by Ray Raphael
Whether or not they adopt a narrative form, authors who address the origins of the presidency develop protagonists of some sort, and Morris, for various reasons, is not their top choice. Many turn to Washington, the first occupant of the office, who set precedents and established the tone. Although Washington did not say much at the convention, he exerted influence by his very presence; the office might have looked very different had delegates not assumed Washington would be the first president. This line of reasoning, although not incorrect, diverts attention from the dialogue at the Federal Convention that actually created the presidency.
Others turn to Hamilton, who allegedly defined the office in his Federalist essays more completely than the framers had done in the Constitution. As discussed on this page–this page, however, The Federalist was an argument, not an exposition; it did not create the office, it expressed private views only, and it enjoys no unique claim to constitutional authority. As Treasury secretary under Washington, Hamilton did in fact help shape the executive office, but that too steers attention from the Federal Convention, where he expressed extreme views that actually limited his effectiveness.
Treatments of the convention inevitably feature Madison, the so-called Father of the Constitution, but that appellation contributes to our story’s neglect by minimizing the impact of others. In fact, Madison did not drive the debate on the presidency, which he acknowledged as his weak suit. At the outset of the convention on June 1, he suggested the “extent of executive authority” should be “to carry into effect national laws, to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for, and to execute such other powers ‘not Legislative nor Judiciary in their nature,’ as may from time to time be delegated by the national Legislature” (emphasis added). Executive powers were clearly derivative, not constitutionally vested. As the convention progressed he changed his stance, but his ideas respecting executive authority were repeatedly defeated. If Madison had had his way, the president, with some members of the judiciary, would enjoy absolute veto powers; impeachments would be tried by the Supreme Court, not the Senate; the executive department would include an independent council; and the Senate could conclude treaties of peace without the consent of the president. Of course all delegates had some ideas that were not adopted, but if we look at how the major components of the presidency came to fruition, we see Madison as only one of many key players. The “Father of the Presidency” he was not.
That title is sometimes bestowed on James Wilson, who made the motion for a single executive, first introduced the notion of presidential electors, named the office, and served on the Committee of Detail, which gave the presidency some sense of definition in early August. Further, to the delight of modern authors, he pushed doggedly for popular elections, a notion that was shunned by most of his peers but is common currency today. Wilson presaged the modern presidency, it is said, although that is reading history backward.
While Wilson did much to shape the executive office, his story masks that of Gouverneur Morris. In part, that is because of their differences in style. Wilson adopted concrete positions and held them firmly, making his participation easier to follow and recount. Morris, by contrast, was admittedly all over the map. Fickle, he is called, too clever by half. In the words of one recent author, “For lawyerly sophism, Morris had few peers.” This reputation tempts commentators to dismiss him out of hand. One recent author wrote that Morris, “having temporarily taken leave of his senses,” suggested that each presidential elector vote for two candidates, one from outside the elector’s home state—a seemingly sensible proposition at the time and one that found its way into the Constitution.4
There was reason to Morris’s madness, but that reason requires close scrutiny to detect. Inconsistency does not preclude influence. When Morris suddenly repudiated life tenure for the president in favor of repeatable two-year terms, other delegates listened, even if later commentators have not. Morris’s argument on July 19 altered the thrust of the convention, albeit but briefly. On August 24 and 31, he maneuvered cleverly to recapture ground he had gained but then lost. Within the Committee of Eleven he held sway, and when a report emerged that turned the presidency on its head, the convention finally acquiesced. None of this can be captured by saying, “Gouverneur Morris believed this,” or “Gouverneur Morris believed that,” the way Wilson is treated. The static view must give way to a more dynamic approach.
This is not to say Morris was more of a “father” to the presidency than Wilson, or vice versa. That sort of tiering is pointless and even counterproductive, concealing the collective nature of the enterprise and the interactive dialogue that fosters ideas and generates solutions. The Constitutional Convention was in fact a deliberative body, and understanding deliberations, which are inherently fluid, calls for a fluid narrative.
Accounts of the origins of the presidency cannot be rigidly structured. Debates bordered on the farcical at times, and they demand our patience. Through the chaos we search for a story line, and as we do, we find human actors, protagonists who appear to drive the agenda and without whom the story cannot be told. Gouverneur Morris is one of these, as is James Wilson. The dramatic tension cannot be disclosed without paying attention to George Mason, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Elbridge Gerry, John Rutledge, and others who make key appearances. These are the players, and as we watch them interact, the story reveals itself. There are no shortcuts, just as there were no pat solutions to the troublesome problems the framers faced. When undertaking this book, I had no idea that a peg-legged, haughty lawyer viewed today as too clever by half would play such a role, but there he was, day after day, espousing his agenda and conniving for its acceptance. His ideas evolved with the situational dynamics of the moment, but in the end his actions helped determine much of the presidency as we know it.
Gouverneur Morris does not own this story; in fact, after the convention he virtually disappears, even as the debates continue. Others would determine whether or not the Constitution would be ratified, who could remove appointees, who would shape foreign policy, and how far executive authority might extend in myriad situations. But to discuss the origins of the presidency within the walls of the Pennsylvania State House in the summer of 1787 without accounting for Gouverneur Morris’s influence will inevitably lead, and has always led, to distortions of the historical record.
A Note on Capitalization
I have eliminated some of the capitalization within quotations to make the words and thoughts of the authors appear less archaic. Although most scholars prefer to retain all original capitalization, I see no useful purpose in this practice, which often reflects idiosyncratic handwriting or casual contemporary transcription and has little if any significant effect on content. On the other hand, I retain all the original spelling, which contributes to our understanding of the etymology of words and therefore has historical import.
I do preserve capitalization when it appears to conform to conventional usage at the time. In reading documents contemporary to the founding era, I have noted some patterns in capitalization, an informal grammar of sorts. Words denoting governmental constructs, bodies, or offices (e.g., “Government,” “National,” “State,” “Union,” “Colonies,” “Executive,” “Monarchy,” “King,” “President,” “Magistrate,” “Chief Magistrate,” “Legislature,” “Assembly”) were generally capitalized. So too were words denoting geographic constructs and directions (e.g., “Continent,” “Country,” “East,” “Western”) and individuals to whom deference was given (e.g., “Chairman,” “Gentlemen”). When a word is capitalized within a source document that conforms to such unwritten rules, I let the capitalization stand. I have also maintained the original when the text suggests that the author purposely used capitalization for emphasis. In this manner I have tried to strike a middle ground between seemingly random capitalization, which would slow readers down and perhaps interfere with comprehension, and a complete modernization of texts, which would falsely suggest there were no linguist
ic differences between those times and ours.
Previously, when source documents were difficult to access, it was important for scholars not to alter quotations in any way, but readers today who wish to consult sources directly will have little trouble doing so. All quotations in this book are cited; many sources can be located on the Internet and most are available in printed collections at almost any university.
I have retained the original capitalization when quoting from documents that the nation has enshrined: the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution.
Notes
SHORTENED REFERENCES
Adams, Works : Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, 1856).
Annals: Annals of Congress, formerly The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, 1789–1824, Library of Congress, American Memory, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwac.html.
DHRC: Merrill Jensen et al., eds., Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1976–).
Farrand, Records: Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1911). Farrand includes not only Madison’s notes but also the convention’s official journal and less comprehensive notes taken by Robert Yates, Rufus King, James McHenry, William Pierce, William Paterson, Alexander Hamilton, and George Mason, as well as committee reports, printed drafts, and numerous letters from delegates. Farrand can also be accessed at Library of Congress, American Memory, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html.
Franklin, Papers: Leonard W. Labaree and William B. Willcox, eds., The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1959–).
Hamilton, Papers: Harold C. Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961–87).
JCC: Journals of the Continental Congress, Library of Congress, American Memory, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjclink.html.
Jefferson, Papers: Julian P. Boyd, Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, and Barbara B. Oberg, eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1950–). Although this is the most recent and authoritative collection, it is far from finished and must be augmented by the older Ford and Lipscomb/Bergh collections listed below.
Jefferson, Works: Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Works of Thomas Jefferson (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904–5). This pagination will differ from the earlier edition of Ford’s collection, dated 1892–99 and titled Writings instead of Works.
Jefferson, Writings: Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904).
LDC: Letters of Delegates to Congress, Library of Congress, American Memory, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwdglink.html.
Maclay, Journal: The Journal of William Maclay, 1789–1791, Library of Congress, American Memory, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwmj.html. Also in Kenneth R. Bowling and Helen E. Veit, eds., The Documentary History of the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988), vol. 9.
Madison, Notes: James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Adrienne Koch (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987). Unless otherwise noted, all references to the Constitutional Convention are from Madison’s Notes. Since these are published in so many forms and places, the easiest way to demark any particular reference is simply by date. Where the date is mentioned in the text, I provide no further reference; if not mentioned, my note will read: Madison, Notes, and the date. An easy-to-use online access to Madison’s Notes, organized by date, is Yale Law School’s Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/. Click “18th Century,” then “Madison’s Notes on Debates.”
Madison, Papers: Robert A. Rutland et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962–; and Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977–). The volumes are arranged in four series: Congressional, Secretary of State, Presidential, and Retirement.
Mason, Papers: Robert A. Rutland, ed., The Papers of George Mason (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970).
Sparks, Gouverneur Morris: Jared Sparks, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, with Selections from His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers (Boston: Gray & Bowen, 1832).
Washington, Diaries: Donald Jackson and Dorothy Twohig, eds., The Diaries of George Washington (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976–79).
Washington, Papers: W. W. Abbot and Dorothy Twohig, eds., The Papers of George Washington (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983–). The volumes are numbered in separate series: Colonial, Revolutionary War, Confederation, Presidential, and Retirement. Although this is the most recent and authoritative collection, it is far from finished and must be augmented by the older Fitzpatrick collection (listed below) and the Washington papers in the Library of Congress.
Washington, Writings: John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745–1789 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931–44). Also at http://etext.virginia.edu/washington/fitzpatrick/.
PROLOGUE: A PREGNANT MOMENT
1. Madison to Washington, April 16, 1787, in Madison, Papers, 9:384–85.
CHAPTER ONE: “LITTLE GODS ON EARTH”
1. Richard L. Bushman, King and People in Provincial Massachusetts (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 24.
2. Boston Gazette, December 29, 1760.
3. Bushman, King and People, 21.
4. Boston News-Letter, January 1, 1761.
5. Bushman, King and People, 22.
6. John Dickinson, Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, letter 3, Online Library of Liberty, http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=690&chapter=102302&layout=html&Itemid=27.
7. William Lincoln, ed., The Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts in 1774 and 1775, and of the Committee of Safety, with an Appendix, Containing the Proceedings of the County Conventions (Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, 1838), 601–5. Resolves from the other rebellious counties in Massachusetts (606–60) also contained angry phrases coupled with deference to the king.
8. King George III to Lord North, November 18, 1774, in The Spirit of ’Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told by the Participants, ed. Henry S. Commager and Richard B. Morris (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958), 1:61; Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 262; Washington, Papers, Revolutionary War Series, 1:90, 171, 274, 280, 447; 2:161, 187, 282, 392, 585. Only when referring to British soldiers in Canada did Washington use the term “King’s troops” (Washington, Papers, Revolutionary War Series, 2:73).
9. “Petition to the King,” July 8, 1775, in JCC, 2:158–62.
10. “King George III’s Address to Parliament, October 27, 1775,” Library of Congress, American Memory, American Revolution, http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/shots/address.html.
11. Thomas Paine, Common Sense, reprinted in Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 72–79.
12. Henry Laurens to John Laurens, February 22, 1776, in The Papers of Henry Laurens, ed. Philip M. Hamer (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1968–2003), 11:115.
13. Warren M. Billings, ed., The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Do
cumentary History of Virginia, 1606–1700 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 35–41; Kermit L. Hall, ed., Major Problems in American Constitutional History: Colonial Era Through Reconstruction (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1992), 30–34.
14. Evarts B. Greene, The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North America (New York: Russell & Russell, 1966), 67–68.
15. Ibid., 61–62.
16. Ibid., 46–47.
17. Warren M. Billings, John E. Selby, and Thad W. Tate, Colonial Virginia: A History (White Plains, N.Y.: KTO Press, 1986), 104; William M. Billings, “Thomas Culpeper,” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 14:606.
18. Patricia U. Bonomi, The Lord Cornbury Scandal: The Politics of Reputation in British North America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000).
19. Benjamin Labaree, Colonial Massachusetts: A History (Millwood, N.Y.: KTO Press, 1979), 254.
20. Washington to Richard Henry Lee, December 26, 1775, in Washington, Papers, Revolutionary War Series, 2:553, 611.
CHAPTER TWO: REVOLUTION AND THE RETREAT FROM EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
1. JCC, 1:79.
2. Ibid., 15–24, 30.
3. James Duane, Notes on Debates, September 5, 1774, in LDC, 1:25.