The American FranchiseDuring John Adams's presidency, the American population increased from 4.7 million to 5.3 million peoplea 35.1 percent increase since 1790. Four out of five families farmed the land. Most of their produce was consumed on the farm or exchanged within the local community. Only twelve cities in the United States held more than 5,000 people, and only 3 percent of the population was urban. At that time, the greatest growth in the nation occurred in the area west of the Appalachian Mountains. The frontier town of Cincinnati, located on the Ohio River, was the most distant outpost. By 1800the first century of the new Republic500,000 people, principally from Virginia and Maryland, had migrated to these western lands. Kentucky and Tennessee both had populations large enough to be admitted to the Union as states in 1792 and 1796, respectively. New Englanders had moved into upstate New York and Ohio while people in New Jersey moved into western Pennsylvania.Luckily for Adams, Jay's Treaty in 1794 with the British brought some peace to the Northwest Territory (present-day Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin) and established the formal designation of sovereign nations for Native American tribes. But the pressure on the tribes to move further west was great. The Treaty of Greenville in 1795, for example, pushed the Shawnees into present-day Missouri in exchange for the cession of 17 million acres in Ohio. The once-powerful Iroquois were confined to a few scattered reservations in New York. No new major engagements with frontier tribes beset the nation during Adams's presidency.In view of his much-expressed concern about Shays's Rebellion in 1786 and the Whiskey Rebellion of western farmers in 1794, John Adams must have been dismayed at the weakening of property requirements for voting in the newest western states. As the population moved westward in the 1790s, the pressure to increase the number of people eligible to vote grew. Most of the original thirteen states still limited the vote to property owners or taxpayers in the 1790s. These restrictions limited male suffrage to half of the white male population. Turnout among eligible voters was low, in part because voice voting made each man's vote a matter of public knowledge. Most state constitutions stipulated that presidential electors and U.S. senators were to be chosen by state legislators and not by popular vote. Everywhere, except on the frontier, wealthy merchants and slave owners dominated officeholding, and financial and kinship ties were crucial factors in political advancement. However, the new states of Kentucky and Tennessee began a trend that extended the right to vote to all white males over the age of twenty-one.

John Brown's Speech to the Court at his TrialNovember 2, 1859

I have, may it please the court, a few words to say. In the first place, I deny everything but what I have all along admitted -- the design on my part to free the slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter when I went into Missouri and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country, and finally left them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing again on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection.

I have another objection; and that is, it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved (for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case)--had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends--either father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class--and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

This court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me, further, to "remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them." I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done--as I have always freely admitted I have done--in behalf of His despised poor was not wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments--I submit; so let it be done! Let me say one word further.

I feel entirely satisfied with the treatment I have received on my trial. Considering all the circumstances it has been more generous than I expected. But I feel no consciousness of guilt. I have stated that from the first what was my intention and what was not. I never had any design against the life of any person, nor any disposition to commit treason, or excite slaves to rebel, or make any general insurrection. I never encouraged any man to do so, but always discouraged any idea of that kind.

Let me say also a word in regard to the statements made by some of those connected with me. I her it has been stated by some of them that I have induced them to join me. But the contrary is true. I do not say this to injure them, but as regretting their weakness. There is not one of them but joined me of his own accord, and the greater part of them at their own expense. A number of them I never saw, and never had a word of conversation with till the day they came to me; and that was for the purpose I have stated.

Now I have done.

John Brown's Other Statements at his TrialOpening remarks of John Brown to the Virginia Court, October 27, 1859 Virginians, I did not ask for any quarter at the time I was taken. I did not ask to have my life spared. The Governor of the State of Virginia tendered me his assurance that I should have a fair trial; but, under no circumstances whatever, will I be able to have a fair trial. If you seek my blood, you can have it at any moment, without this mockery of a trial. I have had no counsel. I have not been able to advise with anyone. I know nothing about the feelings of my fellow-prisoners, and am utterly unable to attend in any way to my own defense. My memory don't serve me. My health is insufficient, though improving. There are mitigating circumstances that I would urge in our favor, if a fair trial is to be allowed us. But if we are to be forced with a mere form-a trial for execution-you might spare yourselves that trouble. I am ready for my fate. I do not ask for a trial. I beg for no mockery of a trial-no insult-nothing but that which conscience gives, or cowardice would drive to practice. I ask again to be excused from the mockery of a trial. . . . I have now little further to ask, other than that I may not be foolishly insulted, only as cowardly barbarians insult those who fall into their power.John Brown's request for a delay

I do not intend to detain the court, but barely wish to say, as I have been promised a fair trial, that I am not in circumstances that enable me to attend a trial, owing to the state of my health. I have a severe wound in the back, or rather in one kidney, which enfeebles me very much. But I am doing well, and I only ask for a very short delay in my trial, and I may be able to listen to it; and I merely ask this that, as the saying is "the devil may have his dues," no more. I wish to say further that my hearing is impaired and rendered indistinct in consequence of wounds I have about my head. I cannot hear distinctly at all; I could not hear what the Court has said this morning. I would be glad to hear what is said on my trial, and am now doing better than I could expect to be under the circumstances. A very short delay would be all I ask. I do not presume to ask more than a very short delay, so that I may in some degree recover, and be able to [at] least listen to my trial, and hear what questions are asked of the citizens, and what their answers are. If that could be allowed me, I should be very much obliged.John Brown's response to claims of his insanityI look upon it as a miserable artifice and pretext of those who ought to take a different course in regard to me. . . . Insane persons, so as my experience goes, have but little ability to judge of their own sanity; and if I am insane, of course I should think I know more than all the rest of the world. But I do not think so. I am perfectly unconscious of insanity, and I reject, so far as I am capable, any attempt to interfere in my behalf on that score.

Brown trial

Harpers Ferry, Virginia was the site of an October 16, 1859 raid by abolitionist John Brown, who hoped to seize the town's federal arsenal and initiate a full-scale rebellion against slavery by distributing the arsenal's weapons to local slaves. Brown's trial during October 17-November 2, 1859 rallied support for his cause, and his execution furthered the work of abolitionists.

Federal troops under the command of Col. Robert E. Lee were sent to Harpers Ferry during the raid, and many of Brown's men, including two of his sons, were killed. The unsuccessful raid came to an end on October 18, when Brown and his 17 compatriots were captured and delivered for trial. Virginia governor Henry A. Wise decided to try Brown in Charlestown on state charges of treason, insurrection, and murder rather than waiting for federal authorities. Brown effectively convinced his attorneys not to argue that he was insane (although insanity did run in his family), and the jury dismissed defense claims that Brown could not be charged for treason or insurrection against Virginia because he was not a state citizen.

During the trial, where his injuries largely confined him to bed, Brown's composed deportment and claim of upholding Biblical principles of justice made him a martyr and did much to rally Northern support for the antislavery cause. Nonetheless, he was convicted and sentenced to be hanged. At his highly publicized execution in December 1859, he delivered a chilling prediction for slavery's demise, stating, "I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood," a prophesy that was fulfilled with the beginning of the Civil War just over a year later.

Execution of John Brown

[Library of Congress]The execution of John Brown and two of his men who took part in the Harpers Ferry Raid. After he was convicted of treason, murder, and insurrection, Brown was hanged in Charleston, Virginia, and quickly became a martyr in the North.

Harpers Ferry raid

Harpers Ferry, Virginia was the site of an October 16, 1859 raid by abolitionist John Brown, who hoped to seize the town's federal arsenal and initiate a full-scale rebellion against slavery by distributing its weapons to local slaves.

Federal troops under the command of Col. Robert E. Lee were sent to Harpers Ferry, and the unsuccessful raid came to an end on October 18 when Brown and his 17 compatriots were captured and delivered for trial. After being convicted of treason, Brown was hanged on December 2. At his highly publicized execution, he delivered a chilling prediction for slavery's demise when he stated, "I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood."

Most Northerners condemned his lawless action, but some most notably Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow publicly supported Brown's attempt to end slavery. Shortly after his execution, as sectional tension between the North and South increased, Brown became a martyr for the cause of abolitionism.

A little rebellion"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and inmost of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing.Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.[1]Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government." -Thomas JeffersontoJames Madison,Paris, January 30,1787[2]

John BrownA militant abolitionist, John Brown believed that slavery must be overthrown by force. In 1859, he led the unsuccessful Harpers Ferry raid against the federal arsenal in Harpers Ferry, Virginia, hoping to spark a local slave rebellion. This event, perhaps more than any other single event, polarized the North and South and led directly to the outbreak of the Civil War.

Brown was born on May 9, 1800 in Torrington, Connecticut into a deeply religious family with Puritan ancestry. His father was an early abolitionist and an agent on the Underground Railroad who plied different trades and moved frequently. Brown spent most of his boyhood in Hudson, Ohio. He had little formal schooling and worked as a tanner for his father. In 1820, he married Dianthe Lusk, who bore him seven children. She suffered from mental illness, as had Brown's mother and several maternal relativesfacts that later raised questions about Brown's own sanity and that of his sons. After his first wife's death, Brown married 16-year-old Mary Ann Day, by whom he had 13 children.

In 1825, Brown moved his family to Richmond, Pennsylvania. He opened a tannery there, and his barn became a station on the Underground Railroad. Ten years later, after the failure of his tannery, he returned to Ohio, engaging in a number of businesses, including sheep raising and wool dealing, that plunged him into debt and finally bankruptcy. In 1846, he moved to Springfield, Massachusetts and opened a wool-grading business that like his earlier ventures ended in financial disaster.

Throughout these years, Brown's hatred of slavery intensified. While living in Ohio, he had protested the segregation of blacks in the Congregational Church he attended, and in 1848, he published an essay, "Sambo's Mistakes," criticizing African Americans for "tamely submitting" to oppression by whites instead of "nobly resisting." In 1849, Brown moved to North Elba, New York, in the Adirondack Mountains, where the wealthy abolitionist Gerrit Smith had set aside 200 acres for an African-American settlement. Offering to teach the settlers farming, Brown lived in complete equality among them. By 1851, however, he was back in Ohio, trying to run a farm and plagued by financial difficulties. Nevertheless, that same year in Springfield, Massachusetts, Brown managed to organize a group of free blacks to assist fugitive slaves.

In 1855, Brown went to Kansas to help establish the territory as a free state, bringing with him a wagon loaded with weapons and ammunition for the free-soil fight. Settling near Osawatomie, he soon became known as Osawatomie Brown. In May 1856, clashes between the "Free Soilers" and the "Border Ruffians" (as the proslavery forces were called) reached a climax when a proslavery band burned and sacked the antislavery stronghold of Lawrence. On the night of May 24, Brown, vowing revenge, led a group that included four of his sons and two associates to Pottawatomie Creek, where they killed five proslavery men. Known as the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre, the event sparked great controversy between proslavery and antislavery groups throughout the country.

In the months that followed, "Captain" John Brown, as he was now known, led a series of cattle-rustling raids against proslavery settlers. In retaliation, a force of 400 Border Ruffians attacked Osawatomie and burned it to the ground. Brown was wounded, and his son Frederick was killed in the fighting. That fall (1856), Brown and most of his family moved to the East. Visiting Boston in January 1857, Brown met such leading abolitionists as Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Samuel Gridley Howe. They agreed to help him get rifles and money to continue the war in Kansas.

Returning to Kansas late in 1857, Brown found both sides inclined to settle their differences peacefully. He then began recruiting young men for an invasion of the South aimed at freeing the slaves and inciting a revolt. Brown was convinced that God had chosen him to lead this "holy" war against slavery. When they learned of his plans, Howe, Higginson, Smith, and three other men formed a group called the "Secret Six" to support Brown in his new venture with guns and money. Brown made several speaking tours around New England to raise money for his ventures, although he did not tell his audiences the exact nature of his plans, just that he wanted to help free the slaves. In May 1858, Brown called a meeting of his black and white supporters at Chatham in Ontario, Canada. He described his plan to establish a free state in the Appalachian Mountains, from which he could launch raids against slave owners and free their slaves. Though scantily attended, the meeting adopted a provisional constitution for Brown's proposed state and chose him as commander in chief.

The next month, Brown was back in Kansas, taking the assumed name Shubel Morgan. Late in 1858, he launched a raid into Missouri, in which a planter was killed and 11 slaves were freed. Thanks to extensive help from antislavery sympathizers, Brown was able to convey the slaves safely to Canada.

In the summer of 1859, Brown decided on a plan to seize the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. Renting a farmhouse in nearby Maryland, he was joined by 16 whites (including three of his sons) and five black men. On October 16, Brown and his band seized the town and armory, freeing a few slaves and taking several white hostages. When news of the raid got out, local militia and a company of U.S. Marines under the command of Robert E. Lee arrived. Refusing to flee into the mountains, Brown and his men holed up in the engine-house of the armory, which they defended until it was overpowered by local and federal authorities. Two of Brown's sons died in the fighting, and Brown himself was wounded. In all, 10 of Brown's original band were killed.

Taken to prison at Charlestown, Virginia, Brown was put on trial for treason. His dignified bearing during his trial won him much sympathy in the North. But after efforts to prove him insane failed, he was convicted and then hanged on December 2, 1859. From the scaffold, Brown made a final speech: "I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood."

To Northerners who hated slavery, Brown became a martyr. Southerners, on the other hand, saw him as the monstrous leader of a violent Northern conspiracy to overthrow the South and spark a slave revolt that would result in the murder of white women and children. When the Civil War began almost a year and a half after Brown's execution, Union troops marched into battle singing, "John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave. But his soul is marching on." This hymn, sung to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," was the most popular Northern song during the war.

John AdamsPrologueJames Madison, jr., was the son of a prominent Virginia planter from Orange County, Virginia. Studious by nature and well-educated, Madison came of age during the revolutionary era. He developed a passion for both politics and political theory. After attending the convention that produced Virginia's new republican constitution and bill of rights in 1776, Madison was elected to the eight-member Governor's advisory Council. Two years later, in 1780, he was chosen to represent Virginia at the Second Continental Congress. His small stature (he stood less than 5' 5" and weighed only about 100 lbs.) did not prevent Madison from dominating the political landscape during the creation and ratification of the United States Constitution.(1) Our Case Is DesperateAs a member of the Confederation Congress, Madison had experienced the frustrations and anxieties of trying to win a war without money or the means of raising it. After leaving Congress in 1784 (term limits in the Articles of Confederation prevented him from serving longer) Madison continued working to increase the authority of the national government, including the power to raise revenue from the individual states.(2) In 1786, Madison saw an opportunity to strengthen the revenue-raising powers of the national government. The Virginia Assembly appointed him to attend an inter-state convention at Annapolis, Maryland, in September called to address issues of trade and commerce. The turnout was disappointing, to say the least. Only 12 delegates from five states came. Madison and his fellow attendees refused to give up, however. Before adjourning, they called on the states to issue a call for delegates to attend another convention the following May. This second convention, to be held in Philadelphia, would "take into consideration the situation of the United States" and "devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."(3) It was a bold move, but men like Madison and Alexander Hamilton of New York believed the states were approaching a crisis point. To them, the court closings and armed confrontations in Massachusetts that fall and winter were dramatic symptoms of a terminal illness afflicting the states and the national government. Madison wrote to George Washington, in November 1786, "[i]f the lessons which it inculcates should not work the proper impressions on the American public, it will be a proof that our case is desperate."(4)

James Madison warned George Washington that the court closings in Massachusetts were a lesson Americans could not afford to ignore.In the same letter, Madison informed Washington that the "recommendation from Annapolis in favor of a general revision of the federal system was unanimously agreed to." The current crisis demanded the highest levels of participation and engagement from all the states. "It has been thought advisable to give this subject a very solemn dress, and all the weight that could be derived from a single StateThis idea will be pursued in the selection of characters to represent Virg.a in the federal Convention." Madison explained that Washington's attendance at the convention was an essential part of this strategy: You will infer our earnestness on this point from the liberty which will be used of placing your name at the head of them. How far this liberty may may correspond with the ideas by which you ought to be governed, will be best decided, where it must ultimately be decided. In every event it will assist powerfully in marking the zeal of our Legislature, and its opinion of the magnitude of the occasion.(5) Like Hamilton and others, Madison was convinced that George Washington's presence was essential if the Philadelphia Convention was to succeed in its efforts to save America's republican experiment. It was, he told the general on December 7, 1786, "the opinion of every judicious person I consulted, that your name could not be spared from the Deputation to the Meeting in May at Philadelphia."(6)

This article in the Massachusetts Hampshire Gazette confirmed Madison's belief that respect for the Constitutional Convention would increase if George Washington attended. More info During these same months, Washington was receiving alarming reports of the rebellion in Massachusetts from trusted correspondents like Henry Knox and Benjamin Lincoln. Madison was careful to prevent news of General Lincoln's successes in quelling organized resistance from lulling Washington into a false sense of optimism. He wrote to Washington on February 21, 1787 acknowledging that "[o]ur latest information from Massachusetts gives hope that the mutiny, or, as the Legislature there now style it, the Rebellion is nearly extinct." But, he added, "[i]f the measure however now on foot for disarming and disenfranchising those concerned in it should be carried into effect, a new crisis may be brought on." Madison was referring to the Massachusetts General Court's decision to punish citizens who had taken up arms against the government by denying them the vote. He strongly disapproved of these measures and thought they would do more harm than good. He expressed his concerns in a letter to Edmund Randolph of Virginia: sthere is reason to apprehend that every thing is not yet right in Massts. and that the discontents are rather silenced than subdued. The measures taken by the Legislature of that state prove that such is their view of the matter. They have disfranchized a considerable proportion of the disaffected voters, have voted a military force for the purpose of maintaining the tranquility of the Commonwealth, and their Delegates in pursuance of instructions have within a few days put on the Journals of Congs. a representation including an assertion of right to federal support in case of necessity."(7)

James Madison criticized the Massachusetts Disqualification Act for taking from former insurgents their right to vote in exchange for a government pardon. More info In Madison's opinion, the real question was, "Whether the calm which he [General Lincoln] has restored will be durable or notFrom the precautions taken by the Government of Massachusetts, it would seem as if their apprehensions were not extinguished." Madison also wrote disapprovingly of the harsh measures taken by the Massachusetts government. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, who was abroad in Paris, Madison criticized the strong military presence Governor James Bowdoin insisted on maintaining: "Besides disarming and disenfranchising, for a limited time, those who have been in arms, as a condition of their pardon, a military corps is to be raised to the amount of one thousand or fifteen hundred men, and to be stationed in the most suspected districts."(8) Madison found the reaction of former insurgents to the loss of their civil rights entirely predictable: "It is said thata great proportion of the offenders choose rather to risk the consequences of their treason, than to submit to the conditions annexed to the amnesty; that they not only appear openly on public occasions, but distinguish themselves by badges of their character; and that their insolence is in many instances countenanced by no less decisive marks of popular favor than election to local offices of trust and authority."(9) Clearly, it was not the armed uprising in Massachusetts that most concerned Madison. He had little doubt that General Lincoln's army would suppress the armed insurgency. Madison feared much more that the beliefs and sentiments of the insurgents might make their way into the state legislature. He needed to look no farther than Rhode Island for an example of a state where debtor interests had taken over the government. The so-called Country Party had passed exactly the sort of debtor relief laws and paper currency the Massachusetts Regulators had demanded. Worse, the Rhode Island law required all creditors to accept rapidly-depreciating paper as legal tender, on a par with gold and silver. Such laws were far more dangerous in Madison's mind than the extralegal activities of the Massachusetts Regulators. The reports that former insurgents were being elected to office in the wake of the rebellion, combined with Governor John Hancock's lenient debtor relief policies, confirmed Madison's worst fears for Massachusetts.

This depiction of unrest in Massachusetts invading the Connecticut Legislature confirmed James Madison's worst fears that the state governments were inherently unstable. More info For Madison, Shays' Rebellion and its aftermath was an alarming symptom of a graver, potentially fatal disease afflicting all the states. In April 1787, one month before the Philadelphia Convention was due to convene, Madison wrote a critique of the national government and states, titled, "Vices of the Political System of the United States." Democratic excesses and injustices by the state legislatures, including controversial debtor relief in the form of "Paper money, instalments of debts, occlusion of Courts, [and] making property a legal tender" dominated Madison's list of "Vices".(10) In Madison's view, only a strong, federal government would effectively curb the worst excesses of the states and maintain the individual liberties of the people. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton in February, 1787, Madison bluntly described the crisis he believed threatened the survival of the United States. Our situation is becoming every day more and more critical. No money comes into the Federal Treasury; no respect is paid to the Federal authority; and people of reflection unanimously agree that the existing confederacy is tottering to its foundationMany individuals of weight, particularly in the Eastern districts, are suspected of leaning towards monarchy. Other individuals predict a partition of the states into two or more confederacies. It is pretty certain that, if some radical amendment of the single one cannot be devised and introduced, one or other of these revolutions, the latter no doubt, will take place.(11) Leaders in other states agreed. In contrast to the poorly attended Annapolis Convention of the previous fall, 12 states sent a total of 55 delegates to Philadelphia in the wake of Shays' Rebellion.(12) Convinced that the fate of the nation hung in the balance, Washington attended and presided as president. Members voted to keep the proceedings a secret, to encourage absolute candor and free debate. Madison's meticulous notes, published after his death, offer an up-close view of the day-to-day debates, crises and compromises at the convention.(13)

James Madison was instrumental in broadening the mission of the Philadelphia Convention; instead of merely revising the existing Articles of Confederation, the delegates created a completely new plan of government. The resulting document reflected the vision of Madison and Hamilton of a federal government far more powerful than anything the revolutionaries had considered in 1776. The new plan alarmed men like Elbridge Gerry and Samuel Adams, who believed a strong central government posed a threat to individual liberties and the sovereignty of the states. But for Madison, the new constitution did not go far enough. He worried that the compromises reached at the convention would hinder the federal government in curbing the excesses of the state legislatures. While he publically supported the proposed Constitution, Madison privately thought that the loss of an absolute veto power on any and all state legislation may have fatally weakened the new federal system. Before the convention, Madison had written to Thomas Jefferson that the central government must be empowered "[o]ver & above the positive power of regulating trade and sundry other matters in which uniformity is proper, to arm the federal head with a negative in all cases whatsoever on the local legislatures." This was an essential "defensive power." Without it, Madison's own "experience and reflection have satisfied me that however ample the federal powers may be made, or however clearly their boundaries may be delineated, on paper, they will be easily and continually baffled by the Legislative Sovereignties of the States."(14) In the months following the creation of the Constitution, Madison anxiously followed the debates in the states over whether or not to ratify the work of the Convention. As one of the largest and most influential states, Massachusetts was a crucial battleground for ratification. Those favoring the proposed Constitution worried. The state had barely averted a bloody civil war the previous winter. The ratifying convention included men who had taken up arms during the Regulation and those who sympathized with their cause. Delegates were divided as to whether or not the proposed Constitution assaulted or protected essential liberties. Only the last minute support of Governor John Hancock and Samuel Adams helped the Federalists achieve ratification by a narrow, 19-vote margin. All eyes then turned to New York. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay published in 85 pro-ratification essays explaining the Constitution to help build momentum for ratification there.(15) Originally appearing in New York newspapers and later published as a single volume, the Federalist Papers remain the finest discussion of the United States Constitution and representative government ever written.(16) The Constitution went into effect in 1789 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify.(17) Madison's work on the Constitution had not ended, however. In addition to being elected as a member of the First Congress from Virginia, Madison was charged with writing a bill of rights. Massachusetts and several other states had recommended that the Constitution include such amendments in order for the new government to gain the full trust and support of the people and the states.(18) Madison was ambivalent at best about his task. He had worked with George Mason on the Virginia Bill of Rights. He had worked tirelessly to gain not just toleration, but full religious freedom in Virginia.(19) At the same time, he agreed with James Wilson of Pennsylvania and other Federalists that a bill of rights was neither essential nor a truly effective protection of a people's liberties. Madison explained his position in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in October, 1788, writing, "My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rightsAt the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect." Madison reasoned that anything powers that they had not expressly delegated in the Constitution to the government remained with the people. Why, he reasoned, must a bill of rights spell out freedoms already reserved to the people? Nor did Madison believe that a piece of paper would automatically protect the people's inalienable rights from a government determined to take them away. He pointed out that recent "experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its controul is most needed." In Virginia, Madison already had "seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current" in matters of religion, economy and politics.(20) Madison appealed to the best political science of the day to support his point: "Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression." Since "[i]n our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Communitythe invasion of private rights is cheifly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents." Having a written bill or declaration of rights would not guarantee the rights of the people. "Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every StateShould a Rebellion or insurrection alarm the people as well as the Government, and a suspension of the Hab. Corp. be dictated by the alarm, no written prohibitions on earth would prevent the measure."(21) In 1789, however, Madison willingly took on the task of drafting amendments. By then, he was a member of the United States House of Representative under the new Constitution. It had been a tight race; Madison had barely edged out his friend James Monroe. Key to Madison's narrow victory was his public support for a bill of rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote approvingly, "I am happy to find that on the whole you are a friend to this amendment. The Declaration of rights is like all other human blessings alloyed with some inconveniences, and not accomplishing fully it's object. But the good in this instance vastly overweighs the evil." He agreed with Madison that experience had proven "the inefficacy of a bill of rights. True. But tho it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. A brace the more will often keep up the building which would have fallen with that brace the less." Jefferson therefore was " much pleased with the prospect that a declaration of rights will be added: and hope it will be done in that way which will not endanger the whole frame of the government, or any essential part of it."(22) Keeping in mind that many states had recommended amendments as a condition of their ratification, and that two states (North Carolina and Rhode Island) still had not ratified, Madison knew that a bill of rights was necessary. He wanted to lead this effort in order to keep the language and goals of any proposed amendments consistent with his vision of what the amendments to the Constitution could and should include. On June 8, James Madison introduced what would become the Bill of Rights of the United States to the House of Representatives: It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this house, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents, their patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who as present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of federalism, if they were satisfied in this one point.(23) Whatever he thought privately about the political theory behind a bill of rights, Madison had become convinced that amendments were necessary to cement the new union he had worked so hard to bring into existence. He urged his fellow Congressmen not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. The acquiescence which our fellow citizens show under the government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject; it is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community.(24) Congress sent twelve of Madison's proposed amendments to the states for ratification. Ten were ratified, and the Bill of Rights became part of the United States Constitution in December, 1791. EpilogueJames Madison followed his remarkable collaboration in the creation of the Constitution with a political career that extended another quarter century and included two terms as president of the United States. The politics of the new nation were no less turbulent than those of the 1780s. Fundamental disagreements over the economic character and future of the new republic fueled political squabbles, party faction, and bitter, personal animosities. Madison and Alexander Hamilton had worked closely in crafting and then ratifying the Constitution. In the 1790s, however, they found themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Federalists, including Alexander Hamilton and John Adams squared off against Democratic Republicans Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Fearing what he saw as the aristocratic and anti-republican tendencies of the Federalists, Madison rejoiced at Jefferson's victory over John Adams in the presidential election of 1800. After serving as Secretary of State during Jefferson's two terms, Madison easily defeated the Federalist candidate, Rufus King of Massachusetts, in the election of 1808. The disruption of trade and hard times during the War of 1812 made "Mr. Madison's War" extremely unpopular in Massachusetts and other New England states. When Madison at last retired from public life in 1817, friends and opponents were able to agree that, while they had not always approved of his policies, Madison was devoted to upholding the Constitution he had been instrumental in creating. Abigail Adams referred to Madison as what the poet Alexander Pope had once called "the noblest work of God: an honest man." The last of the founding fathers, James Madison died in 1836 at the age of 85. (25)

Secret SixThe six men who supported John Brown's plan to raid the Harpers Ferry Armory were all reformers and intellectuals who had considerable experience in the fight against slavery. Two of them, Theodore Parker and Thomas Wentworth Higginson, were Unitarian ministers who preached to large, urban congregations in Massachusetts. Parker was the older of the two, and he was one of America's most controversial religious and social reformers. Both Parker and Higginson were militant opponents of the Fugitive Slave Act in Boston, even facing criminal prosecution for their roles in the attempted rescue of the fugitive slave Anthony Burns in 1854. Each of them met John Brown for the first time in early 1857, and they had supported his antislavery work in Kansas.

Franklin Sanborn and George Luther Stearns were also products of eastern Massachusetts society and culture. Sanborn was a young schoolteacher in Concord, Massachusetts, where he met Ralph Waldo Emerson and other transcendentalists. Idealistic and romantic, Sanborn was deeply interested in Brown's exploits against proslavery forces in Kansas, which he had read about in the press. In the process of promoting Brown's cause, Sanborn introduced him to George Luther Stearns, a wealthy Massachusetts mill owner and businessman who had been drawn into the antislavery movement after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. With an income of some $20,000 a year at a time when most working people earned less than $600, Stearns was in a position to do a great deal for Brown's expedition.

The final two members of the group were Samuel Gridley Howe and Gerrit Smith. Howe was a Bay State social reformer with a long history of support for revolutionary movements. As a young man, he had fought for six years in the Greek War of Independence against the Ottoman Empire, and he had received a knighthood for his services. Along with his wife Julia, Howe had also done pioneering work on the education of the blind. But of all the conspirators, Gerrit Smith was closest to John Brown and had the most experience working with him. A wealthy upstate New York landowner, Smith was an abolitionist and a founder of the Liberty Party, an antislavery political organization. In 1848, John Brown had purchased a farm from Smith in North Elba, New York, where the reformist landowner was building a community of free black property owners. Brown and Smith shared a deep belief that slavery was a violation of both divine law and the U.S. Constitution, and they remained open to the use of violence to end it.

Despite their support for Brown, several of the conspirators were distraught when newspaper reports and a Senate investigation exposed their involvement in the failed raid. Gerrit Smith became so anxious about the possibility of arrest and imprisonment that he was briefly committed to a state mental asylum in Utica, New York. Howe and Stearns fled to Canada even before Brown's trial commenced. Sanborn joined them there after destroying all correspondence with Brown that might be used in a criminal prosecution. Thomas Wentworth Higginson resisted the temptation to flee and even considered the possibility of trying to rescue Brown before his execution. Instead, Higginson made good on Brown's legacy by taking up command of a black regiment during the Civil War. The last of the secret six, Theodore Parker, had left the country many months before the raid. Dying of tuberculosis, Parker vainly sought to regain his health in the warmer climates of the Caribbean and southern Europe. In a letter written only a few days before Brown's execution, however, Parker told a friend that "the road to heaven is as short from the gallows as it is from the throne; perhaps, also, as easy."

At the close of the Revolutionary War in America, a perilous moment in the life of the fledgling American republic occurred as officers of the Continental Army met in Newburgh, New York, to discuss grievances and consider a possible insurrection against the rule of Congress.They were angry over the failure of Congress to honor its promises to the army regarding salary, bounties and life pensions. The officers had heard from Philadelphia that the American government was going broke and that they might not be compensated at all. On March 10, 1783, an anonymous letter was circulated among the officers of General Washington's main camp at Newburgh. It addressed those complaints and called for an unauthorized meeting of officers to be held the next day to consider possible military solutions to the problems of the civilian government and its financial woes.General Washington stopped that meeting from happening by forbidding the officers to meet at the unauthorized meeting. Instead, he suggested they meet a few days later, on March 15th, at the regular meeting of his officers. Meanwhile, another anonymous letter was circulated, this time suggesting Washington himself was sympathetic to the claims of the malcontent officers.And so, on March 15, 1783, Washington's officers gathered in a church building in Newburgh, effectively holding the fate of America in their hands. Unexpectedly, General Washington himself showed up. He was not entirely welcomed by his men, but nevertheless, personally addressed them...

General Washington

Gentlemen:By an anonymous summons, an attempt has been made to convene you together; how inconsistent with the rules of propriety, how unmilitary, and how subversive of all order and discipline, let the good sense of the army decide...Thus much, gentlemen, I have thought it incumbent on me to observe to you, to show upon what principles I opposed the irregular and hasty meeting which was proposed to have been held on Tuesday last - and not because I wanted a disposition to give you every opportunity consistent with your own honor, and the dignity of the army, to make known your grievances. If my conduct heretofore has not evinced to you that I have been a faithful friend to the army, my declaration of it at this time would be equally unavailing and improper. But as I was among the first who embarked in the cause of our common country. As I have never left your side one moment, but when called from you on public duty. As I have been the constant companion and witness of your distresses, and not among the last to feel and acknowledge your merits. As I have ever considered my own military reputation as inseparably connected with that of the army. As my heart has ever expanded with joy, when I have heard its praises, and my indignation has arisen, when the mouth of detraction has been opened against it, it can scarcely be supposed, at this late stage of the war, that I am indifferent to its interests. But how are they to be promoted? The way is plain, says the anonymous addresser. If war continues, remove into the unsettled country, there establish yourselves, and leave an ungrateful country to defend itself. But who are they to defend? Our wives, our children, our farms, and other property which we leave behind us. Or, in this state of hostile separation, are we to take the two first (the latter cannot be removed) to perish in a wilderness, with hunger, cold, and nakedness? If peace takes place, never sheathe your swords, says he, until you have obtained full and ample justice; this dreadful alternative, of either deserting our country in the extremest hour of her distress or turning our arms against it (which is the apparent object, unless Congress can be compelled into instant compliance), has something so shocking in it that humanity revolts at the idea. My God! What can this writer have in view, by recommending such measures? Can he be a friend to the army? Can he be a friend to this country? Rather, is he not an insidious foe? Some emissary, perhaps, from New York, plotting the ruin of both, by sowing the seeds of discord and separation between the civil and military powers of the continent? And what a compliment does he pay to our understandings when he recommends measures in either alternative, impracticable in their nature? I cannot, in justice to my own belief, and what I have great reason to conceive is the intention of Congress, conclude this address, without giving it as my decided opinion, that that honorable body entertain exalted sentiments of the services of the army; and, from a full conviction of its merits and sufferings, will do it complete justice. That their endeavors to discover and establish funds for this purpose have been unwearied, and will not cease till they have succeeded, I have not a doubt. But, like all other large bodies, where there is a variety of different interests to reconcile, their deliberations are slow. Why, then, should we distrust them? And, in consequence of that distrust, adopt measures which may cast a shade over that glory which has been so justly acquired; and tarnish the reputation of an army which is celebrated through all Europe, for its fortitude and patriotism? And for what is this done? To bring the object we seek nearer? No! most certainly, in my opinion, it will cast it at a greater distance.For myself (and I take no merit in giving the assurance, being induced to it from principles of gratitude, veracity, and justice), a grateful sense of the confidence you have ever placed in me, a recollection of the cheerful assistance and prompt obedience I have experienced from you, under every vicissitude of fortune, and the sincere affection I feel for an army I have so long had the honor to command will oblige me to declare, in this public and solemn manner, that, in the attainment of complete justice for all your toils and dangers, and in the gratification of every wish, so far as may be done consistently with the great duty I owe my country and those powers we are bound to respect, you may freely command my services to the utmost of my abilities.While I give you these assurances, and pledge myself in the most unequivocal manner to exert whatever ability I am possessed of in your favor, let me entreat you, gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress; that, previous to your dissolution as an army, they will cause all your accounts to be fairly liquidated, as directed in their resolutions, which were published to you two days ago, and that they will adopt the most effectual measures in their power to render ample justice to you, for your faithful and meritorious services. And let me conjure you, in the name of our common country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the military and national character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the man who wishes, under any specious pretenses, to overturn the liberties of our country, and who wickedly attempts to open the floodgates of civil discord and deluge our rising empire in blood.By thus determining and thus acting, you will pursue the plain and direct road to the attainment of your wishes. You will defeat the insidious designs of our enemies, who are compelled to resort from open force to secret artifice. You will give one more distinguished proof of unexampled patriotism and patient virtue, rising superior to the pressure of the most complicated sufferings. And you will, by the dignity of your conduct, afford occasion for posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to mankind, "Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining."General George Washington - March 15, 1783

Post-note: This speech was not very well received by his men. Washington then took out a letter from a member of Congress explaining the financial difficulties of the government. After reading a portion of the letter with his eyes squinting at the small writing, Washington suddenly stopped. His officers stared at him, wondering. Washington then reached into his coat pocket and took out a pair of reading glasses. Few of them knew he wore glasses, and were surprised."Gentlemen," said Washington, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."In that single moment of sheer vulnerability, Washington's men were deeply moved, even shamed, and many were quickly in tears, now looking with great affection at this aging man who had led them through so much. Washington read the remainder of the letter, then left without saying another word, realizing their sentiments.His officers then cast a unanimous vote, essentially agreeing to the rule of Congress. Thus, the civilian government was preserved and the experiment of democracy in America continued.