Chapter 3 (8)

The fate of the proposed Constitution remained doubtful for
many months after the adjournment of the convention. Hamilton
said it would be arrogance to conjecture the result. …
Delaware was the first state to accept it, [December 7, 1787].
Gratified by the concession of equality in the federal Senate,
the ratification was prompt, enthusiastic, and unanimous.
Pennsylvania was the second [December 12]. The opposition was
sharp, but Franklin was president of the state, and Wilson a
delegate to the state convention. Their influence was great. …
The ratification was effected by a vote of 46 to 23. Then New
Jersey [December 18] and Georgia [January 2, 1788] followed
unanimously. Next came Connecticut [January 9] by a vote of
128 to 40. The result in these five states was the more easily
obtained because the friends of the Constitution were prompt
to act. With delay in the other states came a bitterness of
contention which made the result doubtful. The first close
struggle was in Massachusetts. The public creditor favored the
proposed Constitution. He saw in it some hope of his long
deferred pay. But the debtor class opposed it; for it would
put an end to cheap paper money, with which they hoped to pay
their debts, when it became still cheaper. … Hancock and Adams
scarcely favored the Constitution. They feared it infringed
upon the rights of the people, and especially upon the rights
of the states. … Hancock finally came forward as a mediator.
He proposed that the Constitution be ratified, with an
accompanying recommendation that it be amended in the
particulars in which it was thought to be defective. His
proposition was adopted, and the Constitution was ratified
[February 6] by a vote of 187 to 168. Maryland next ratified
the Constitution with much unanimity [April 28],
notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of Luther Martin. …
South Carolina followed next [May 23], and ratified the
Constitution by a majority of 76, but recommended amendments
substantially like those of Massachusetts. South Carolina was
the eighth state; and, if one more could be obtained, the
Constitution would take effect between the nine ratifying
states. There remained the five states of Virginia, New York,
New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. The state
convention of Virginia was called for the 2d of June 1788, of
New York for the 17th, and of New Hampshire for the 18th of
the same month. The result was expected to be adverse in
everyone of these states. In Virginia the opposition was led
by Patrick Henry. … Henry was ably seconded by Richard Henry
Lee, William Grayson, and George Mason. … James Monroe
followed their lead. James Madison and Governor Randolph were
the leading champions of the new Constitution. … John
Marshall, afterwards chief justice, came to their assistance.
… The debate lasted a month. It may be read with instruction,
as it is reported in the volumes of Elliot. The ratification
prevailed [June 25] by a majority of ten in a vote of 186.
After all, the influence of Washington procured the result. …
Meanwhile, the state of New Hampshire had ratified the
Constitution [June 21], but the fact was not known in
Virginia. The opposition to the Constitution was great and
bitter in the State of New York. Fortunately the convention
was held so late that New Hampshire, the ninth state, had
ratified while the New York convention was engaged in its
heated discussions. Two thirds of the delegates were elected
to oppose it. … The friends of the Constitution felt, long
before the convention assembled, that public discussion might
be useful in overcoming the hostile attitude of the state.
{3302}
Accordingly, a series of essays in exposition of the
Constitution was written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, over
the common signature of 'Publius.' These essays were published
in a newspaper, between October, 1787, and June, 1788. … They
were subsequently collected and published in a volume styled
'The Federalist.' From that day to this, 'The Federalist' has
held unequalled rank as an authority upon the construction of
the Constitution." On the 24th of June a fleet courier,
employed by Hamilton, brought from Concord to Poughkeepsie,
where the New York convention sat, news of the ratification of
the Constitution by New Hampshire, the ninth state. "Now,
indeed, the situation was changed. There was no longer a
confederacy; the Union was already formed. … The state must
either join the new system or stay out of it. New York was not
favorably situated for a separate nation. New England on the
east, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania on the south, belonged
to the new Union. Canada was on the north. … Delay, with its
altered circumstances, finally brought to Hamilton and his
party the victory that had been denied to argument and
eloquence. But the Anti-Federalists were reluctant to yield,
and the debate was prolonged," until the 26th of July, when
the ratification was carried by 30 votes against 27. "North
Carolina remained out of the Union until November, 1789, and
Rhode Island until June, 1790. … The ratification by nine
states having been certified to the Congress of the
Confederacy, that body adopted a resolution fixing the first
Wednesday of March, 1789, as the day when the new government
should go into operation. As the day fell on the 4th of March,
that day became fixed for the beginning and the end of
congressional and presidential terms."

_J. S. Landon,
Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
lecture 4._

ALSO IN:
_J. Fiske,
The Critical Period of American History,
chapter 7._

_G. T. Curtis, History of the Constitution of
the United States,
book 5 (volume 2)._

_G. Bancroft,
History of the Formation of the Constitution,
book 4 (volume 2)._

_J. Elliot, editor,
Debates in the State Convention on the Adoption
of the Federal Constitution._

_The Federalist._

_A. Hamilton,
Works,
volume 2._

_W. C. Rives,
Life and Times of Madison,
chapters 34-36 (volume 2)._

_K. M. Rowland,
Life of George Mason.
volume 2, chapters 6-8_.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789.
The First Presidential Election.
Washington called to the head of the new Government.

"The adoption of the Federal constitution was another epoch in
the life of Washington. Before the official forms of an
election could be carried into operation a unanimous sentiment
throughout the Union pronounced him the nation's choice to
fill the presidential chair. He looked forward to the
possibility of his election with characteristic modesty and
unfeigned reluctance; as his letters to his confidential
friends bear witness. … The election took place at the
appointed time [the first Wednesday in January, 1789], and it
was soon ascertained that Washington was chosen President for
the term of four years from the 4th of March. By this time the
arguments and entreaties of his friends, and his own
convictions of public expediency, had determined him to
accept. … From a delay in forming a quorum of Congress the
votes of the electoral college were not counted until early in
April, when they were found to be unanimous in favor of
Washington 'The delay,' said he in a letter to General Knox,
'may be compared to a reprieve; for in confidence I tell you
(with the world it would obtain little credit), that my
movements to the chair of government will be accompanied by
feelings not unlike those of a culprit, who is going to the
place of his execution; so unwilling am I, in the evening of a
life nearly consumed in public cares, to quit a peaceful abode
for an ocean of difficulties, without that competency of
political skill, abilities and inclination, which are
necessary to manage the helm.' … At length on the 14th of
April he received a letter from the president of Congress,
duly notifying him of his election; and he prepared to set out
immediately for New York, the seat of government."

_W. Irving,
Life of Washington,
volume 4, chapter 37._

The secondary electoral votes, by which the Vice President
was, at that time, chosen, were scattered among eleven
candidates. John Adams received the greater number (34) though
not quite a majority of the 69, and was elected.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789.
Passage of the Act of Congress organizing the
Supreme Court of the United States.

See SUPREME COURT.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.
Hamilton's report on Manufactures.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1789-1791.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
Organization of the Federal government
and first administration of Washington.
The dividing of Parties.
Federalists and Democratic Republicans.

"March 4th, 1789, had been appointed for the formal
inauguration of the new Government, but the members elect had
not yet unlearned the Confederacy's slovenly habits. It was
not until April 6th that a sufficient number of members of
Congress arrived in New York to form a quorum and count the
electoral votes. At that time, and until 1805, no electoral
votes were cast distinctively for President and
Vice-President. Each elector voted by ballot for two persons.
If a majority of all the votes were cast for any person, he
who received the greatest number of votes became President,
and he who received the next greatest number became
Vice-President. When the votes were counted in 1789 they were
found to be, for George Washington, of Virginia, 69 (each of
the electors having given him one vote), for John Adams, of
Massachusetts, 34, and 35 for various other candidates.
Washington received notice of his election, and, after a
triumphal progress northward from his home at Mount Vernon,
was sworn into office April 30th [at Federal Hall, corner Wall
and Nassau Streets, New York]. The Vice-President had taken
his place as presiding officer of the Senate a few days
before. Frederick A. Muhlenberg, of Pennsylvania, was chosen
Speaker of the House, but the vote had no party divisions, for
Parties were still in a state of utter confusion. Between the
extreme Anti-federalists, who considered the Constitution a
long step toward a despotism, and the extreme Federalists, who
desired a monarchy modeled on that of England, there were all
varieties of political opinion. … The extreme importance of
Washington lay in his ability, through the universal
confidence in his integrity and good judgment, to hold
together this alliance of moderate men for a time, and to
prevent party contests upon the interpretation of federal
powers until the Constitution should show its merit and be
assured of existence.
{3303}
The President selected his Cabinet with a careful regard to
the opposite opinions of his supporters. The Treasury
Department was given to Alexander Hamilton, of New York, a
Federalist. … The War Department was given to General Henry
Knox, of Massachusetts, also a Federalist. The State
Department was given to Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, an
Anti-federalist. … Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, also an
Anti-federalist, was appointed Attorney-General, and John Jay,
of New York, a Federalist, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Twelve Amendments were adopted by this Session of Congress, in
order to meet the conscientious objections of many moderate
Anti-federalists, and to take the place of a 'Bill of Rights.'
Ten of these, having received the assent of the necessary
number of States, became a part of the Constitution, and now
stand the first ten of the Amendments. They were intended to
guarantee freedom of religion, speech, person, and property. …
January 9th [1790] Hamilton offered his famous Report on the
Settlement of the Public Debt. It consisted of three
recommendations, first, that the foreign debt of the
Confederacy should be assumed land paid in full; second, that
the domestic debt of the Confederacy, which had fallen far
below par and had become a synonym for worthlessness, should
also be paid at its par value; and third, that the debts
incurred by the States during the Revolution, and still
unpaid, should be assumed and paid in full by the Federal
Government. Hamilton's First recommendation was adopted
unanimously. The Second was opposed, even by Madison and many
moderate Anti-federalists, on the ground that the domestic
debt was held by speculators, who had bought it at a heavy
discount, and would thus gain usurious interest on their
investment. Hamilton's supporters argued that, if only for
that reason, they should be paid in full, that holders of
United States securities might learn not to sell them at a
discount, and that the national credit might thus be
strengthened for all time to come. After long debate the
second recommendation was also adopted. Hamilton's Third
recommendation involved a question of the powers of the
Federal Government. It therefore for the first time united all
the Anti-federalists in opposition to it. They feared that the
rope of sand of the Confederacy was being carried to the
opposite extreme; that the 'money power' would, by this
measure, be permanently attached to the Federal Government;
and that the States would be made of no importance. But even
this recommendation was adopted, though only by a vote of 31
to 26 in the House. A few days later, however, the
Anti-federalists received a reinforcement of seven newly
arrived North Carolina members. The third resolution was at
once reconsidered, and voted down by a majority of two.
Hamilton secured the final adoption of the third resolution by
a bargain which excited the deep indignation of the
Anti-federalists. A National Capital was to be selected. The
Federalists agreed to vote that it should be fixed upon the
Potomac River [see WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791], after
remaining ten years in Philadelphia, and two Anti-federalist
members from the Potomac agreed in return to vote for the
third resolution, which was then finally adopted. Hamilton's
entire report was thus successful. Its immediate effects were
to appreciate the credit of the United States, and to enrich
the holders of the Continental debt. Its further effect was to
make Hamilton so much disliked by Anti-federalists that,
despite his acknowledged talents, his party never ventured to
nominate him for any elective office. … Party Organization may
be considered as fairly begun about the close [of the first
Session of the Second Congress, in 1792]. … The various
Anti-federalist factions, by union in resisting the
Federalists, had learned to forget minor differences and had
been welded into one party which only lacked a name. That of
Anti-federalist was no longer applicable, for its opposition
to the Federal Union had entirely ceased. A name was supplied
by Jefferson, the recognized leader of the party, after the
French Revolution had fairly begun its course. That political
convulsion had, for some time after 1789, the sympathy of both
Federalists and Anti-federalists, for it seemed the direct
outgrowth of the American Revolution. But, as its leveling
objects became more apparent, the Federalists grew cooler and
the Anti-federalists warmer towards it. The latter took great
pains, even by dress and manners, to show the keenness of
their sympathy for the Republicans of France, and about this
time adopted the name Democratic-Republican, which seemed
sufficiently comprehensive for a full indication of their
principles. This has always been the official party title. It
is now abbreviated to Democratic, though the name Democrat was
at first used by Federalists as one of contempt, and the party
called itself Republican, a title which it could hardly claim
with propriety, for its tendency has always been toward a
democracy, as that of its opponents has been toward a strong
republic. The name Republican, therefore, belongs most
properly to its present possessors (1879). But it must be
remembered that the party which will be called Republican
until about 1828 was the party which is now called
Democratic."

_A. Johnston,
History of American Politics,
chapter 2._

Jefferson's bitterness of hostility to the Federalists was due
to the belief that they aimed at the overthrow of the
Republic. His conviction as to these really treasonable
purposes in the leaders of the party was often expressed, but
never more distinctly than in a letter written in 1813 to an
English traveller, Mr. Melish. At the same time, he set forth
the principles and aims of his own party: "Among that section
of our citizens called federalists," he wrote, "there are
three shades of opinion. Distinguishing between the leaders
and people who compose it, the leaders consider the English
constitution as a model of perfection, some, with a correction
of its vices, others, with all its corruptions and abuses.
This last was Alexander Hamilton's opinion, which others, as
well as myself, have often heard him declare, and that a
correction of what are called its vices would render the
English an impracticable government. This government they
wished to have established here, and only accepted and held
fast, at first, to the present constitution, as a
stepping-stone to the final establishment of their favorite
model. This party has therefore always clung to England as
their prototype and great auxiliary in promoting and effecting
this change. A weighty minority, however, of these leaders,
considering the voluntary conversion of our government into a
monarchy as too distant, if not desperate, wish to break off
from our Union its eastern fragment, as being, in truth, the
hot-bed of American monarchism, with a view to a commencement
of their favorite government, from whence the other States may
gangrene by degrees, and the whole be thus brought finally to
the desired point.
{3304}
For Massachusetts, the prime mover in this enterprise, is the
last State in the Union to mean a final separation, as being
of all the most dependent on the others. Not raising bread for
the sustenance of her own inhabitants, not having a stick of
timber for the construction of vessels, her principal
occupation, nor an article to export in them, where would she
be, excluded from the ports of the other States, and thrown
into dependence on England, her direct, and natural, but now
insidious rival? At the head of this minority is what is
called the Essex Junto of Massachusetts. But the majority of
these leaders do not aim at separation. In this, they adhere
to the known principle of General Hamilton, never, under any
views, to break the Union. Anglomany, monarchy, and
separation, then, are the principles of the Essex federalists.
Anglomany and monarchy, those of the Hamiltonians, and
Anglomany alone, that of the portion among the people who call
themselves federalists. These last are as good republicans as
the brethren whom they oppose, and differ from them only in
their devotion to England and hatred of France which they have
imbibed from their leaders. The moment that these leaders
should avowedly propose a separation of the Union, or the
establishment of regal government, their popular adherents
would quit them to a man, and join the republican standard;
and the partisans of this change, even in Massachusetts, would
thus find themselves an army of officers without a soldier.
The party called republican is steadily for the support of the
present constitution. They obtained at its commencement all
the amendments to it they desired. These reconciled them to it
perfectly, and if they have any ulterior view, it is only,
perhaps, to popularize it further, by shortening the
Senatorial term, and devising a process for the responsibility
of judges, more practicable than that of impeachment. They
esteem the people of England and France equally, and equally
detest the governing powers of both. This I verily believe,
after an intimacy of forty years with the public councils and
characters, is a true statement of the grounds on which they
are at present divided, and that it is not merely an ambition
for power. An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise
of power over his fellow citizens. And considering as the only
offices of power those conferred by the people directly, that
is to say, the executive and legislative functions of the
General and State governments, the common refusal of these,
and multiplied resignations, are proofs sufficient that power
is not alluring to pure minds, and is not, with them, the
primary principle of contest. This is my belief of it; it is
that on which I have acted; and had it been a mere contest who
should be permitted to administer the government according to
its genuine republican principles, there has never been a
moment of my life in which I should have relinquished for it
the enjoyments of my family, my farm, my friends and books.
You expected to discover the difference of our party
principles in General Washington's valedictory, and my
inaugural address. Not at all. General Washington did not
harbor one principle of federalism. He was neither an
Angloman, a monarchist, nor a separatist. He sincerely wished
the people to have as much self-government as they were
competent to exercise themselves. The only point on which he
and I ever differed in opinion, was, that I had more
confidence than he had in the natural integrity and discretion
of the people, and in the safety and extent to which they
might trust themselves with a control over their government.
He has asseverated to me a thousand times his determination
that the existing government should have a fair trial, and
that in support of it he would spend the last drop of his
blood. He did this the more repeatedly, because he knew
General Hamilton's political bias, and my apprehensions from
it."

_T. Jefferson,
Letter to Mr. Melish, January 13, 1813
(Writings, edited by Washington, volume 6)._

The view taken at the present day of the Federalism and the
Federalists of the first three decades of the Union, among
those who see more danger in the centrifugal than in the
centripetal forces in government, are effectively stated in
the following: "The popular notion in regard to Federalism is
that to which the name naturally gives rise. By Federalists
are commonly understood those men who advocated a union of the
States and an efficient Federal government. This conception is
true, but is at the same time so limited that it may fairly be
called superficial. The name arose from its first object which
the friends of the Constitution strove to achieve; but this
object, the more perfect union, and even the Constitution
itself, were but means to ends of vastly more importance. The
ends which the Federalists sought formed the great principles
on which the party was founded, and it can be justly said that
no nobler or better ends were ever striven for by any
political party or by any statesmen. The first and paramount
object of the Federalists was to build up a nation and to
create a national sentiment. For this they sought a more
perfect union. Their next object was to give the nation they
had called into existence not only a government, but a strong
government. To do this, they had not only to devise a model,
to draw a constitution, to organize a legislature, executive,
and judiciary, but they had to equip the government thus
formed with all those adjuncts without which no government can
long exist under the conditions of modern civilization. The
Federalists had to provide for the debt, devise a financial
and foreign policy, organize an army, fortify the ports, found
a navy, impose and collect taxes, and put in operation an
extensive revenue system. We of the English race—whose creed
is that governments and great political systems grow and
develop slowly, are the results of climate, soil, race,
tradition, and the exigencies of time and place, who wholly
disavow the theory that perfect governments spring in a night
from the heated brains of Frenchmen or Spaniards—can best
appreciate the task with which our ancestors grappled. … Upon
a people lately convulsed by civil war, upon a people who had
lost their old political habits and traditions without finding
new ones in their stead, it was necessary to impose a
government, and to create a national sentiment. This the
Federalists did, and they need no other eulogy.
{3305}
With no undue national pride, we can justly say that the
adoption and support of the Constitution offer an example of
the political genius of the Anglo-Saxon race to which history
cannot furnish a parallel. The political party to whose
exertions these great results were due was the Federal party.
They were the party of order, of good government, and of
conservatism. Against them was ranged a majority of their
fellow-citizens. But this majority was wild, anarchical,
disunited. The only common ground on which they could meet was
that of simple opposition. The only name they had was
anti-Federalists. They had neither leaders, discipline,
objects, nor even a party cry. Before the definite aims and
concentrated ability of the Federalists, they fled in helpless
disorder, like an unarmed mob before advancing soldiers. But,
though dispersed, the anti-Federalists were still in a
numerical majority. They needed a leader, organization, and
opportunity, and they soon found all three. Thomas Jefferson
arrived in New York, not only to enter into Washington's
cabinet, and lend the aid of his great talents to the success
of the new scheme, but soon also to put himself at the head of
the large though demoralized opposition to the administration
he had sworn to support. Filled with the wild democratic
theories which his susceptible nature had readily imbibed in
France, Jefferson soon infused them into the minds of most of
his followers. Instead of a vague dislike to any and all
government, he substituted a sharp and factious opposition to
each and every measure proposed by the friends of the
Constitution."

_H. C. Lodge,
Life and Letters of George Cabot,
chapter 11._

ALSO IN:
_W. C. Rives,
Life and Times of Madison,
chapters 37-46 (volume 3)._

_J. Parton,
Life of Jefferson,
chapters 42-47._

_M. Van Buren,
Political Parties in the United States,
chapters 2-4._

_J. D. Hammond,
History of Political Parties in New York,
volume 1, chapters 1-2._

_W. Irving,
Life of Washington,
volume 5, chapters 1-16._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1810.
Founding of the Roman Episcopate.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1789-1810.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1790.
The First Census.

Total population, 3,929,827,
classed and distributed as follows:

North.

White. Free black. Slave. Connecticut. 232,581 2,801 2,759 Maine. 96,002 538 0 Massachusetts. 373,254 5,463 0 New Hampshire. 141,111 630 158 New Jersey. 169,954 2,762 11,423 New York. 314,142 4,654 21,324 Pennsylvania. 424,099 6,537 3,737 Rhode Island. 64,689 3,469 952 Vermont. 85,144 255 17 --- --- --- Total 1,900,976 27,109 40,370

South.

White. Free black. Slave. Delaware. 46,310 3,899 8,887 Georgia. 52,886 398 29,264 Kentucky. 61,133 114 11,830 Maryland. 208,649 8,043 103,036 North Carolina. 288,204 4,975 100,572 South Carolina. 140,178 1,801 107,094 Tennessee. 32,013 361 3,417 Virginia. 442,115 12,766 293,427 --- --- --- Total 1,271,488 32,357 657,527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1790-1795.
War with the Indian tribes of the Northwest.
Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair,
and Wayne's decisive victory.

See NORTHWESTERN TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
Admission of Vermont to the Union.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
Incorporation of the first Bank of the United States.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
The founding of the Federal Capital.

See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
Adoption of the first ten Amendments
to the Federal Constitution.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution (see CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), embodying a declaration of
rights which was thought to be necessary by many who had
consented to the adoption of the Constitution, but only with
the understanding that such amendments should be added, were
proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
First Congress, on the 25th of September, 1789. At different
dates between November 20, 1789 and December 15, 1791, they
were ratified by eleven of the then fourteen States. "There is
no evidence on the journals of Congress that the legislatures
of Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ratified them."

_Constitution,
Rules and Manual of the UNITED STATES SENATE (1885)
page 61._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1792.
Admission of Kentucky to the Union.
Slavery in the Constitution of the new State.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1792.
Second Presidential Election.

George Washington re-elected with unanimity, receiving 132
votes of the Electoral College, John Adams, Vice President,
receiving 77 votes, with 50 cast for George Clinton, 4 for
Jefferson and 1 for Burr.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
The First Fugitive Slave Law.

For some time after the adoption of the Federal Constitution,
its provision relating to the rendition of persons "held to
service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another" remained without legislation to execute
it; "and it is a striking fact that the call for legislation
came not from the South, but from a free State; and that it
was provoked, not by fugitive slaves, but by kidnappers. … A
free negro named John was seized at Washington, Pennsylvania,
in 1791, and taken to Virginia. The Governor of Pennsylvania,
at the instigation of the Society for the Abolition of
Slavery, asked the return of the three kidnappers; but the
Governor of Virginia replied that, since there was no national
law touching such a case, he could not carry out the request.
On the matter being brought to the notice of Congress by the
Governor of Pennsylvania," a bill was passed which "became law
by the signature of the President, February 12, 1793. … The
act provided at the same time for the recovery of fugitives
from justice and from labor; but the alleged criminal was to
have a protection through the requirement of a requisition, a
protection denied to the man on trial for his liberty only.
The act was applicable to fugitive apprentices as well as to
slaves, a provision of some importance at the time. In the
Northwest Territory there were so-called negro apprentices,
who were virtually slaves, and to whom the law applied, since
it was in terms extended to all the Territories. Proceedings
began with the forcible seizure of the alleged fugitive. The
act, it will be observed, does not admit a trial by jury.
{3306}
It allowed the owner of the slave, his agent or attorney, to
seize the fugitive and take him before any judge of a United
States Circuit or District Court, or any local magistrate. The
only requirement for the conviction of the slave was the
testimony of his master, or the affidavit of some magistrate
in the State from which he came, certifying that such a person
had escaped. Hindering arrest or harboring a slave was
punishable by a fine of five hundred dollars. The law thus
established a system allowing the greatest harshness to the
slave and every favor to the master. Even at that time, when
persons might still be born slaves in New York and New Jersey,
and gradual emancipation had not yet taken full effect in
Rhode Island and Connecticut, it was repellent to the popular
sense of justice; there were two cases of resistance 'to the
principle of the act before the close of 1793. Until 1850 no
further law upon this subject was passed, but as the
provisions of 1793 were found ineffectual, many attempts at
amendment were made."

_M. G. McDougall,
Fugitive Slaves, 1619-1865
(Fay House Monographs, number 3), pages 17-19._

"The fugitive-slave clause in the Constitution is of course
obligatory, but there is a wide distinction between the
fugitive-slave clause and the fugitive-slave law. The
Constitution gives no power to Congress to legislate on the
subject, but imposes on the States the obligation of
rendition. Chief-Justice Hornblower, of New York, and
Chancellor Walworth, of New York, long since pronounced the
fugitive law of '93 unconstitutional on this very ground."

_William Jay,
Letter to Josiah Quincy
(quoted in B. Tuckerman's "William Jay and the
Constitutional Movement for the Abolition of Slavery")._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
Popular sympathy with the French Revolution.
Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality.
Insolent conduct of the French minister, Genet.

"The French Revolution, as was natural from the all-important
services rendered by France to the United States in their own
revolutionary struggle, enlisted the warm sympathy of the
American people. … As the United States were first introduced
to the family of nations by the alliance with France of 1778,
the very important question arose, on the breaking out of the
war between France and England, how far they were bound to
take part in the contest. The second article of the treaty of
alliance seemed to limit its operation to the then existing
war between the United States and Great Britain; but by the
eleventh article the two contracting powers agreed to
'guarantee mutually from the present time and forever, against
all other powers,' the territories of which the allies might
be in possession respectively at the moment the war between
France and Great Britain should break out, which was
anticipated as the necessary consequence of the alliance. Not
only were the general sympathies of America strongly with
France, but the course pursued by Great Britain toward the
United States, since the peace of 1783, was productive of
extreme irritation, especially her refusal to give up the
western posts, which … had the effect of involving the
northwestern frontier in a prolonged and disastrous Indian
war. These causes, together with the recent recollections of
the revolutionary struggle, disposed the popular mind to make
common cause with France, in what was regarded as the war of a
people struggling for freedom against the combined despots of
Europe. Washington, however, from the first, determined to
maintain the neutrality of the country;" and, with the
unanimous advice of his cabinet, he issued (April 22, 1793) a
proclamation of neutrality. "This proclamation, though
draughted by Mr. Jefferson and unanimously adopted by the
Cabinet, was violently assailed by the organs of the party
which followed his lead. … The growing excitement of the
popular mind was fanned to a flame by the arrival at
Charleston, South Carolina [April 9], of 'Citizen' Genet, who
was sent as the minister of the French Republic to the United
States. Without repairing to the seat of government, or being
accredited in any way, in his official capacity, he began to
fit out privateers in Charleston, to cruise against the
commerce of England. Although the utmost gentleness and
patience were observed by the executive of the United States
in checking this violation of their neutrality, Genet assumed
from the first a tone of defiance, and threatened before long
to appeal from the government to the people. These insolent
demonstrations were of course lost upon Washington's firmness
and moral courage. They distressed, but did not in the
slightest degree intimidate him; and their effect on the
popular mind was to some extent neutralized by the facts, that
the chief measures to maintain the neutrality of the country
had been unanimously advised by the Cabinet, and that the duty
of rebuking his intemperate course had devolved upon the
secretary of state [Jefferson], the recognized head of the
party to which Genet looked for sympathy."

_E. Everett,
Life of Washington,
chapter 8._

A demand for "Genet's recall was determined on during the
first days of August. There was some discussion over the
manner of requesting the recall, but the terms were made
gentle by Jefferson, to the disgust of the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Secretary of War [Hamilton and Knox], who
desired direct methods and stronger language. As finally toned
up and agreed upon by the President and cabinet, the document
was sufficiently vigorous to annoy Genet, and led to bitter
reproaches addressed to his friend in the State Department. …
The letter asking Genet's recall, as desired by Washington,
went in due time, and in the following February came a
successor. Genet, however, did not go back to his native land,
for he preferred to remain here and save his head, valueless
as that article would seem to have been. He spent the rest of
his days in America, married, harmless, and quite obscure. His
noise and fireworks were soon over, and one wonders now how he
could ever have made as much flare and explosion as he did."

_H. C. Lodge,
George Washington,
volume 2, pages 155-156._

ALSO IN:
_H. S. Randall,
Life of Jefferson,
volume 2, chapter 4._

_J. T. Morse,
Life of Hamilton,
volume 2, chapter 3._

_American State Papers,
volume 1, pages 140-188, 243-246, and 311-314._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
Whitney's Cotton-gin and the series of inventions
which it made complete.
Their political effect.
The strengthening of the Slave Power, and the
strengthening of Unionism.

"Some English artisans, who, about the middle of the last
century, were obtaining a scanty living by spinning, weaving
and other such occupations, turned their inventive talent to
the improvement of their art.
{3307}
Paul and Wyatt introduced the operation of spinning by
rollers; Highs, or Hargreaves, invented the jenny, by which a
great many threads could be spun as easily as one. Paul
devised the rotating carding-engine; Crompton the mule;
Arkwright the water-frame, which produced any number of
threads of any degree of fineness and hardness. These
ingenious machines constituted a very great improvement on the
spindle and distaff of ancient times, and on the
spinning-wheel, originally brought from Asia, or perhaps
reinvented in Europe. At length one spinner was able to
accomplish as much work as one hundred could have formerly
done. While the art of producing threads was undergoing this
singular improvement, Cartwright, a clergyman, invented, in
1785, the power-loom, intended to supersede the operation of
weaving by hand, and to make the production of textile fabrics
altogether the result of machinery. After some modifications,
that loom successfully accomplished the object for which it
was devised. As these inventions succeeded, they necessarily
led to a demand for motive power. In the first little cotton
factory, the germ of that embodiment of modern industry, the
cotton-mill, a water-wheel was employed to give movement to
the machinery. The establishment was, therefore, necessarily
placed near a stream, where a sufficient fall could be
obtained. The invention of the steam-engine by Watt, which was
the consequence of the new and correct views of the nature of
vapors that had been established by Dr. Black, supplied, in
due time, the required motive power, and by degrees the
water-wheel went almost out of use. Textile manufacture needed
now but one thing more to become of signal importance—it
needed a more abundant supply of raw material. … Cotton, the
fibre chiefly concerned in these improvements, was obtained in
limited quantities from various countries; but, at the time of
the adoption of the Constitution, not a single pound was
exported from the United States. What was grown here was for
domestic consumption. Every good housewife had her
spinning-wheel, every plantation its hand-loom. The difficulty
of supplying cotton fibre in quantity sufficient to meet the
demands of the new machinery was due to the imperfect means in
use for separating the cotton from its seeds—a tedious
operation, for the picking was done by hand. Eli Whitney, a
native of Massachusetts, by his invention of the cotton-gin in
1793, removed that difficulty. The fibre could be separated
from the seeds with rapidity and at a trifling cost. There was
nothing now to prevent an extraordinary development in the
English manufactures. A very few years showed what the result
would be. In 1790 no cotton was exported from the United
States. Whitney's gin was introduced in 1793. The next year
about 1½ million of pounds were exported; in 1795, about 5¼
millions; in 1860, the quantity had reached 2,000 millions of
pounds. The political effect of this mechanical invention,
which thus proved to be the completion of all the previous
English inventions, being absolutely necessary to give them
efficacy, was at once seen in its accomplishing a great
increase and a redistribution of population in England. … In
the United States the effects were still more important.
Cotton could be grown through all the Southern Atlantic and
the Gulf States. It was more profitable than any other
crop—but it was raised by slaves. Whatever might have been the
general expectation respecting the impending extinction of
slavery, it was evident that at the commencement of this
century the conditions had altogether changed. A powerful
interest had come into unforeseen existence both in Europe and
America which depended on perpetuating that mode of labor.
Moreover, before long it was apparent that, partly because of
the adaptation of their climate to the growth of the plant,
partly because of the excellence of the product, and partly
owing to the increasing facilities for interior
transportation, the cotton-growing states of America would
have a monopoly in the supply of this staple. But, though
mechanical invention had reinvigorated the slave power by
bestowing on it the cotton-gin, it had likewise strengthened
unionism by another inestimable gift—the steam-boat. At the
very time that the African slave-trade was prohibited, Fulton
was making his successful experiment of the navigation of the
Hudson River by steam. This improvement in inland navigation
rendered available, in a manner never before contemplated, the
river and lake system of the continent; it gave an
instantaneous value to the policy of Jefferson, by bringing
into effectual use the Mississippi and its tributaries; it
crowded with population the shores of the lakes; it threw the
whole continent open to commerce, it strengthened the central
power at Washington by diminishing space, and while it
extended geographically the domain of the republic, it
condensed it politically. It bound all parts of the Union more
firmly together. … In the Constitution it had been agreed that
three fifths of the slaves should be accounted as federal
numbers in the apportionment of federal representation. A
political advantage was thus given to slave labor. This closed
the eyes of the South to all other means of solving its
industrial difficulties. … To the cotton-planter two courses
were open. He might increase his manual force, or he might
resort to machinery. … It required no deep political
penetration for him to perceive that the introduction of
machinery must in the end result in the emancipation of the
slave. Machinery and slavery are incompatible—the slave is
displaced by the machine. In the Southern States political
reasons thus discouraged the introduction of machinery. Under
the Constitution an increased negro force had a political
value, machinery had none. The cotton interest was therefore
persuaded by those who were in a position to guide its
movements, that its prosperity could be secured only through
increased manual labor."

_Dr. J. W. Draper,
History of the American Civil War,
section 3, chapter 16 (volume 1)._

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794.
Resistance to the Excise.
The Whisky Insurrection in Pennsylvania.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.
Threatening relations with Great Britain.
The Jay Treaty.

"The daily increasing 'love-frenzy for France,' and the
intemperate language of the Democratic press, naturally
emphasized in England that reaction against America which set
in with the treaty of peace. On the other hand, the retention
of the frontier posts in violation of that treaty was a thorn
in the side of the young Republic. In the course of the war
England had adopted, by successive Orders in Council, a policy
ruinous to the commerce of neutral nations, especially of the
United States.
{3308}
In the admiralty courts of the various British West India
islands hundreds of ships from New England were seized and
condemned, for carrying French produce or bearing cargoes of
provisions chartered to French ports. The New England
fishermen and shipowners were vociferous for war, and the
Democratic clubs denounced every British insult and celebrated
every French victory. On March 26, 1794, an embargo against
British ships was proclaimed for thirty days, and then
extended for thirty days longer. The day after the embargo was
laid, Dayton, of New Jersey, moved in Congress to sequester
all moneys due to British creditors, and apply it towards
indemnifying shipowners for losses incurred through the Orders
in Council; and on April 21st the Republicans moved a
resolution to suspend, all commercial intercourse with Great
Britain till the western posts should be given up, and
indemnity be paid for injuries to American commerce in
violation of the rights of neutrals. The passage of such an
act meant war; and for war the United States was never more
unprepared. … Peace could be secured only by immediate
negotiation and at least a temporary settlement of the causes
of neutral irritation, and for such a task the ministers at
London and Washington were incompetent or unsuited. … In this
crisis Washington decided to send to England a special envoy.
Hamilton was his first choice, but Hamilton had excited bitter
enmities." On Hamilton's recommendation, John Jay, the Chief
Justice, was chosen for the difficult mission, and he sailed
for England in May, 1794, landing at Falmouth on the 8th of
June. Within the succeeding five months he accomplished the
negotiation of a treaty, which was signed on the 19th of
November. "The main points that Jay had been instructed to
gain were compensation for negroes [carried away by the
British armies on the evacuation of the country in 1783],
surrender of the posts, and compensation for spoliations; in
addition, a commercial treaty was desired. When Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, Jay had argued that the negroes, some 3,000
in number, who, at the time of the evacuation, were within the
British lines, relying on proclamations that offered freedom,
and who followed the troops to England, came within that
clause of the treaty of peace which provided that the army
should be withdrawn without 'carrying away any negroes or
other property.' Lord Grenville, however, insisted upon
refusing any compensation. Once within the British lines, he
said, slaves were free for good and all. … From any point of
view the matter was too insignificant to wreck the treaty upon
it, and Jay waived the claim. As to the western posts [Oswego,
Niagara, Detroit, Mackinaw, etc.], it was agreed that they
should be surrendered by June 12, 1796. But compensation for
the detention was denied on the ground that it was due to the
breach of the treaty by the United States in permitting the
States to prevent the recovery of British debts." For the
determination and payment of such debts, it was now provided
that a board of five commissioners should sit at Philadelphia;
while another similar board at London should award
compensation for irregular and illegal captures or
condemnations made during the war between Great Britain and
France. "Under this clause American merchants received
$10,345,000. … The disputed questions of boundaries, arising
from the construction of the treaty of peace, were referred to
joint commissioners: properly enough, as the confusion was due
to ignorance of the geography of the Northwest. British and
American citizens holding lands at the time respectively in
the United States and in any of the possessions of Great
Britain were secured in their rights; a clause much objected
to in America, but which was obviously just. A still more
important provision followed, a novelty in international
diplomacy, and a distinct advance in civilization: that war
between the two countries should never be made the pretext for
confiscation of debts or annulment of contracts between
individuals. In the War of 1812 the United States happened for
the moment to be the creditor nation, and the millions which
this provision saved to her citizens it would be difficult to
estimate. … It was the commercial articles which excited the
most intense hostility in America. … To unprejudiced eyes,
after the lapse of a hundred years, considering the mutual
exasperation of the two peoples, the pride of England in her
successes in the war with France, the weakness and division of
the United States, the treaty seems a very fair one. Certainly
one far less favorable to America would have been infinitely
preferable to a war, and would probably in the course of time
have been accepted as being so. The commercial advantages were
not very considerable, but they at least served as 'an
entering wedge,' to quote Jay's expression, and they were 'pro
tanto' a clear gain to America. … The treaty was not published
till July 2d. … Even before its contents were known, letters,
signed 'Franklin,' appeared abusing the treaty; and in
Philadelphia an effigy of Jay was placed in the pillory, and
finally taken down, guillotined, the clothes fired, and the
body blown up. It was clear, then, that it was not this
particular treaty, but any treaty at all with Great Britain,
that excited the wrath of the Republicans. On July 4th toasts
insulting Jay or making odious puns on his name, were the
fashion. … On June 24th the treaty was ratified by the Senate,
with the exception of the article about the West India trade.
On August 15th it was signed, with the same exception by
Washington."

_G. Pellew,
John Jay,
chapter 11._

"The reception given to the treaty cannot be fully explained
by the existing relations between the United States and
England. It was only in consequence of its Francomania that
the opposition assumed the character of blind rage."

_H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 1, page 124._

ALSO IN:
_H. S. Randall,
Life of Jefferson,
volume 2, chapters 4-6._

_W. Jay,
Life of John Jay,
volume 1, chapters 8-10
and volume 2, pages 216-264._

_American State Papers,
volume 1, pages 464-525._

_J. B. McMaster,
History of the People of the United States,
volume 2, chapter 9._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1796.
Admission of Tennessee to the Union.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1796.
Washington's Farewell Address.

"The period for the presidential election was drawing near,
and great anxiety began to be felt that Washington would
consent to stand for a third term. No one, it was agreed, had
greater claim to the enjoyment of retirement, in consideration
of public services rendered; but it was thought the affairs of
the country would be in a very precarious condition should he
retire before the wars of Europe were brought to a close.
{3309}
Washington, however, had made up his mind irrevocably on the
subject, and resolved to announce, in a farewell address, his
intention of retiring. Such an instrument, it will be
recollected, had been prepared for him from his own notes, by
Mr. Madison, when he had thought of retiring at the end of his
first term. As he was no longer in confidential intimacy with
Mr. Madison, he turned to Mr. Hamilton as his adviser and
coadjutor, and appears to have consulted him on the subject
early in the present year [1796], for, in a letter dated New
York, May 10th, Hamilton writes: 'When last in Philadelphia,
you mentioned to me your wish that I should "re-dress" a
certain paper which you had prepared. As it is important that
a thing of this kind should be done with great care and much
at leisure, touched and retouched, I submit a wish that, as
soon as you have given it the body you mean it to have, it may
be sent to me.' The paper was accordingly sent, on the 15th of
May, in its rough state, altered in one part since Hamilton
had seen it. 'If you should think it best to throw the whole
into a different form,' writes Washington, 'let me request,
notwithstanding, that my draft may be returned to me (along
with yours) with such amendments and corrections as to render
it as perfect as the formation is susceptible of; curtailed if
too verbose, and relieved of all tautology not necessary to
enforce the ideas in the original or quoted part. My wish is,
that the whole may appear in a plain style; and be handed to
the public in an honest, unaffected, simple garb.' We forbear
to go into the vexed question concerning this address; how
much of it is founded on Washington's original 'notes and
heads of topics'; how much was elaborated by Madison, and how
much is due to Hamilton's recasting and revision. The whole
came under the supervision of Washington; and the instrument,
as submitted to the press, was in his handwriting, with many
ultimate corrections and alterations. Washington had no pride
of authorship; his object always was to effect the purpose in
hand, and for that he occasionally invoked assistance, to
ensure a plain and clear exposition of his thoughts and
intentions. The address certainly breathes his spirit
throughout, is in perfect accordance with all his words and
actions, and 'in an honest, unaffected, simple garb,' embodies
the system of policy on which he had acted throughout his
administration. It was published in September [17], in a
Philadelphia paper called the Daily Advertiser. The
publication of the Address produced a great sensation. Several
of the State legislatures ordered it to be put on their
journals."

_W. Irving,
Life of Washington,
volume 5, chapter 30._

The following is the text of the Address.