May 14, 1787, to consider the form of government and to make such changes in it as might render it "adequate to the exigencies of the Union." Alexander Hamilton was chosen to draft an address to accompany the recommendation. This duty Hamilton accomplished with great skill. In speaking in his address of the inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation, he says that the commissioners at Annapolis refrain from an enumeration of their defects. "They are, however," he continues, "of a nature so serious, as in the view of your commissioners, to render the situation of the United States delicate and critical, calling for an exertion of the united virtue and wisdom of all of the members of the Confederacy. Under this impression, your commissioners with the most respectful deference beg leave to suggest their unanimous conviction, that it may effectually tend to advance the interests of the union, if the states by which they have been respectively delegated would concur themselves, and use their endeavors to procure the concurrence of the other states, in the appointment of commissioners to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next, to take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union, and to report such an act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them and afterwards confirmed by the legislature of every state, will effectually provide for the same." This address by Hamilton was worded with great force and skill. The situation was a delicate one, and great care was necessary in order that a spirit of antagonism to the project might not be aroused at the outset. The report was addressed only to the States represented at Annapolis, but copies of it were sent "from motives of respect" to Congress and to the executives of the other States. This recommendation was the only matter of importance connected with the Annapolis Convention of September 11, 1786, but this alone entitles

the meeting to a high place in the history of constitutional development in the United States.

The recommendation of the Annapolis conference was not met with open arms. Indeed, such a reception would be unprecedented. When the report reached Congress, the Massachusetts delegation, led by King, made war upon it, and it was not adopted. The Governor of New York said. in effect that the Articles of Confederation were a satisfactory form of government or could easily be made so, and that the New York commissioners would have done well had they confined themselves to the business for which they were sent to Annapolis. Early in October, King appeared in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and declared that the recommendation of the Annapolis convention was entirely out of order. Such a step as was proposed, he said, should be taken, if at all, by Congress. His view prevailed, and the House refused to adopt the recommendation.

At this juncture, the State of Virginia, led by James Madison, came to the rescue. Upon motion by Madison, the Assembly unanimously adopted the recommendation of the Annapolis commissioners and chose a strong delegation to represent the State at Philadelphia. The Virginia legislators felt that their action was important, as their State was the first to act. They accordingly chose James Madison to draft the resolutions. This he did in a very effective way. Madison had pressed the cause of the convention with much persistence and with rare good sense, and now took occasion in the preamble of the resolutions to speak his mind in no uncertain way to the whole country. “Whereas the General Assembly of this Commonwealth," he said, "taking into view the actual situation of the Confederacy, as well as reflecting on the alarming representations made, from time to time, by the United States in Congress,—particularly in their act of the 15th day of February last,—can no longer doubt that the crisis is arrived at which the good people of America are to decide the solemn question, whether they will, by wise and magnanimous efforts, reap the just

fruits of that independence which they have so gloriously acquired, and of that Union which they have cemented with so much of their common blood; or whether, by giving way to unmanly jealousies and prejudices, or to partial and transitory interests, they will renounce the auspicious blessings prepared for them by the Revolution, and furnish to its enemies an eventual triumph over those by whose virtue and valor it has been accomplished: And whereas the same noble and extended policy, and the same fraternal and affectionate sentiments, which originally determined the citizens of this Commonwealth to unite with their brethren of the other States in establishing a Federal government, cannot but be felt with equal force now, as motives to lay aside every inferior consideration, and to concur in such farther concessions and provisions as may be necessary to secure the great objects for which that government was established, and to render the United States as happy in peace as they have been glorious in war."

The resolutions provided for the appointment of seven delegates to attend the Philadelphia convention. In the following month Washington, Patrick Henry, Edmund Randolph, John Blair, James Madison, George Mason, and George Wythe were chosen on joint ballot to constitute the delegation. These men had all been prominent in public life for a considerable time. There were two notable omissions, Edmund Pendleton, who was not well at the time, and Richard Henry Lee, who had fallen from favor to a considerable degree.

This prompt and decisive action by Virginia was most opportune and effective. New Jersey followed its example on November 23d following. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Delaware did likewise shortly after. Even King, of Massachusetts, who was so strenuously opposed to the matter at the outset, wrote to Gerry early in 1787: "Although my sentiments are the same as to the legality of the measure, I think we ought not to oppose, but to coincide with this project. Events are hurrying us to a crisis. Prudent and

sagacious men should be ready to seize the most favorable circumstances to establish a more perfect and vigorous government."

The recommendation of the Annapolis commissioners was not adopted by Congress, and there was some opposition to the manner in which the call for a convention had originated. There was no little jealousy in the matter on the part of Congress. Many of the members of that body thought that the convention idea should originate with them. King, of Massachusetts, now made a very ingenious and timely motion, which was carried. He ignored entirely the action of the Annapolis commissioners and proposed to Congress that a convention be called by that body to meet in Philadelphia on the second Monday in May, 1787,—the same time and place proposed by the Annapolis commissioners. This was a sop to the self-esteem of Congress and an ingenious way out of the difficulty. As we have seen, a good start had already been made by the appointment of delegates from several of the States. On February 22, 1787, Massachusetts chose its delegates to the Convention. New York elected its delegation, of which Hamilton was a member, a few days later. Georgia and South Carolina chose their delegates in April; Connecticut and Maryland, in May; and New Hampshire, in June. Rhode Island alone refused to take any part in the Convention.

The people of the world were watching the trend of affairs in America with great interest. It was conjectured by some that a son of George III. of England would be called upon to occupy the throne in the United States, after the failure of republican government had been demonstrated and admitted. Others considered it more probable that a member of the Bourbon line in France would be the recipient of the American crown, while still others predicted the breaking up of the republic into three distinct confederacies. The 14th of May was awaited with great interest. It is not too much to say that the fate of the republic was at stake.

CHAPTER III

THE PERSONNEL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL

CONVENTION OF 1787

THE fifty-five men who gathered at Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 constituted one of the most remarkable bodies of men ever assembled in any country. They were well adapted to the work which they were to undertake. There were a few great constructive statesmen like Madison, Wilson, and Hamilton, who had a thorough knowledge of history and politics and were at the same time original, profound, and practical thinkers. These men took the initiative. They were ably supported by a class of delegates, of whom Washington was the most conspicuous example, who proposed very little but whose steady conservatism and powerful influence were indispensable. No less useful were a few compromisers or conciliators, like Ellsworth, Sherman, and Franklin, who by their tact on more than one occasion prevented the assembly from breaking up in confusion. Such men as Elbridge Gerry and Gouverneur Morris, the critics of the Convention, were also of importance; for although this class of men made few positive contributions to the work of the Convention, as correctives they were necessary. The majority of the delegates were of none of these classes. They were of mediocre abilities and attainments, but at the same time dignified and healthy-minded men, who usually voted on the right side. They did their part in bringing respectability and moderation to the Convention and in inducing the people to ratify the new form of government. In addition to these