QUESTIONS

I. (1) What was the chief purpose for which Virginia called the Annapolis convention? (2) What other purpose suggested in the New Jersey instructions? (3) What was the result of the Annapolis convention? (4) Did Congress in its call for a convention have in mind the making of a new constitution? Proof? (5) What was the chief purpose of the convention as shown by state instructions to delegates? (6) What hostile ideas represented in the Randolph and Patterson plans? (7) What is the significance of Randolph's alteration of his original plan? (8) What were the chief arguments for election of congressmen by State legislatures instead of by the people? (9) What reasons assigned for distrust of the people? (10) What class or kind of States demanded equal representation? (11) What reasons did they give for their demand? (12) How were their arguments answered? (13) On what grounds was representation of slaves demanded? (14) On what resisted? (15) What arguments made against continuance of slave trade? (16) What arguments for? (17) Attitude of the sections on this question? (18) What were the chief objections against the ratification? (19) What the important differences in the ratifications of Delaware, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island?

II. (1) Compare the two plans, showing the significance of their differences. (2) Write a narrative from the extracts on "the making of the Constitution." (3) Write a paper on sectionalism in the convention.

III. (1) What men were the most important in the foundation and adoption of the Constitution? (2) How were the questions in dispute finally compromised? (3) How did the Constitution remedy the defects of the Articles of Confederation? (4) What predictions have been fulfilled? What ones falsified?

Text-Book References-Hart, 206-219; Channing, 232-252; McLaughlin, 229-232; McMaster, 165-170; Montgomery, 233239; Adams and Trent, 181-188; MacDonald's Johnston, 176183; Thomas, 170-180.

SECTION II

HAMILTONIAN FEDERALISM-1789-1801

What soon became known as the Federalist party, under the leadership of Hamilton, obtained almost immediate control of the new government established under the constitution. Party divisions were at once foretold by the controversies that took place over the use of English forms and ceremonies in the inauguration of the government, and over the attempts of those in power to give aristocratic titles to the new officials. However, the real struggle came over the Hamiltonian measures of funding, assumption, and the bank. Those opposed to these centralizing tendencies began to organize in 1791, under the leadership of Jefferson and Madison, and soon became known as Republicans, advocating a strict interpretation of the Constitution and emphasizing the importance of local or state government.

After 1793 party contests shifted in the main from these home or domestic policies to those of foreign relations. The American people divided over the French Revolution. Federalist sympathy was with the English; Republican sympathy was with the French. Thus treaties made or attempted with either of these powers were attacked by the party hostile to that power, and when in 1798 it became. known in the United States that the French ministry had demanded a bribe before entering upon the negotiation of a treaty, the Federalists made use of the aroused American indignation to secure the enactment of laws placing restraints upon aliens, naturalization, and freedom of speech and press. These measures led to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and in time produced a reaction in favor of the Republicans.

Moved by fear of Republican victory, Hamilton (in his

letter to Dayton) proposed measures whose accomplishment would have destroyed the States, and changed the "federal" into a "consolidated" government. In 1800 the Federal party weakened by factionalism and its own legislative excesses met defeat, and the country committed itself to the Republican party under the leadership of Jefferson. Federalism had proved its constructive power in developing the machinery of government, but the ideals to which it applied this machinery were on the whole aristocratic and traditional ideals in harmony with the vanishing past rather than with the growing democratic spirit of America.

1. DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERALIST DOMESTIC POLICY, 1789-1793

a. Organization of Government under the Constitution:

Opening of Congress (Mar. 4-Apr. 6, 1789). "This being the day for the meeting of the new Congress, [a few] members of the Senate appeared. The members present not being

a quorum, they adjourned from day to day. Monday, April 6, R. H. Lee [Va.] . . . took his seat and formed a quorum." Inauguration of the President (April 30 1789). "Mr. Lee

of the committee . . . for conducting the formal reception . . . of the President, . . having informed the Senate that the same was adjusted, the House of Representatives were notified that the Senate was ready to receive them. . . while [the President was] taking the oath required by the Constitution. Whereupon, the House of Representatives, preceded by their speaker, came into the Senate chamber, and the oath

...

was administered [to the President; who] having returned to his seat, after a short pause arose, and addressed the Senate and House of Representatives. . . . Upon motion . . . a committee of three [was] appointed to prepare an answer to the President's speech,. . . and May 1, reported as follows: Sir; We the Senate of the United States, return you our sincere thanks

1. T. H. Benton, Abridgment of Debates of Congress, I, 9-10.

for your excellent speech congratulate you on the complete organization of the Federal Government; and felicitate ourselves... over your elevation to the office of President. . . ." Senator Wm. Maclay: The controversy over Forms and Titles (Apr. 30-May 14, 1789). "This is a great, important day. Goddess of Etiquette, assist me while I describe it.

[The Vice-President said] The President will, I suppose, address the Congress. How shall I behave? How shall we receive it? Shall it be standing or sitting? . . . Mr. Lee began with the House of Commons, then the House of Lords, then the King, and then back again. The result of his information was, that the Lords sat and the Commons stood on the delivery of the King's speech. . . . Mr. Carrol . . . thought it no consequence how it was in Great Britain, they were no rule to us.

The President advanced between the Senate and Representatives, bowing to each. He was placed in the chair by the Vice-President; the Senate with their president on the right, the Speaker and the Representatives on the left. The VicePresident rose and addressed a short sentence to him. . He [the President] rose, and all arose also, and [he] addressed them. . . . This great man was agitated and embarrassed more than ever he was by the leveled cannon or pointed musket. He trembled. . . . I sincerely . . . wished all set ceremony in the hands of the dancing-masters, . . . for I felt hurt that he [Washington] was not first in everything. He was dressed in deep brown, with metal buttons, with an eagle on them, white stockings, a bag, and sword. . . . The Senate returned to their chamber after service . . . and took up the [President's] address. Our Vice-President called it his most gracious speech. I can not approve of this. [May 1, I said] Mr. President, we have lately had a hard struggle against kingly authority. . The words [there] prefixed to the President's speech are the same that are usually placed before the speech of his Britannic Majesty. . . . I consider them as improper. Mr. Adams rose in his chair and expressed the greatest surprise that anything should be objected to . . . taken from the practice of that

2. T. H. Benton, Abridgment of Debates of Congress, I, 13.

Government under which we had lived so long and happily formerly; that he was for a dignified and respectable government, . . . he was one of the first in the late [Revolutionary] contest, and if he could have thought of this, he never would have drawn his sword.

Painful as it was, I had to contend with the chair [stating] that the enemies of the Constitution had objected to . . . the facility there would be of transition from it to kingly government and all the trappings and splendor of royalty. .

[The Senate on a previous day having discussed the title by which the President should be addressed] May 8, I collected myself for a last effort. I read the clause in the Constitution against titles of nobility. . . . The report [of the committee on titles] was rejected. Excellency' was moved for as

a title by Mr. Izard [S. C.],

and 'highness'

[but was later] withdrawn, proposed by Mr. Lee [Va.]. Now long harangues were made in favor of this title. May 9th. . . . At length the committee . reported a title-His Highness the President of the United States of America, and Protector of the Rights of the Same, . . . but [May 14] . . . in conformity to the practice of the other House, for the present, they [the Senate] resolved to address the President without title." 3

Creation of the Cabinet (May 19, 1789). "Mr. Boudinot [N. J.]. I shall move the committee . . that an officer be established for the management of the finances of the United States to be denominated the Secretary of Finance.

Mr. Benson [N. Y.] wished the committee to consider how many departments there should be established. He would move that there be established in aid of the chief executive, three executive departments, the Department of

Foreign Affairs, Treasury, and War.

Mr. Vining [Del.] thought the gentleman should have added another department, viz: the Home Department.

Mr. Madison [Va.] moved that . . . an officer [be provided for] to be called the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with

3. E. S. Maclay, Journal of Wm. Maclay, 1-26, 33.