Several close votes followed on numerous sections, some of them long contested, but in no instance did the majority fall below the minimum of six. The balance had been stabilized and was not to be shaken. On his own copy of the printed text Washington inserted changes made through section 10 of Article I in the debate of September 14. The next day he noted various other verbal amendments and, as presiding officer, put no less than twenty-five motions. Before the last of these was reached, Randolph took the floor and announced he would not sign the constitution unless it included a provision, which he thereupon submitted, for another general convention to pass on amendments that might be proposed by the States. George Mason, made a similar statement; Elbridge Gerry gave a number of reasons why he would not subscribe. Nothing could be done to satisfy these men otherwise than by jeopardizing far more than was risked as a result of their opposition. All the States unflinchingly voted “No” on Randolph’s motion for a second convention.
It was now almost six o’clock, nearly two hours beyond the usual time of adjournment. The last proposal from the floor for change in the text had been made. Washington waited quietly and without visible emotion for the great moment. When it came, he arose: the motion is to agree to the constitution as amended; the Secretary will call the roll of the States. From every delegation the answer of the majority was “Aye.” Engrossment of the text was ordered; the gavel fell. The first stage of the battle for sound, strong American government had ended, more wisely and more easily than had seemed possible. From the Convention floor the issue must be carried to the thirteen States.
Washington was in the chair on the seventeenth for the final ceremonies of signing the engrossed Constitution. He found that a last-minute effort was to be made to persuade the three dissenters to join the majority in signing the Constitution. Franklin was present and, though too feeble to make a speech, he had written one. It was a wise and spirited appeal for the subordination of individual opinion to the nation’s good, and it contained both an admission of Franklin’s dislike of some articles and the cheerful declaration of his faith in the document as a whole. “It . . . astonished me, sir,” he said, “to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats.” The old philosopher ended with a motion which Gouverneur Morris had drafted, that the enacting clause be: “Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th of September, &c, in witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.”
Before this motion was put Judge Gorham proposed that the basis of representation in the House be reduced from forty to thirty thousand. King and Daniel Carroll supported Gorham and urged the members to make the concession. This was what Washington had been waiting for. When he rose to put the motion he explained that his position as President had kept him from expressing his views and that perhaps it still should impose silence, but he could not forbear voicing his wish that Gorham’s motion prevail. Objections to the Constitution should be as few as possible. One was involved here. Many members believed the House so small it gave “insufficient security for the rights and interests of the people.” A basis as high as forty thousand had seemed to him among the most objectionable parts of the Constitution. Late as it was in the proceedings of the Convention, he thought amendment would give much satisfaction. With that he ended the only speech he had delivered during the session, and he had immediate reward. The change was made unanimously and without further discussion—not because all members agreed but because all of them wished to do what Washington desired.
The rest was appeal, explanation, expostulation, assent, then the adoption of Franklin’s motion. Although the dissenters and two of the South Carolina members were in opposition, the Constitution was accepted “by the unanimous consent of the States present.” A resolution was adopted for the transmission of the finished document to Congress, with the expressed opinion that it should be submitted to popular conventions in the States. Other sections of the same resolve set forth the views of the Delegates on the manner in which the Constitution should be put into effect after nine States had ratified it. The covering letter was a persuasive appeal for a Constitution that was “liable” to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected. This letter was signed “Your Excellency’s most obedient and humble Servants, George Washington, President. By unanimous Order of the Convention.”
The rule of secrecy was repealed, and the papers of the Convention were entrusted to Washington for disposition in accordance with the order of the new Congress “if ever formed under the Constitution.” Formal signing of the document followed. Continued refusal of Mason, Gerry and Randolph to attach their signatures did not dampen the satisfaction with which members completed their difficult labor, adjourned sine die, streamed to the City Tavern, had dinner together and said farewell to one another.
With Delegate John Blair as companion in his chariot, Washington set out September 18 for home. On the twenty-second he reached Mount Vernon “after an absence of four months and fourteen days,” precisely reckoned and set down in his diary. They had been days during which his largest contribution was not his counsel but his presence. His votes were often on the losing side. Although he favored bringing the new government into operation when seven States ratified, the Convention decided to make nine the number. It must have been known that he thought a three-fourths vote should be required to override a Presidential veto, but the majority insisted on two-thirds. Letters from members seldom mentioned him among those at the forge where the Constitution was hammered out, blow on blow. Madison, Gouverneur Morris, Wilson, King, Randolph—these were the men, not Washington, who shaped the Constitution. Oliver Ellsworth may not have been far in error when he said, late in life, that Washington’s influence in the Convention was not great.
Outside the Convention the reverse was true. In giving the body prestige and maintaining public confidence in it while deliberations dragged slowly, Washington had no peer and no second other than Franklin. Madison assured Jefferson that Washington’s attendance was “proof of the light in which” the General viewed the Constitution. A writer in the Independent Gazetteer of Philadelphia suggested that the States which approved a new plan of government or the amendment of the old should confederate under Washington’s leadership. “This,” he said, “would probably stimulate the refractory states to comply also.” Washington read some of this with satisfaction and some with dismay because it suggested that his retirement at Mount Vernon might again be interrupted. He did not flatter himself that he and his colleagues had devised a perfect form of government, but he knew the Convention had given the country the best Constitution on which a majority could agree.
CHAPTER / 19
A new spirit, undefined but unmistakable, was stirring the people of America. It had shown itself not only in the ready action of the States in sending Delegates to the Convention but also in the temper and standard of debates on the floor. Daily, for the greater part of the session, members had seemed to plod along and to halt often in stubborn, futile contention. Again and again even Washington had feared that differences were irreconcilable, but always the spirit of accord had triumphed over pride of opinion. The level of leaders’ argument had been so high that only the most obtuse of men of small ability had taken the floor often. Nothing had been so inspiring as the rearing of a constitutional structure, stone by stone, while the eyes of the masons had been intent on the course they were laying, not on the larger design. Almost contrary to their expectations, they finished it and when they stood off and looked at it, they were surprised by the strength and the symmetry of their handiwork.
Comments on the Constitution that most disturbed Washington were predictions that he would be chosen without opposition as first President of the United S
tates; but he told himself it was neither necessary nor modest to think of an unfilled office in a government not yet created, and he gave his thought to the reception of the document by the people rather than to its possible interruption of his way of living. The text was printed widely; Congress acted promptly and to the surprise of some in this nonpartisan language: “Resolved, unanimously that the said report with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same be transmitted to the several legislatures in order to be submitted to a convention of Delegates chosen in each State by the people thereof in conformity to the resolves of the convention made and provided in that case.” Washington did not deceive himself into thinking that when the issue was presented to the States, he or any other American who had an interest in the future of the country could be neutral. He planned and hoped to do his part for ratification and did not leave his position in doubt for a moment. When he sent a report of the Constitution to Patrick Henry, the most powerful man politically in Virginia, he said in plain words that the “political concerns of the country” were “in a manner, suspended by a thread” and that if nothing had been done by the Convention, “anarchy would soon have ensued, the seeds being richly sown in every soil.”
There he stood, and correspondence led him to believe a large element of the country stood with him in judgment both of the crisis and the Constitution as the weapon for combating ruin. In the taverns, shops and markets, and on the street corners, the chief reason given for support of the Constitution was this: Washington and Franklin had signed it and approved it. Praise of Washington flooded newspapers sympathetic with the Constitution, in a manifest effort to identify him with the document so that it would gain strength from his popularity. One Boston correspondent wrote of the place Washington and Franklin had won: “The military virtues of the former,” he said, “and the philosophic splendour of the latter will be obscured by the new lustre they will acquire as the legislators of an immense continent.” Gouverneur Morris sent the General this summary at the end of October: “I have observed that your name to the new Constitution has been of infinite service. Indeed, I am convinced that if you had not attended the convention, and the same paper had been handed out to the world, it would have met with a colder reception, with fewer and weaker advocates, and with more and more strenuous opponents.” Humphreys voiced the same view with different emphasis: “What will tend, perhaps, more than anything to the adoption of the new system will be an universal opinion of your being elected President of the United States and an expectation that you will accept it for a while.”
The outlook for ratification seemed most doubtful in the two States where Washington’s long presence and shining service might have made his advocacy of the new government immediately influential and perhaps decisive. In New York adherents and adversaries of the Constitution were nearly balanced; in Virginia, Washington found most of the older and a few of the younger leaders in opposition at least to the extent that they demanded the earliest possible amendment of the Constitution, preferably by another general convention. Richard Henry Lee came to this view. Benjamin Harrison thought the new government vested with excessive powers to levy taxes and regulate trade. George Mason published detailed “Objections” to the Constitution, a copy of which he sent Washington.
Mason would prove a troublesome adversary, but the man who would have the largest influence in Virginia was Henry. At first there was hope he might favor the work of the Philadelphia Convention, but those who knew him best gave warning that his antagonism must be taken for granted. The great orator’s objections to the Constitution were set forth with restraint in a letter to Washington, but his acts were vigorous. Washington did not underestimate the strength of his opponents, but he found encouragement in the approval shown the document by residents of northern Virginia, in support pledged by Edmund Pendleton, and in indications that Randolph was not happy in the political camp where he had pitched his tent. The greatest encouragement was that Madison, Harry Lee and other young leaders were active in behalf of stronger government for the United States. Washington made common cause with these young men, chose them as his principal correspondents, and, in particular, looked to Madison. The debates in Philadelphia had shown that Madison possessed superlatively the type of mind that could meet with calm, cold skill both the logic and the maneuver of a parliamentary opponent. Washington did not excel in compliment, but now, as he contemplated the prospect of a convention in Virginia to ratify or reject the Constitution, he wrote Madison: “. . . I hope you will make it convenient to be present. Explanations will be wanting, and none can give them with more accuracy and propriety than yourself.”
The first clash in Virginia proved to be nothing more than a skirmish. Without criticism or commendation, the General Assembly referred the Constitution to a convention that was to be elected on the first day of the March court and called to order June 1, 1788. Perhaps the only sensation of the debate was the statement of Mason that he would have considered himself a traitor if he had subscribed to a Constitution he thought repugnant “to our highest interests.” In spite of these angry words, the issue was not joined in the legislature. The real contest would begin when friends and hostile critics of the Constitution offered themselves as candidates for the convention.
Washington received more newspapers than he read, but he doubtless saw something of the use to which his name was being put, reasonably or otherwise. No complaint came from him. He had endorsed the Constitution and had no desire that his advocacy be kept secret. The General’s arguments remained simple—the will of the majority should prevail over a selfish minority; a new general convention could accomplish nothing; the course of wisdom and safety was to ratify the document drafted at Philadelphia and, if it were found defective in operation, to amend it later. The presentation of more detailed reasons he wished to leave to those active in the debate, and, particularly, to the men writing the fine articles that were being issued over the signature Publius, and were soon to be styled “The Federalist.”
The General did not permit the difficult situation in Virginia to blind him to encouragement coming from the States that held out hope of ratification by the required nine. On December 6 the Delaware convention ratified the Constitution unanimously; Pennsylvania followed with a vote of two-to-one, on the twelfth. Six days later, New Jersey with one voice approved the stronger Constitution. At the year’s end, Connecticut seemed certain to be the fourth state; Massachusetts was expected to debate furiously and, in the end, to accept; confidence was unshaken that New Hampshire was favorable; New York remained in doubt; North Carolina was expected to follow Virginia’s lead; South Carolina and Georgia were believed to favor adoption. Ratification by Rhode Island was not expected.
Before the end of January Washington received news that Connecticut had ratified the Constitution. This strengthened probability of ratification by more than nine States, but the prolongation of the campaign in Massachusetts gave concern. The decision, one way or the other, of the most powerful New England State would have great influence on New York. Washington rallied his patience and fortified his hope. By February 8 he heard that Georgia had ratified—the fifth State. One vote was as good as another in making the count of nine; but Massachusetts, New York and Virginia still were outside the ranks and, if they refused to ratify, they would leave the new Union so weak it probably would succumb. During the last week in February, the watchman at Mount Vernon had good tidings: On the evening of the sixth the Massachusetts convention had accepted the Constitution by a vote of 187 to 168. Washington felt the greatest satisfaction, only to find, as usual, a sour cup offered him after a sweet. Maryland Anti-Federalists were urging that their state convention adjourn until Virginia acted; conditions in North Carolina were said to be similar to those in Virginia; the outlook in New Hampshire did not appear to be as favorable as had been assumed.
As Virginia’s action might have the largest influence on her two nearest neighbors, the possibility of rejection by the Old Dominion mu
st be brought to the absolute minimum by wise leadership of the convention. The General consequently was much pleased when he learned that Madison was willing to be a candidate for the convention. Washington, with something of his old art in the analysis of intelligence reports, interpreted his correspondence in terms of his own knowledge of Virginia and wrote Rufus King: “. . . no doubt, from the first, has been entertained in my mind of the acceptance of [the Constitution] here, notwithstanding the indefatigable pains which some very influential characters take to oppose it.”
During the second week in March, Washington learned that the convention in New Hampshire had met February 13 and, after debate, had adjourned on the twenty-second until June 3. This reverse caused some disappointment in Washington’s mind, until it was explained to him that the convention had risen on the motion of friends of the new government. They knew that the majority against them included some who favored ratification but had instructions from their constituents to oppose. If time elapsed and other States meantime accepted, the hampering instructions might be withdrawn.
Washington Page 94