Chapter V
.
Footnote 623:
_Massachusetts and the Federal Constitution_ (Harvard Studies).
Footnote 624:
_Sectionalism in Virginia._
Footnote 625:
Libby, _op. cit._, pp. 7–8.
Footnote 626:
_Ibid._, p. 11.
Footnote 627:
Data given here are from _State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 442. It should be remembered that the figures would have been relatively different in 1787 on account of the union of Vermont with New Hampshire, but they are doubtless roughly correct.
Footnote 628:
Some painstaking research in the Treasury Department would produce valuable data toward the solution of this problem.
Footnote 629:
_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 442 (public funds included. See p. 419).
Footnote 630:
See above for the table, p. 36.
Footnote 631:
Ms. Treasury Department: New Hampshire Loan Office Books.
Footnote 632:
Libby, _op. cit._, p. 12.
Footnote 633:
_The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts_, p. 75.
Footnote 634:
As to the opposition in Maine, see General Knox’s view, below, p. 301.
Footnote 635:
_The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts_, pp. 63–66.
Footnote 636:
_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, pp. 451. Of course some changes in distribution may have occurred between 1789 and 1792, but this may be taken as approximately correct.
Footnote 637:
_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 443; Libby, _op. cit._, p. 107 for the vote.
Footnote 638:
Libby, _op. cit._, for vote, p. 107; _State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I. pp. 450 and 449 for taxes lists.
Footnote 639:
The full significance of the Worcester vote and property lists would involve an analysis of the distribution of each among the towns.
Footnote 640:
_American Antiquarian Society Proceedings_ (1911), p. 65.
Footnote 641:
Ms. Treasury Department: _Index to the Three Per Cents (Mass.)_. Gore, Dawes, and Phillips appear on the New Hampshire Journals and other Massachusetts Records.
Footnote 642:
The _Index_ shows several holders by the name of Davis: Jonathan, James, Aaron, Susanna, John, Nathl., Joseph, Moses, Thomas, Saml., Wendell, and John G. Whether they were relatives of Caleb is not apparent. Leonard and Nathl. Jarvis also appear on the Book. Also Mary and Belcher Hancock.
Footnote 643:
All of these men except Wales and Warren appear on the _Index to the Three Per Cents (Mass.)_. Wales and Warren appear on the books as holders of old certificates (_Loan Office Certificates, 1779–1788, Mass._); and it does not appear when or how they disposed of their holdings.
Footnote 644:
See above, p. 75, note 3.
Footnote 645:
On September 3, 1787, the Connecticut Courant in a letter from Philadelphia (Aug. 24) says: “One of the first objects with the national government to be elected under the new constitution, it is said, will be to provide funds for the payment of the national debt, and thereby restore the credit of the United States, which has been so much impaired by the individual states. Every holder of a public security of any kind is, therefore, deeply interested in the cordial reception and speedy establishment of a vigorous continental government.”
Footnote 646:
Libby, _op. cit._, p. 14.
Footnote 647:
_Ibid._, p. 113.
Footnote 648:
Towns not represented or not voting in the convention are counted against the Constitution.
Footnote 649:
The assumed debt is taken because the Ledgers of that debt are in excellent shape and apparently complete. They do not contain, however, half of the security holders in that state. Several of the towns that had no assumed debt-holders were represented in the convention by holders of other paper. See table, p. 267.
Footnote 650:
See above, p. 15.
Footnote 651:
_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 423.
Footnote 652:
The sources for the information as to these securities are in the Treasury Department: _Connecticut Loan Office, 1781–1783_ (Register of Certificates); _Connecticut Loan Office, Ledger B, Assumed Debt_; _Ledger C, 1790–1796_; _Ledger A, 1790–1797_; _Loan Office Certificates of 1779, etc._
Footnote 653:
No doubt a study of local economic interests in Connecticut would yield highly important data. See, for example, the early capitalist enterprises connected with the navigation of the Connecticut River. _Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 1903–1904_, p. 404. Such local histories as E. D. Larned, _A History of Windham County_, contain veritable mines of information on the economic interests of men prominent in local politics.
Footnote 654:
Libby, _op. cit._, p. 18. Libby here takes the vote in the New York convention, but that did not precisely represent the popular vote. Above, p. 244.
Footnote 655:
_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 425.
Footnote 656:
Libby, _op. cit._, p. 59.
Footnote 657:
Those marked “C 6”, Ms. Treasury Department: _New York, 6% Funds, 1790_; “N. Y. 3” _ibid._, _3% Funds_; “R,” _New York Loan Office Receipts_, Ms. Division, Library of Congress. Melancton Smith appears on the Ledgers of the Connecticut Loan Office; and _N. Y. Loan Office, 1791_, folio 138, for $10,000 worth of sixes and threes.
Footnote 658:
See above, p. 107.
Footnote 659:
Not present on final vote, but see Elliot, _Debates_, Vol. II, p. 411.
Footnote 660:
Libby, _op. cit._, pp. 60–61. Writing on October 14, 1787, Madison said “I do not learn that any opposition is likely to be made [to the ratification] in New Jersey,” _Writings of James Madison_, Vol. I, p. 342.
Footnote 661:
These records are drawn principally from incomplete lists of early certificates issued, or from some later funding books in the Treasury Department. The real weight of securities in the New Jersey convention must remain problematical, at least, for the present. The amounts set down to the names above recorded are for the most part insignificant—a few hundred or thousand dollars at the most, and often smaller. The point, it may be repeated, is not the amount but the practical information derived from holding even one certificate of the nominal value of $10.
Footnote 662:
Dr. Jameson says of the records of the Delaware convention: “Neither journal nor debates, has, I believe, ever been published,” _American Historical Association Report_ (1902), Vol. I, p. 165.
Footnote 663:
Libby, _op. cit._, pp. 26 ff.
Footnote 664:
The Massachusetts Gazette, on October 19, 1787, prints a letter from Philadelphia (dated October 5) in which the activities of speculators in public securities are fully set forth: “Since the grand federal convention has opened the budget and published their scheme of government, all goes well here. Continental loan office certificates and all such securities have risen twenty-five per cent. Even the old emission which has long lain dormant begins to show its head. Last week many thousand pounds’ worth of it were bought up. Moneyed men have their agents employed to buy up all the continental securities they can—foreseeing the rapid rise of our funds. Such men as have the cash to spare will certainly make large fortunes.... We send our factors to the distant towns who know nothing of the rise and buy them cheap; for there is no buying them on reasonable terms in Philadelphia, as the wealthy men are purchasing them to lay up. Thus we go on—pray how is it with you?”
Footnote 665:
Ms. Treasury Department: “I,” _Index to Funded 6 C_; “JA,” _Journal A, 1790–1791_ (sixes and threes); “JB,” _Journal B_; “R,” _Register Loan Office Certificates, 1788_; “77,” _Register Certificates of 1777_; “3 C,” _Ledger C, 3% Stock_; “LT,” _Treasury Ledger_; “M,” Miscellaneous.
Footnote 666:
_Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution._ It will be noted that there were at least seven members of the Order of Cincinnati in the convention, all of whom were in favor of the Constitution.
Footnote 667:
Libby, _op. cit._, p. 66.
Footnote 668:
Letter, quoted in Libby, _op. cit._, p. 65.
Footnote 669:
_Sectionalism in Virginia_, pp. 6–9; p. 58.
Footnote 670:
Ambler, _op. cit._, pp. 8, 59.
Footnote 671:
_Ibid._, pp. 15–16.
Footnote 672:
Ambler, _op. cit._, pp. 48–52.
Footnote 673:
Henry not only refused to attend but opposed the adoption of the Constitution with all his might.
Footnote 674:
_Ibid._, p. 36.
Footnote 675:
Ambler, _op. cit._, pp. 53 ff.
Footnote 676:
For an explanation of the Federalist complexion of this region see Ambler’s explanation, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, p. 16.
Footnote 677:
Libby, _op. cit._, pp. 34–35.
Footnote 678:
Voted against ratification.
Footnote 679:
This is evident from the records in the Treasury Department.
Footnote 680:
Libby, _op. cit._, pp. 38 ff.
Footnote 681:
_Ibid._, p. 42–43.
Footnote 682:
“Appius,” _To the Citizens of South Carolina_ (1794), Library of Congress, Duane Pamphlets, Vol. 83.
Footnote 683:
See above, p. 248.
Footnote 684:
_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 462. In 1783 an attempt to establish a bank with $100,000 capital was made in Charleston, S.C., but it failed. “Soon after the adoption of the funding system, three banks were established in Charleston whose capitals in the whole amounted to twenty times the sum proposed in 1783.” D. Ramsay, _History of South Carolina_ (1858 ed.), Vol. II, p. 106.
Footnote 685:
Ms. Treasury Department: _South Carolina Loan Office Ledger_, consult Index. No general search was made for other names.
Footnote 686:
On the subject of ratification in Georgia, Dr. Jameson says: “Nothing of either journal or debates is known to have been printed, unless in some contemporary newspaper outside the state; the Georgia newspapers seem to have nothing of the sort.” _American Historical Association Report_ (1902), Vol. I, p. 167.
Footnote 687:
This danger may have had some influence in the concessions made by the Georgia delegates in the Convention for they were kept informed of the Indian troubles in the summer of 1787. Force Transcripts, _Georgia Records, 1782–1789_: Library of Congress.
Footnote 688:
Some holders of public securities are found among the opponents of the Constitution, but they are not numerous.
Footnote 689:
_Writings_, Vol. I, p. 423.
Footnote 690:
“Address to the Freemen of America,” _The American Museum_ for June, 1787. Vol. I, p. 494.
Footnote 691:
New Hampshire Spy, November 30, 1787.
Footnote 692:
_American Museum_, July, 1788, Vol. IV, p. 85.
Footnote 693:
Above, p. 156.
Footnote 694:
McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316; below, p. 299.
Footnote 695:
Vol. II (1850 ed.), p. 99 ff.
Footnote 696:
Farrand, _Records_, Vol. III, p. 232. Speaking of New Hampshire, Madison says, “The opposition [to the Constitution], I understand, is composed precisely of the same description of characters with that of Massachusetts and stands contrasted to all the wealth, abilities, and respectability of the State.” _Writings_, Vol. I, p. 383.
Footnote 697:
_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 442.
Footnote 698:
_Report of the Manuscripts Commission of the American Historical Association_, December 20, 1896, p. 754. A writer in the Chronicle of Freedom (reprinted in the Massachusetts Centinel, October, 27, 1787) complains of the dangers to the freedom of the press from the new Constitution and continues: “One thing, however, is calculated to alarm our fears on this head;—I mean the fashionable language which now prevails so much and is so frequent in the mouths of some who formerly held very different opinions;—That common people have no business to trouble themselves about government.” The Massachusetts Centinel (November 24, 1787) declares it to be “a notorious fact that three of the principle enemies of the proposed constitution were heart and hand with the insurgents last winter.”
Footnote 699:
_Life and Letters_, Vol. I, pp. 314 ff.
Footnote 700:
Harding, _The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts_, pp. 123–124.
Footnote 701:
Ford, _Essays on the Constitution_, p. 139.
Footnote 702:
Ford, _Essays on the Constitution_, pp. 144 ff.
Footnote 703:
Libby, _op. cit._, p. 58.
Footnote 704:
Connecticut Courant, May 21, 1787.
Footnote 705:
See above, p. 156.
Footnote 706:
_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 288. On the antagonism in New York see some clues afforded in an article in The Magazine of American History, April, 1893, pp. 326 ff.
Footnote 707:
Dickinson’s Fabius letters were printed after the ratification by Delaware and were directed to the “general public” rather than fellow-citizens in that commonwealth. Among the opponents to the Constitution, he put “men without principles or fortunes who think they may have a chance to mend their circumstances with impunity under a weak government.” Ford, _Pamphlets on the Constitution_, p. 165.
Footnote 708:
See Harding, “Party struggles over the First Pennsylvania Constitution,” _American Historical Association Report_ (1894).
Footnote 709:
_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 305.
Footnote 710:
_Ibid._, Vol. IV, p. 339.
Footnote 711:
_Ibid._, Vol. IV, p. 358.
Footnote 712:
McMaster and Stone, _op. cit._, p. 73.
Footnote 713:
_Ibid._, p. 567.
Footnote 714:
_Ibid._, p. 367.
Footnote 715:
McMaster and Stone, _op. cit._, pp. 568–569.
Footnote 716:
_Ibid._, pp. 569–570.
Footnote 717:
Connecticut Courant, Oct. 1, 1787.
Footnote 718:
See the valuable articles on “Maryland’s Adoption of the Constitution,” by Dr. Steiner in the American Historical Review, Vol. V.
Footnote 719:
Ford, _Pamphlets on the Constitution_, p. 254.
Footnote 720:
See above, p. 205.
Footnote 721:
Maryland Journal, March 21, 1788.
Footnote 722:
_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 398. For the economics of this, see above, p. 30.
Footnote 723:
P. 295.
Footnote 724:
“It is currently reported,” says the New Hampshire Spy, on December 7, 1787, “that there are only two men in Virginia who are not in debt, to be found among the enemies to the federal constitution. Debtors, speculators in papers, and states demagogues act consistently in opposing it.”
Footnote 725:
_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 584.
Footnote 726:
_Ibid._, p. 577.
Footnote 727:
Elliot, _Debates_, Vol. III, p. 592. See W. C. Ford, “The Federal Constitution in Virginia,” in the _Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society_ for October, 1903.
Footnote 728:
Elliot, _Debates_, Vol. IV, p. 159.
Footnote 729:
Elliot, _Debates_, Vol. IV, p. 90.
Footnote 730:
McRee, _Life and Correspondence of James Iredell_, Vol. II, pp. 216, 219.
Footnote 731:
McRee, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 164 note.
Footnote 732:
See W. A. Schaper, “Sectionalism in South Carolina,” _American Historical Association Report_ (1900), Vol. I.
Footnote 733:
Summary by T. Ford, _The Constitutionalist_ (1794), p. 21.
Footnote 734:
Ford, _op. cit._, pp. 21–22.
Footnote 735:
_Op. cit._, p. 13.
Footnote 736:
Ford, _Pamphlets on the Constitution_, p. 379. On May 24, 1788, after the Constitution had been approved in South Carolina, General Pinckney wrote to Rufus King, saying, “The Anti-Federalists had been most mischievously industrious in prejudicing the minds of our citizens against the Constitution. Pamphlets, speeches, & Protests from the disaffected in Pennsylvania were circulated throughout the state,
## particularly in the back country.” King, _Life and Correspondence_,
Vol. I, p. 329.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling. 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.