Benjamin Franklin

Franklin was born in 1706 at Boston. He was the tenth son of a soap- and candle-maker. He received some formal education, but was principally self-taught. After serving an apprenticeship to his father between the ages of 10 and 12, he went to work for his half-brother James, a printer. In 1721 the latter founded the New England Courant, the fourth newspaper in the Colonies. Benjamin secretly contributed to it 14 essays, his first published writings.

In 1723, because of dissension with his half-brother, Franklin moved to Philadelphia, where he obtained employment as a printer. He spent only a year there, and then sailed to London for 2 more years. Back in Philadelphia, he rose rapidly in the printing industry. He published The Pennsylvania Gazette (1730-48), which had been founded by another man in 1728, but his most successful literary venture was the annual Poor Richard’s Almanac (1733-58). It won a popularity in the Colonies second only to the Bible, and its fame eventually spread to Europe.

Meantime, in 1730 Franklin had taken a common-law wife, Deborah Read, who was to bear him a son and daughter, as was also apparently another nameless woman out of wedlock. By 1748 he had achieved financial independence and gained recognition for his philanthropy and the stimulus he provided to such civic causes as libraries, educational institutions, and hospitals. Energetic and tireless, he also found time to pursue his interest in science, as well as enter politics.

Franklin served as clerk (1736-51) and member (1751-64) of the colonial legislature, and as deputy postmaster of Philadelphia (1737-53) and deputy postmaster general of the Colonies (1753-74). In addition, he represented Pennsylvania at the Albany Congress (1754), called to unite the Colonies during the French and Indian War. The congress adopted his “Plan of Union,” but the colonial assemblies rejected it because it encroached on their powers.

During the years 1757-62 and 1764-75, Franklin resided in England, originally in the capacity of agent for Pennsylvania and later for Georgia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. During the latter period, which coincided with the growth of colonial unrest, he underwent a political metamorphosis. Until then a contented Englishman in outlook, primarily concerned with Pennsylvania provincial politics, he distrusted popular movements and saw little purpose to be served in carrying principle to extremes. Until the issue of parliamentary taxation undermined the old alliances, he led the Quaker party attack on the Anglican proprietary party and its Presbyterian frontier allies. His purpose throughout the years at London in fact had been displacement of the Penn family administration by royal authority—the conversion of the province from a proprietary to a royal colony.

It was during the Stamp Act crisis that Franklin evolved from leader of a shattered provincial party’s faction to celebrated spokesman at London for American rights. Although as agent for Pennsylvania he opposed by every conceivable means the enactment of the bill in 1765, he did not at first realize the depth of colonial hostility. He regarded passage as unavoidable and preferred to submit to it while actually working for its repeal.

Franklin’s nomination of a friend and political ally as stamp distributor for Pennsylvania, coupled with his apparent acceptance of the legislation, armed his proprietary opponents with explosive issues. Their energetic exploitation of them endangered his reputation at home until reliable information was published demonstrating his unabated opposition to the act. For a time, mob resentment threatened his family and new home in Philadelphia until his tradesmen supporters rallied. Subsequently, Franklin’s defense of the American position in the House of Commons during the debates over the Stamp Act’s repeal restored his prestige at home.

Franklin returned to Philadelphia in May 1775, and immediately became a distinguished Member of the Continental Congress. Thirteen months later, he served on the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence. He subsequently contributed to the Government in other important ways, including service as postmaster general, and took over the duties of president of the Pennsylvania constitutional convention.

But, within less than a year and a half after his return, the aged statesman set sail once again for Europe, beginning a career as diplomat that would occupy him for most of the rest of his life. In 1776-79, as one of three commissioners, he directed the negotiations that led to treaties of commerce and alliance with France, where the people adulated him, but he and the other commissioners squabbled constantly. While he was sole commissioner to France (1779-85), he and John Jay and John Adams negotiated the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the War for Independence.

All of Philadelphia, as well as the Nation, mourned the passing of Franklin. This is the “order of procession” for his funeral. (Gazette of the United States (New York City), April 28, 1790. Library of Congress.)

Back in the United States, in 1785-87 Franklin became president of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania. At the Constitutional Convention, though he did not approve of many aspects of the finished document and was hampered by his age and ill-health, he missed few if any sessions, lent his prestige, soothed passions, and compromised disputes.

In his twilight years, working on his Autobiography, Franklin could look back on a fruitful life as the toast of two continents. Energetic nearly to the last, in 1787 he was elected as first president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery—a cause to which he had committed himself as early as the 1730’s. His final public act was signing a memorial to Congress recommending dissolution of the slavery system. Shortly thereafter, in 1790 at the age of 84, Franklin passed away in Philadelphia and was laid to rest in Christ Church Burial Ground.

Information adapted from the National Park Service and EDSITEment.

Online Recourses

• Benjamin Franklin Websites
• Biography of Franklin for Students

• 300 Years of Benjamin Franklin
• Benjamin Franklin—An Extraordinary Life. An Electric Mind
• Benjamin Franklin—Postmaster General
• Benjamin Franklin Inventor

Introduction

The “Great Charter” drawn up on the field at Runnymede on June 15, 1215 between King John and his feudal barons failed to resolve the crisis that had been brewing in England ever since the death of John’s brother King Richard I. Over the long term, however,Magna Carta served to lay the foundation for the evolution of parliamentary government and subsequent declarations of rights in Great Britain and the United States. In attempting to establish checks on the king’s powers, this document asserted the right of “due process” of law. By the end of the 13th century, it provided the basis for the idea of a “higher law,” one that could not be altered either by executive mandate or legislative acts. This concept, embraced by the leaders of the American Revolution, is embedded in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution and enforced by the Supreme Court.

Historical Background

At the death of his brother, Richard the Lionhearted, John assumed the throne of England, intent on exercising power to achieve his own selfish ends. To fund military campaigns in France, he extracted exorbitant fees from nobles, who, in turn, raised the rents imposed on their tenants. At the same time, John reduced the lords’ customary powers over those tenants, restricting, for example, their power to hold court for those living on their feudal lands. He attempted to influence church elections and confiscated church properties, alienating the powerful ecclesiastical establishment and depriving the poor of the only source of relief available to paupers. He restricted trading privileges traditionally granted to London’s merchants and increased their taxes, alienating this constituency as well.

King John’s tyrannical practices extended to demanding sexual favors from the wives and daughters of his barons and to imposing brutal punishments on individuals who challenged his authority. His unbridled exercise of power, coupled with the fact that his administration was both corrupt and inefficient, ultimately led the feudal lords to challenge his authority. Rebellion against the king’s rule surfaced in 1213, when England’s nobles refused to support him in yet another war in France. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, sided with them. As animosity mounted, the barons grew more determined to reclaim their rights and in early May 1215 renounced their allegiance to the king. Initially, John refused to meet with them, but he changed his mind when London’s merchants opened the gates of the city to the nobles, demonstrating that they, too, were prepared to challenge the king’s authoritarian rule. Threatened with a violent overthrow, John had little choice but to meet with the barons and agree to the terms they presented at Runnymede. The original draft was replaced four days later with a slightly amended version that extended rights to freemen (about 10% of the population at that time) as well as nobles. That official version, though sealed by the king, was annulled on August 24, 1215 by Pope Innocent II, who threatened the barons with excommunication if they attempted to enforce it.

The Great Charter agreed to by King John was part of a movement in both England and Western Europe to restrict the powers of the monarch and assert the rights of the politically influential, i.e. the nobles. The Magna Carta laid the foundation for government based on the rule of law in Great Britain. By the end of the 13th century, England had a representative parliament and had come to recognize Magna Carta as a “higher law.” The first step toward the growing importance of this document was taken by John’s son and successor, Henry III. The new king’s regents—Henry was only nine when he inherited the throne—re-issued the charter in 1216 and 1217 in an effort to win support for the young monarch. Henry himself issued it again in 1225 when he took personal control of the country. All three re-issues contained changes, including omission of the clauses in the original that had provided for enforcement of the agreement by a council of barons. The 1225 version is considered the final version.

Although English monarchs continued to abuse their powers, they also came to recognize the need for baronial support. Henry III instituted the practice of bringing his knights together to obtain approval for new taxes. This meeting, known as “parliamentum,” had become customary by 1254. A decade later, membership had expanded to include representatives from cities and boroughs, and by the end of the century, members of the commons and inferior clergy were invited to participate. Despite the fact that groups within English society had gained a voice in financial decision making, powerful barons continued to protest against expensive foreign wars, the failure of the king to respect established laws and customs, and infringement of basic liberties. A turning point came in 1297 when King Edward I, known as the English Justinian, agreed to the Charter of Confirmation. This document established parliament as a truly representative body by requiring common consent to all tax measures, and it enhanced the importance of Magna Carta by declaring all judgments contrary to this document to be null and void. Recognition of Magna Carta as a higher law ultimately served as precedent for the assertion that the United States Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and for judicial power to declare statutes unconstitutional.

Sir Edward Coke

Magna Carta took on greater significance in the 17th century as a result of the weight given to this charter by Edward Coke(pronounced “cook”), one of the leading legal scholars of that century. In 1610, in what is known as Bonham’s Case, Coke reiterated the claim that the Great Charter represented a higher law. James Otis would cite Bonham’s Case in his attack on the Stamp Act over 150 years later. Thomas Paine would cite the principle in Common Sense, as would leading colonists in their attacks on British rule.

In the meantime, colonial charters issued throughout the 17th and 18th centuries as well as political treatises published by the Commonwealthmen—English libertarians whose radical views influenced the thinking of Enlightenment thinkers in America—reinforced the significance of Magna Carta. Not surprisingly, fundamental rights cited in the Great Charter—habeas corpus and due process of law—found their way into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well as virtually every state constitution.

Throughout American history, the rights associated with Magna Carta have been regarded as among the most important guarantees of freedom and fairness. However, these rights have not always been applied equally. Discrimination based on racial and ethnic differences has, for example, resulted in unfair practices. Perceived threats to national security have been used to justify withholding certain rights or have influenced the enforcement of constitutional guarantees. Despite or, in some cases, because of these shortfalls, the fundamental principles have remained very much a part of the American experience, finding expression in judicial decisions, legislation, news reports and editorials, as well as in the thinking of informed individuals.

These ideas not only shaped the institutions and political ideology of England, but they were also transplanted to the American colonies where they were accepted, refined, and embedded in the instruments of government as well as the thinking of the American people.

Online Resources

• Annotated abridged and unabridged versions of Magna Carta are available.
• You can access the websites used in this lesson and some of the activities via the Student LaunchPads.
• The modern English translation available at The British Library is quite readable and includes helpful notes.

• Another discussion of Magna Carta, Internet Medieval Sourcebook, provides valuable background information while placing the document within the context of its time. This can be found at Medieval England.

The National Archives website, offers two essays:

• The Magna Carta
• Magna Carta and Its American Legacy

For more links visit the National Endowment for the Humanities website EDSITEment.

By Lance Banning

Preface

Within three years of the inauguration of the new federal Constitution, America’s revolutionary leaders divided bitterly over the policies most appropriate for the infant nation. Within five years, two clashing groups were winning thousands of ordinary voters to their side. Within a decade, the collision had resulted in a full-blown party war.

Rise and Fall of Parites

There has never been another struggle like it. These were the first true parties in the history of the world—the first, that is, to mobilize and organize a large proportion of a mass electorate for a national competition. More than that, these parties argued at a depth and fought with a ferocity that has never been repeated. The Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans—the friends of order and the friends of liberty as they sometimes called themselves—were both convinced that more than office, more than clashing interests, and more, indeed, than even national policy in the ordinary sense were fundamentally at stake in their quarrel. Their struggle, they believed, was over nothing less profound than the sort of future the United States would have, the sort of nation America was to be. Each regarded the other as a serious threat to what was not yet called the American way. And from their own perspectives, both were right.

This first great party battle is, of course, completely fascinating for its own sake. Between the framing of the Constitution and the War of 1812, the generation that had made the world’s first democratic revolution set about to put its revolutionary vision into practice on a national stage. This generation was a set of public men whose like has never been seen again. Without significant exception, they believed that the American experiment might well determine whether liberty would spread throughout the world or prove that men were too imperfect to be trusted with a government based wholly on elections. In an age of monarchies and aristocracies, they were experimenting with a governmental system—both republican and federal—unprecedented in the world. They had a never-tested and, in several respects, a quite unfinished Constitution to complete. They represented vastly different regions, and they had profoundly different visions of the nature of a sound republic. To understand why they divided and how they created the first modern parties is a captivating object in itself. It is the more worthwhile because not even in the years preceding Independence or during the debate about adoption of the Constitution have better democratic statesmen argued more profoundly over concepts that are at the core of the American political tradition: popular self-governance, federalism, constitutionalism, liberty, and the rest. Perhaps they still have much to teach about the system they bequeathed us, along with entertaining stories of our roots.

No single volume could pretend to be a comprehensive sourcebook on the first party struggle. This one does, however, aim to make it possible to understand the grounds and development of the dispute. For this reason, it is fuller on the earlier years of the struggle, when positions were being defined, than on the later years, when the arguments had become more repetitive and routine. It focuses tightly on the dispute between the parties, not on national questions such as slavery, which seldom entered directly into the first party conflict, or on the development of constitutional jurisprudence in the courts. Although it tries, at several points, to capture something of the flavor of the grassroots conflict, it is weighted, more than some might like, with the writings of major national leaders. But this was very much a conflict that descended from the top, as major national figures developed their disagreements, took them to the public, and reached out for links with local politicians. Debates in Congress were probably the most widely read political publications of these years.

This is not primarily a work for scholars, who will find more-authoritative versions of the texts in sources such as those identified in the bibliography. Rather, to make the materials as accessible as possible, spelling and punctuation have been modernized, obvious printing errors or slips of the pen have been silently corrected, and abbreviations have been spelled out when that seemed useful. So far as seemed possible, nevertheless, the documents are left to speak for themselves. Every volume of this sort must start with an editor’s decisions, the most important of which are those excluding valuable materials because they would not fit between two covers. This, however, is as much or more of an intrusion than I have wanted to make. Editorial introductions are limited to providing identifications or essential context. Elisions are clearly indicated and seldom extensive. In every case, as with the light modernization, they have been done with conscientious concern for the author’s thought and intent.

Several graduate students, two family members, one secretary, and a few undergraduates at the University of Kentucky provided materials for the collection or carried out the tedious job of typing the transcripts. Thanks are due to Todd Estes, Matt Schoenbachler, Colleen Murphy, Todd Hall, Jennifer Durben, Cheris Linebaugh, Lynn Hiler, JoAnne Shepler, and Clint and Lana Banning. A superb group of fifteen scholars from several disciplines devoted two days to a delightful discussion of a preliminary version of the volume at a Liberty Fund colloquium in Lexington in May 1998. In the process, they corrected some mistakes and made some valuable suggestions for additions. John Kaminski, Kenneth Bowling, and Norman Risjord reviewed the manuscript again. Finally, two of my students, Paul Douglas Newman and David Nichols, acted at different times as coresearchers and contributed essentially to making the project a quicker, fuller, and better one. Special thanks are due to them, and the volume is dedicated to them and their peers.

|Full Text|

Adapted from the National Endowment for the Humanities’s EDSITEment.

Thomas Paine

Introduction

In 1776 an obscure immigrant published a small pamphlet that ignited independence in America and shifted the political landscape of the patriot movement from reform within the British imperial system to independence from it. One hundred twenty thousand copies sold in the first three months in a nation of three million people, making Common Sense the best-selling printed work by a single author in American history up to that time. Never before had a personally written work (unlike the divine Bible) appealed to all classes of colonists. Never before had a pamphlet been written in an inspiring style so accessible to the “common” folk of America. This lesson looks at Thomas Paine and at some of the ideas presented in Common Sense, such as national unity, natural rights, the illegitimacy of the monarchy and of hereditary aristocracy, and the necessity for independence and the revolutionary struggle.

Historical Background

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense played no small part in convincing large numbers of Americans to relinquish an English identity and risk their lives for the cause of freedom, revolution and a new nation. In his modest pamphlet of 46 pages, Common Sense, Paine put forth the first comprehensive, public call for independence, advancing arguments that far exceeded previous critiques of English rule in their radicalism and scope. It quickly reached a broad, mass audience, extending beyond the literate public as colonists read it aloud in a wide variety of settings. George Washington, for example, was so affected by Common Sense that he relinquished all personal hope of mending fences with England and ordered the pamphlet to be distributed to his troops.

Common Sense made a clear case for independence and directly attacked the political, economic, and ideological obstacles to achieving it. Paine relentlessly insisted that British rule was responsible for nearly every problem in colonial society and that the 1770s crisis could only be resolved by colonial independence. That goal, he maintained, could only be achieved through unified action. Hardnosed political logic demanded the creation of an American nation. Implicitly acknowledging the hold that tradition and deference had on the colonial mind, Paine also launched an assault on both the premises behind the British government and on the legitimacy of monarchy and hereditary power in general. Challenging the King’s paternal authority in the harshest terms, he mocked royal actions in America and declared that “even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their own families.” Finally, Paine detailed in the most graphic, compelling and recognizable terms the suffering that the colonies had endured, reminding his readers of the torment and trauma that British policy had inflicted upon them.

In addition to the audacity and timeliness of its ideas, Common Sense compelled the American people because it resonated with their firm belief in liberty and determined opposition to injustice. The message was powerful because it was written in relatively blunt language that colonists of different backgrounds could understand. Paine, despite his immigrant status, was on familiar terms with the popular classes in America and the taverns, workshops, and street corners they frequented. His writing was replete with the kind of popular and religious references they readily grasped and appreciated. His strident indignation reflected the anger that was rising among the American body politic. His words united elite and popular strands of revolt, welding the Congress and the street into a common purpose. As historian Scott Liell argues in Thomas Paine, Common Sense, and the Turning Point to Independence: “[B]y including all of the colonists in the discussion that would determine their future, Common Sense became not just a critical step in the journey toward American independence but also an important artifact in the foundation of American democracy” (20).

Online Resources

Primary and secondary sources relating to Thomas Paine, Common Sense, and the political events surrounding its publication can be found online:

• Common Sense, a link on EDSITEment reviewed Digital History.
• The Olive Branch Petition (Founder’s Library—go to the July 5,1775 entry of the timeline—linked from Digital History) represents the highly critical but loyal colonial attitude towards England that Common Sense would challenge. It also reflects the language and manner of colonial elites, thereby providing an important stylistic contrast to Paine’s work.

• Review this one page biography of Thomas Paine and the importance of Common Sense from the EDSITEment reviewed National Park Service: Links to the Past website.

• This is a brief historical timeline of the years 1760-1791 in the American Revolution through the passage of the bill of rights on the EDSITEment reviewed website, Liberty! The American Revolution.
• A longer, more comprehensive listing of important events that led to the Declaration of Independence, such as the Declaration of the Causes of Taking Up Arms, the Olive Branch Petition, and various skirmishes, all from the perspective of George Washington’s involvement, is available at American Memory Project (The Library of Congress). Click on 1774, 1775, 1776, and be sure to look at December 31, 1776.

• Scott Liell’s Thomas Paine, Common Sense, and the Turning Point to Independence (Running Press Book Publishers, 2003) is an outstanding short book that explains in just forty-six pages the forces that shaped Paine’s thinking, why Common Sense had such a broad, profound impact and how its message spread throughout the American colonies.

More information and educational activities can be found online at EDSITEment’s Thomas Paine Lesson Plan.

The 5th edition of the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD will be ready for distribution in February 2010. It contains 1,002 full text titles in EBook PDF format, 36 hours of MP3 interviews with classical liberal political philosophers and economists (The Intellectual Portrait Series) and lectures on the thought of Friedrich Hayek (The Legacy of Friedrich Hayek), and a version of our collection of Quotations about Liberty and Power which is designed to run on a data DVD.

This edition of the PLL is not only the 5th edition since the website’s launch in March 2004 but also our 50th Anniversary Edition as Liberty Fund was founded in 1960.

You can request a complimentary copy but please include your snail mail (i.e. postal) address with your request so we can ship it to you, as well as your preferred browser (either Firefox/Safari or IE8). If you have trouble viewing the PLL DVD using IE see this page for help.

Who were the signers of the U.S. Constitution? What were their backgrounds?

The National Archives offers a brief biographical sketch of every delegate who attended the convention in Philadelphia in 1787.

For brief biographies of each of the Founding Fathers who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention, select the names or the states below.
(* indicates delegates who did not sign the Constitution)

Connecticut William. Samuel Johnson Roger Sherman Oliver Ellsworth (Elsworth)*	Delaware George Read Gunning Bedford, Jr. John Dickinson Richard Bassett Jacob Broom
Georgia William Few Abraham Baldwin William Houston* William L. Pierce*	Maryland James McHenry Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Daniel Carroll Luther Martin* John F. Mercer*
Massachusetts Nathaniel Gorham Rufus King Elbridge Gerry* Caleb Strong*	New Hampshire John Langdon Nicholas Gilman
New Jersey William Livingston David Brearly (Brearley) William Paterson (Patterson) Jonathan Dayton William C. Houston*	New York Alexander Hamilton John Lansing, Jr.* Robert Yates*
North Carolina William. Blount Richard. Dobbs Spaight Hugh Williamson William R. Davie* Alexander Martin*	Pennsylvania Benjamin Franklin Thomas Mifflin Robert Morris George Clymer Thomas Fitzsimons (FitzSimons; Fitzsimmons) Jared Ingersoll James Wilson Gouverneur Morris
South Carolina John Rutledge Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Charles Pinckney Pierce Butler	Rhode Island Rhode Island did not send any delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
Virginia John Blair James Madison Jr. George Washington George Mason* James McClurg* Edmund J. Randolph* George Wythe*

From the National Archives

May 25, 1787, Freshly spread dirt covered the cobblestone street in front of the Pennsylvania State House, protecting the men inside from the sound of passing carriages and carts. Guards stood at the entrances to ensure that the curious were kept at a distance. Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, the “financier” of the Revolution, opened the proceedings with a nomination–Gen. George Washington for the presidency of the Constitutional Convention. The vote was unanimous. With characteristic ceremonial modesty, the general expressed his embarrassment at his lack of qualifications to preside over such an august body and apologized for any errors into which he might fall in the course of its deliberations.

To many of those assembled, especially to the small, boyish-looking, 36-year-old delegate from Virginia, James Madison, the general’s mere presence boded well for the convention, for the illustrious Washington gave to the gathering an air of importance and legitimacy But his decision to attend the convention had been an agonizing one. The Father of the Country had almost remained at home.

Suffering from rheumatism, despondent over the loss of a brother, absorbed in the management of Mount Vernon, and doubting that the convention would accomplish very much or that many men of stature would attend, Washington delayed accepting the invitation to attend for several months. Torn between the hazards of lending his reputation to a gathering perhaps doomed to failure and the chance that the public would view his reluctance to attend with a critical eye, the general finally agreed to make the trip. James Madison was pleased.

George Washington

The determined Madison had for several years insatiably studied history and political theory searching for a solution to the political and economic dilemmas he saw plaguing America. The Virginian’s labors convinced him of the futility and weakness of confederacies of independent states. America’s own government under the Articles of Confederation, Madison was convinced, had to be replaced. In force since 1781, established as a “league of friendship” and a constitution for the 13 sovereign and independent states after the Revolution, the articles seemed to Madison woefully inadequate. With the states retaining considerable power, the central government, he believed, had insufficient power to regulate commerce. It could not tax and was generally impotent in setting commercial policy It could not effectively support a war effort. It had little power to settle quarrels between states. Saddled with this weak government, the states were on the brink of economic disaster. The evidence was overwhelming. Congress was attempting to function with a depleted treasury; paper money was flooding the country, creating extraordinary inflation–a pound of tea in some areas could be purchased for a tidy $100; and the depressed condition of business was taking its toll on many small farmers. Some of them were being thrown in jail for debt, and numerous farms were being confiscated and sold for taxes.

In 1786 some of the farmers had fought back. Led by Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental army, a group of armed men, sporting evergreen twigs in their hats, prevented the circuit court from sitting at Northampton, MA, and threatened to seize muskets stored in the arsenal at Springfield. Although the insurrection was put down by state troops, the incident confirmed the fears of many wealthy men that anarchy was just around the corner. Embellished day after day in the press, the uprising made upper-class Americans shudder as they imagined hordes of vicious outlaws descending upon innocent citizens. From his idyllic Mount Vernon setting, Washington wrote to Madison: “Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.”

Madison thought he had the answer. He wanted a strong central government to provide order and stability. “Let it be tried then,” he wrote, “whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority,” while maintaining state power only when “subordinately useful.” The resolute Virginian looked to the Constitutional Convention to forge a new government in this mold.

The convention had its specific origins in a proposal offered by Madison and John Tyler in the Virginia assembly that the Continental Congress be given power to regulate commerce throughout the Confederation. Through their efforts in the assembly a plan was devised inviting the several states to attend a convention at Annapolis, MD, in September 1786 to discuss commercial problems. Madison and a young lawyer from New York named Alexander Hamilton issued a report on the meeting in Annapolis, calling upon Congress to summon delegates of all of the states to meet for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. Although the report was widely viewed as a usurpation of congressional authority, the Congress did issue a formal call to the states for a convention. To Madison it represented the supreme chance to reverse the country’s trend. And as the delegations gathered in Philadelphia, its importance was not lost to others. The squire of Gunston Hall, George Mason, wrote to his son, “The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree. May God Grant that we may be able to gratify them, by establishing a wise and just Government.”

The Delegates

Seventy-four delegates were appointed to the convention, of which 55 actually attended sessions. Rhode Island was the only state that refused to send delegates. Dominated by men wedded to paper currency, low taxes, and popular government, Rhode Island’s leaders refused to participate in what they saw as a conspiracy to overthrow the established government. Other Americans also had their suspicions. Patrick Henry, of the flowing red Glasgow cloak and the magnetic oratory, refused to attend, declaring he “smelt a rat.” He suspected, correctly, that Madison had in mind the creation of a powerful central government and the subversion of the authority of the state legislatures. Henry along with many other political leaders, believed that the state governments offered the chief protection for personal liberties. He was determined not to lend a hand to any proceeding that seemed to pose a threat to that protection.

With Henry absent, with such towering figures as Jefferson and Adams abroad on foreign missions, and with John Jay in New York at the Foreign Office, the convention was without some of the country’s major political leaders. It was, nevertheless, an impressive assemblage. In addition to Madison and Washington, there were Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania–crippled by gout, the 81-year-old Franklin was a man of many dimensions printer, storekeeper, publisher, scientist, public official, philosopher, diplomat, and ladies’ man; James Wilson of Pennsylvania–a distinguished lawyer with a penchant for ill-advised land-jobbing schemes, which would force him late in life to flee from state to state avoiding prosecution for debt, the Scotsman brought a profound mind steeped in constitutional theory and law; Alexander Hamilton of New York–a brilliant, ambitious former aide-de-camp and secretary to Washington during the Revolution who had, after his marriage into the Schuyler family of New York, become a powerful political figure; George Mason of Virginia–the author of the Virginia Bill of Rights whom Jefferson later called “the Cato of his country without the avarice of the Roman”; John Dickinson of Delaware–the quiet, reserved author of the “Farmers’ Letters” and chairman of the congressional committee that framed the articles; and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania– well versed in French literature and language, with a flair and bravado to match his keen intellect, who had helped draft the New York State Constitution and had worked with Robert Morris in the Finance Office.

There were others who played major roles – Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut; Edmund Randolph of Virginia; William Paterson of New Jersey; John Rutledge of South Carolina; Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts; Roger Sherman of Connecticut; Luther Martin of Maryland; and the Pinckneys, Charles and Charles Cotesworth, of South Carolina. Franklin was the oldest member and Jonathan Dayton, the 27-year-old delegate from New Jersey was the youngest. The average age was 42. Most of the delegates had studied law, had served in colonial or state legislatures, or had been in the Congress. Well versed in philosophical theories of government advanced by such philosophers as James Harrington, John Locke, and Montesquieu, profiting from experience gained in state politics, the delegates composed an exceptional body, one that left a remarkably learned record of debate. Fortunately we have a relatively complete record of the proceedings, thanks to the indefatigable James Madison. Day after day, the Virginian sat in front of the presiding officer, compiling notes of the debates, not missing a single day or a single major speech. He later remarked that his self-confinement in the hall, which was often oppressively hot in the Philadelphia summer, almost killed him.

The sessions of the convention were held in secret–no reporters or visitors were permitted. Although many of the naturally loquacious members were prodded in the pubs and on the streets, most remained surprisingly discreet. To those suspicious of the convention, the curtain of secrecy only served to confirm their anxieties. Luther Martin of Maryland later charged that the conspiracy in Philadelphia needed a quiet breeding ground. Thomas Jefferson wrote John Adams from Paris, “I am sorry they began their deliberations by so abominable a precedent as that of tying up the tongues of their members.”

The Virginia Plan

On Tuesday morning, May 29, Edmund Randolph, the tall, 34-year- old governor of Virginia, opened the debate with a long speech decrying the evils that had befallen the country under the Articles of Confederation and stressing the need for creating a strong national government. Randolph then outlined a broad plan that he and his Virginia compatriots had, through long sessions at the Indian Queen tavern, put together in the days preceding the convention. James Madison had such a plan on his mind for years. The proposed government had three branches–legislative, executive, and judicial–each branch structured to check the other. Highly centralized, the government would have veto power over laws enacted by state legislatures. The plan, Randolph confessed, “meant a strong consolidated union in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated.” This was, indeed, the rat so offensive to Patrick Henry.

The introduction of the so-called Virginia Plan at the beginning of the convention was a tactical coup. The Virginians had forced the debate into their own frame of reference and in their own terms.

For 10 days the members of the convention discussed the sweeping and, to many delegates, startling Virginia resolutions. The critical issue, described succinctly by Gouverneur Morris on May 30, was the distinction between a federation and a national government, the “former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation.” Morris favored the latter, a “supreme power” capable of exercising necessary authority not merely a shadow government, fragmented and hopelessly ineffective.

The New Jersey Plan

This nationalist position revolted many delegates who cringed at the vision of a central government swallowing state sovereignty. On June 13 delegates from smaller states rallied around proposals offered by New Jersey delegate William Paterson. Railing against efforts to throw the states into “hotchpot,” Paterson proposed a “union of the States merely federal.” The “New Jersey resolutions” called only for a revision of the articles to enable the Congress more easily to raise revenues and regulate commerce. It also provided that acts of Congress and ratified treaties be “the supreme law of the States.”

For 3 days the convention debated Paterson’s plan, finally voting for rejection. With the defeat of the New Jersey resolutions, the convention was moving toward creation of a new government, much to the dismay of many small-state delegates. The nationalists, led by Madison, appeared to have the proceedings in their grip. In addition, they were able to persuade the members that any new constitution should be ratified through conventions of the people and not by the Congress and the state legislatures- -another tactical coup. Madison and his allies believed that the constitution they had in mind would likely be scuttled in the legislatures, where many state political leaders stood to lose power. The nationalists wanted to bring the issue before “the people,” where ratification was more likely.

Hamilton’s Plan

On June 18 Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of government. Erudite and polished, the speech, nevertheless, failed to win a following. It went too far. Calling the British government “the best in the world,” Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar an executive to serve during good behavior or life with veto power over all laws; a senate with members serving during good behavior; the legislature to have power to pass “all laws whatsoever.” Hamilton later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept “something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted.” What the people had “lately quitted,” of course, was monarchy. Some members of the convention fully expected the country to turn in this direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a wealthy physician, declared that it was “pretty certain . . . that we should at some time or other have a king.” Newspaper accounts appeared in the summer of 1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of George III, Frederick, Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh in Prussia, to become “king of the United States.”

Alexander Hamilton Alexander Hamilton on June 18 called the British government “the best in the world” and proposed a model strikingly similar. The erudite New Yorker, however, later became one of the most ardent spokesmen for the new Constitution.

Exult each patriot heart! this night is shewn
A piece, which we may fairly call our own;
Where the proud titles of “My Lord!” “Your Grace!”
To humble Mr. and plain Sir give place.

Most delegates were well aware that there were too many Royall Tylers in the country, with too many memories of British rule and too many ties to a recent bloody war, to accept a king. As the debate moved into the specifics of the new government, Alexander Hamilton and others of his persuasion would have to accept something less.

By the end of June, debate between the large and small states over the issue of representation in the first chamber of the legislature was becoming increasingly acrimonious. Delegates from Virginia and other large states demanded that voting in Congress be according to population; representatives of smaller states insisted upon the equality they had enjoyed under the articles. With the oratory degenerating into threats and accusations, Benjamin Franklin appealed for daily prayers. Dressed in his customary gray homespun, the aged philosopher pleaded that “the Father of lights . . . illuminate our understandings.” Franklin’s appeal for prayers was never fulfilled; the convention, as Hugh Williamson noted, had no funds to pay a preacher.

On June 29 the delegates from the small states lost the first battle. The convention approved a resolution establishing population as the basis for representation in the House of Representatives, thus favoring the larger states. On a subsequent small-state proposal that the states have equal representation in the Senate, the vote resulted in a tie. With large-state delegates unwilling to compromise on this issue, one member thought that the convention “was on the verge of dissolution, scarce held together by the strength of an hair.”

By July 10 George Washington was so frustrated over the deadlock that he bemoaned “having had any agency” in the proceedings and called the opponents of a strong central government “narrow minded politicians . . . under the influence of local views.” Luther Martin of Maryland, perhaps one whom Washington saw as “narrow minded,” thought otherwise. A tiger in debate, not content merely to parry an opponent’s argument but determined to bludgeon it into eternal rest, Martin had become perhaps the small states’ most effective, if irascible, orator. The Marylander leaped eagerly into the battle on the representation issue declaring, “The States have a right to an equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present articles of confederation; we are in possession of this privilege.”

The Great Compromise

Also crowding into this complicated a

THE Constitution

nd divisive discussion over representation was the North-South division over the method by which slaves were to be counted for purposes of taxation and representation. On July 12 Oliver Ellsworth proposed that representation for the lower house be based on the number of free persons and three-fifths of “all other persons,” a euphemism for slaves. In the following week the members finally compromised, agreeing that direct taxation be according to representation and that the representation of the lower house be based on the white inhabitants and three-fifths of the “other people.” With this compromise and with the growing realization that such compromise was necessary to avoid a complete breakdown of the convention, the members then approved Senate equality. Roger Sherman had remarked that it was the wish of the delegates “that some general government should be established.” With the crisis over representation now settled, it began to look again as if this wish might be fulfilled.

For the next few days the air in the City of Brotherly Love, although insufferably muggy and swarming with blue-bottle flies, had the clean scent of conciliation. In this period of welcome calm, the members decided to appoint a Committee of Detail to draw up a draft constitution. The convention would now at last have something on paper. As Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, James Wilson, and Oliver Ellsworth went to work, the other delegates voted themselves a much needed 10-day vacation.

During the adjournment, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington rode out along a creek that ran through land that had been part of the Valley Forge encampment 10 years earlier. While Morris cast for trout, Washington pensively looked over the now lush ground where his freezing troops had suffered, at a time when it had seemed as if the American Revolution had reached its end. The country had come a long way.

The First Draft

On Monday August 6, 1787, the convention accepted the first draft of the Constitution. Here was the article-by-article model from which the final document would result some 5 weeks later. As the members began to consider the various sections, the willingness to compromise of the previous days quickly evaporated. The most serious controversy erupted over the question of regulation of commerce. The southern states, exporters of raw materials, rice, indigo, and tobacco, were fearful that a New England-dominated Congress might, through export taxes, severely damage the South’s economic life. C. C. Pinckney declared that if Congress had the power to regulate trade, the southern states would be “nothing more than overseers for the Northern States.”

On August 21 the debate over the issue of commerce became very closely linked to another explosive issue–slavery. When Martin of Maryland proposed a tax on slave importation, the convention was thrust into a strident discussion of the institution of slavery and its moral and economic relationship to the new government. Rutledge of South Carolina, asserting that slavery had nothing at all to do with morality, declared, “Interest alone is the governing principle with nations.” Sherman of Connecticut was for dropping the tender issue altogether before it jeopardized the convention. Mason of Virginia expressed concern over unlimited importation of slaves but later indicated that he also favored federal protection of slave property already held. This nagging issue of possible federal intervention in slave traffic, which Sherman and others feared could irrevocably split northern and southern delegates, was settled by, in Mason’s words, “a bargain.” Mason later wrote that delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, who most feared federal meddling in the slave trade, made a deal with delegates from the New England states. In exchange for the New Englanders’ support for continuing slave importation for 20 years, the southerners accepted a clause that required only a simple majority vote on navigation laws, a crippling blow to southern economic interests.

The bargain was also a crippling blow to those working to abolish slavery. Congregationalist minister and abolitionist Samuel Hopkins of Connecticut charged that the convention had sold out: “How does it appear . . . that these States, who have been fighting for liberty and consider themselves as the highest and most noble example of zeal for it, cannot agree in any political Constitution, unless it indulge and authorize them to enslave their fellow men . . . Ah! these unclean spirits, like frogs, they, like the Furies of the poets are spreading discord, and exciting men to contention and war.” Hopkins considered the Constitution a document fit for the flames.

On August 31 a weary George Mason, who had 3 months earlier written so expectantly to his son about the “great Business now before us,” bitterly exclaimed that he “would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands.” Mason despaired that the convention was rushing to saddle the country with an ill-advised, potentially ruinous central authority He was concerned that a “bill of rights,” ensuring individual liberties, had not been made part of the Constitution. Mason called for a new convention to reconsider the whole question of the formation of a new government. Although Mason’s motion was overwhelmingly voted down, opponents of the Constitution did not abandon the idea of a new convention. It was futilely suggested again and again for over 2 years.

One of the last major unresolved problems was the method of electing the executive. A number of proposals, including direct election by the people, by state legislatures, by state governors, and by the national legislature, were considered. The result was the electoral college, a master stroke of compromise, quaint and curious but politically expedient. The large states got proportional strength in the number of delegates, the state legislatures got the right of selecting delegates, and the House the right to choose the president in the event no candidate received a majority of electoral votes. Mason later predicted that the House would probably choose the president 19 times out of 20.

In the early days of September, with the exhausted delegates anxious to return home, compromise came easily. On September 8 the convention was ready to turn the Constitution over to a Committee of Style and Arrangement. Gouverneur Morris was the chief architect. Years later he wrote to Timothy Pickering: “That Instrument was written by the Fingers which wrote this letter.” The Constitution was presented to the convention on September 12, and the delegates methodically began to consider each section. Although close votes followed on several articles, it was clear that the grueling work of the convention in the historic summer of 1787 was reaching its end.

Before the final vote on the Constitution on September 15, Edmund Randolph proposed that amendments be made by the state conventions and then turned over to another general convention for consideration. He was joined by George Mason and Elbridge Gerry. The three lonely allies were soundly rebuffed. Late in the afternoon the roll of the states was called on the Constitution, and from every delegation the word was “Aye.”

On September 17 the members met for the last time, and the venerable Franklin had written a speech that was delivered by his colleague James Wilson. Appealing for unity behind the Constitution, Franklin declared, “I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats.” With Mason, Gerry, and Randolph withstanding appeals to attach their signatures, the other delegates in the hall formally signed the Constitution, and the convention adjourned at 4 o’clock in the afternoon.

Weary from weeks of intense pressure but generally satisfied with their work, the delegates shared a farewell dinner at City Tavern. Two blocks away on Market Street, printers John Dunlap and David Claypoole worked into the night on the final imprint of the six-page Constitution, copies of which would leave Philadelphia on the morning stage. The debate over the nation’s form of government was now set for the larger arena.

As the members of the convention returned home in the following days, Alexander Hamilton privately assessed the chances of the Constitution for ratification. In its favor were the support of Washington, commercial interests, men of property, creditors, and the belief among many Americans that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. Against it were the opposition of a few influential men in the convention and state politicians fearful of losing power, the general revulsion against taxation, the suspicion that a centralized government would be insensitive to local interests, and the fear among debtors that a new government would “restrain the means of cheating Creditors.”

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists

Because of its size, wealth, and influence and because it was the first state to call a ratifying convention, Pennsylvania was the focus of national attention. The positions of the Federalists, those who supported the Constitution, and the anti-Federalists, those who opposed it, were printed and reprinted by scores of newspapers across the country. And passions in the state were most warm. When the Federalist-dominated Pennsylvania assembly lacked a quorum on September 29 to call a state ratifying convention, a Philadelphia mob, in order to provide the necessary numbers, dragged two anti-Federalist members from their lodgings through the streets to the State House where the bedraggled representatives were forced to stay while the assembly voted. It was a curious example of participatory democracy.

On October 5 anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan published the first of his “Centinel” essays in Philadelphia’s Independent Gazetteer. Republished in newspapers in various states, the essays assailed the sweeping power of the central government, the usurpation of state sovereignty, and the absence of a bill of rights guaranteeing individual liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. “The United States are to be melted down,” Bryan declared, into a despotic empire dominated by “well-born” aristocrats. Bryan was echoing the fear of many anti-Federalists that the new government would become one controlled by the wealthy established families and the culturally refined. The common working people, Bryan believed, were in danger of being subjugated to the will of an all-powerful authority remote and inaccessible to the people. It was this kind of authority, he believed, that Americans had fought a war against only a few years earlier.

The next day James Wilson, delivering a stirring defense of the Constitution to a large crowd gathered in the yard of the State House, praised the new government as the best “which has ever been offered to the world.” The Scotsman’s view prevailed. Led by Wilson, Federalists dominated in the Pennsylvania convention, carrying the vote on December 12 by a healthy 46 to 23.

The vote for ratification in Pennsylvania did not end the rancor and bitterness. Franklin declared that scurrilous articles in the press were giving the impression that Pennsylvania was “peopled by a set of the most unprincipled, wicked, rascally and quarrelsome scoundrels upon the face of the globe.” And in Carlisle, on December 26, anti-Federalist rioters broke up a Federalist celebration and hung Wilson and the Federalist chief justice of Pennsylvania, Thomas McKean, in effigy; put the torch to a copy of the Constitution; and busted a few Federalist heads.

In New York the Constitution was under siege in the press by a series of essays signed “Cato.” Mounting a counterattack, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay enlisted help from Madison and, in late 1787, they published the first of a series of essays now known as the Federalist Papers. The 85 essays, most of which were penned by Hamilton himself, probed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and the need for an energetic national government. Thomas Jefferson later called the Federalist Papers the “best commentary on the principles of government ever written.”

Against this kind of Federalist leadership and determination, the opposition in most states was disorganized and generally inert. The leading spokesmen were largely state-centered men with regional and local interests and loyalties. Madison wrote of the Massachusetts anti-Federalists, “There was not a single character capable of uniting their wills or directing their measures. . . . They had no plan whatever.” The anti-Federalists attacked wildly on several fronts: the lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in navigation legislation, direct taxation, the loss of state sovereignty. Many charged that the Constitution represented the work of aristocratic politicians bent on protecting their own class interests. At the Massachusetts convention one delegate declared, “These lawyers, and men of learning and moneyed men, that . . . make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill . . . they will swallow up all us little folks like the great Leviathan; yes, just as the whale swallowed up Jonah!” Some newspaper articles, presumably written by anti-Federalists, resorted to fanciful predictions of the horrors that might emerge under the new Constitution pagans and deists could control the government; the use of Inquisition-like torture could be instituted as punishment for federal crimes; even the pope could be elected president.

One anti-Federalist argument gave opponents some genuine difficulty–the claim that the territory of the 13 states was too extensive for a representative government. In a republic embracing a large area, anti-Federalists argued, government would be impersonal, unrepresentative, dominated by men of wealth, and oppressive of the poor and working classes. Had not the illustrious Montesquieu himself ridiculed the notion that an extensive territory composed of varying climates and people, could be a single republican state? James Madison, always ready with the Federalist volley, turned the argument completely around and insisted that the vastness of the country would itself be a strong argument in favor of a republic. Claiming that a large republic would counterbalance various political interest groups vying for power, Madison wrote, “The smaller the society the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party and the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.” Extend the size of the republic, Madison argued, and the country would be less vulnerable to separate factions within it.

Ratification

By January 9, 1788, five states of the nine necessary for ratification had approved the Constitution–Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. But the eventual outcome remained uncertain in pivotal states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. On February 6, withFederalists agreeing to recommend a list of amendments amounting to a bill of rights, Massachusetts ratified by a vote of 187 to 168. The revolutionary leader, John Hancock, elected to preside over the Massachusetts ratifying convention but unable to make up his mind on the Constitution, took to his bed with a convenient case of gout. Later seduced by the Federalists with visions of the vice presidency and possibly the presidency, Hancock, whom Madison noted as “an idolater of popularity,” suddenly experienced a miraculous cure and delivered a critical block of votes. Although Massachusetts was now safely in the Federalist column, the recommendation of a bill of rights was a significant victory for the anti-Federalists. Six of the remaining states later appended similar recommendations.

When the New Hampshire convention was adjourned by Federalists who sensed imminent defeat and when Rhode Island on March 24 turned down the Constitution in a popular referendum by an overwhelming vote of 10 to 1, Federalist leaders were apprehensive. Looking ahead to the Maryland convention, Madison wrote to Washington, “The difference between even a postponement and adoption in Maryland may . . . possibly give a fatal advantage to that which opposes the constitution.” Madison had little reason to worry. The final vote on April 28 63 for, 11 against. In Baltimore, a huge parade celebrating the Federalist victory rolled. through the downtown streets, highlighted by a 15-foot float called “Ship Federalist.” The symbolically seaworthy craft was later launched in the waters off Baltimore and sailed down the Potomac to Mount Vernon.

On July 2, 1788, the Confederation Congress, meeting in New York, received word that a reconvened New Hampshire ratifying convention had approved the Constitution. With South Carolina’s acceptance of the Constitution in May, New Hampshire thus became the ninth state to ratify. The Congress appointed a committee “for putting the said Constitution into operation.”

In the next 2 months, thanks largely to the efforts of Madison and Hamilton in their own states, Virginia and New York both ratified while adding their own amendments. The margin for the Federalists in both states, however, was extremely close. Hamilton figured that the majority of the people in New York actually opposed the Constitution, and it is probable that a majority of people in the entire country opposed it. Only the promise of amendments had ensured a Federalist victory.

The Bill of Rights

The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists’ most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, “What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances.” The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect “those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.” Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.

A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to thenew government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was “what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that such “fundamental maxims of free Government” would be “a good ground for an appeal to the sense of community” against potential oppression and would “counteract the impulses of interest and passion.”

Madison’s support of the bill of rights was of critical significance. One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-Federalists’ objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12 amendments adopted by the Congress in September. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so familiar to Americans as the “Bill of Rights.”

Benjamin Franklin told a French correspondent in 1788 that the formation of the new government had been like a game of dice, with many players of diverse prejudices and interests unable to make any uncontested moves. Madison wrote to Jefferson that the welding of these clashing interests was “a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it.” When the delegates left Philadelphia after the convention, few, if any, were convinced that the Constitution they had approved outlined the ideal form of government for the country. But late in his life James Madison scrawled out another letter, one never addressed. In it he declared that no government can be perfect, and “that which is the least imperfect is therefore the best government.”

The Document Enshrined

The fate of the United States Constitution after its signing on September 17, 1787, can be contrasted sharply to the travels and physical abuse of America’s other great parchment, the Declaration of Independence. As the Continental Congress, during the years of the revolutionary war, scurried from town to town, the rolled-up Declaration was carried along. After the formation of the new government under the Constitution, the one-page Declaration, eminently suited for display purposes, graced the walls of various government buildings in Washington, exposing it to prolonged damaging sunlight. It was also subjected to the work of early calligraphers responding to a demand for reproductions of the revered document. As any visitor to the National Archives can readily observe, the early treatment of the now barely legible Declaration took a disastrous toll. The Constitution, in excellent physical condition after more than 200 years, has enjoyed a more serene existence. By 1796 the Constitution was in the custody of the Department of State along with the Declaration and traveled with the federal government from New York to Philadelphia to Washington. Both documents were secretly moved to Leesburg, VA, before the imminent attack by the British on Washington in 1814. Following the war, the Constitution remained in the State Department while the Declaration continued its travels–to the Patent Office Building from 1841 to 1876, to Independence Hall in Philadelphia during the Centennial celebration, and back to Washington in 1877. On September 29, 1921, President Warren Harding issued an Executive order transferring the Constitution and the Declaration to the Library of Congress for preservation and exhibition. The next day Librarian of Congress Herbert Putnam, acting on authority of Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes, carried the Constitution and the Declaration in a Model-T Ford truck to the library and placed them in his office safe until an appropriate exhibit area could be constructed. The documents were officially put on display at a ceremony in the library on February 28, 1924. On February 20, 1933, at the laying of the cornerstone of the future National Archives Building, President Herbert Hoover remarked, “There will be aggregated here the most sacred documents of our history–the originals of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United States.” The two documents however, were not immediately transferred to the Archives. During World War II both were moved from the library to Fort Knox for protection and returned to the library in 1944. It was not until successful negotiations were completed between Librarian of Congress Luther Evans and Archivist of the United States Wayne Grover that the transfer to the National Archives was finally accomplished by special direction of the Joint Congressional Committee on the Library.

On December 13, 1952, the Constitution and the Declaration were placed in helium-filled cases, enclosed in wooden crates, laid on mattresses in an armored Marine Corps personnel carrier, and escorted by ceremonial troops, two tanks, and four servicemen carrying submachine guns down Pennsylvania and Constitution avenues to the National Archives. Two days later, President Harry Truman declared at a formal ceremony in the Archives Exhibition Hall.

“We are engaged here today in a symbolic act. We are enshrining these documents for future ages. This magnificent hall has been constructed to exhibit them, and the vault beneath, that we have built to protect them, is as safe from destruction as anything that the wit of modern man can devise. All this is an honorable effort, based upon reverence for the great past, and our generation can take just pride in it.”

Web version may differ from printed version.

The National Archive website has a treasure trove of original documents. The list of the Top 100 includes many items that are familiar, but there are also some surprises. The “De Lome Letter” even received 97 votes.

The entire list appears below and is worth some investigation.

The Top 10 Milestone Documents:

1. Declaration of Independence (1776) 29,681 votes
2. Constitution of the United States (1787) 27,070 votes
3. Bill of Rights (1791) 26,545 votes
4. Louisiana Purchase Treaty (1803) 13,417 votes
5. Emancipation Proclamation (1863) 13,086 votes
6. 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women’s Right to Vote (1920) 12,282 votes
7. 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery (1865) 11,789 votes
8. Gettysburg Address (1863) 9,939 votes
9. Civil Rights Act (1964) 9,860 votes
10. Social Security Act (1935) 8,157 votes

Results for the Following 90 of 100 Documents

11. Monroe Doctrine (1823) 7,795 votes

12. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 7,313 votes

13. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) 7,081 votes

14. Marbury v. Madison (1803) 6,155 votes

15. Articles of Confederation (1777) 5,785 votes

16. Homestead Act (1862) 4,540 votes

17. 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Voting Rights (1870) 4,479 votes

18. Marshall Plan (1948) 4,441 votes

19. Voting Rights Act (1965) 3,993 votes

20. Federalist Papers, No. 10 & No. 51 (1787-1788) 3,859 votes

21. United Nations Charter (1945) 3,496 votes

22. Treaty of Paris (1783) 3,278 votes

23. Thomas Edison’s Patent Application for the Light Bulb (1880) 3,267 votes

24. Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) 3,095 votes

25. President George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796) 2,950 votes

26. National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (1956)2,743 votes

27. 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913) 2,713 votes

28. President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address (1961)2,708 votes

29. Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Japan (1941) 2,663 votes

30. Manhattan Project Notebook (1945) 2,616 votes

31. President Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address (1865) 2,540 votes

32. Virginia Plan (1787) 2,356 votes

33. Social Security Act Amendments (1965) 2,234 votes

34. Check for the Purchase of Alaska (1868) 2,219 votes

35. Lee Resolution (1776) 2,057 votes

36. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) 1,943 votes

37. Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (1944) 1,919 votes

38. Northwest Ordinance (1787) 1,844 votes

39. Federal Judiciary Act (1789) 1,828 votes

40. Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 (1916) 1,721 votes

41. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) 1,657 votes

42. Surrender of Germany (1945) 1,554 votes

43. Act Establishing Yellowstone National Park (1872) 1,504 votes

44. President George Washington’s First Inaugural Speech (1789) 1,491 votes

45. Pacific Railway Act (1862) 1,451 votes

46. Surrender of Japan (1945) 1,434 votes

47. 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators (1913) 1,419 votes

48. President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points (1918) 1,388 votes

49. Jefferson’s Secret Message to Congress Regarding the Lewis & Clark Expedition (1803) 1,387 votes

50. Treaty of Alliance with France (1778) 1,300 votes

51. Tennessee Valley Authority Act (1933) 1,213 votes

52. Press Release Announcing U.S. Recognition of Israel (1948) 1,195 votes

53. Truman Doctrine (1947) 1,194 votes

54. Patent for Cotton Gin (1794) 1,135 votes

55. Missouri Compromise (1820) 1,120 votes

56. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Annual Message (Four Freedoms) to Congress (1941) 1,117 votes

57. National Labor Relations Act (1935) 1,116 votes

58. Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1905) 1,091 votes

59. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 1,042 votes

60. Executive Order 9981: Desegregation of the Armed Forces (1948) 1,010 votes

61. Lend-Lease Act (1941) 954 votes

62. Test Ban Treaty (1963) 936 votes

63. Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Germany (1917) 895 votes

64. General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Order of the Day (1944)881 votes

65. Aerial Photograph of Missiles in Cuba (1962) 875 votes

66. President Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’ (1830) 865 votes

67. Articles of Agreement Relating to the Surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia (1865) 857 votes

68. Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) 850 votes

69. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) 845 votes

70. Morrill Act (1862) 839 votes

71. Original Design of the Great Seal of the United States (1782) 787 votes

72. Interstate Commerce Act (1887) 723 votes

73. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Radio Address unveiling the second half of the New Deal (1936) 717 votes

74. Joint Resolution to Provide for Annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States (1898) 691 votes

75. Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) 669 votes

76. Official Program for the March on Washington (1963) 666 votes

77. Compromise of 1850 (1850) 666 votes

78. Executive Order 10730: Desegregation of Central High School (1957) 655 votes

79. Transcript of John Glenn’s Official Communication with the Command Center (1962) 613 votes

80. Telegram Announcing the Surrender of Fort Sumter (1861) 604 votes

81. Treaty of Ghent (1814) 583 votes

82. Zimmermann Telegram (1917) 580 votes

83. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address (1961) 567 votes

84. Tonkin Gulf Resolution (1964) 555 votes

85. Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) 486 votes

86. Executive Order 10924: Establishment of the Peace Corps. (1961) 482 votes

87. Senate Resolution 301: Censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy (1954) 455 votes

88. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) 440 votes

89. Wade-Davis Bill (1864) 405 votes

90. Dawes Act (1887) 372 votes

91. Executive Order 9066: Resulting in the Relocation of Japanese (1942) 334 votes

92. Pendleton Act (1883) 294 votes

93. Executive Order 8802: Prohibition of Discrimination in the Defense Industry (1941) 284 votes

94. National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) 279 votes

95. War Department General Order 143: Creation of the U.S. Colored Troops (1863) 257 votes

96. Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) 251 votes

97. Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928) 213 votes

98. Platt Amendment (1903) 140 votes

99. Armistice Agreement for the Restoration of the South Korean State (1953) 136 votes

100. De Lôme Letter (1898) 97 votes

Visit the National Archives

Pathway to the Founding Online Essays

The Jack Miller Center has begun collecting online introductory essays and book recommendations for topics and themes that broaden understanding of the American Founding. These essays are designed as introductions to the intellectual and political life of American Statesman, our U.S. Constitutional heritage, and the ancient and modern thinkers the Founders drew upon when designing our system of free government.

According to Mike Ratliff, President of the Jack Miller Center, “These essays are intended to convey the richness of the American and Western political tradition, while at the same time presenting often complex ideas in accessible form.  The JMC staff has assembled a stellar list of contributors from many of our country’s leading scholars, and we look forward to seeing their reflections on the ideas and questions of perennial importance to life of a free society.” The essays will appear periodically on the Jack Miller Center website over the next year. A sample of featured essays includes:

Abraham Lincoln (Allen Guelzo, Gettysburg College)

Montesquieu (Thomas Pangle, University of Texas)

Thomas Jefferson (Jeremy Bailey, University of Houston)

James Madison (George Thomas, Claremont-McKenna College)

Adam Smith (Sandra Peart, Jepson School of Leadership)

The American Presidency (Benjamin Kleinerman, Michigan State University)

Benjamin Franklin (Lorraine Pangle, University of Texas)

Alexander Hamilton (Peter McNamara, Utah State University)

David Hume (Scott Yenor, Boise State University)

John Adams (Richard Samuelson, California State San Bernardino)

Publius, Federalist Papers (James Stoner, Louisiana State University)

Hamilton

“Alexander Hamilton: First Secretary of the Treasury; Soldier, Orator, Statesman, Champion of Constitutional Union, Representative Government and National Integrity.”

So reads the inscription at the base of the James Earle Fraser statue of Alexander Hamilton that stands on the south patio of the Treasury building in Washington D.C.  The statue portrays a young, vigorous, and confident Hamilton.  It is a fitting tribute to the complex and versatile man who worked so tirelessly for his adopted country.

On the more conspicuous north patio fronting Pennsylvania Avenue stands another Fraser statue, this one of Thomas Jefferson’s Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin.  The story behind these two statutes is told by Stephen Knott in his revealing book, Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2002).  They are part of the larger story of Hamilton’s twentieth century fall from grace.  The statues are representative of the ideological battle that led to Hamilton’s marginalization in the public and scholarly eye as an allegedly authoritarian and militaristic presence at the Founding who was, so the story goes, finally vanquished by the Jeffersonian victory in 1800.  Knott shows how Progressives and Democrats, including FDR, not only sided with Jefferson but also saw the political merits of using Jefferson as a unifying national symbol.  Knott traces Hamilton’s ups and downs in the nineteenth century as well, making his work a much needed companion piece to Merrill Peterson’s The Jefferson Image in the American Mind.

Knott believes that Hamilton has been very unfairly treated since the first Jeffersonian ascendancy.  Only during the period of Republican dominance after the Civil War did Hamilton come close to receiving his due.  Knott exposes as false many of the still prevalent “myths” surrounding Hamilton, such as the claim he once referred to the people as a “great beast.”  Knott acknowledges that Hamilton was a controversial figure, whose views on democracy in particular were out of step with his own time and with ours, but suggests that “beneath his highly colored reputation, Hamilton was the most forward looking of the framers responsible in many ways for creating the innovative institutions that have flourished for over two centuries.”

Knott notes the positive trend in recent Hamilton scholarship.  This trend really began in the 1970s with fine and influential books by Gerald Stourzh and especially Forrest McDonald.  Ron Chernow’s massive 2004 biography of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Penguin Press, 2004) represents a splendid culmination of this trend.  Chernow masterfully tells the story of Hamilton’s prodigious accomplishments as Treasury Secretary, stressing Hamilton’s grasp of the essentials of a modern financial system.  Chernow may understate the extent to which Jefferson, hardly a Luddite, had a relatively coherent alternative vision of “capitalism” but he makes a compelling case that Hamilton’s grasp of economic fundamentals far exceeded his peers and rivals.  Chernow’s biography is notable also for the way in which in brings to life Hamilton the private man.  The Hamilton who was so warmly loved and admired by family and friends was polished in his manners, generous in his habits, and supremely engaging in company.  Chernow also provides a poignant portrait of Elizabeth, Hamilton’s devoted wife, who survived him by some fifty years.

Karl Walling’s impressive Republican Empire: Alexander Hamilton on War and Free Government (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1999) extends earlier work on Hamilton’s republicanism by Stourzh and Harvey Flaumenhaft.  Walling dispels the myth of Hamilton the monarchist by constructing a republican constitutional spectrum with “vigilance” and “responsibility” as its two poles.  Jeffersonian republicanism stressed popular vigilance as the key to the preservation of liberty, whereas Hamilton’s republicanism stressed the need create institutions that enhanced responsibility, the placing of power in one or a few hands to harness ambition and to increase accountability.   Walling focuses on Hamilton’s realization that a free government must be “fit for war” as well as “safe for liberty.”  On a related point, Walling shows, in his account of Hamilton’s strategic thinking in the late 1790s, that Hamilton’s assessment of the French threat was reasonable, thereby providing a rebuttal to the longstanding charge that Hamilton was a dangerous militarist who used the specter of France to amass an army that he intended to use to suppress Jeffersonian democracy.

No account of Hamilton would be complete without mention of the event that seems so incredible today: Aaron Burr, the sitting Vice-President of the United States, killing Hamilton, the former Secretary of the Treasury, in a duel.  It was once fashionable to discuss the duel in terms of Hamilton’s erratic personality or his fragile sense of self or even his death wish, all of which were traceable to his disordered childhood.  Joanne Freeman’s highly engaging Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the Early Republic (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001) opens up a new and persuasive alternative.  The duel should not surprise us.  Duels were still common at the time and especially among military men such as Hamilton and Burr.  They were part of an elaborate culture of honor that held a gentleman’s reputation to be something worth preserving at all costs, including the risk of a duel.  Hamilton and Burr followed precisely the rituals of an affair of honor and when they could not resolve the matter to each other’s satisfaction they resorted to dueling pistols.  The goal of each party in such an affair was to prove his honor by showing his willingness to risk all.  It was not necessary to kill.  If there was a surprise in the duel at Weehawken, it is that Burr seems to have deliberately chosen to kill Hamilton.

These new perspectives on Hamilton have not only given us a new and more accurate account of Hamilton but they have also made possible a richer and more nuanced approach to the history and the political thought of the Founding period.  Hamilton will likely remain a controversial figure but there is no longer any excuse for using him as a mere villainous foil in the story of the rise of American democracy.

Peter McNamara teaches political theory at Utah State University. He specializes in early modern and American political thought.  He is the author of Political Economy and Statesmanship: Smith, Hamilton and the Foundation of the Commercial Republic and the editor of The Noblest Minds: Fame, Honor and the American Founding, and, most recently (with Louis Hunt), Liberalism, Conservatism and Hayek’s Idea of Spontaneous Order.