Chapter XI: The Economic Conflict Over Ratification as Viewed by Contemporaries (3)

Ms. Treasury Department: _Ledger B, N. Y. Office, Deferred 6% Stock,
1790_, folios, 72, 306, etc.

Footnote 285:

_Ibid._, _N. Y., 6%, Ledger, 1791–1797_, folio 123.

Footnote 286:

_Ibid._, _Virginia Loan Office, 1791_, under date of September 30,
1791; _Ledger A, Funded 6% Stock, 1790_, folio 123.

Footnote 287:

In a letter of February 13, 1791, Madison advises his father to fund
his Virginia certificates at Richmond: “I do not see what better you
can do with your certificates than to subscribe them to the public
fund at Richmond.” _Writings of James Madison_ (1865 ed.), Vol. I, p.
529.

Footnote 288:

_Writings_ (1865 ed.), Vol. I, p. 538.

Footnote 289:

_National Encyclopædia of Biography_, Vol. IV, p. 420.

Footnote 290:

_The Census of 1790—Heads of Families_, p. 168, places the number of
Martin’s slaves at 47.

Footnote 291:

Herring, _National Portrait Gallery_, Vol. IV.

Footnote 292:

See Index to _Private Letter Books_ of Robert Morris, Library of
Congress: Mss. Division.

Footnote 293:

_Census of 1790—Heads of Families_, Maryland, p. 18.

Footnote 294:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Maryland Loan Office, 1790–1797_, folios,
80, 81, 194.

Footnote 295:

See below, p. 205.

Footnote 296:

Rowland, _The Life of George Mason_, Vol. I, pp. 48 ff., 55 ff.

Footnote 297:

_Ibid._, I, p. 56.

Footnote 298:

Rowland, _The Life of George Mason_, Vol. I, p. 58.

Footnote 299:

_Ibid._, I, p. 60.

Footnote 300:

_Ibid._, I, pp. 117, 154.

Footnote 301:

_Ibid._, I, p. 119.

Footnote 302:

_Ibid._, I, p. 270.

Footnote 303:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 368.

Footnote 304:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Ledger A, Funded 6% Stock, 1790_, folio 130;
see _Loan Office Virginia, 1790–1793_, folio 132. The Index gives
references to other volumes not found, Vols. 41, 43, 45, folios 93,
15, and 18 respectively.

Footnote 305:

Elliot, _Debates_ (1836 ed.), Vol. III, pp. 528–529.

Footnote 306:

_Ibid._, p. 529.

Footnote 307:

Duyckinck, _Cyclopœdia of American Literature_ (1855 ed.), Vol. I, p.
283.

Footnote 308:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Ledger A, Funded 6% Stock, 1790_, folio 18.

Footnote 309:

_Ibid._, _Loan Office: Register of Subscriptions, Virginia_ (1791),
see date, no folio given.

Footnote 310:

Dunlap’s Daily Advertiser, October 23, 1791.

Footnote 311:

Magazine of American History, Vol. VII, p. 104.

Footnote 312:

Steiner, _The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry_, p. 2.

Footnote 313:

_Hamilton Mss._, Library of Congress, Vol. XXIII, p. 156.

Footnote 314:

T. Montgomery, _History of the Insurance Company of North America_, p.
142.

Footnote 315:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Ledger E, Treasury, 3%_, Vol. 45, folio 22.

Footnote 316:

_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 8.

Footnote 317:

_Census of 1790—Heads of Families, Maryland_, p. 41.

Footnote 318:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Loan Office Maryland, 1790–1797, 3%_, folios
72, 135, and other loan office records of that state, _passim_.

Footnote 319:

McMaster and Stone, _Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution_, p.
701.

Footnote 320:

_The American Museum_, Vol. II, p. 248.

Footnote 321:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Pa. Loan Office Certificates, 1788_, folio
45.

Footnote 322:

_Ibid._: _Ledger C, 3% Stock, Pa._, folio 48. John F. Mifflin was a
holder of paper to the amount of several thousand dollars funded in
1790. _Ibid._, _Loan Office, Pa., 1790–1791_, folio 6; _Ledger C, 3%
Stock, Pa._, folio 6.

Footnote 323:

Roosevelt, _G. Morris_, pp. 1, 24.

Footnote 324:

_Ibid._, p. 167.

Footnote 325:

Oberholtzer, _Robert Morris_, p. 4.

Footnote 326:

_Ibid._, p. 108.

Footnote 327:

For his multifarious operations see Oberholtzer, _Robert Morris_;
Sumner, _The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution_, 2
vols.

Footnote 328:

Library of Congress: _Morris Mss._ Consult the Index to the three
volumes of Morris’ _Letter Books of Private Correspondence_ for
references, under “James Marshall.” Only by turning over this enormous
mass of correspondence can one gain a correct notion of the
ramifications of Morris’ interests and the number of prominent men
involved in his schemes.

Footnote 329:

_Hamilton Mss._, Library of Congress, Vol. XXII, p. 179; two minor
illustrations of his operations may be given: January 1, 1791,
$7588.78, July 1, 1792, $26,408.66. See also the enormous transactions
in the name of Willing and Morris scattered through the books of
nearly every state. Ms. Treasury Department: _Ledger C, 3%, Pa._,
folio 334; _Register of Certificates of Public Debt Presented: Auditor
of Treasury_; folios not given. Consult Index to holders of old
securities in the Treasury Department.

Footnote 330:

_Op. cit._, pp. 237 ff.

Footnote 331:

L. Elmer, _The Constitution and Government of New Jersey_, p. 77.

Footnote 332:

American Historical Review, Vol. III, p. 312.

Footnote 333:

_Calendar of Madison Correspondence_, Library of Congress. Mss.

Footnote 334:

Herring, _National Portrait Gallery_, Vol. IV.

Footnote 335:

_Census of 1790—Heads of Families, S.C._, p. 33.

Footnote 336:

Speaking of the nature of the practice in Charleston just after the
Revolution, Charles Fraser says, in _Reminiscences of Charleston_, p.
71: “It was stated by the Duc de Liancourt, who was well acquainted
with most or all of the gentlemen named, that General Pinckney, Mr.
Rutledge, Mr. Pringle, and Mr. Holmes, made from eighteen to
twenty-three thousand dollars a year.... The extensive commercial
business of Charleston at that time opened a wide field of litigation.
Our courts were constantly employed in heavy insurance cases—in
questions of charter party, foreign and inland bills of exchange, and
in adjusting foreign claims. There was also a good deal of business in
admiralty, and, occasionally, a rich prize case.”

Footnote 337:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Loan Office, S.C., 1791–1797_, folio 38. For
other entries, _Loan Office, S.C._, folio 70; a later entry of
$8721.53 in trust for Mary Pinckney, _ibid._, folio 152.

Footnote 338:

_Census of 1790—Heads of Families, S.C._, p. 34.

Footnote 339:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Loan Office, S.C., 1791–1797_, folio 221.

Footnote 340:

_Madison Mss._, Library of Congress, under date of March 28, 1789.

Footnote 341:

M. Conway, _Edmund Randolph_, p. 48.

Footnote 342:

_Ibid._, p. 372.

Footnote 343:

_Ibid._, p. 384.

Footnote 344:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Current Accounts, Va., 1791–1796_, folios 6,
13, 21; _Ledger B, Assumed Debt, Va._, folio 87.

Footnote 345:

_Hamilton Mss._, Library of Congress, Vol. XX, p. 57.

Footnote 346:

Sanderson, _Biography of the Signers_ (1831 ed.), Vol. III, p. 351.

Footnote 347:

W. T. Read, _Life of George Read_, p. 575.

Footnote 348:

_History of the Bank of North America_, p. 147.

Footnote 349:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Loan Office, Delaware, 1777–1784_, _passim_.
His mother and daughter bore the name of “Mary.” J. W. Reed, _The Reed
Family_, pp. 433 and 436.

Footnote 350:

_Ibid._, _Ledger E, Treasury, 3%_, Vol. 45, folio 202. The Index gives
references to several other volumes which were not found.

Footnote 351:

Herring, _National Portrait Gallery_, Vol. IV.

Footnote 352:

Flanders, _Lives of the Chief Justices_, Vol. I, p. 551.

Footnote 353:

_Census of 1790—Heads of Families, S.C._, p. 42.

Footnote 354:

When Roger Sherman resided in Park Lane and ran a store in New
Milford, Connecticut, he lost money through the depreciation of bills
of credit, and he thereupon declared a war on paper money which he
continued to the end of his days. _Proceedings of the American
Antiquarian Society, 1906–1907_, pp. 214 ff.

Footnote 355:

Sanderson, _Lives of the Signers_, Vol. II, p. 66.

Footnote 356:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Loan Office: Connecticut, Ledgers A, B, and
C, Threes and Sixes_, folio 28 in each; January, 1792.

Footnote 357:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. III, p. 95.

Footnote 358:

_Census of 1790—Heads of Families, N.C._, p. 130.

Footnote 359:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Ledger E, Treasury, 3%_, Vol. 45, folio 308.

Footnote 360:

_Encyclopædia of National Biography_, Vol. I, p. 110.

Footnote 361:

_Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 1791–1835_, Vol. I, pp.
290 ff.

Footnote 362:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Mass. Loan Office, 1791_, Vol. III, item No.
1284.

Footnote 363:

Sparks, _Life of Washington_, Appendix, No. IX.

Footnote 364:

W. C. Ford, _The Federalist_, p. xi, note 3.

Footnote 365:

Bancroft, _History of the Constitution_ (1882 ed.), Vol. II, p. 411.

Footnote 366:

D. Hosack, _Biographical Memoir of Hugh Williamson_, p. 18.

Footnote 367:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Loan Office, N.C., 1791_, folio 3.

Footnote 368:

_Hamilton Mss._, Library of Congress, Vol. XXIV, pp. 70 ff.

Footnote 369:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 678.

Footnote 370:

Hosack, _op. cit._, p. 85.

Footnote 371:

Simpson, _Eminent Philadelphians_, p. 966.

Footnote 372:

Oberholtzer, _Robert Morris_, p. 108.

Footnote 373:

_History of the Insurance Company of North America_, p. 146.

Footnote 374:

_State Papers: Public Lands_, Vol. I, p. 141.

Footnote 375:

_Yazoo Land Companies_, p. 83.

Footnote 376:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Ledger C, 3% Stock, Pa._, folio 195.

Footnote 377:

Sanderson, _Biography of the Signers_ (1831 ed.), Vol. IV, pp. 172 ff.

Footnote 378:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Loan Office: Register of Subscriptions, Va.,
1791_, see date. Also _Ledger A, Assumed Debt, Va._, folio 32.

Footnote 379:

_Appendix to the Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Federal
Convention_ (1821, Albany).

Footnote 380:

Records of the New York Loan Office in the Treasury Department.

Footnote 381:

See above, p. 75, _n._ 3.

Footnote 382:

See above, p. 124. Livingston’s holdings are problematical.

Footnote 383:

The fact that a few members of the Convention, who had considerable
economic interests at stake, refused to support the Constitution does
not invalidate the general conclusions here presented. In the cases of
Yates, Lansing, Luther Martin, and Mason, definite economic reasons
for their action are forthcoming; but this is a minor detail.

Footnote 384:

A great deal of this valuable material has been printed in the
_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vols. IV and V; a
considerable amount has been published in the letters and papers of
the eminent men of the period; but an enormous mass still remains in
manuscript form. Fortunately, such important papers as those of
Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and others are in the Library of
Congress; but they are not complete, of course.

Footnote 385:

From this point of view, the old conception of the battle at
Philadelphia as a contest between small and large states—as political
entities—will have to be severely modified. See Professor Farrand’s
illuminating paper on the so-called compromises of the Constitution in
the _Report of the American Historical Association, 1903_, Vol. I, pp.
73 ff. J. C. Welling, “States’ Rights Conflict over the Public Lands,”
_ibid._ (1888), pp. 184 ff.

Footnote 386:

_The Federalist_, No. 73.

Footnote 387:

See J. A. Smith, _The Spirit of American Government_.

Footnote 388:

See Noah Webster’s consideration of the subject of government and
property; Ford, _Pamphlets on the Constitution_, pp. 57 ff.

Footnote 389:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, p. 203.

Footnote 390:

This view was set forth by Madison in a letter to Jefferson in 1788.
“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of
oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of
the Community, and the invasion of private rights is _chiefly_ to be
apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its
constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere
instrument of the major number of the constituents. This is a truth of
great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to, and is
probably more strongly impressed upon my mind by facts, and
reflections suggested by them, than on yours which has contemplated
abuses of power issuing from a very different quarter. Wherever there
is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done,
and not less readily by a powerful and interested party than by a
powerful and interested prince.” _Documentary History of the
Constitution_, Vol. V, p. 88.

Footnote 391:

_The Federalist_, No. 48.

Footnote 392:

_Ibid._, No. 49.

Footnote 393:

_The Federalist_, No. 51.

Footnote 394:

_Ibid._, No. 51.

Footnote 395:

_Ibid._, No. 60.

Footnote 396:

Beard, _The Supreme Court and the Constitution_. See also the
criticisms of this work by Professor W. F. Dodd, in the American
Historical Review for January, 1913.

Footnote 397:

Number 78.

Footnote 398:

_American Historical Association Report_ (1899), Vol. I, p. 108.

Footnote 399:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, pp. 123–124.

Footnote 400:

_Ibid._, pp. 201 ff.

Footnote 401:

_Ibid._, p. 216.

Footnote 402:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, p. 121.

Footnote 403:

_Ibid._, pp. 121–122.

Footnote 404:

Debate in Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, pp. 123–124.

Footnote 405:

See above, pp. 65 ff. The members of the Convention could not foresee
the French Revolution which was to break out just as the new federal
government was being put into operation in 1789.

Footnote 406:

It was a curious turn of fortune that this provision prevented the
agrarians and populists in 1894 from shifting a part of the burden of
taxes to the great cities of the East. Thus the _Zweck im Recht_ is
sometimes reversed.

Footnote 407:

Clark, _The Records of North Carolina_, Vol. XX, p. 778.

Footnote 408:

_The Federalist_, Number 12.

Footnote 409:

_The Federalist_, No. 4.

Footnote 410:

_Ibid._

Footnote 411:

_The Federalist_, No. 11.

Footnote 412:

Washington’s farewell address which was partially written by Hamilton
is one of the most ingenious partisan documents ever written. It, too,
has its economic interpretation.

Footnote 413:

_The Federalist_, No. 11.

Footnote 414:

_Ibid._, No. 21.

Footnote 415:

_The Federalist_, No. 43.

Footnote 416:

_Ibid._, No. 35.

Footnote 417:

See the entire letter of Blount, Spaight, and Williamson, cited above,
p. 169.

Footnote 418:

No. 11.

Footnote 419:

J. C. Welling, “States’ Rights Conflict over the Public Lands,”
_Report of the American Historical Association_ (1888), pp. 174 ff.

Footnote 420:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, p. 371.

Footnote 421:

_Ibid._, p. 371.

Footnote 422:

There are, of course, some restrictions on Congress laid down in the
Constitution; but the powers of the national legislature are limited
and the restrictions are not of the same significance. Radical action
on the part of the national legislature was anticipated in the
structure of the government itself, but specific provision had to be
made against the assaults of popular majorities in state legislatures
on property rights.

Footnote 423:

_Writings of James Madison_ (1865), Vol. I, p. 350. This entire letter
deserves careful study by anyone who would understand the Constitution
as an economic document.

Footnote 424:

_The Federalist_, No. 44.

Footnote 425:

Ms. Library of Congress: _Treasury Department Letters, 1789–1790_
(Washington Papers), folio 297.

Footnote 426:

_The American Museum_, Vol. I, p. 118.

Footnote 427:

See below, p. 295.

Footnote 428:

Ogden _v._ Saunders, 12 Wheaton, pp. 213 ff.

Footnote 429:

_The Federalist_, No. 6.

Footnote 430:

_The Federalist_, No. 3.

Footnote 431:

_Ibid._, No. 5.

Footnote 432:

_Ibid._

Footnote 433:

_Ibid._, No. 6.

Footnote 434:

_The Federalist_, No. 4.

Footnote 435:

_Ibid._, No. 6.

Footnote 436:

_Ibid._, No. 7.

Footnote 437:

A few whose views were not ascertained are omitted.

Footnote 438:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 469.

Footnote 439:

Above, p. 65.

Footnote 440:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 100.

Footnote 441:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 421.

Footnote 442:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 32.

Footnote 443:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 33.

Footnote 444:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 390.

Footnote 445:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 144.

Footnote 446:

_Ibid._, p. 529.

Footnote 447:

_Ibid._, p. 562.

Footnote 448:

_Ibid._, p. 605.

Footnote 449:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 300.

Footnote 450:

Sanderson, _op. cit._, p. 168.

Footnote 451:

_Ibid._, p. 169.

Footnote 452:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 593.

Footnote 453:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 542.

Footnote 454:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. III, p. 350.

Footnote 455:

McRee, _Life and Correspondence of James Iredell_, Vol. II, pp. 161,
168.

Footnote 456:

Peele, _Lives of Distinguished North Carolinians_, p. 75. Davie’s
great collection of papers was destroyed in Sherman’s raid. _Ibid._,
p. 78.

Footnote 457:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 86.

Footnote 458:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 202.

Footnote 459:

Farrand, _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 207.

Footnote 460:

H. J. Ford, _Rise and Growth of American Politics_, p. 113.

Footnote 461:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, pp. 57, 58, 63, 101, 108, 111.

Footnote 462:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 73.

Footnote 463:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 207.

Footnote 464:

Beard, _The Supreme Court and the Constitution_, pp. 71–72.

Footnote 465:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, p. 201.

Footnote 466:

_Ibid._, pp. 362, 529, 589.

Footnote 467:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 48; Vol. III, p. 297.

Footnote 468:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, pp. 94, 99.

Footnote 469:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 204.

Footnote 470:

Scharf and Wescott, _History of Philadelphia_, Vol. I, p. 447.

Footnote 471:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 48.

Footnote 472:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 154.

Footnote 473:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 122 and pp. 73–79.

Footnote 474:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 288.

Footnote 475:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, pp. 299 ff.

Footnote 476:

Farrand, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 48.

Footnote 477:

See above, p. 70.

Footnote 478:

H. Binney, _Leaders of the Old Bar of Philadelphia_, p. 86.

Footnote 479:

_Ibid._, p. 87.

Footnote 480:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, p. 66.

Footnote 481:

Beard, _The Supreme Court and the Constitution_, p. 29.

Footnote 482:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, p. 439.

Footnote 483:

See below, p. 312.

Footnote 484:

_Observations on Government, Including Some Animadversions on Mr.
Adams’s Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United
States of America_, etc., published in 1787, by Livingston, under the
pen-name of “A Farmer of New Jersey.” The pamphlet is sometimes
ascribed to J. Stevens, but there is good authority for believing that
Livingston is the author. It is not inconsistent with his notions on
judicial control; see American Historical Review, Vol. IV, pp. 460 ff.

Footnote 485:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, p. 33.

Footnote 486:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, p. 36.

Footnote 487:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 245.

Footnote 488:

Letter to Hamilton, Library of Congress, _Hamilton Mss._, Vol. XXIII,
p. 93.

Footnote 489:

_American Museum_, Vol. IV, p. 333.

Footnote 490:

Steiner, _Life and Correspondence_, p. 527.

Footnote 491:

Above, p. 156. Mr. E. W. Crecraft, of Columbia University, has in
preparation a dissertation on Madison’s political philosophy.

Footnote 492:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. III, pp. 214 ff.

Footnote 493:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 428.

Footnote 494:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 121.

Footnote 495:

See above, p. 128.

Footnote 496:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, p. 205.

Footnote 497:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, pp. 202 ff.

Footnote 498:

Roosevelt, _Gouverneur Morris_, p. 140.

Footnote 499:

See _The Federalist_, No. 51.

Footnote 500:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 409.

Footnote 501:

For an example see _ibid._, p. 11, note. He also entertained
Washington during the sessions of the Convention. _American Historical
Association Report_ (1902), Vol. I, p. 92.

Footnote 502:

Beard, _The Supreme Court and the Constitution_, p. 37.

Footnote 503:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 474.

Footnote 504:

_Ibid._, Vol. III, p. 100.

Footnote 505:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 248.

Footnote 506:

_Madison Mss._, Library of Congress; date of March 28, 1788.

Footnote 507:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 426.

Footnote 508:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 122.

Footnote 509:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 51 and p. 218.

Footnote 510:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 136.

Footnote 511:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 200.

Footnote 512:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 409.

Footnote 513:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 582.

Footnote 514:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 249.

Footnote 515:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 211.

Footnote 516:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 364.

Footnote 517:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 48; also p. 154.

Footnote 518:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 525.

Footnote 519:

Beard, _The Supreme Court and the Constitution_, p. 53.

Footnote 520:

Elliot, _Debates_, Vol. IV, p. 207.

Footnote 521:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, 361.

Footnote 522:

_Ibid._, p. 72.

Footnote 523:

_Ibid._, p. 219.

Footnote 524:

_Writings_ (Sparks ed., 1848), Vol. XII, p. 222; see below, p. 299.

Footnote 525:

_Ibid._, Vol. X, p. 429.

Footnote 526:

_Ibid._, Vol. X, p. 179.

Footnote 527:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. II, pp. 201, 250.

Footnote 528:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 140.

Footnote 529:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 140.

Footnote 530:

Above, p. 146.

Footnote 531:

Farrand, Vol. II, 376.

Footnote 532:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 49 and passim.

Footnote 533:

_Ibid._, p. 52 and _passim_.

Footnote 534:

_Ibid._, p. 68 and _passim_.

Footnote 535:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 375; Vol. II, p. 125 and _passim_.

Footnote 536:

_Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 98; Beard, _The Supreme Court and the
Constitution_, p. 42.

Footnote 537:

_Lectures on Law_ (1804 ed.) Vol. I, pp. 398 ff.

Footnote 538:

Beard, _The Supreme Court and the Constitution_, p. 48.

Footnote 539:

“What they [the Convention] actually did, stripped of all fiction and
verbiage, was to assume constituent powers, ordain a constitution of
government and of liberty, and demand a _plébiscite_ thereon over the
heads of all existing legally organized powers. Had Julius or Napoleon
committed these acts they would have been pronounced _coups d’état_.”
_Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law_, Vol. I, p.
105.

Footnote 540:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, p. 123.

Footnote 541:

_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 89.

Footnote 542:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. III, p. 137.

Footnote 543:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. I, pp. 255 ff.; p. 283.

Footnote 544:

No. 40.

Footnote 545:

Harding, _The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts_, pp. 118–119.

Footnote 546:

The Massachusetts Centinel, January 2, 1788.

Footnote 547:

Batchellor, _State Papers of New Hampshire_, Vol. XXI, pp. 151–165;
_Documentary History of the Constitution_, II, p. 141.

Footnote 548:

J. B. Walker, _A History of the New Hampshire Convention_, pp. 22 ff.

Footnote 549:

Four members are not recorded, and “there is a pretty well
authenticated tradition that a certain prominent federalist of Concord
gave a dinner party on the last day of the session at which several
members reckoned as opposed to ratification were present and
discussing the dinner when the final vote was taken.” _Ibid._, p. 43,
note.

Footnote 550:

Harding, _The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts_, p. 67.

Footnote 551:

Harding, _op. cit._, p. 99.

Footnote 552:

Harding, _op. cit._, p. 101.

Footnote 553:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. II, pp. 86–87;
Connecticut Courant, October 22, 1787.

Footnote 554:

Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 257.

Footnote 555:

_Debates and Proceedings of the New York State Convention_ (1905 ed.),
p. 3.

Footnote 556:

Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 340.

Footnote 557:

_Ibid._, p. 340; and see below, p. 244.

Footnote 558:

_State Papers: Miscellaneous_, Vol. I, p. 7. For valuable side-lights
on the opposition to the Constitution, see E. P. Smith’s essay, “The
Movement towards a Second Constitutional Convention,” in Jameson,
_Essays in the Constitutional History of the United States_, pp. 46
ff.

Footnote 559:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. II, pp. 46 ff.

Footnote 560:

Bancroft, _History of the Constitution of the United States_, Vol. II,
p. 250; _Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. II, p. 25;
_Delaware State Council Minutes_, _1776–1792_, pp. 1081–82 (_Delaware
Historical Society Papers_); Connecticut Courant, Dec. 24, 1787.

Footnote 561:

See above, p. 82.

Footnote 562:

McMaster and Stone, _Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution_, p. 3.

Footnote 563:

McMaster and Stone, _op. cit._, p. 4.

Footnote 564:

_Ibid._, p. 14.

Footnote 565:

_Ibid._, p. 15.

Footnote 566:

McMaster and Stone, _op. cit._, p. 20. The following year [1788] when
the ratification of the Constitution was celebrated in Philadelphia,
James Wilson, in an oration on the great achievement said: “A people
free and enlightened, establishing and ratifying a system of
government which they have previously considered, examined, and
approved! This is the spectacle which we are assembled to celebrate;
and it is the most dignified one that has yet appeared on our
globe.... What is the object exhibited to our contemplation? A whole
people exercising its first and greatest power—performing an act of
sovereignty, original and unlimited!... Happy country! May thy
happiness be perpetual!” _Works_ (1804 ed.), Vol. III, pp. 299 ff.

Footnote 567:

Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 278; _Votes and Proceedings of the
Senate of Maryland, November Session, 1787_, pp. 5 ff.

Footnote 568:

_Ibid._, p. 283.

Footnote 569:

Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 316. The resolution provided that
the “election shall be held in the month of March next on the first
day of the court to be held for each county, city, or corporation
respectively.” The qualifications of voters were “the same as those
now established by law.” Blair, _The Virginia Convention of 1788_,
Vol. I, p. 56–57. Only freeholders were eligible to seats in the
Convention. _Ibid._, p. 56. Hening, _Statutes at Large_, Vol. XII, p.
462.

Footnote 570:

_Laws of North Carolina_ (1821), Vol. I, p. 597; _North Carolina
Assembly Journals, 1785–98_, p. 22.

Footnote 571:

Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 349.

Footnote 572:

Hugh Williamson, writing to Madison on May 21, 1789, said: “Our people
near the sea-coast are in great pain on the idea of being shut out
from the Union. They say that unless they can continue in the coasting
trade without the alien duty, they must starve with their families or
remove from the state. Can no exception be made in favor of such
apparent aliens for so long a period as the first of January next?”
_Madison Mss._, Library of Congress.

Footnote 573:

Bancroft, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 293.

Footnote 574:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. II, pp. 82 ff.

Footnote 575:

F. G. Bates, _Rhode Island and the Union_, pp. 192 ff.

Footnote 576:

_Ibid._, p. 197.

Footnote 577:

See below, p. 248.

Footnote 578:

See above, p. 234.

Footnote 579:

_Ibid._, p. 72.

Footnote 580:

Dodd, _The Revision and Amendment of Constitutions_; and Garner, in
The American Political Science Review, February, 1907.

Footnote 581:

McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316.

Footnote 582:

Batchellor, _State Papers of New Hampshire_, Vol. XXI, p. 165.

Footnote 583:

_Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts in 1788_ (1856), p. 23.

Footnote 584:

Connecticut Courant, October 22, 1787.

Footnote 585:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. II, p. 61.

Footnote 586:

_Delaware State Council Minutes, 1776–1792_, pp. 1080–1082.

Footnote 587:

McMaster and Stone, _Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution_, p.
72.

Footnote 588:

_Votes and Proceedings of the Senate of Maryland, November Session,
1787_, pp. 5 ff.

Footnote 589:

Above, p. 69. Blair, _The Virginia Convention of 1788_, Vol. I, pp.
56–57. Only freeholders could sit in the Convention.

Footnote 590:

_North Carolina Assembly Journals, 1785–1789_, p. 22.

Footnote 591:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. II, p. 83.

Footnote 592:

Libby, _Geographical Distribution of the Vote on the Federal
Constitution_, p. 26, and note.

Footnote 593:

Article cited below, p. 243.

Footnote 594:

McKinley, _Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies_, p. 420.

Footnote 595:

Dr. J. F. Jameson, “Did the Fathers Vote,” New England Magazine,
January, 1890.

Footnote 596:

A detailed statement of the vote in many Connecticut towns on the
members of the state convention could doubtless be compiled after
great labor from the local records described in the report on the
public archives of Connecticut, _Report of the American Historical
Association for 1906_, Vol. II.

Footnote 597:

Harding, _The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts_, p. 55, note 3.
The Connecticut Courant gives the number as 763, December 17, 1787.

Footnote 608:

The Journal for June 5 reports the Anti-Federalist ticket carried in
Washington County by a vote of two to one.

Footnote 609:

See below, p. 270.

Footnote 610:

See a forthcoming dissertation on this subject by Wm. Feigenbaum.
There was a threat of secession on the part of some New York City
interests in case the Constitution was defeated. Weight was given to
this threat by the news of the ratification from New Hampshire and
Virginia. The possibility of retaining New York as the seat of the new
Government was used by Jay, Hamilton, and Duane as an argument in
favor of ratification. James Madison, _Writings_, Vol. I, p. 405.

Footnote 611:

McMaster and Stone, _op. cit._, p. 460.

Footnote 612:

Scharf and Wescott, _History of Philadelphia_, Vol. I, p. 447.

Footnote 613:

Hartford Courant, April 28, 1788.

Footnote 614:

American Historical Review, Vol. V, p. 221.

Footnote 615:

“Appius,” To the Citizens of South Carolina (1794). Library of
Congress, Duane Pamphlets, Vol. 83.

Footnote 616:

By a careful study of local geography and the distribution of
representation this could be accurately figured out.

Footnote 617:

“The First Elections under the Constitution,” _Iowa Journal of History
and Politics_, Vol. II, pp. 3 ff.

Footnote 618:

It will be recalled that the Constitution was put into effect without
either North Carolina or Rhode Island.

Footnote 619:

See above, p. 248.

Footnote 620:

See below, p. 299.

Footnote 621:

Libby, _op. cit._, pp. 50 ff.

Footnote 622:

Above, Chapter V.

Footnote 623:

_Massachusetts and the Federal Constitution_ (Harvard Studies).

Footnote 624:

_Sectionalism in Virginia._

Footnote 625:

Libby, _op. cit._, pp. 7–8.

Footnote 626:

_Ibid._, p. 11.

Footnote 627:

Data given here are from _State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 442. It
should be remembered that the figures would have been relatively
different in 1787 on account of the union of Vermont with New
Hampshire, but they are doubtless roughly correct.

Footnote 628:

Some painstaking research in the Treasury Department would produce
valuable data toward the solution of this problem.

Footnote 629:

_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 442 (public funds included. See p.
419).

Footnote 630:

See above for the table, p. 36.

Footnote 631:

Ms. Treasury Department: New Hampshire Loan Office Books.

Footnote 632:

Libby, _op. cit._, p. 12.

Footnote 633:

_The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts_, p. 75.

Footnote 634:

As to the opposition in Maine, see General Knox’s view, below, p. 301.

Footnote 635:

_The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts_, pp. 63–66.

Footnote 636:

_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, pp. 451. Of course some changes in
distribution may have occurred between 1789 and 1792, but this may be
taken as approximately correct.

Footnote 637:

_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 443; Libby, _op. cit._, p. 107 for
the vote.

Footnote 638:

Libby, _op. cit._, for vote, p. 107; _State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I.
pp. 450 and 449 for taxes lists.

Footnote 639:

The full significance of the Worcester vote and property lists would
involve an analysis of the distribution of each among the towns.

Footnote 640:

_American Antiquarian Society Proceedings_ (1911), p. 65.

Footnote 641:

Ms. Treasury Department: _Index to the Three Per Cents (Mass.)_. Gore,
Dawes, and Phillips appear on the New Hampshire Journals and other
Massachusetts Records.

Footnote 642:

The _Index_ shows several holders by the name of Davis: Jonathan,
James, Aaron, Susanna, John, Nathl., Joseph, Moses, Thomas, Saml.,
Wendell, and John G. Whether they were relatives of Caleb is not
apparent. Leonard and Nathl. Jarvis also appear on the Book. Also Mary
and Belcher Hancock.

Footnote 643:

All of these men except Wales and Warren appear on the _Index to the
Three Per Cents (Mass.)_. Wales and Warren appear on the books as
holders of old certificates (_Loan Office Certificates, 1779–1788,
Mass._); and it does not appear when or how they disposed of their
holdings.

Footnote 644:

See above, p. 75, note 3.

Footnote 645:

On September 3, 1787, the Connecticut Courant in a letter from
Philadelphia (Aug. 24) says: “One of the first objects with the
national government to be elected under the new constitution, it is
said, will be to provide funds for the payment of the national debt,
and thereby restore the credit of the United States, which has been so
much impaired by the individual states. Every holder of a public
security of any kind is, therefore, deeply interested in the cordial
reception and speedy establishment of a vigorous continental
government.”

Footnote 646:

Libby, _op. cit._, p. 14.

Footnote 647:

_Ibid._, p. 113.

Footnote 648:

Towns not represented or not voting in the convention are counted
against the Constitution.

Footnote 649:

The assumed debt is taken because the Ledgers of that debt are in
excellent shape and apparently complete. They do not contain, however,
half of the security holders in that state. Several of the towns that
had no assumed debt-holders were represented in the convention by
holders of other paper. See table, p. 267.

Footnote 650:

See above, p. 15.

Footnote 651:

_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 423.

Footnote 652:

The sources for the information as to these securities are in the
Treasury Department: _Connecticut Loan Office, 1781–1783_ (Register of
Certificates); _Connecticut Loan Office, Ledger B, Assumed Debt_;
_Ledger C, 1790–1796_; _Ledger A, 1790–1797_; _Loan Office
Certificates of 1779, etc._

Footnote 653:

No doubt a study of local economic interests in Connecticut would
yield highly important data. See, for example, the early capitalist
enterprises connected with the navigation of the Connecticut River.
_Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 1903–1904_, p. 404.
Such local histories as E. D. Larned, _A History of Windham County_,
contain veritable mines of information on the economic interests of
men prominent in local politics.

Footnote 654:

Libby, _op. cit._, p. 18. Libby here takes the vote in the New York
convention, but that did not precisely represent the popular vote.
Above, p. 244.

Footnote 655:

_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 425.

Footnote 656:

Libby, _op. cit._, p. 59.

Footnote 657:

Those marked “C 6”, Ms. Treasury Department: _New York, 6% Funds,
1790_; “N. Y. 3” _ibid._, _3% Funds_; “R,” _New York Loan Office
Receipts_, Ms. Division, Library of Congress. Melancton Smith appears
on the Ledgers of the Connecticut Loan Office; and _N. Y. Loan Office,
1791_, folio 138, for $10,000 worth of sixes and threes.

Footnote 658:

See above, p. 107.

Footnote 659:

Not present on final vote, but see Elliot, _Debates_, Vol. II, p. 411.

Footnote 660:

Libby, _op. cit._, pp. 60–61. Writing on October 14, 1787, Madison
said “I do not learn that any opposition is likely to be made [to the
ratification] in New Jersey,” _Writings of James Madison_, Vol. I, p.
342.

Footnote 661:

These records are drawn principally from incomplete lists of early
certificates issued, or from some later funding books in the Treasury
Department. The real weight of securities in the New Jersey convention
must remain problematical, at least, for the present. The amounts set
down to the names above recorded are for the most part insignificant—a
few hundred or thousand dollars at the most, and often smaller. The
point, it may be repeated, is not the amount but the practical
information derived from holding even one certificate of the nominal
value of $10.

Footnote 662:

Dr. Jameson says of the records of the Delaware convention: “Neither
journal nor debates, has, I believe, ever been published,” _American
Historical Association Report_ (1902), Vol. I, p. 165.

Footnote 663:

Libby, _op. cit._, pp. 26 ff.

Footnote 664:

The Massachusetts Gazette, on October 19, 1787, prints a letter from
Philadelphia (dated October 5) in which the activities of speculators
in public securities are fully set forth: “Since the grand federal
convention has opened the budget and published their scheme of
government, all goes well here. Continental loan office certificates
and all such securities have risen twenty-five per cent. Even the old
emission which has long lain dormant begins to show its head. Last
week many thousand pounds’ worth of it were bought up. Moneyed men
have their agents employed to buy up all the continental securities
they can—foreseeing the rapid rise of our funds. Such men as have the
cash to spare will certainly make large fortunes.... We send our
factors to the distant towns who know nothing of the rise and buy them
cheap; for there is no buying them on reasonable terms in
Philadelphia, as the wealthy men are purchasing them to lay up. Thus
we go on—pray how is it with you?”

Footnote 665:

Ms. Treasury Department: “I,” _Index to Funded 6 C_; “JA,” _Journal A,
1790–1791_ (sixes and threes); “JB,” _Journal B_; “R,” _Register Loan
Office Certificates, 1788_; “77,” _Register Certificates of 1777_; “3
C,” _Ledger C, 3% Stock_; “LT,” _Treasury Ledger_; “M,” Miscellaneous.

Footnote 666:

_Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution._ It will be noted that
there were at least seven members of the Order of Cincinnati in the
convention, all of whom were in favor of the Constitution.

Footnote 667:

Libby, _op. cit._, p. 66.

Footnote 668:

Letter, quoted in Libby, _op. cit._, p. 65.

Footnote 669:

_Sectionalism in Virginia_, pp. 6–9; p. 58.

Footnote 670:

Ambler, _op. cit._, pp. 8, 59.

Footnote 671:

_Ibid._, pp. 15–16.

Footnote 672:

Ambler, _op. cit._, pp. 48–52.

Footnote 673:

Henry not only refused to attend but opposed the adoption of the
Constitution with all his might.

Footnote 674:

_Ibid._, p. 36.

Footnote 675:

Ambler, _op. cit._, pp. 53 ff.

Footnote 676:

For an explanation of the Federalist complexion of this region see
Ambler’s explanation, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, p. 16.

Footnote 677:

Libby, _op. cit._, pp. 34–35.

Footnote 678:

Voted against ratification.

Footnote 679:

This is evident from the records in the Treasury Department.

Footnote 680:

Libby, _op. cit._, pp. 38 ff.

Footnote 681:

_Ibid._, p. 42–43.

Footnote 682:

“Appius,” _To the Citizens of South Carolina_ (1794), Library of
Congress, Duane Pamphlets, Vol. 83.

Footnote 683:

See above, p. 248.

Footnote 684:

_State Papers: Finance_, Vol. I, p. 462. In 1783 an attempt to
establish a bank with $100,000 capital was made in Charleston, S.C.,
but it failed. “Soon after the adoption of the funding system, three
banks were established in Charleston whose capitals in the whole
amounted to twenty times the sum proposed in 1783.” D. Ramsay,
_History of South Carolina_ (1858 ed.), Vol. II, p. 106.

Footnote 685:

Ms. Treasury Department: _South Carolina Loan Office Ledger_, consult
Index. No general search was made for other names.

Footnote 686:

On the subject of ratification in Georgia, Dr. Jameson says: “Nothing
of either journal or debates is known to have been printed, unless in
some contemporary newspaper outside the state; the Georgia newspapers
seem to have nothing of the sort.” _American Historical Association
Report_ (1902), Vol. I, p. 167.

Footnote 687:

This danger may have had some influence in the concessions made by the
Georgia delegates in the Convention for they were kept informed of the
Indian troubles in the summer of 1787. Force Transcripts, _Georgia
Records, 1782–1789_: Library of Congress.

Footnote 688:

Some holders of public securities are found among the opponents of the
Constitution, but they are not numerous.

Footnote 689:

_Writings_, Vol. I, p. 423.

Footnote 690:

“Address to the Freemen of America,” _The American Museum_ for June,
1787. Vol. I, p. 494.

Footnote 691:

New Hampshire Spy, November 30, 1787.

Footnote 692:

_American Museum_, July, 1788, Vol. IV, p. 85.

Footnote 693:

Above, p. 156.

Footnote 694:

McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316; below, p. 299.

Footnote 695:

Vol. II (1850 ed.), p. 99 ff.

Footnote 696:

Farrand, _Records_, Vol. III, p. 232. Speaking of New Hampshire,
Madison says, “The opposition [to the Constitution], I understand, is
composed precisely of the same description of characters with that of
Massachusetts and stands contrasted to all the wealth, abilities, and
respectability of the State.” _Writings_, Vol. I, p. 383.

Footnote 697:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 442.

Footnote 698:

_Report of the Manuscripts Commission of the American Historical
Association_, December 20, 1896, p. 754. A writer in the Chronicle of
Freedom (reprinted in the Massachusetts Centinel, October, 27, 1787)
complains of the dangers to the freedom of the press from the new
Constitution and continues: “One thing, however, is calculated to
alarm our fears on this head;—I mean the fashionable language which
now prevails so much and is so frequent in the mouths of some who
formerly held very different opinions;—That common people have no
business to trouble themselves about government.” The Massachusetts
Centinel (November 24, 1787) declares it to be “a notorious fact that
three of the principle enemies of the proposed constitution were heart
and hand with the insurgents last winter.”

Footnote 699:

_Life and Letters_, Vol. I, pp. 314 ff.

Footnote 700:

Harding, _The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts_, pp. 123–124.

Footnote 701:

Ford, _Essays on the Constitution_, p. 139.

Footnote 702:

Ford, _Essays on the Constitution_, pp. 144 ff.

Footnote 703:

Libby, _op. cit._, p. 58.

Footnote 704:

Connecticut Courant, May 21, 1787.

Footnote 705:

See above, p. 156.

Footnote 706:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 288. On the
antagonism in New York see some clues afforded in an article in The
Magazine of American History, April, 1893, pp. 326 ff.

Footnote 707:

Dickinson’s Fabius letters were printed after the ratification by
Delaware and were directed to the “general public” rather than
fellow-citizens in that commonwealth. Among the opponents to the
Constitution, he put “men without principles or fortunes who think
they may have a chance to mend their circumstances with impunity under
a weak government.” Ford, _Pamphlets on the Constitution_, p. 165.

Footnote 708:

See Harding, “Party struggles over the First Pennsylvania
Constitution,” _American Historical Association Report_ (1894).

Footnote 709:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 305.

Footnote 710:

_Ibid._, Vol. IV, p. 339.

Footnote 711:

_Ibid._, Vol. IV, p. 358.

Footnote 712:

McMaster and Stone, _op. cit._, p. 73.

Footnote 713:

_Ibid._, p. 567.

Footnote 714:

_Ibid._, p. 367.

Footnote 715:

McMaster and Stone, _op. cit._, pp. 568–569.

Footnote 716:

_Ibid._, pp. 569–570.

Footnote 717:

Connecticut Courant, Oct. 1, 1787.

Footnote 718:

See the valuable articles on “Maryland’s Adoption of the
Constitution,” by Dr. Steiner in the American Historical Review, Vol.
V.

Footnote 719:

Ford, _Pamphlets on the Constitution_, p. 254.

Footnote 720:

See above, p. 205.

Footnote 721:

Maryland Journal, March 21, 1788.

Footnote 722:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 398. For the
economics of this, see above, p. 30.

Footnote 723:

P. 295.

Footnote 724:

“It is currently reported,” says the New Hampshire Spy, on December 7,
1787, “that there are only two men in Virginia who are not in debt, to
be found among the enemies to the federal constitution. Debtors,
speculators in papers, and states demagogues act consistently in
opposing it.”

Footnote 725:

_Documentary History of the Constitution_, Vol. IV, p. 584.

Footnote 726:

_Ibid._, p. 577.

Footnote 727:

Elliot, _Debates_, Vol. III, p. 592. See W. C. Ford, “The Federal
Constitution in Virginia,” in the _Proceedings of the Massachusetts
Historical Society_ for October, 1903.

Footnote 728:

Elliot, _Debates_, Vol. IV, p. 159.

Footnote 729:

Elliot, _Debates_, Vol. IV, p. 90.

Footnote 730:

McRee, _Life and Correspondence of James Iredell_, Vol. II, pp. 216,
219.

Footnote 731:

McRee, _op. cit._, Vol. II, p. 164 note.

Footnote 732:

See W. A. Schaper, “Sectionalism in South Carolina,” _American
Historical Association Report_ (1900), Vol. I.

Footnote 733:

Summary by T. Ford, _The Constitutionalist_ (1794), p. 21.

Footnote 734:

Ford, _op. cit._, pp. 21–22.

Footnote 735:

_Op. cit._, p. 13.

Footnote 736:

Ford, _Pamphlets on the Constitution_, p. 379. On May 24, 1788, after
the Constitution had been approved in South Carolina, General Pinckney
wrote to Rufus King, saying, “The Anti-Federalists had been most
mischievously industrious in prejudicing the minds of our citizens
against the Constitution. Pamphlets, speeches, & Protests from the
disaffected in Pennsylvania were circulated throughout the state,
particularly in the back country.” King, _Life and Correspondence_,
Vol. I, p. 329.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling. 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.