were they of the semblance of a single executive that they limited his service to one year, and made him then ineligible for the two years following, ignoring all the benefits of personal experience in affairs, even in time of war.

Having enumerated the narrow powers which Congress might exercise, they put upon that body the following further limitation:

"The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war; nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace; nor enter into any treaties or alliances; nor coin money; nor regulate the value thereof; nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defence and welfare of the United States or any of them; nor emit bills; nor borrow money on the credit of the United States; nor appropriate money; nor agree upon the number of vessels of war to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised; nor appoint a commander-in-chief of the army or navy; unless nine States assent to the same." This required a majority of two thirds for any of these acts.

The consent of nine of the thirteen States was required to vest any power in the General Committee of Thirteen, authorized to sit in the recess of Congress; and even then no power could be delegated to this committee which was enumerated in the Articles as spe

cially requiring the assent of nine States for its valid exercise.

The Articles further declared that "the Union shall be perpetual;" and styled the compact," Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." No amendment could be made except by agreement of Congress, with the ratification of every State. Each State bound itself to abide by the decisions of the Congress in all matters submitted to their jurisdiction by the Articles of Confederation.

This "firm league of friendship" between the States was reported from a committee on July 12, 1776, and was under debate from time to time for two years. At the date of July 9, 1778, only ten States had ratified it. And when Maryland completed the ratification, in March, 1781, these Articles represented the entire progress of the country towards a solid union during the five years of experience of war and weakness and inefficiency of the government. Justice demands of history some explanation of this unsatisfactory result, which shall be consistent with the undoubted patriotism and the unquestioned intellectual ability of the statesmen of that time.

The colonies were originally established under the control of different political and religious ideas, and their immigration was from variant nationalities. The New England colo

nies were of more uniform composition than any other group. Protestant individuality and sturdy personal independence were there most emphasized. Commerce became their controlling interest. The town-meeting, the common school, the church-meeting, and the militia formed the foundation of their social organization. The popular elements in New York were largely of Dutch origin, not given to enthusiasm, not sympathetic, but tenacious of opinion and of property interests. There were found large agricultural estates and seigniorial rights which divided the control with commercial interests. English hereditary characteristics both here and in New Jersey mingled with and modified those of continental origin. In Pennsylvania the elements of population were composite. The English religious opinions and sentiments introduced by Penn influenced a more lethargic population from continental Europe, and disposed their minds to the arts of peace and the love of concord. The moral position of the state was that of a mediator. The controlling elements in Virginia were of good English origin, exercising a positive dominion over that portion of the white population which represented an inferior immigration of questionable antecedents. Like the trained leaders of New England, the educated leaders in Virginia and in South Carolina were men of clear perceptions,

decided opinions, and strongly attached to political theories. The Southern States were generally controlled in their material interests by the demands of agriculture. While slavery existed in small degree in the Northern States, it was a powerful interest only in the South. The dominant religious sentiment also varied in the various States. In some the church and schools were supported by state taxation, in others not. To these various and often conflicting elements must be added the pro-slavery and anti-slavery dissension already existing, and not limited by geographical divisions.

Besides these considerations, there existed that natural distrust of strangers, and especially of their influence in any degree over domestic affairs of the different colonies, which can only be obviated by frequent association and intimate acquaintance. The close association of the officers of the army during the war of independence, their participation in common perils and struggles and for a common object, had with them effected to a large extent the removal of this distrust. The movement for a closer union of the States found among them its most ardent supporters and constant advocates. Their descendants, in the Society of the Cincinnati, commemorate still the patriotic efforts of their ancestors to accomplish the great constitutional union.

The opposition, both inert and active, to a genuine and vigorous national authority, appeared most uniformly in the local legislatures, and among men who were not personally engaged in the war. They transferred their opposition towards alien English control to alien American control; for they still regarded the other colonies, in some proportion to the distance of their territory, as aliens and strangers to their respective commonwealths. Their confederation itself, therefore, was little more than a treaty between forced allies, who were jealous of each other, and would each retain a veto upon the acts of all, except in those few points where the immediate danger from Europe controlled their fears of domestic rivalry.

Nor was human nature a century ago free from those imperfections which to-day mark the characteristics of our public life. Personal envies and jealousies and competitions were too rife for the best expedition of public affairs. Personal criticisms were violent and often reckless. In a time of war, when all the instruction of history enforces the necessity of a concentration of power in a vigorous, decisive, central authority, thirteen authoritative heads were interposed, which, in turn, were subject to thirteen other widely separated heads. No presiding officer could remain in his place more than one year in three, lest one man or one State