The gentleman
solicited
to perform this duty was Rich-
ard Harrison, a lawyer and a scholar, distinguished for his
ability, and learning, and probity.
ard Harrison, a lawyer and a scholar, distinguished for his
ability, and learning, and probity.
Hamilton - 1834 - Life on Hamilton - v2
net/2027/uva.
x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www.
hathitrust.
org/access_use#pd-google
? 434
THE LIFE OF
Every effort having been made to impress on the mem-
bers of the legislature the necessity of granting the impost
upon terms which would be accepted by the other states,
a final action on this measure took place on the fifteenth
of February.
After adverting to the discrepancy of the votes which
had been given on the different clauses of this bill, Hamil-
ton observed:--
"It is a common practice upon the discussion of an im-
portant subject, to endeavour to conciliate the good-will of
the audience to the speaker, by professions of disinterested-
ness and zeal for the public good. The example, however
frequent, I shall no farther imitate than by making one or
two general observations. If, in the public stations I have
filled, I have acquitted myself with zeal, fidelity, and disin-
terestedness; if, in the private walks of life, my conduct
has been unstained by any dishonourable act; if it has
been uniformly consistent with the rules of integrity, I
have a right to the confidence of those to whom I address
myself. They cannot refuse it to me without injustice--I
am persuaded they will not refuse it to me.
"If, on the other hand, my public conduct has been in
any instance marked with perfidy, duplicity, or with sinister
views of any kind; if any imputations founded in fact can
be adduced to the prejudice of my private character, I have
no claim to the confidence of the community, nor should I
expect it.
"Even these observations I should have spared myself,
did I not know that, in the rage of party, gross calumnies
have been propagated. Some I have traced and detected;
there may still be others in secret circulation, with which
I am unacquainted. Against the influence of such arts I
can have no other shield than the general tenor of my past
conduct. If that will protect me, I may safely confide in
the candour of the committee. To that standard I cheer-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
435
fully submit. But, indeed, of what importance is it who is
the speaker? His reasons only concern the committee.
If these are good, they owe it to themselves and to their
constituents to allow them their full weight. "
He then proceeded to examine the objections which had
been raised to the delegation of legislative power to con-
gress. This examination led to a close and cogent argu-
ment, embracing a consideration of the relations of the
states to the confederacy; showing that the idea of a
union of the colonies had pervaded all the public acts of
the country; that it was continued and confirmed in the
declaration of independence; and that the confederation,
by the express terms of the compact, preserved and con-
tinued the power of perpetuating that union. In the course
of these remarks, the powers of the confederation were
briefly analyzed, and its supremacy asserted; and it was
shown that the objections to the proposed grant of the im-
post would, if sustained, have proved that the powers al-
ready vested in it were illegal and unconstitutional; would
render a confederation of the states in any form impracti-
cable, and would defeat all the provisions of the constitu-
tion of the state which related to the United States. "If,"
he observed," the arguments I have used under this head are
not well founded, let gentlemen come forward and show
their fallacy. Let the subject have a fair and full explana-
tion, and let truth, on whatever side it may be, prevail. "
He in the next place answered the objection, that this
grant of the impost to congress would endanger their lib-
erties; and, in order to overcome prejudice, he gave a nar-
rative of the origin and progress of the measure. "Whence,"
he asked at its close," can this danger to liberty arise? The
members of congress are annually chosen by the several
legislatures; they are removable at any moment at the
pleasure of those legislatures. They come together with
different habits, prejudices, and interests. They are, in fact,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 436 THE I. IFEOF
continually changing. How is it possible for a body so
composed to be formidable to the liberties of the states,
several of which are large empires in themselves?
"The subversion of the liberty of these states could not
be the business of a day. It would at least require time,
premeditation, and concert. Can it be supposed that the
members of a body so constituted, would be unanimous in
a scheme of usurpation? If they were not, would it not
be discovered and disclosed? If we even could suppose
this unanimity among one set of men, can we believe that
all the new members, who are yearly sent from one state
or another, would instantly enter into the same views?
Would there not be found one honest man, to warn his
country of the danger?
"Suppose the worst: suppose the combination entered
into and continued;--the execution would at least announce
the design, and the means of defence would be easy. Con-
sider the separate power of several of these states, and the
situation of them all! Consider the extent. populousness,
and resources of Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania, I
might add, of New-York, Connecticut, and other states!
Where could congress find means sufficient to subvert the
government and liberties of either of these states? Or rather,
where find means sufficient to effect the conquest of all? If
an attempt was made upon one, the others, from a sense of
common danger, would make common cause, and they
-could immediately unite and provide for their joint defence.
"There is one consideration of immense force in this
question, not sufficiently attended to. It is this--that each
state possesses in itself the full power of government, and
can at once, in a regular and constitutional way, take
measures for the preservation of its rights. In a single
kingdom or state, if the rulers attempt to establish a tyr-
anny, the people can pnly defend themselves by a tumultu-
ary insurrection. They must run to arms without concert
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
437
or plan, while the usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal
authority, can employ the force of the state to suppress
them in embryo, and before they can have time or oppor-
tunity to give system to their opposition. With us the
case is widely different. Each state has a government
completely organized in itself, and can at once enter into
a regular plan of defence, with the force of the community
at its command. It can immediately form connections
with its neighbours, or even with foreign powers, if neces- /
sary.
"In a contest of this kind, the body of the people will
always be on the side of the state governments. This will
not only result from their love of liberty and regard to
their own safety, but from other strong principles of hu-
man nature. " Among these were mentioned the operation
of the state governments upon the immediate personal con-
cerns to which the sensibility of individuals is awake--the
distribution of private justice, and the weight of official
influence. 'The causes,' he said, 'which secure the at-
tachment of the people to their local governments present
us with another important truth--the natural imbecility
of federal governments, and the danger that they will
never be able to exercise power enough to manage the
federal affairs of the union. Though the states will have
a common interest, yet they will also have a particular
interest; for example, as a part of the union, it will be the
interest of every state that the general government should
be supplied with the revenues necessary for the national
purposes; but it will be the particular interest of each
state to pay as little itself, and to let its neighbours pay as
much as possible. Particular interests have always more
influence upon men, than general. The several states,
therefore, consulting their immediate advantage, may be
considered as so many eccentric powers tending in a con-
trary direction to the government of the union, and as
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 438
THE LIFE OF
they will generally carry the people along with them, our
confederacy will be in continual danger of dissolution.
"This is the real rock upon which the happiness of this
country is likely to split. This is the point to which our
fears and cares should be directed. To guard against this,
and not to terrify ourselves with imaginary dangers from
the spectre of power in congress, will be our true wisdom. "
He then proceeded to examine and to vindicate the
provisions of the bill making the proposed grant--pointed
out the habitual delinquencies to the repeated requisitions
--the small amount of the general revenue collected--the
hostility of the adjacent states--the increased burden im-
posed on New-York by the inequality of the existing sys-
tem--the beneficial consequences of a national revenue--
the necessity of it for the payment of the foreign debt.
Having dwelt upon these topics, which compelled a large
survey of the state of the country, he closed with the fol-
lowing remarks: "Can our national character be preserved
without paying our debts? Can the union subsist without
revenue 1 Have you realized the consequences which
would attend its dissolution? If these states are not united
under a federal government, they will infallibly have wars
with each other, and their divisions will subject them to
all the mischiefs of foreign influence and intrigue. The
human passions will never want objects of hostility. The
western territory is an obvious and fruitful source of con-
test. Let us also cast our eye upon the map of this state,
intersected from one extremity to the other by a large
navigable river. In the event of a rupture with them,
what is to hinder our metropolis from becoming a prey to
our neighbours? Is it even supposable that they would
suffer it to remain the nursery of wealth to a distinct com-
munity? These subjects are delicate, but it is necessary
to contemplate them, to teach us to form a true estimate
of our situation. Wars with each other beget standing
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
139
armies--a source of more real danger to our liberties than
all the power that could be conferred upon the representa-
tives of the union; and wars with each other would lead
to opposite alliances with foreign powers, and plunge us
into all the labyrinths of European politics.
"The Romans, in their progress to universal dominion,
when they conceived the project of subduing the refrac-
tory spirit of the Grecian republics which composed the
famous Achaean league, began by sowing dissensions
among them, and instilling jealousies of each other and of
the common head; and finished by making them a pro-
vince of the Roman empire. The application is easy. If
there are any foreign enemies, if there are any domestic
foes to this country, all their arts, all their artifices will be
employed to effect a dissolution of the union. This can-
not be better done than by sowing jealousies of the federal
head, and cultivating in each state an undue attachment to
its own power. "
The statements given by persons yet living, and in
the gazettes of that day, show the impression produced
upon the public opinion on this occasion. The speech
was received and perused with very great interest. "I
well remember," Chancellor Kent observes, "how much
it was admired for the comprehensive views which it
took of the state of the nation--the warm appeals which
it made to the public patriotism--the imminent perils which
it pointed out, and the absolute necessity which it showed
of some such financial measure to rescue the nation from
utter ruin and disgrace. "
The importance of the question, and the expectation of
an animated discussion, had called together most of the
distinguished men of the state, who awaited with anxiety
the decision of the house. On taking the final vote, there
appeared in favour of the impost, twenty-one, against it,
thirty-six members.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 440
THE LI F F. OF
To this address there was no reply. The opposition
neither attempted to justify their votes on this momentous
question by argument, nor to invalidate the cogent elo-
quence of Hamilton. It was put down by a silent vote,
which led to the remark, "that the impost was strangled
by a hand of mutes. "*
One other subject remained, of great importance and
perplexity in any issue of events,' whether New-York
were to become an independent commonwealth, which she
could not have long remained, or whether the union should
be preserved. It was the long-agitated question of the
New-Hampshire grants, or state of Vermont as it was then
called, although not recognised by the confederation.
The letter of Hamilton to Governor Clinton, on his re-
tirement from congress in seventeen hundred and eighty-
three, stated the little probability of an adjustment of that
question by any other means than by a federal court. The
inhabitants of the district of country in dispute, had since
that period been increasing in numbers, and it had at last
become obvious, that the only possible mode by which
New-York could maintain her jurisdiction, must be by a
resort to force.
The continuance of the controversy had embittered the
* Chancellor Livingston wrote to Hamilton on the 5tU of March, 1787:
"I received your information relative to the law for dividing the district. 1
am much obliged by your attention to that subject. While I condole with
you on the loss of the impost, I congratulate you on the laurels you acquired
in fighting its battles. I shall endeavour to make myself here useful by ef-
fecting some changes in the representation. I expect this will produce some
attack on me, or my salary. All I expect from my friends, will be, that they
do not suffer such exertions to be made as will be dishonourable to me. * A
liberal and honourable appointment, such as would enable me to live as I
would wish constantly in New-York, I cannot expect from the prevailing
party. "
* The attack was niiule. but wns defeated by"hia friends. " Hamilton moved the highest
mm. He soon after this framed a law. which passed. for the adjustment of tho title of the
Oneida purchase, oflccting a \cry large portion of the state.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
441
angry feelings of the disputants. The ruling party in New-
York had committed themselves with her citizens on this
subject; and while their domestic interests, the exposure of
her frontier, the avoidance of a civil war, all combined to
render an acknowledgment of the independence of Ver-
mont unavoidable, not an individual, since Schuyler had
failed in his efforts in seventeen hundred and eighty, had
acquired sufficient influence in the legislature to carry with
him the public mind. The situation of Clinton in reference
to this subject was not free from embarrassment.
The question of territorial jurisdiction commenced in
the year seventeen hundred and forty-nine, when Governor
Wentworth made the grant of Bennington. It continued
to be a source of difficulty between the governors of New-
Hampshire and New-York, and was rendered more intri-
cate by the conflicting orders of the privy council of Great
Britain, until near the period of the revolution, when the
people of Vermont determined upon open resistance.
In seventeen hundred and seventy-two, conventions of
the different towns were held, and were renewed at inter-
vals, which passed resolves, forbidding the inhabitants of
the "grants" from accepting titles, holding offices from, or
acting under the authority of New-York, and enforced
their resolves with extreme severity.
In seventeen hundred and seventy-four, under the royal
government, Clinton was appointed chairman of a com-
mittee of the New-York assembly, which reported various
resolutions, reciting the violence of the grantees, denoun-
cing their leaders, and recommending a proclamation for
their apprehension, which was issued by Governor Tryon.
A counter proclamation from Ethan Allen, and others of
the proscribed, announced their determination to "resist
unto blood. " This state of things continued until the as-
sembling of the continental congress, when, encouraged by
the exploit of Allen at Ticonderoga, the "revolters" pe-
56
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 442
THE LIFE OF
titioned that body, that they might be permitted to do
military duty as inhabitants of " the grants," and not of New-
York, and asked commissions to that effect. Congress re-
commended to them in reply, to submit to New-York, and
to contribute their assistance, but without prejudice to their
rights.
Thus situated, on the twenty-fourth of July, seventeen
hundred and seventy-six, independence having been de-
clared, a convention assembled, which, after two adjourn-
ments, met on the fifteenth day of January, seventeen hun-
dred and seventy-seven, and proclaimed themselves a
state.
In this altered position, Clinton, recently elected govern-
or of New-York, by withdrawing the penalties of the proc-
lamation, and by overtures to confirm the titles to the lands
actually occupied, sought to sooth their discontents; but
Allen, suspecting the policy of New-York, with inflexible
determination, immediately prepared a force to suppress
an organization which was forming to oppose the recently
claimed supremacy of his state. Clinton, thus driven from
his purpose of conciliation, openly took the ground that
the authority of Vermont should in no instance be acknow-
ledged, except in the alternative of submission or inevita-
ble ruin. An appeal was then made to congress, and in
the mean time, an union of the eastern and western dis-
tricts of Vermont was consummated.
All hope of peaceable adjustment was by this act at an
end, and the alternative of force was brought distinctly
before the councils of New-York. The umpirage of con-
gress, probably not sought sincerely by either party, and
which, if the decision had been against Arermont, would
have proved a nullity, was avoided, until New-York at last
became convinced that her claims must be abandoned.
The governor, from the course to which he had been so
conspicuously committed, from the circumstance that the
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
443
policy advised by Schuyler had been impeached on the
ground that he was regardless of the rights of the state,
and perhaps from an unwillingness to impair his own influ-
ence, partly derived from his scrupulous assertion of those
rights, was little inclined to assume the open responsibility
of surrendering so large a portion of her territory.
Under these circumstances, Hamilton, whose popularity
had risen so high that he was contemplated as a candi-
date for the office of governor, felt it his duty to come for-
ward, and on the fifteenth of March, introduced a bill " to
authorize the delegates of New-York in congress, to accede
to and confirm the independence and sovereignty of the
people inhabiting the district of country commonly called
Vermont. "
On presenting the bill, he made a few observations, of
which a brief sketch was published at the time, from re-
collection, giving an interesting view of the urgent mo-
tives which prompted the measure. *
The great extent of disputed territory which was own-
ed by the inhabitants of the state of New-York, had crea-
ted a very powerful opposition to it. A meeting of those
having the largest interest in the question was held, and
after frequent consultations, it was determined to make a
strong appeal to the legislature. After much deliberation,
the opponents of the bill resolved to apply to the assembly
to be heard by counsel at the bar of the house, a mode of
proceeding which, though of frequent occurrence before
the British parliament, is believed to have been entirely
novel in New-York.
The gentleman solicited to perform this duty was Rich-
ard Harrison, a lawyer and a scholar, distinguished for his
ability, and learning, and probity. The bill was objected
* Vermont had raised troops, and declared, that if no decision were pro-
nounced by congress within two months after nine states had met, that she
would resort to force.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 444
THE LIFE OF
to by him, as unconstitutional, impolitic, and destructive
to the property of the citizens.
As tho constitution had expressly declared the counties of
Cumberland, Gloucester, and Charlotte, which embraced
the territory proposed to be ceded, as parts of the state,
it was urged that the legislature could not sever them from
it--that such a power had not been delegated to them--
that, if delegated, it must have been to congress as the ar-
biters of peace and war--that such a dismemberment
was only authorized by a case of extreme necessity, which
was alleged not to exist. The presumption of danger from
subsisting connections between Vermont and Canada, was
denied. If it existed, where was the proof? The danger
of the example of permitting a revolt of these counties
was enlarged upon, and arguments were adduced to show
that no public advantage, either in respect to revenue or
other effects, would be derived from the admission of
Vermont into the confederacy. The address was conclu-
ded with an earnest exposition of the rights of the proprie-
tors of these lands to be indemnified by the state, and a
suggestion of the appointment of commissioners to treat
with the revoltcrs.
Hamilton's reply is among the most able fragments
of his eloquence which have been preserved. It fully
met the objection to the act, which was drawn from
that great principle of the social compact, that the
chief object of government is to protect the rights of indi-
viduals by the united strength of the community; insisting
that the efforts of a state were to be " proportioned to its
abilities, warranted by a reasonable expectation of a
favourable issue, and compatible with its eventual security;
but that it was not bound to enter into or prosecute enter-
prises of a manifest rashness and folly, or which in the
event of success would be productive of more mischief
than good. " He then reviewed the pretensions of Ver-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
445
mont, and contrasted her power to resist with that of
New-York to enforce these territorial claims.
From this topic he passed on to an examination of the
constitutionality of the bill, asserting that the power of
dismembering the state, under certain circumstances, was
a necessary appendage of its sovereignty. Instances of
such dismemberments were referred to, and the writers on
international law were quoted to establish the right "to
lop off a limb for the good of the body. " From an exposi-
tion of the right, he proceeded to a review of the policy
of this measure; in the course of which, he adduced facts
to show that Vermont had borne such relations to Great
Britain during the revolution as to justify the belief, that,
should a collision arise, she would receive aid from their
recent enemy.
The remaining questions were, how far New-York had
a right to acknowledge the independence of Vermont, and
how far she was bound to make compensation to the own-
ers of the disputed territory. He urged the actual inde-
pendence of Vermont as an answer to the first inquiry;
stated, that as to territorial claims, the confederacy pro-
vided a tribunal for their adjustment; and insisted that the
state was not under a strict obligation to make compensa-
tion to the losing proprietors. "The distinction," he said,
"is this--if a government voluntarily bargains away the
rights, or dispossesses itself of the property of its citizens
in their enjoyments, possessions, or power, it is bound to
make compensation for that of which it has deprived them;
but if they are actually dispossessed of those rights or that
property by the casualties of war, or by revolution, the
state, if the public good requires it, may abandon them to
the loss without being obliged to make reparation. "
"In wars between states, the sovereign is never supposed
to be bound to make good the losses which the subject
sustains by the captures or ravages of the enemy, though
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 446
THE LIFE OF
they should amount to the destruction of his whole pro-
perty; and yet nothing can be more agreeable to natural
equity than that those who happen to be the unlucky vic-
tims of the war should be indemnified by the community. "--
"But in practice such a principle would be found attended
with endless difficulties and inconveniences; and there-
fore the reverse of it has been adopted as a general rule.
The true reason is, the resources of nations are not ade-
quate to the reparation of such extensive losses as those
which are commonly occasioned by wars and revolutions,
and it would, therefore, be contrary to the general good
of society to establish it as a rule that there is a strict ob-
ligation to repay such losses. It is better there should be
individual sufferings, than to admit a rule which would
fetter the operations of government, and distress the affairs
of the community. Generosity and policy may, in parti-
cular instances, dictate such compensations. Sometimes
they have been made by nations, but much oftener. omitted.
The propriety of doing the one or the other must depend
on circumstances in which the ability of the public will
always be a primary consideration. "
As to the examples derived from Roman magnanimity,
he remarked:--" Neither the manner nor the genius of
Rome are suited to the republic or age we live in. All
her maxims and habits were military--her government
was constituted for war. Ours is unfit for it; and our situa-
tion, still less than our constitution, invites us to emulate
the conduct of Rome, or to attempt a display of unprofita-
ble heroism. "--" One more observation will," he said, " con-
clude what I have to say. The present situation of our
national affairs appears to me peculiarly critical. I know
not what may be the result of the disordered state of gov-
ernment. I am, therefore, the more solicitous to guard
against danger from abroad. Gentlemen who view our
public affairs in the same light in which they present them-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
447
selves to my mind, will, I trust, vote with me upon the
present occasion. Those, on the contrary, who think all is
well, who suppose our government is full of energy, our
credit high, our trade and finances flourishing, will proba-
bly see no room for any anxiety about the matter, and
may be disposed to leave Vermont in its present state. If
the bill should fail, I hope they never will have occasion
to regret the opportunity they have lost. "
At the end of this speech, the question was taken, and
the bill recognising the independence of Vermont, on the
condition of her entering into the confederacy, passed.
By this well-timed measure a civil war was prevented, and
another state soon after became a member of the union.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 448
THE LIFE OF
CHAPTER XXIII.
[1787. ]
The vote of the New-York legislature on the impost
decided the fate of the confederation. The only hope of
preserving an union of the states rested upon the issue of
the contemplated convention.
The assembly of Virginia being the first state legisla-
ture in session after the adjournment of the commissioners
at Annapolis, passed an act in October for the appoint-
ment of seven commissioners to meet at Philadelphia, and
to join with the deputies of the other states, " in devising
and discussing such alterations as may be necessary to
render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies
of the times. " New-Jersey was the second to act on this
subject, appointing commissioners on the twenty-third of
November, with powers similar to those previously grant-
ed by her. Pennsylvania chose delegates with like pow-
ers on the thirtieth of the succeeding month.
The report from Annapolis was submitted to congress
soon after its date; but a determined opposition being
made to the proposed convention, on the ground of its
illegality, it was not acted upon: thus, tenacity of power
grows with conscious weakness. When the legislature
of Massachusetts assembled, Governor Bowdoin, still zeal-
ous for this great measure, sent them a message, in which,
after a mention of the reasons that had induced the meeting
at Annapolis to adjourn, he again declared his conviction
of the importance of amending the confederation. Its
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
449
delegates to congress then appeared, and explained the mo-
tives by which they had been actuated.
King observed--" that the report of the commercial
convention was before congress. Doubts had arisen as
to the mode of agreeing upon commercial regulations.
The confederation was the act of the people. No part
could be altered but by consent of congress and confirma-
tion of the several legislatures. Congress, therefore, ought
to make the examination first; because, if it was done by
a convention, no legislature could have a right to confirm
it. Did any legislature sit for such a purpose? No. It
must be referred to the people, and then what degree of
assent was necessary to make it an article of the confede-
ration? Whereas if it was conducted agreeably to the con-
federation, no such difficulty could exist. Besides, if con-
gress should not agree upon a report of a convention, the
most fatal consequences might follow. Congress were,
therefore, the proper body to make alterations. "
After adverting to the efforts of the several states, he
remarked, that not more than half a million of dollars had
been received from them in the last two years; that "it
had become a subject of admiration how government ex-
isted; that so melancholy was the state of the federal
treasury, that all men seemed to turn away from it as an
evil which admitted of no remedy. If all the states could
be brought into the continental impost, this resource might
be anticipated, and the national credit strengthened in that
way; but there remained two states which had not acced-
ed to it--Pennsylvania and New-York. The situation
of the former was known, and should that state comply,
as there were some grounds to hope and expect, the dan-
ger of the union, and the love which New-York must enter-
tain for the confederation, must induce their accession to
the system. " He closed his observations with a strong
comment on the existing commotions in Massachusetts,
57
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 450 THE LIFE OF
suggesting the probability that congress would make exer-
tions to suppress them. Dana, another delegate, concur-
red in these views. Their speeches were published, and
as no measures were taken for the appointment of a dele-
gation to Philadelphia, great apprehensions were enter-
tained by the advocates of a general convention, that their
efforts would be rendered fruitless by the dissent of this
leading member of the confederacy.
The hesitation of Massachusetts lent a sanction to the
policy of the governor of New-York. There was in the
constitution of that state an energy the more imposing, as
contrasted with the weakness of the confederacy. This
energy had been increased by a perverted construction of
his powers, which concentrated the whole disposal of office
in the chief magistrate.
The new congress met in the city of New-York on the
second of February, three months of its term having ex-
pired, and elected General St. Clair as their president.
Though without prerogative or patronage, that officer was
understood to represent in his person the majesty of the
nation. The appropriations and the ceremonial of his
household all indicated such to have been the intention of
congress.
In the same public hall was seen Clinton, exhibiting all
the authority of his office and his influence over an obedi-
ent legislature. The effect on the common mind of with-
holding those observances which custom has connected
with high station, was well understood by Clinton: a
marked and studied neglect was manifested by him towards
congress, as though he wished them to be regarded rather
as intruders upon a sovereign state, than as the Council
of the Nation. Yet he at the same time avowed the
opinion, that the articles of the confederation were equal
to the objects of the union, or with little alteration could
be made so, and that the deputies to Annapolis ought to
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON. 451
have confined themselves to the expressed purpose of their
errand.
New-York gave the most prominent adversary and ad-
vocate of the union. The more obstinate the opposition
of Clinton to enlarged views of the interests of the Ameri-
can people, the more zealous and determined were the ex-
ertions of Hamilton. All the influence of his attractive
manners and generous hospitality was now seen. He min-
gled daily with the members of the federal government;
his house was their constant resort; his conversation was
full of the great theme of a more perfect union; and with
earnest argument and wit he exposed the inconsistency of
men who refused to confer upon congress an adequate
fiscal power, for the reason that it was a single body with-
out checks, and yet would seek to thwart every effort to
constitute it differently. Having thus prepared the minds
of that assembly,* he hoped that their sanction of the pro-
posed convention, so long withheld, might be obtained.
Though a president had been elected, nine states were
not represented in congress until the fourteenth of Feb-
ruary. The next day Hamilton delivered his speech upon
the impost, in the presence of many of its members, who
saw the mute vote rejecting it recorded.
It is the part of genius to select the moment to achieve
its high purposes; and the day after this vote, notice was
given of an intended motion for an instruction to congress
to recommend the call of a convention. Its object was
stated to be that " of revising the articles of confederation
and perpetual union, by such alterations and amendments
as a majority of the representatives shall judge proper and
necessary, to render them adequate to the preservation
and government of the union. "
* Speaking subsequently of a leading individual, who. commenced his ca-
reer as an earnest opponent of a national system, Hamilton remarked to a
friend--" I revolutionized his mind. " .
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 452
THE LIFE OF
This motion was brought forward on the seventeenth,
and being so modified, at the instance of the leader of
Clinton's party in the assembly, as to omit the words, " a
majority," and to substitute that of " support" for " govern-
ment," was agreed to. After the interval of a day, this
instruction was laid before the senate, and it was ordered
to be postponed. Of Clinton's majority in that branch, the
most prominent persons were Haring and Yates. * Gen-
eral Schuyler led the opposition. His weight of character
would have been insufficient to carry this important reso-
lution, but for the urgent circumstances of the moment.
Some of the leaders of the rebellion in Massachusetts had
taken refuge in New-York. On the day this resolution
was laid before the senate, Schuyler moved that a procla-
mation should be issued for their apprehension. The fears
of congress were also aroused, and on the same day a re-
port then in progress, deferring the enlistment of federal
troops, was postponed. Alarmed for the quiet of the state,
the senate on the following day," after considerable debate,
by a majority of one vote, concurred in the proposed in-
struction. "
To anticipate intrigue and gain the advantage of this
momentary alarm, Hamilton's report from Annapolis was
called up in congress the next day. That body was yet
undecided. By some, their sanction of the convention, it
was supposed, might stimulate, by others it was alleged
that it would impede, the action of the states. Some looked
with jealousy at a body so formed; others doubted its con-
stitutionality. Amid this perplexity, the instruction of
New-York was presented to them. Though supported by
the votes of Massachusetts and Virginia, the recommen-
dation it urged failed, and a resolution of a member from
Massachusetts, after being amended, was passed. It re-
* Abraham Yates.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
453
ferred, as a justification for the proceeding, to the provision
in the articles of the confederation for their alteration by
congress, with the assent of the state legislatures, and to
the recent instruction from New-York, and declaring that
it was " the most probable mean of establishing in these
states a firm national government," sanctioned the contem-
plated convention. *
Having exerted the influence of New-York upon con-
gress, Hamilton was eager to derive the benefit of the in-
fluence of congress upon that state. Five days after, he
offered a resolution in the assembly, conforming to the re-
commendation of congress, for the appointment of five
commissioners to meet in convention at Annapolis. This
resolution being agreed to, was laid before the senate by
Schuyler. That body did not dare to reject it; but, on
motion of Haring, the number was reduced from five to
three.
Yates then proposed to insert a proviso, that the alter-
ations and provisions to the articles of confederation
"should be not repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the con-
stitution of this stale. " This amendment, so decisive of
the views of Clinton, was opposed, and was lost by the vote
of the presiding officer. f
The resolution then passed the senate, was immediately
concurred in by the house, and on the eighth of March,
three commissioners, Yates, Hamilton, and Lansing, were
appointed--Chief Justice Yates unanimously, Hamilton
with two, Lansing with many dissenting voices. As the
rule of the confederation of voting by states might be adopt-
ed, and as his colleagues were in the views of Clinton,
Hamilton proposed, near the end of the session, to add two
delegates. He observed, "I think it proper to apprise the
? February 21,1787.
t Senate Journal of New-York, p. 44-5, February 28,1787.
?
? 434
THE LIFE OF
Every effort having been made to impress on the mem-
bers of the legislature the necessity of granting the impost
upon terms which would be accepted by the other states,
a final action on this measure took place on the fifteenth
of February.
After adverting to the discrepancy of the votes which
had been given on the different clauses of this bill, Hamil-
ton observed:--
"It is a common practice upon the discussion of an im-
portant subject, to endeavour to conciliate the good-will of
the audience to the speaker, by professions of disinterested-
ness and zeal for the public good. The example, however
frequent, I shall no farther imitate than by making one or
two general observations. If, in the public stations I have
filled, I have acquitted myself with zeal, fidelity, and disin-
terestedness; if, in the private walks of life, my conduct
has been unstained by any dishonourable act; if it has
been uniformly consistent with the rules of integrity, I
have a right to the confidence of those to whom I address
myself. They cannot refuse it to me without injustice--I
am persuaded they will not refuse it to me.
"If, on the other hand, my public conduct has been in
any instance marked with perfidy, duplicity, or with sinister
views of any kind; if any imputations founded in fact can
be adduced to the prejudice of my private character, I have
no claim to the confidence of the community, nor should I
expect it.
"Even these observations I should have spared myself,
did I not know that, in the rage of party, gross calumnies
have been propagated. Some I have traced and detected;
there may still be others in secret circulation, with which
I am unacquainted. Against the influence of such arts I
can have no other shield than the general tenor of my past
conduct. If that will protect me, I may safely confide in
the candour of the committee. To that standard I cheer-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
435
fully submit. But, indeed, of what importance is it who is
the speaker? His reasons only concern the committee.
If these are good, they owe it to themselves and to their
constituents to allow them their full weight. "
He then proceeded to examine the objections which had
been raised to the delegation of legislative power to con-
gress. This examination led to a close and cogent argu-
ment, embracing a consideration of the relations of the
states to the confederacy; showing that the idea of a
union of the colonies had pervaded all the public acts of
the country; that it was continued and confirmed in the
declaration of independence; and that the confederation,
by the express terms of the compact, preserved and con-
tinued the power of perpetuating that union. In the course
of these remarks, the powers of the confederation were
briefly analyzed, and its supremacy asserted; and it was
shown that the objections to the proposed grant of the im-
post would, if sustained, have proved that the powers al-
ready vested in it were illegal and unconstitutional; would
render a confederation of the states in any form impracti-
cable, and would defeat all the provisions of the constitu-
tion of the state which related to the United States. "If,"
he observed," the arguments I have used under this head are
not well founded, let gentlemen come forward and show
their fallacy. Let the subject have a fair and full explana-
tion, and let truth, on whatever side it may be, prevail. "
He in the next place answered the objection, that this
grant of the impost to congress would endanger their lib-
erties; and, in order to overcome prejudice, he gave a nar-
rative of the origin and progress of the measure. "Whence,"
he asked at its close," can this danger to liberty arise? The
members of congress are annually chosen by the several
legislatures; they are removable at any moment at the
pleasure of those legislatures. They come together with
different habits, prejudices, and interests. They are, in fact,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 436 THE I. IFEOF
continually changing. How is it possible for a body so
composed to be formidable to the liberties of the states,
several of which are large empires in themselves?
"The subversion of the liberty of these states could not
be the business of a day. It would at least require time,
premeditation, and concert. Can it be supposed that the
members of a body so constituted, would be unanimous in
a scheme of usurpation? If they were not, would it not
be discovered and disclosed? If we even could suppose
this unanimity among one set of men, can we believe that
all the new members, who are yearly sent from one state
or another, would instantly enter into the same views?
Would there not be found one honest man, to warn his
country of the danger?
"Suppose the worst: suppose the combination entered
into and continued;--the execution would at least announce
the design, and the means of defence would be easy. Con-
sider the separate power of several of these states, and the
situation of them all! Consider the extent. populousness,
and resources of Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania, I
might add, of New-York, Connecticut, and other states!
Where could congress find means sufficient to subvert the
government and liberties of either of these states? Or rather,
where find means sufficient to effect the conquest of all? If
an attempt was made upon one, the others, from a sense of
common danger, would make common cause, and they
-could immediately unite and provide for their joint defence.
"There is one consideration of immense force in this
question, not sufficiently attended to. It is this--that each
state possesses in itself the full power of government, and
can at once, in a regular and constitutional way, take
measures for the preservation of its rights. In a single
kingdom or state, if the rulers attempt to establish a tyr-
anny, the people can pnly defend themselves by a tumultu-
ary insurrection. They must run to arms without concert
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
437
or plan, while the usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal
authority, can employ the force of the state to suppress
them in embryo, and before they can have time or oppor-
tunity to give system to their opposition. With us the
case is widely different. Each state has a government
completely organized in itself, and can at once enter into
a regular plan of defence, with the force of the community
at its command. It can immediately form connections
with its neighbours, or even with foreign powers, if neces- /
sary.
"In a contest of this kind, the body of the people will
always be on the side of the state governments. This will
not only result from their love of liberty and regard to
their own safety, but from other strong principles of hu-
man nature. " Among these were mentioned the operation
of the state governments upon the immediate personal con-
cerns to which the sensibility of individuals is awake--the
distribution of private justice, and the weight of official
influence. 'The causes,' he said, 'which secure the at-
tachment of the people to their local governments present
us with another important truth--the natural imbecility
of federal governments, and the danger that they will
never be able to exercise power enough to manage the
federal affairs of the union. Though the states will have
a common interest, yet they will also have a particular
interest; for example, as a part of the union, it will be the
interest of every state that the general government should
be supplied with the revenues necessary for the national
purposes; but it will be the particular interest of each
state to pay as little itself, and to let its neighbours pay as
much as possible. Particular interests have always more
influence upon men, than general. The several states,
therefore, consulting their immediate advantage, may be
considered as so many eccentric powers tending in a con-
trary direction to the government of the union, and as
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 438
THE LIFE OF
they will generally carry the people along with them, our
confederacy will be in continual danger of dissolution.
"This is the real rock upon which the happiness of this
country is likely to split. This is the point to which our
fears and cares should be directed. To guard against this,
and not to terrify ourselves with imaginary dangers from
the spectre of power in congress, will be our true wisdom. "
He then proceeded to examine and to vindicate the
provisions of the bill making the proposed grant--pointed
out the habitual delinquencies to the repeated requisitions
--the small amount of the general revenue collected--the
hostility of the adjacent states--the increased burden im-
posed on New-York by the inequality of the existing sys-
tem--the beneficial consequences of a national revenue--
the necessity of it for the payment of the foreign debt.
Having dwelt upon these topics, which compelled a large
survey of the state of the country, he closed with the fol-
lowing remarks: "Can our national character be preserved
without paying our debts? Can the union subsist without
revenue 1 Have you realized the consequences which
would attend its dissolution? If these states are not united
under a federal government, they will infallibly have wars
with each other, and their divisions will subject them to
all the mischiefs of foreign influence and intrigue. The
human passions will never want objects of hostility. The
western territory is an obvious and fruitful source of con-
test. Let us also cast our eye upon the map of this state,
intersected from one extremity to the other by a large
navigable river. In the event of a rupture with them,
what is to hinder our metropolis from becoming a prey to
our neighbours? Is it even supposable that they would
suffer it to remain the nursery of wealth to a distinct com-
munity? These subjects are delicate, but it is necessary
to contemplate them, to teach us to form a true estimate
of our situation. Wars with each other beget standing
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
139
armies--a source of more real danger to our liberties than
all the power that could be conferred upon the representa-
tives of the union; and wars with each other would lead
to opposite alliances with foreign powers, and plunge us
into all the labyrinths of European politics.
"The Romans, in their progress to universal dominion,
when they conceived the project of subduing the refrac-
tory spirit of the Grecian republics which composed the
famous Achaean league, began by sowing dissensions
among them, and instilling jealousies of each other and of
the common head; and finished by making them a pro-
vince of the Roman empire. The application is easy. If
there are any foreign enemies, if there are any domestic
foes to this country, all their arts, all their artifices will be
employed to effect a dissolution of the union. This can-
not be better done than by sowing jealousies of the federal
head, and cultivating in each state an undue attachment to
its own power. "
The statements given by persons yet living, and in
the gazettes of that day, show the impression produced
upon the public opinion on this occasion. The speech
was received and perused with very great interest. "I
well remember," Chancellor Kent observes, "how much
it was admired for the comprehensive views which it
took of the state of the nation--the warm appeals which
it made to the public patriotism--the imminent perils which
it pointed out, and the absolute necessity which it showed
of some such financial measure to rescue the nation from
utter ruin and disgrace. "
The importance of the question, and the expectation of
an animated discussion, had called together most of the
distinguished men of the state, who awaited with anxiety
the decision of the house. On taking the final vote, there
appeared in favour of the impost, twenty-one, against it,
thirty-six members.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 440
THE LI F F. OF
To this address there was no reply. The opposition
neither attempted to justify their votes on this momentous
question by argument, nor to invalidate the cogent elo-
quence of Hamilton. It was put down by a silent vote,
which led to the remark, "that the impost was strangled
by a hand of mutes. "*
One other subject remained, of great importance and
perplexity in any issue of events,' whether New-York
were to become an independent commonwealth, which she
could not have long remained, or whether the union should
be preserved. It was the long-agitated question of the
New-Hampshire grants, or state of Vermont as it was then
called, although not recognised by the confederation.
The letter of Hamilton to Governor Clinton, on his re-
tirement from congress in seventeen hundred and eighty-
three, stated the little probability of an adjustment of that
question by any other means than by a federal court. The
inhabitants of the district of country in dispute, had since
that period been increasing in numbers, and it had at last
become obvious, that the only possible mode by which
New-York could maintain her jurisdiction, must be by a
resort to force.
The continuance of the controversy had embittered the
* Chancellor Livingston wrote to Hamilton on the 5tU of March, 1787:
"I received your information relative to the law for dividing the district. 1
am much obliged by your attention to that subject. While I condole with
you on the loss of the impost, I congratulate you on the laurels you acquired
in fighting its battles. I shall endeavour to make myself here useful by ef-
fecting some changes in the representation. I expect this will produce some
attack on me, or my salary. All I expect from my friends, will be, that they
do not suffer such exertions to be made as will be dishonourable to me. * A
liberal and honourable appointment, such as would enable me to live as I
would wish constantly in New-York, I cannot expect from the prevailing
party. "
* The attack was niiule. but wns defeated by"hia friends. " Hamilton moved the highest
mm. He soon after this framed a law. which passed. for the adjustment of tho title of the
Oneida purchase, oflccting a \cry large portion of the state.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
441
angry feelings of the disputants. The ruling party in New-
York had committed themselves with her citizens on this
subject; and while their domestic interests, the exposure of
her frontier, the avoidance of a civil war, all combined to
render an acknowledgment of the independence of Ver-
mont unavoidable, not an individual, since Schuyler had
failed in his efforts in seventeen hundred and eighty, had
acquired sufficient influence in the legislature to carry with
him the public mind. The situation of Clinton in reference
to this subject was not free from embarrassment.
The question of territorial jurisdiction commenced in
the year seventeen hundred and forty-nine, when Governor
Wentworth made the grant of Bennington. It continued
to be a source of difficulty between the governors of New-
Hampshire and New-York, and was rendered more intri-
cate by the conflicting orders of the privy council of Great
Britain, until near the period of the revolution, when the
people of Vermont determined upon open resistance.
In seventeen hundred and seventy-two, conventions of
the different towns were held, and were renewed at inter-
vals, which passed resolves, forbidding the inhabitants of
the "grants" from accepting titles, holding offices from, or
acting under the authority of New-York, and enforced
their resolves with extreme severity.
In seventeen hundred and seventy-four, under the royal
government, Clinton was appointed chairman of a com-
mittee of the New-York assembly, which reported various
resolutions, reciting the violence of the grantees, denoun-
cing their leaders, and recommending a proclamation for
their apprehension, which was issued by Governor Tryon.
A counter proclamation from Ethan Allen, and others of
the proscribed, announced their determination to "resist
unto blood. " This state of things continued until the as-
sembling of the continental congress, when, encouraged by
the exploit of Allen at Ticonderoga, the "revolters" pe-
56
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 442
THE LIFE OF
titioned that body, that they might be permitted to do
military duty as inhabitants of " the grants," and not of New-
York, and asked commissions to that effect. Congress re-
commended to them in reply, to submit to New-York, and
to contribute their assistance, but without prejudice to their
rights.
Thus situated, on the twenty-fourth of July, seventeen
hundred and seventy-six, independence having been de-
clared, a convention assembled, which, after two adjourn-
ments, met on the fifteenth day of January, seventeen hun-
dred and seventy-seven, and proclaimed themselves a
state.
In this altered position, Clinton, recently elected govern-
or of New-York, by withdrawing the penalties of the proc-
lamation, and by overtures to confirm the titles to the lands
actually occupied, sought to sooth their discontents; but
Allen, suspecting the policy of New-York, with inflexible
determination, immediately prepared a force to suppress
an organization which was forming to oppose the recently
claimed supremacy of his state. Clinton, thus driven from
his purpose of conciliation, openly took the ground that
the authority of Vermont should in no instance be acknow-
ledged, except in the alternative of submission or inevita-
ble ruin. An appeal was then made to congress, and in
the mean time, an union of the eastern and western dis-
tricts of Vermont was consummated.
All hope of peaceable adjustment was by this act at an
end, and the alternative of force was brought distinctly
before the councils of New-York. The umpirage of con-
gress, probably not sought sincerely by either party, and
which, if the decision had been against Arermont, would
have proved a nullity, was avoided, until New-York at last
became convinced that her claims must be abandoned.
The governor, from the course to which he had been so
conspicuously committed, from the circumstance that the
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
443
policy advised by Schuyler had been impeached on the
ground that he was regardless of the rights of the state,
and perhaps from an unwillingness to impair his own influ-
ence, partly derived from his scrupulous assertion of those
rights, was little inclined to assume the open responsibility
of surrendering so large a portion of her territory.
Under these circumstances, Hamilton, whose popularity
had risen so high that he was contemplated as a candi-
date for the office of governor, felt it his duty to come for-
ward, and on the fifteenth of March, introduced a bill " to
authorize the delegates of New-York in congress, to accede
to and confirm the independence and sovereignty of the
people inhabiting the district of country commonly called
Vermont. "
On presenting the bill, he made a few observations, of
which a brief sketch was published at the time, from re-
collection, giving an interesting view of the urgent mo-
tives which prompted the measure. *
The great extent of disputed territory which was own-
ed by the inhabitants of the state of New-York, had crea-
ted a very powerful opposition to it. A meeting of those
having the largest interest in the question was held, and
after frequent consultations, it was determined to make a
strong appeal to the legislature. After much deliberation,
the opponents of the bill resolved to apply to the assembly
to be heard by counsel at the bar of the house, a mode of
proceeding which, though of frequent occurrence before
the British parliament, is believed to have been entirely
novel in New-York.
The gentleman solicited to perform this duty was Rich-
ard Harrison, a lawyer and a scholar, distinguished for his
ability, and learning, and probity. The bill was objected
* Vermont had raised troops, and declared, that if no decision were pro-
nounced by congress within two months after nine states had met, that she
would resort to force.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 444
THE LIFE OF
to by him, as unconstitutional, impolitic, and destructive
to the property of the citizens.
As tho constitution had expressly declared the counties of
Cumberland, Gloucester, and Charlotte, which embraced
the territory proposed to be ceded, as parts of the state,
it was urged that the legislature could not sever them from
it--that such a power had not been delegated to them--
that, if delegated, it must have been to congress as the ar-
biters of peace and war--that such a dismemberment
was only authorized by a case of extreme necessity, which
was alleged not to exist. The presumption of danger from
subsisting connections between Vermont and Canada, was
denied. If it existed, where was the proof? The danger
of the example of permitting a revolt of these counties
was enlarged upon, and arguments were adduced to show
that no public advantage, either in respect to revenue or
other effects, would be derived from the admission of
Vermont into the confederacy. The address was conclu-
ded with an earnest exposition of the rights of the proprie-
tors of these lands to be indemnified by the state, and a
suggestion of the appointment of commissioners to treat
with the revoltcrs.
Hamilton's reply is among the most able fragments
of his eloquence which have been preserved. It fully
met the objection to the act, which was drawn from
that great principle of the social compact, that the
chief object of government is to protect the rights of indi-
viduals by the united strength of the community; insisting
that the efforts of a state were to be " proportioned to its
abilities, warranted by a reasonable expectation of a
favourable issue, and compatible with its eventual security;
but that it was not bound to enter into or prosecute enter-
prises of a manifest rashness and folly, or which in the
event of success would be productive of more mischief
than good. " He then reviewed the pretensions of Ver-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
445
mont, and contrasted her power to resist with that of
New-York to enforce these territorial claims.
From this topic he passed on to an examination of the
constitutionality of the bill, asserting that the power of
dismembering the state, under certain circumstances, was
a necessary appendage of its sovereignty. Instances of
such dismemberments were referred to, and the writers on
international law were quoted to establish the right "to
lop off a limb for the good of the body. " From an exposi-
tion of the right, he proceeded to a review of the policy
of this measure; in the course of which, he adduced facts
to show that Vermont had borne such relations to Great
Britain during the revolution as to justify the belief, that,
should a collision arise, she would receive aid from their
recent enemy.
The remaining questions were, how far New-York had
a right to acknowledge the independence of Vermont, and
how far she was bound to make compensation to the own-
ers of the disputed territory. He urged the actual inde-
pendence of Vermont as an answer to the first inquiry;
stated, that as to territorial claims, the confederacy pro-
vided a tribunal for their adjustment; and insisted that the
state was not under a strict obligation to make compensa-
tion to the losing proprietors. "The distinction," he said,
"is this--if a government voluntarily bargains away the
rights, or dispossesses itself of the property of its citizens
in their enjoyments, possessions, or power, it is bound to
make compensation for that of which it has deprived them;
but if they are actually dispossessed of those rights or that
property by the casualties of war, or by revolution, the
state, if the public good requires it, may abandon them to
the loss without being obliged to make reparation. "
"In wars between states, the sovereign is never supposed
to be bound to make good the losses which the subject
sustains by the captures or ravages of the enemy, though
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 446
THE LIFE OF
they should amount to the destruction of his whole pro-
perty; and yet nothing can be more agreeable to natural
equity than that those who happen to be the unlucky vic-
tims of the war should be indemnified by the community. "--
"But in practice such a principle would be found attended
with endless difficulties and inconveniences; and there-
fore the reverse of it has been adopted as a general rule.
The true reason is, the resources of nations are not ade-
quate to the reparation of such extensive losses as those
which are commonly occasioned by wars and revolutions,
and it would, therefore, be contrary to the general good
of society to establish it as a rule that there is a strict ob-
ligation to repay such losses. It is better there should be
individual sufferings, than to admit a rule which would
fetter the operations of government, and distress the affairs
of the community. Generosity and policy may, in parti-
cular instances, dictate such compensations. Sometimes
they have been made by nations, but much oftener. omitted.
The propriety of doing the one or the other must depend
on circumstances in which the ability of the public will
always be a primary consideration. "
As to the examples derived from Roman magnanimity,
he remarked:--" Neither the manner nor the genius of
Rome are suited to the republic or age we live in. All
her maxims and habits were military--her government
was constituted for war. Ours is unfit for it; and our situa-
tion, still less than our constitution, invites us to emulate
the conduct of Rome, or to attempt a display of unprofita-
ble heroism. "--" One more observation will," he said, " con-
clude what I have to say. The present situation of our
national affairs appears to me peculiarly critical. I know
not what may be the result of the disordered state of gov-
ernment. I am, therefore, the more solicitous to guard
against danger from abroad. Gentlemen who view our
public affairs in the same light in which they present them-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
447
selves to my mind, will, I trust, vote with me upon the
present occasion. Those, on the contrary, who think all is
well, who suppose our government is full of energy, our
credit high, our trade and finances flourishing, will proba-
bly see no room for any anxiety about the matter, and
may be disposed to leave Vermont in its present state. If
the bill should fail, I hope they never will have occasion
to regret the opportunity they have lost. "
At the end of this speech, the question was taken, and
the bill recognising the independence of Vermont, on the
condition of her entering into the confederacy, passed.
By this well-timed measure a civil war was prevented, and
another state soon after became a member of the union.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 448
THE LIFE OF
CHAPTER XXIII.
[1787. ]
The vote of the New-York legislature on the impost
decided the fate of the confederation. The only hope of
preserving an union of the states rested upon the issue of
the contemplated convention.
The assembly of Virginia being the first state legisla-
ture in session after the adjournment of the commissioners
at Annapolis, passed an act in October for the appoint-
ment of seven commissioners to meet at Philadelphia, and
to join with the deputies of the other states, " in devising
and discussing such alterations as may be necessary to
render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies
of the times. " New-Jersey was the second to act on this
subject, appointing commissioners on the twenty-third of
November, with powers similar to those previously grant-
ed by her. Pennsylvania chose delegates with like pow-
ers on the thirtieth of the succeeding month.
The report from Annapolis was submitted to congress
soon after its date; but a determined opposition being
made to the proposed convention, on the ground of its
illegality, it was not acted upon: thus, tenacity of power
grows with conscious weakness. When the legislature
of Massachusetts assembled, Governor Bowdoin, still zeal-
ous for this great measure, sent them a message, in which,
after a mention of the reasons that had induced the meeting
at Annapolis to adjourn, he again declared his conviction
of the importance of amending the confederation. Its
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
449
delegates to congress then appeared, and explained the mo-
tives by which they had been actuated.
King observed--" that the report of the commercial
convention was before congress. Doubts had arisen as
to the mode of agreeing upon commercial regulations.
The confederation was the act of the people. No part
could be altered but by consent of congress and confirma-
tion of the several legislatures. Congress, therefore, ought
to make the examination first; because, if it was done by
a convention, no legislature could have a right to confirm
it. Did any legislature sit for such a purpose? No. It
must be referred to the people, and then what degree of
assent was necessary to make it an article of the confede-
ration? Whereas if it was conducted agreeably to the con-
federation, no such difficulty could exist. Besides, if con-
gress should not agree upon a report of a convention, the
most fatal consequences might follow. Congress were,
therefore, the proper body to make alterations. "
After adverting to the efforts of the several states, he
remarked, that not more than half a million of dollars had
been received from them in the last two years; that "it
had become a subject of admiration how government ex-
isted; that so melancholy was the state of the federal
treasury, that all men seemed to turn away from it as an
evil which admitted of no remedy. If all the states could
be brought into the continental impost, this resource might
be anticipated, and the national credit strengthened in that
way; but there remained two states which had not acced-
ed to it--Pennsylvania and New-York. The situation
of the former was known, and should that state comply,
as there were some grounds to hope and expect, the dan-
ger of the union, and the love which New-York must enter-
tain for the confederation, must induce their accession to
the system. " He closed his observations with a strong
comment on the existing commotions in Massachusetts,
57
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 450 THE LIFE OF
suggesting the probability that congress would make exer-
tions to suppress them. Dana, another delegate, concur-
red in these views. Their speeches were published, and
as no measures were taken for the appointment of a dele-
gation to Philadelphia, great apprehensions were enter-
tained by the advocates of a general convention, that their
efforts would be rendered fruitless by the dissent of this
leading member of the confederacy.
The hesitation of Massachusetts lent a sanction to the
policy of the governor of New-York. There was in the
constitution of that state an energy the more imposing, as
contrasted with the weakness of the confederacy. This
energy had been increased by a perverted construction of
his powers, which concentrated the whole disposal of office
in the chief magistrate.
The new congress met in the city of New-York on the
second of February, three months of its term having ex-
pired, and elected General St. Clair as their president.
Though without prerogative or patronage, that officer was
understood to represent in his person the majesty of the
nation. The appropriations and the ceremonial of his
household all indicated such to have been the intention of
congress.
In the same public hall was seen Clinton, exhibiting all
the authority of his office and his influence over an obedi-
ent legislature. The effect on the common mind of with-
holding those observances which custom has connected
with high station, was well understood by Clinton: a
marked and studied neglect was manifested by him towards
congress, as though he wished them to be regarded rather
as intruders upon a sovereign state, than as the Council
of the Nation. Yet he at the same time avowed the
opinion, that the articles of the confederation were equal
to the objects of the union, or with little alteration could
be made so, and that the deputies to Annapolis ought to
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON. 451
have confined themselves to the expressed purpose of their
errand.
New-York gave the most prominent adversary and ad-
vocate of the union. The more obstinate the opposition
of Clinton to enlarged views of the interests of the Ameri-
can people, the more zealous and determined were the ex-
ertions of Hamilton. All the influence of his attractive
manners and generous hospitality was now seen. He min-
gled daily with the members of the federal government;
his house was their constant resort; his conversation was
full of the great theme of a more perfect union; and with
earnest argument and wit he exposed the inconsistency of
men who refused to confer upon congress an adequate
fiscal power, for the reason that it was a single body with-
out checks, and yet would seek to thwart every effort to
constitute it differently. Having thus prepared the minds
of that assembly,* he hoped that their sanction of the pro-
posed convention, so long withheld, might be obtained.
Though a president had been elected, nine states were
not represented in congress until the fourteenth of Feb-
ruary. The next day Hamilton delivered his speech upon
the impost, in the presence of many of its members, who
saw the mute vote rejecting it recorded.
It is the part of genius to select the moment to achieve
its high purposes; and the day after this vote, notice was
given of an intended motion for an instruction to congress
to recommend the call of a convention. Its object was
stated to be that " of revising the articles of confederation
and perpetual union, by such alterations and amendments
as a majority of the representatives shall judge proper and
necessary, to render them adequate to the preservation
and government of the union. "
* Speaking subsequently of a leading individual, who. commenced his ca-
reer as an earnest opponent of a national system, Hamilton remarked to a
friend--" I revolutionized his mind. " .
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 452
THE LIFE OF
This motion was brought forward on the seventeenth,
and being so modified, at the instance of the leader of
Clinton's party in the assembly, as to omit the words, " a
majority," and to substitute that of " support" for " govern-
ment," was agreed to. After the interval of a day, this
instruction was laid before the senate, and it was ordered
to be postponed. Of Clinton's majority in that branch, the
most prominent persons were Haring and Yates. * Gen-
eral Schuyler led the opposition. His weight of character
would have been insufficient to carry this important reso-
lution, but for the urgent circumstances of the moment.
Some of the leaders of the rebellion in Massachusetts had
taken refuge in New-York. On the day this resolution
was laid before the senate, Schuyler moved that a procla-
mation should be issued for their apprehension. The fears
of congress were also aroused, and on the same day a re-
port then in progress, deferring the enlistment of federal
troops, was postponed. Alarmed for the quiet of the state,
the senate on the following day," after considerable debate,
by a majority of one vote, concurred in the proposed in-
struction. "
To anticipate intrigue and gain the advantage of this
momentary alarm, Hamilton's report from Annapolis was
called up in congress the next day. That body was yet
undecided. By some, their sanction of the convention, it
was supposed, might stimulate, by others it was alleged
that it would impede, the action of the states. Some looked
with jealousy at a body so formed; others doubted its con-
stitutionality. Amid this perplexity, the instruction of
New-York was presented to them. Though supported by
the votes of Massachusetts and Virginia, the recommen-
dation it urged failed, and a resolution of a member from
Massachusetts, after being amended, was passed. It re-
* Abraham Yates.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-20 03:43 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uva. x000275492 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? HAMILTON.
453
ferred, as a justification for the proceeding, to the provision
in the articles of the confederation for their alteration by
congress, with the assent of the state legislatures, and to
the recent instruction from New-York, and declaring that
it was " the most probable mean of establishing in these
states a firm national government," sanctioned the contem-
plated convention. *
Having exerted the influence of New-York upon con-
gress, Hamilton was eager to derive the benefit of the in-
fluence of congress upon that state. Five days after, he
offered a resolution in the assembly, conforming to the re-
commendation of congress, for the appointment of five
commissioners to meet in convention at Annapolis. This
resolution being agreed to, was laid before the senate by
Schuyler. That body did not dare to reject it; but, on
motion of Haring, the number was reduced from five to
three.
Yates then proposed to insert a proviso, that the alter-
ations and provisions to the articles of confederation
"should be not repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the con-
stitution of this stale. " This amendment, so decisive of
the views of Clinton, was opposed, and was lost by the vote
of the presiding officer. f
The resolution then passed the senate, was immediately
concurred in by the house, and on the eighth of March,
three commissioners, Yates, Hamilton, and Lansing, were
appointed--Chief Justice Yates unanimously, Hamilton
with two, Lansing with many dissenting voices. As the
rule of the confederation of voting by states might be adopt-
ed, and as his colleagues were in the views of Clinton,
Hamilton proposed, near the end of the session, to add two
delegates. He observed, "I think it proper to apprise the
? February 21,1787.
t Senate Journal of New-York, p. 44-5, February 28,1787.
?
