statesmen of this country was more pronounced in his opposition to British rule than was Livingston, but, while he labored to overthrow that rule, he saw the need for establishing in its place some more liberal system. In attaining this purpose he believed in making use of the "accumulated experience and perfected forms" of other nations. The purely "expulsive," or "liberative" school of statesmen thought that no such means should be employed as they considered them contrary to Democratic principle. They would rely on "militia" measures-the undisciplined and unorganized impulses of the people-in diplomacy, in government and in finance. The evil of these so-called principles and the expediency of observing those advocated by Livingston and the other constructive statesmen was shown by the reckless issue of paper money, the incompetency of the "Committee of Secret Correspondence," and Washington's difficulties as commander of the army. Another unfavorable result of this unguided diplomacy was the bringing together in Paris of an unharmonious body of men who did nothing but quarrel among themselves and obstruct Franklin in his mission at the Court of Versailles. Livingston opposed these erratic measures, and after he assumed charge of the department of foreign affairs, no more such missions to European courts were established. IN THE RATIFYING CONVENTION.-As a member of the Convention of New York State, called to consider the Federal Constitution, his constructive statesmanship was again enlisted in behalf of his country. In this Convention he took a leading part, making the opening speech in favor of ratification and being repeatedly on the floor in support of this step towards a stronger union. A brief account of his service in the Convention may not be uninteresting. In the beginning, he asserts as an indubitable fact "that the happiness of nations, as well as of individuals, depends on peace." The United States have been fortunate among nations in attaining that desired eminence, and should now devote their energies to insuring their continued stand thereon. The weakness of the Confederacy and of all other such governments seemed to him to lie in the fact that the responsible members of the State governments had not been subject to the confederated authority, which consequently became powerless. The dangers in disunion were many, and would be felt by every State, but New York, by reason of her geographical position, would be more exposed than any other State. She was between two sections of the Confederation, and, besides, in case of foreign war, would be the first object of attack. All nations would prey upon her, and her weakness would force her to submit. To those who would amend the Articles of Confederation so as to overcome the present objections and weaknesses, he would say that this was impracticable, because there would be no way of enforcing the decrees of the amended government except by an obedient State coercing a disobedient one. This would virtually be civil war, and the constant recurrence thereof would defeat all the aims of government. The Chancellor could see no danger in giving Congress control over the army and the treasury, with power to regulate commerce. The country must be protected, and money was necessary to do this. The States would not protect each other, but would devote all their energies to their own individual preservation. Would it not, then, be better to entrust this matter to Congress and give the sword and the purse into their keeping? He could see no danger in the aristocratic rich so often criticized; the government would apply equally to all. Nor could he see any danger in the levying of an excise tax by the national government; the impost might be sufficient for all the needs of the government in time of peace, but the contingency of war must be considered, and war meant a necessary increase in revenue from taxes. These were the most important of the points considered by the Chancellor, whose influence was not the least potent in bringing New York into the Union under the Federal Constitution. But it may be pertinent to ask if there was not some truth in the criticism of Melancthon Smith that the Chancellor and other apologists of the Federal Constitution were spending more time in pointing out the evils of the Confederacy than in explaining the excellencies of the Constitution, and that on account of the continued disparagement of the Articles of Confederation it had become customary for all opponents thereof to impute every untoward circumstance to these Articles. Having now followed in this imperfect manner the career of Livingston through the beginning of the Revolution, the various movements that culminated in the assembling of the Revolutionary Congress in 1774, the confederation of the American States and the final achievement of their independence, which achievement was crowned perpetually by the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the object of this study has been compassed. ROANE ON THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION. 1. PUBLIC LETTER OF "PLAIN DEALER" TO GOVERNOR RANDOLPH, FEBRUARY 13, 1788.* To the Editor of the Chronicle: "A writer calling himself Plain Dealer, who is bitter in Principle v. The Constitution, has attacked me in the paper. I suspect the author to be Mr. Spencer Roane, and the importunities of some to me in public and private are designed to throw me unequivocally and without condition into the opposition." After a long and general expectancy of some dissertation on the subject of the proposed Federal Constitution, worthy the first magistrate of the respectable State of Virginia, a letter of His Excellency, Governor Randolph, of October 10, 1787, is at length presented to the public. Previous to the appearance of this letter, various opinions were prevailing in different parts of this country respecting the gentleman's real opinion on the subject of the said Constitution; and it becomes difficult for many to conjecture how His Excellency would devise a middle course, so as to catch the spirit of all his countrymen, and to reconcile himself to all parties. It was not known to me, at least, that His Excellency felt an “unwillingness to disturb the harmony of the assemblage" on this important subject, nor could I conceive that the sentiment of even the oldest man among us could "excite a contest unfavorable" to the fairest discussion of the question. On the other hand, I thought it right that the adversaries of the Constitution, as well *Mr. Paul Leicester Ford identified this letter and reprinted it in his "Essays on the Constitution," page 385, published in Brooklyn, 1892. It is republished now because of the scarcity of Roane's writings, and because it seems to have been the beginning of Roane's attacks on the proposed National Constitution and its interpretation by John Marshall in later years. as its framers, should candidly avow their real sentiments as early and decidedly as possible, for the information of those who are to determine. It is true, His Excellency was prevented from delivering his opinion sooner, "by motives of delicacy arising from two questions depending before the General Assembly-one respecting the Constitution, the other respecting himself," but I am of opinion that during the pendency of a question concerning the Constitution, every information on the subject is most properly to be adduced; and I did not know that being or not being Governor of Virginia (an office in a great degree nominal) was sufficient to deter a real patriot from speaking the warning voice of opposition, in behalf of the liberties of his country. The letter above mentioned can derive no aid from panegyric as to the brilliancy and elegance of its style, for, unlike the threadbare discourses of other statesmen on the dry subject of Government, it amuses us with a number of fine words. But how shall I express my dislike of the ultimatum of His Excellency's letter, wherein he declares "that to offer our best effort for amendment, they cannot be obtained, he will adopt the Constitution as it is." How is this declaration reconcilable to a former opinion of His Excellency's, expressed to the Honorable Richard Henry Lee, and repeated by the latter gentleman in his letter,* as printed in the public papers, "that either a monarchy or an aristocracy will be generated from the proposed Constitution." Good God! how can the first magistrate and father of a pure republican government, after a feeble parade of opposition, and before his desired plan of amendments has been determined upon, declare that he will accept a Constitution which is to beget a monarchy or an aristocracy? How can such a determination be reconcilable to the feelings of Virginia, and to the principles which have prevailed in almost every Legislature of the Union, who looked no farther than the amendment of our present Republican Confederation? I have charity to believe that the respectable characters, who signed this Constitu*See Elliott's Debates, I, 503. |