turned none but anti-federalists; Harford county elected three of that party and one trimmer. The day before the convention was to assemble, Washington, guarding against the only danger that remained, addressed a well-considered letter to Thomas Johnson: "An adjournment of your convention will be tantamount to the rejection of the constitution. It cannot be too much deprecated and guarded against. Great use is made of the postponement in New Hampshire, although it has no reference to the convention of this state. An event similar to this in Maryland would have the worst tendency imaginable; for indecision there would certainly have considerable influence upon South Carolina, the only other state which is to precede Virginia; and it submits the question almost wholly to the determination of the latter. The pride of the state is already touched, and will be raised much higher if there is fresh cause." * The advice, which was confirmed by similar letters from Madison, was communicated to several of the members; so that the healing influence of Virginia proved greater than its power to wound. But the men of Maryland of themselves knew their duty, and Washington's advice was but an encouragement for them to proceed in the way which they had chosen. On Monday, the twenty-first of April, a quorum of the convention assembled at Annapolis. The settlement of representation in the two branches of the federal legislature was pleasing to all the representatives of fifteen counties, and the cities of Baltimore and Annapolis agreed with each other perfectly that the main question had already been decided by the people in their respective counties; and that the ratification of the constitution, the single transaction for which they were convened, ought to be speedily completed. Two days were given to the organization of the house and establishing rules for its government; on the third the constitution was read a first time, and the motion for its ratification was formally made. The plan of a confederacy of slave-holding states found not * Washington to Thomas Johnson, 20 April 1788; T. Johnson to Washington, 10 October 1788. Compare Washington to James Mcllenry, 27 April 1788; to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, 27 April 1788; to James Madison, 2 May 1788. one supporter; not one suggested an adjournment for the purpose of consultation with Virginia. The malcontents could embarrass the convention only by proposing pernicious amendments. On the morning of the twenty-fourth, Samuel Chase took his seat, and at the second reading of the constitution began from elaborate notes the fiercest opposition: The powers to be vested in the new government are deadly to the cause of liberty, and should be amended before adoption; five states can now force a concession of amendments which after the national government shall go into operation could be carried only by nine.* He spoke till he was exhausted, intending to resume his argument on the following day. In the afternoon, William Paca of Harford county, a signer of the declaration of independence, appeared for the first time and sought to steer between the clashing opinions, saying: "I have a variety of objections; not as conditions, but to accompany the ratification as standing instructions to the representatives of Maryland in congress.' To Johnson the request seemed candid; and on his motion the convention adjourned to the next morning. The interval was employed in preparing a set of amendments to the constitution, which were adapted to injure the cause of federalism in Virginia. + On Friday morning a member from each of eleven several counties and the two cities, one after the other, declared "that he and his colleagues were under an obligation to vote for the government;" and almost all declared further that they had no authority to propose amendments which their constituents had never considered, and of course could never have directed.# When Paca began to read his amendments, he was called to order by George Gale of Somerset county, the question before the house being still "on the ratification of the constitution." Chase once more "made a display of all his eloquence;" John F. Mercer discharged his whole "artillery of inflammable *Notes of Chase on the constitution, MS.; and the historical address of Alex. C. Hanson, MS. + Hanson's MS. narrative. James McHenry to Washington, 18 May 1788. # Alex. C. Hanson. MS. Elliot, ii., 548. matter;" and Martin rioted in boisterous "vehemence;" "but no converts were made; no, not one.”* The friends to the federal government "remained inflexibly silent." The malcontents having tired themselves out, between two and three o'clock on Saturday, the twenty-sixth, the constitution was ratified by sixty-three votes against eleven, Paca voting with the majority. Proud of its great majority of nearly six to one, the convention fixed Monday, at three o'clock, for the time when they would all set their names to the instrument of ratification. Paca then brought forward his numerous amendments, saying that with them his constituents would receive the constitution, without them would oppose it even with arms. After a short but perplexed debate he was indulged in the appointment of a committee of thirteen, of which he himself was the chairman; but they had power only to recommend amendments to the consideration of the people of Maryland. The majority of the committee readily acceded to thirteen resolutions, explaining the constitution according to the construction of its friends, and restraining congress from exercising power not expressly delegated. The minority demanded more; the committee fell into a wrangle; the convention on Monday sent a summons for them; and Paca, taking the side of the minority, would make no report. Thereupon the convention dissolved itself by a great majority. The accession of Maryland to the new union by a vote of nearly six to one brought to the constitution the majority of the thirteen United States, and a great majority of their free inhabitants. The state which was cradled in religious liberty gained the undisputed victory over the first velleity of the slave-holding states to form a separate confederacy. "It is a thorn in the sides of the leaders of opposition in this state!" wrote Washington to Madison. "Seven affirmative without a negative would almost convert the unerring sister. The fiat of your convention will most assuredly raise the edifice," # were his words to Jenifer of Maryland. * Washington to Madison, 2 May 1788. Washington to Madison, 2 May 1788. + Hanson. MS. #Washington to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, 27 April 1788. In his hours of meditation he saw the movement of the divine power which gives unity to the universe, and order and connection to events: "It is impracticable for any one who has not been on the spot to realize the change in men's minds, and the progress toward rectitude in thinking and acting. "The plot thickens fast. A few short weeks will determine the political fate of America for the present generation, and probably produce no small influence on the happiness of society through a long succession of ages to come. Should everything proceed with harmony and consent according to our actual wishes and expectations, it will be so much beyond anything we had a right to imagine or expect eighteen months ago that it will, as visibly as any possible event in the course of human affairs, demonstrate the finger of Providence.” * In South Carolina the new constitution awakened fears of oppressive navigation acts and of disturbance in the ownership of slaves. The inhabitants of the upper country, who suffered from the undue legislative power of the city of Charleston and the lower counties, foreboded new inequalities from a consolidation of the union. A part of the low country, still suffering from the war, had shared the rage for instalment laws, paper money, and payment of debts by appraised property; and to all these the new constitution made an end. The opposition from Virginia † intrigued for a southern confederacy, while Madison, in entire unison with Washington, wrote to his friends in behalf of union. They both knew that there was to be resistance to the constitution, with Rawlins Lowndes for its spokesman; and as he could by no possibility be elected into the convention, the chief scene of the opposition could only be the legislature.* In January 1788 the senate unanimously voted thanks to the members from their state in the federal convention for their faithfulness. On the sixteenth, in the committee of the whole house of representatives, Charles Pinckney gave a his * Washington to the Marquis de la Fayette, 28 May 1788. Jefferson to Shippen, 14 July 1788. "Mr. Henry disseminated propositions there for a southern confederacy." Madison to Washington, 10 April 1788. Works, i., 384, 385. #Madison, i., 382; Elliot, iv., 274. tory* of the formation and the character of "the federal republic;" which was to operate upon the people and not upon the states. At once Lowndes † objected that the interests of South Carolina were endangered by the clause in the constitution according to which a treaty to be made by two thirds of the senate, and a president who was not likely ever to be chosen from South Carolina or Georgia, would be the supreme law of the land. Cotesworth Pinckney condemned the reasoning as disingenuous. "Every treaty," said John Rutledge, "is law paramount and must operate," not less under the confederation than under the constitution. "If treaties are not superior to local laws," asked Ramsay, "who will trust them?" Lowndes proceeded, saying of the confederation: "We are now under a most excellent constitution-a blessing from heaven, that has stood the test of time, and given us liberty and independence; yet we are impatient to pull down that fabric which we raised at the expense of our blood." # Now, Rawlins Lowndes had pertinaciously resisted the declaration of independence; and when, in 1778, South Carolina had made him her governor, had in her reverses sought British protection. He proceeded: "When this new constitution shall be adopted, the sun of the southern states will set, never to rise again. What cause is there for jealousy of our importing negroes? Why confine us to twenty years? Why limit us at all? This trade can be justified on the principles of religion and humanity. They do not like our slaves because they have none themselves, and, therefore, want to exclude us from this great advantage." || "Every state," interposed Pendleton, "has prohibited the importation of negroes except Georgia and the two Carolinas." Lowndes continued: "Without negroes this state would degenerate into one of the most contemptible in the union. Negroes are our wealth, our only natural resource; yet our kind friends in the North are determined soon to tie up our hands and drain us of what we have." "Against the restrictions that might be laid on the African trade after the year 1808," said Cotesworth Pinckney on the *Elliot, iv., 253-263. Elliot, iv., 265, 266. Elliot, iv., 267, 268. Elliot, iv., 272. |