legislative rnajoricies to attackprivate rights .... The radicals. however, like Patrick Henry, jefferson, and SamuelAdams, were conspicuous by their absence from the convention.' .... (The makers of the Consnrurion were convened] co frame a government which

would meet the practical issues that had arisen under the Articles of Confederation.The objections they entertained to direct popular government, and they were un-doubtedly many, were based upon their experience with popular assemblies duringrhe immediately preceding years. With many of the plain lessons of history beforethem. they naturally feared that the rights and privileges of the minority would beinsecure if the principle of majority rule was definitely adopted and provisions madefor its exercise. Furthermore, it will be remembered chat up co that time the right ofall men, as men, co share in the government had never been recognized in practice.

;WoodrowWilson, Division and R~tlnion (New York: Longman),Green. & Co.. [8931.p. 12.

'Compuer's Note: The contents of chis paragraph h•.we been taken from posicionsonpp. 75-:76and 88 of rhe original text of The SupremeCourt <1M the Conscruconand placedhere to emphasce the economic theme.

r -2..3

36 Constirunonal Governrnenr

Everywhere in Europe the government was in the hands of a ruling monarch or atbest a ruling class; everywhere the mass of the people had been regarded principallvas an arms-bearing and tax-paying multitude. uneducated. and with lirtle hare orcapacity for advancement. Two years were to elapse after the meeting of the graveassembly at Philadelphia before the transformation of the Estates General into theNational Convention in France opened the floodgates of revolutionary ideas on hu-man rights before whose rising tide old landmarks of government are still being sub-merged. It is small wonder. therefore. that. under the circumstances. many of themembers of that august body held popular government in slight esteem and rookthe people into consideration only as far as it was imperative "to inspire them withthe necessary confidence." as Mr. Gerry frankly put it.'

Indeed, every page of the laconic record of the proceedings of the conventionpreserved to posterity by Mr. Madison shows conclusively that the members of thatassembly were not seeking to realize any fine notions about democracy and equality.but were striving with all the resources of political wisdom at their command to set upa system of government that would be stable and efficient. safeguarded on one handagainst the possibilities of despotism and on the other against the onslaught of ma-jorities. In the mind of Mr. Gerry. the evils they had experienced flowed "from the ex-cess of democracy." and he confessed that while he was still republican. he "had beencaught by experience the danger of the levelling spirit."? Mr. Randolph in offering tothe consideration of the convention his plan of government. observed "that the gen-eral object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored;that. in tracing these evils to their origin. every man had found it in the turbulenceand follies of democracy; that some check therefore was to be sought for against thistendency of our governments; and that a good Senate seemed most likely co answerme purpose." Mr. Hamilton. in advocating a life term for Senators. urged that "allcommunities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are rich and wellborn and me other the mass of the people who seldom judge or determine right."

Gouverneur Morris wanted to check the "precipitancy. changeableness. andexcess" of the representatives of the people by the ability and v irtue of men "ofgreat: and established property-aristocracy; men who from pride will support con-sistency and permanency .... Such an aristocratic body will keep down the turbu-lence of democracy." While these extreme doctrines were somewhat counter-balancedby the democratic principles of Mr. Wilson who urged that "the government oughtto possess, not only first. the force. but second the mind or sense of the people atlarge." Madison doubtless summed up in a brief sentence the general opinion of theconvention when he said that to secure private rights against majority factions. andat the same time to preserve the spirit and form of popular government, was thegreat object to which their inquiries had been directed.'

'Jonathan Elliot. The Debates in the Several Scate Conventions on the A.doption of th~ Fed-eraLConstitution (Washington. D.C.: The Editor. l827-l830). vol. v, p. l60.

'fbid., vol. v, p. U6.:Ibid., vol. v, p. U8.'The Federalist. No. lO.

l,,;ttf

Charles A. Beard J i

They were anxious above everything else to safeguard the rights of private prop-ercy against any leveling tendencies on the part of the propertyless masses. Gou .•.·~rn~ur Murris. in speaking on the problem of apportioning representatives, correcdv;cact:!J the sound historical fact when he declared: "Life and liberty were generallysaiJ to be of more value than property. An accurate view of the matter would. never-chdess. prove that property was the main object of society. . . . If property. then.was che main object of government. certainly it ought co be one measure of the in-tluence due co those who were co be affected by the governrnenr.?' Mr. King alsoagreed that "property was the primary object of society,':" and Mr. Madison warnedthe convention that in framing a system which they wished co last for ages they mustnot lose sight of the changes which the ages would produce in che forms and distrib-ution of property. In advocating a long term in order to give independence and firm-ness to the Senate. he described these impending changes: "An increase ofpopulation will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under allthe hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence.According co the equal laws of suffrage. the power will slide lnro the hands of theformer. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country, but symptoms of alevelling spirit. as we have undersrood have sufficiently appeared. in a certain quar-ter. co give notice of the future danger."!' And again. in support of the argument for aproperty qualification on voters, Madison urged: "In future times. a great majority ofthe people will not only be without landed. but any other sort of property. These willeither combine. under the influence of their common siruarion.e-In which case therights of property and the public liberty will not be secure in their hands.-or what ismore probable, they will become the tools of opulence and ambition; in which casethere will be equal danger on another side.?" Various projects for setting up class ruleby the establishment of property qualifications for voters and officers were advancedin the convention. but they were defeated ....

The absence of such property qualifications iscertainly not due coany belief in [ef-ferson'sfree-and-equaldoctrine. It isdue rather to the fact chat the membersor theconvention could not agree on the nature and amount of the qualifications.Natu-rally a landed qualification was suggested. but for obvious reasons tc was rejected.Although it wassatisfactoryto the landed genrrvof the South. it did not suit the fi-nancial. commercial. and manufacturing genrry of the North. If it was high. thelatter would be excluded; if it was low it would let in the populisttc farmerswhohad already made so much trouble in the state legislatures with paper-moneyschemes and ocher devices for "relieving agriculture."One of the chief reasons forcalling the convention and framing the Constitution was to promote commerceand industry and coprotect personal property against the "depredations" of [effer-son's noble freeholders.On the other hand a personal-property qualification. high

"Elliot's Debaces. op. de., vol. v, p. 279.%id .. p. 280."Ibid .. p. 243."[bid., p. 387.

T ..:;..5

38 Consutucional Government

enough to .please merchant princes like Rot-ert Morris ami Nathaniel Gorhamwuuld shur our rhe Southern planters. Again. an alternative of land or personalpropertv, high enough to urford safeguardsto large interests, woulddoubtless bringabout (he: rejecrion vt' che •.•..hole Constirurion by rhe croublemaking farmerswhohaJ to passupon chequestion I.lr' ratificarion. '.

Nevertheless, by the system of checks and balances placed in the government. checonvention safeguarded the interests of property against attacks by majorities. TheHouse of Representatives. Mr. Hamilton pointed out. "was so formed as to render irparticularly the guardian of rhe poorer orders of cirizens.?" while the Senate was topreserve the rights of property and the interests of the minority against the demandsof the majority." In the tenth number of Th~ Federalist, Mr. Madison argued in aphilosophic vein in support of the proposition chat it was necessary to base the po-litical system on the actual conditions of "natural inequality." Uniformirv of inter-ests throughout the state. he contended. was impossible on account of the diversityin the faculties of men. from which the rights of property originated; the protectionof these faculties was the first object of government; from the protection of differentand unequal faculties of acquiring property the possession of different degrees andkinds of property immediately resulted; from the influence of these on the senti-ments and views of the respective proprietors ensued a division of society into dif-ferent interests and parties; the unequal distribution of wealth inevitably led to aclash of interests in which the majority was liable co carry out its policies at the ex-pense of the minority; hence, he added, in concluding this splendid piece of logic,"the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, muse be rendered by theirnumber and local situation unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of op-pression"; and in his opinion it was the great merit of the newly framed Conscitu-cion that it secured the rights of the minority against "the superior force of aninterested and overbearing majority."

This very system of checks and balances, which is undeniably the essential ele-ment of the Constitution, is built upon the doctrine that the popular branch of thegovernment cannot be allowed full sway, and least of all in the enactment of lawscouching the rights of property. The exclusion of the direct popular vote in the elec-tion of the President; the creation. again by indirect election, of a Senate which theframers hoped would represent the wealth and conservative interests of the coun-trv:" and the establishment of an independent judiciary appointed by the Presidentwith the concurrence of the Senate-all these devices bear witness to the fact thatrhe underlying purpose of the Constuution was not the establishment of populargovernment by means of parliamentary majorities.

il'h.'I.o.,d'

I'Compiler'sNoc~: This single paragraph from "Whom Does Congress Represent:"Harper's Maga;:ine. Jan. 1930.pp. 144-l5 2, has been inserted here becauseuf icsvalue in am-plifying the passagesfrom The Supreme Court and the Conscitucion. Reprinting fromchisarti-cle by Beardhas been done with che permission of Harper's Magajne.

"Elliot's Debates,op. cir., vol. v, p. 244.'!(bid., \'01. v, p. 203."Compiler'sNoce: Popular election of senators wasachieved in 1913through the Seven-

reenrh Amendment to the constitution.

<,..

T,01(P

Charles .-\. Beard l\}

"

P(lge after page of The Federalist is directed to that portion of the electoratewhich was disgusted with the "mutability of the public councils." Writing on therr6iJenrial veto Hamilton says: "The propensitv lIt the legislative department tointrude upon the rights. and absorb the powers, of other deparrrnenrs has alreadyt-t::ensuggested and repeated.. . [t may perhaps be said char che power of pre-\'enring bad laws included the power of preventing gOllJ ones: and may he used cothe line purpose as well as the ocher, Bur rhis objection will have little weight withthuse who can properly estimate the mischiefs of rhar inconstancy and mutabilityin the laws which torrn the greater blemish in the character and genius of our '5l)\"ernmems. They will consider every institution calculated co restrain the excess otlaw-making and to keep things in the same state in which they happen tv be at anycriven period, as more likely to do good than harm; because it is favorable to zrearer:tability in the svstern of legislarion. The injury which may be possibly done "by·de-feating a few good laws will' be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing anumber of bad ones."

When the framers of the Constitution had completed the remarkable instru-ment which was to establish a national government capable of discharging effec-tively certain great functions and checking the propensities of popular legislaturesto attack the rights of private property, a formidable task remained before them-the task of securing the adoption of the new frame of government by states comwith popular dissensions. They knew very well that the state legislatures which hadbeen so negligent in paying their quotas [of money] under the Articles [of Confed-eration] and which had been so jealous ofrheir rights, would probably stick at ran-fYing such a national instrument of government. Accordingly they cast aside thatclause in the Articles requiring amendments co be ratified by the legislatures of allthe states; and advised that the new Constitution should be ratified by conventionsin the several states composed of delegates chosen by the voters.': They furthermoredeclared-and this is a fundamental matter-chat when the conventions of ninestares had ratified the Constitution the new governmenc should go into effect so faras those states were concerned. The chief reason for rescoring to rattfications byconventions is laid down by Hamilton in the twenty-second number of The Federal-ist: "It has not a little conrribuced to the infirmities of the existing federal systemthat it never had a ratification by the people. Resting on no better foundation thanthe consent of the several legislatures. it has been exposed to frequent and intricatequestions concerning the validity of its powers; and has in some instances givenbirth co the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratificationto the law of a state, it has been contended that the same authority might repeal thelaw by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be w maintain that aparty to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has re-spectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessityof laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanc-tion of delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the

;'Compikr's Noce:The original text. p, 7j. comments: "lt was largelybecause the framersof the Constitution knew the temper and classbias of the state legislaturesthat they arrangedthat the new Constitution should be ratified by conventions."

,!1't

T ...).1

40 Constitutional Government

----'

solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national rower l)u~h( toHo\v trnrnediarelv from chat pure original foundacion of all leginrnate authority."

Of course. the convention did not resort co the revolutionary policv of rrans-mitting the Constitution directly to the convennons of the several states, It rnerelvlaid the firushed instrument before the Confederate Conzress with the suvzesrionthat it should be submitted co "a convention of delegates" chosen in eachstate bythe people thereof. under the recommendation of its legislature. tor their assent andratification: and each convention assenting thereto and rarifying the same shouldgive notice thereof co the United States in Congress assembled." The conventionwent on to suggest chat when nine states had ratified the Constitution. the Confed-erate Congress should extinguish itself by making provision for the elections neces-sary co put the new government into effect. . .

After the new Constitution was published and transmitted to the states, therebegan a long and bitter fight over ratification. A veritable Hood of pamphlet litera-cure descended upon the country. and a collection of these pamphlet; by Hamil-con. Madison. and Jay. brought together under the tide of The Federalisc-rhoughclearly a piece of campaign literature-has remained a permanent part of the con-temporary sources on the Constitution and has been regarded by many lawyers as acommentary second in value only co the decisions of the Supreme Court, Within ayear the champions of the new government found themselves victorious. tor onJune 21. 1788. the ninth state, New Hampshire. ratified the Constitution. and ac-cordingly the new government might go into effect as between the agreeing states.Within a few weeks. the nationalist party in Virginia and New York succeeded inwinning these two states, and in spite of the fact that North Carolina and RhodeIsland had not yet ratified the Constitution, Congress determined to put the in-strument into effect in accordance with the recommendations of the convention.Elections for the new government were held; the date March 4. 1789. was fixed forthe formal establishment of the new system; Congress secured a quorum onApril 6; and on April 30 Washington was inaugurated at the federal Hall in WallStreet. New York.

C<::?'J

Charles A. Beard suggests that there is a dichotomy between the values of the Consti-tution and those of the Declaration of Independence, between Jefferson and his followerson the one hand. and Madison and Hamilton on the other, He suggests that Jefferson andthe Revolutionists supported political equality and individual freedom and opposed astrong central government. The spirit of the Revolution, argues Beard. spawned the Articlesof Confederation. which purposely created a weak and ineffective government. The Revo-lutionists. in general. were not men of property and thus did not believe that a strong cen-tral government was necessary to protect their interests. By contrast. the framers of theConstitution reflected the spirit of Alexander Hamilton. who ironically was not a. man ofsubstantial property himself. but who advocated an energetic and dominant national gov-ernment. Hamilton,like many of the framers. was a stron~.proponent of governmental pro-tection of property Interests.

'T ..;2.8