convention; the records of the convention show, however, that the questions relating to the treaty-making power assumed great importance in the consideration of the Constitution, and that the people of South Carolina were fully aware of the far-reaching effect which that power might have upon the local affairs of States, and individuals. $211. Constitutional convention meets in Virginia.In Virginia the constitutional convention met at Richmond. June 2, 1788; the IIonorable Edmund Pendleton was elected President. The convention continued in session for over three weeks, the Constitution being finally ratified, on June 25th, after great opposition, by a vote of 89 to 79; although the ratification of the Constitution as proposed was unconditional, numerous amendments were suggested and recommended, and many of them were subsequently incorporated in the amendments approved by the first Congress.? The ratification of Virginia, however, contained certain reservations as to the right of Virginia to resume the delegated powers whenever the same should be perverted to their injury or oppression.3 The proceedings of the constitutional convention of Virginia are the most elaborately reported of all of the State conventions, the record comprising an entire volume of Elliot's Debates of over 650 pages. It will, therefore, be impossible in a summary of this nature to refer at length to all the references which were made to the treaty-making power; extracts of sufficient length and number will be given from, and references made to, the speeches on both sides of the question, however, to show that the extent of the treatymaking power as vested in the Central Government was one of the principal topics of discussion, and that the Convention ratified the Constitution with full knowledge of the great power that was given by it in this respect. § 212. Opposition led by Patrick Henry.-The opposition to the ratification was led by Patrick Henry, then 52 years of age and in the height of his unbounded popularity, which $211. 1 Elliot's Debates, vol. III, p. 1. 2 Elliot's Debates, vol. III, pp. 659, et seq. 3 Idem, p. 656. He, who, he used to the utmost to defeat the Constitution.1 when the independence of the Union was in jeopardy, had § 212. or prejudices of his auditory might lead the sober reflections of men astray. "He was at this time fifty-two years of age. Although feeling or affecting to feel himself an old and broken man, he was yet un 1"They were led, as I have already said they were to be, by Patrick Henry, whose reputation had suffered no abatement since the period when he blazed into the darkened skies of the Revolutionwhen his untutored eloquence doubtedly master of all his natural electrified the heart of Virginia, powers. Those powers he exerted and became, as has been well said, to the utmost to defeat the Coneven a cause of the national inde- stitution in the convention of Virpendence.' He had held the highest ginia. He employed every art of honors of the state, but had retired, his peculiar rhetoric, every resource poor, and worn down by twenty of invective, of sarcasm, of appeal years of public service, to rescue to the fears of his audience for his private affairs by the practice liberty; every dictate of local preof a profession which, in some of judice and state pride. But he emits duties, he did not love, and for ployed them all with the most sinwhich he had, perhaps, a single cere conviction that the adoption qualification in his amazing orator- of the proposed Constitution would ical powers. His popularity in be a wrong and dangerous step. Virginia was unbounded. It was Nor is it surprising that he should the popularity that attends genius, have so regarded it. He had formed when thrown with heart and soul, to himself an ideal image which and with every impulse of its be- he was fond of describing as the ing, into the cause of popular free- American spirit. This national dom; and it was a popularity in spirit of liberty, erring perhaps at which reverence for the stern inde- times, but in the main true to right pendence and the self-sacrificing and justice as well as to freedom, spirit of the patriot was mingled was with him a kind of guardian with admiration for the splendid angel of the republic. He seems to gifts of oratory which Nature, and have considered it able to correct its Nature alone, had bestowed upon own errors without the aid of any him. But Mr. Henry was rightly powerful system of general governappreciated by his contemporaries. ment-capable of accomplishing in They knew that, though a wise peace all that it had unquestionably man, his wisdom lacked compre-effected for the country in war. As hensiveness, and that the mere he passed out of the troubles and intensity with which he regarded the ends of public liberty was likely to mislead his judgment as to the means by which it was to be secured and upheld. The chief apprehension of his opponents, on this important occasion, was lest the power of his eloquence over the feelings triumphs of the Revolution into the calmer atmosphere of the Confeder ation, his reliance on this American spirit, and his jealousy for the maxims of public liberty, led him to regard that system as perfect, because it had no direct legislative authority." Curtis' Constitutional declared that he was not the less a Virginian because he was an American, now took the leadership of the State's rights side of the controversy and became one of the most ardent advocates which that doctrine has ever had; he declared that he could not endure the thought of a government external to that of Virginia, and yet possessing the power of direct taxation over the people of his State; he regarded with utter abhorrence the idea of laws binding upon the people of Virginia made by other people of the United States. Opposing every element of nationality, he objected to the preamble and asked by what authority the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had used the expression, "We, the People," instead of "We, the States." He charged and predicted that eventually the government would become a monarchy, and as expressed by Elliott, "strongly and pathet ically expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America and the horrible consequences that must result." 3 § 213. Governor Randolph's position. He was answered by Governor Randolph, who had declined to sign the Constitution, as a member of the Federal Convention, but having realized that the Constitution, as submitted to the States, must either be ratified, or the Union would be dissolved, patriotically waived his personal feelings and made every exertion for its ratification, and in so doing greatly aided the cause in the Virginia convention.1 § 214. Opposing forces in Virginia convention. The debate thus opened by Patrick Henry and Edmund Randolph was continued by them throughout the session, Rawlins Lowndes, Colonel Mason, Mr. Grayson and Mr. Nicholas opposing the Constitution on various grounds, while James Madison, James Monroe, John Rutledge, John Marshall and Edmund Pendleton, with the able assistance of the friends of ratification, finally overcame the tremendous tide of opposition which had been raised by these opponents to the Union, and thus achieved one of the greatest victories for rati History of the United States, vol. 1, pp. 663-664. § 213. 1 Elliot's Debates, vol. III, p. 652, 2 Elliot's Debates, vol. III, p. 22. and see also § 192, chap. VI, p. 330, 3 Idem, p. 60. ante. fication of the Constitution. Undoubtedly the great weight of Virginia's adoption of the Constitution turned the scale in the few remaining States in which the question was under consideration and insured beyond all peradventure the ratification, not only by the requisite number of States to put the instrument into force, but also to make it a practical measure; for even with the co-operation of nine States it would have been impossible to have carried out the plan of Union, without the acquiescence of Virginia and New York.1 § 215. Mr. Madison's views.—Mr. Madison spoke of the necessity of a strong government, especially in regard to our foreign relations, referring to the weakness of the Confederation in this respect, he said: "The Confederation is so notoriously feeble, that foreign nations are unwilling to form any treaties with us; they are apprized that our general government cannot perform any of its engagements, but that they may be violated at pleasure by any of the states. Our violation of treaties already entered into proves this truth unequivocally. No nation will, therefore, make any stipulations with Congress, conceding any advantages of importance to us: they will be the more averse to entering into engagements with us, as the imbecility of our government enables them to derive many advantages from our trade, without granting us any return. But were this country united by proper bands, in addition to other great advantages, we could form very beneficial treaties with foreign states. But this can never happen without a change in our system. Were we not laughed at by that minister of that nation, from which we may be able yet to extort some of the most salutary measures for this country? Were we not told that it was necessary to temporize till our government acquired consistency. Will any nation relinquish national advantages to us? You will be greatly disappointed, if you expect any such good effects from this contemptible system. Let us recollect our conduct to that country from which we have received the most friendly aid. How have we dealt with that benevolent ally? Have we complied with our most sacred obligations to that § 214. 1 For the effect of the ratification by Virginia on the convention then in session in New York, see Curtis' Constitutional History of the United States, vol. I, p. 680. nation? Have we paid the interest punctually from year to year? Is not the interest accumulating, while not a shilling is discharged of the principal? The magnanimity and forbearance of that ally are so great that she has not called upon us for her claims, even in her own distress and necessity. This, sir, is an additional motive to increase our exertions. At this moment of time a very considerable amount is due from us to that country and others."1 § 216. Mr. Henry again expresses his views.-During the debates Colonel Mason reiterated the fear which he had expressed in the Federal Convention of the great danger contained in the treaty-making clause; he declared that a very small number of Senators, in collusion with the President, could practically dismember the Union. Mr. Henry agreed with Mr. Mason and "begged the gentlemen to consider the condition this country would be in if two thirds of a quorum should be empowered to make a treaty: they might relinquish and alienate territorial rights, and our most valuable commercial advantages. In short, if anything should be left us, it would be because the President and senators were pleased to admit it. The power of making treaties, by this Constitution, ill-guarded as it is, extended farther than it did in any country in the world. Treaties were to have more force here than in any part of Christendom; for he defied any gentleman to show anything so extensive in any strong, energetic government in Europe. Treaties rest, says he, on the laws and usages of nations. To say that they are municipal, is, to me, a doctrine totally novel. To make them paramount to the Constitution and laws of the states, is unprecedented. I would give them the same force and obligation they have in Great Britain, or any other country in Europe. Gentlemen are going on in a fatal career; but I hope they will stop before they concede this power unguarded and unaltered." 2 § 215. 1 Elliot's Debates, vol. III, p. 135. A parenthetical clause follows stating that Mr. Madison here mentioned the amount due to different for eign nations. The amounts are not 1 Elliot's Debates, vol. III, p. 499, and see also § 185, p. 317, ante. 2 Elliot's Debates, vol. III, p. 500. |