CONGRESS ADOPTS THE ARTICLES. 233 one at the time of their formation confused their function with that of the State constitutions. On the thirteenth of November, 1777, the amended Articles were given over for revision and arrangement to a committee of three, composed of Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia; James Duane, of New York, and James Lovell, of Massachusetts. They were instructed also to prepare a circular letter to go forth with the Articles to the States. The draft prepared by this committee, which slightly changed the order, but did not alter the sense of the Articles, was adopted on the fifteenth of November.1 Two days later a circular letter was submitted, and was issued from Yorktown, where Congress was then in session. The business of preparing a plan of confederation, it said, had been "attended with inconvenience, embarrassment and delay." To form a permanent Union accommodated to the opinions and wishes of the people of so many States, differing in products, commerce and internal policy, was a work which only time and reflection could mature and accomplish. It was hardly to be expected that the plan now proposed would correspond with the political views of every State, but it was the best which could be adopted under the circumstances. It consisted in combining, into one general system, the various systems of a continent divided into many sovereign and independent communities, under the conviction of the absolute necessity of the union, to maintain and defend the common liberties of all. Its ratification was urged upon the assemblies and, for more than any other reason, because it would confound our foreign enemies, "defeat the flagitious practices of the disaffected; strengthen and con 1 The perfected Articles, as adopted by Congress, were spread on the Journal for November 15, 1777, Vol. III, 396-401. 2 Id. November 17, 1777, III, 404. 234 firm our friends; support our public credit; restore the value of our money; enable us to maintain our fleet and armies and add weight and respect to our councils at home and to our treaties abroad." The legislatures were urged to invest their delegates with competent powers to subscribe to the Articles, but their representatives now in Congress refused to fix the day when the ratification should be made. Thirteen copies of the Articles were then signed by the President, were duly attested by the secretary and were forwarded to the States together with copies of the circular letter.1 They were translated into the French language, and copies were sent to Canada, with an address to its inhabitants. THE ARTICLES BEFORE THE LEGISLATURES. The Articles were now taken up by the legislatures, but it was not until the twenty-second of June, 1778,2 that Congress proceeded to consider the amendments which they proposed. Though these were all rejected, they are of great interest as indicative of the trend of current political thought, and especially as showing what provisions the representatives of the people, in their assemblies, believed should be incorporated in a federal Constitution. Maryland wished a new article that should exempt the State from the burden of supporting paupers who might remove into it from another. The western lands should be utilized for the general benefit of the United States,* and Congress should appoint commissioners to restrict the boundaries of those commonwealths which claimed territory toward the South Sea. New Hampshire and Virginia® 1 November 17, 1777. 3 2 Journal, IV, 261, et seq. Not wholly without reference to free persons of color. See Constitutional History of the American People, 1776-1850, Vol. I, Chapter XII, Journal of Congress, June 22, 1778, IV, 262. • Demanded also by Rhode Island and New Jersey. Id., June 27, 1778, IV, 277. Ratifications by other States follow. • June 25, 1778. THE STATES PROPOSE AMENDMENTS. 235 agreed to the Articles, but proposed no amendments, and empowered their delegates to ratify them.1 Massachusetts wished the rule of apportionment made variable from time to time,2 so that Congress might learn by experience how to determine the number of representatives from each State. Rhode Island would empower a State to vote even if it had but one delegate on the floor,3 and suggested a land census every five years. Connecticut wished the quotas from the States to be apportioned to the number of inhabitants, and also wished to enjoin. the United States from maintaining an army in time of peace or paying pensions to any officers or soldiers who were able to support themselves. New York sent up a copy of its ratification of the Articles under the great seal of the State with the proviso that they should not be binding on her until they were ratified by all the other States. New Jersey demanded an article prescribing an oath of office, and also that the sole and exclusive power of regulating trade with foreign nations should be in the control of Congress. It objected to the method of determining quotas and thought the value of real estate the true basis. New Jersey objected to the apportionment of the land forces among the several States on the basis of their white inhabitants as a violation of the doctrine of human equality in the Declaration of Independence; therefore the basis should be changed so as to include all the inhabitants. It 1 June 23, 1778. 2 Journal, June 23, 1778, IV, 265. 3 Id. ♦ Also demanded by New Jersey; South Carolina once in ten years. 5 Also demanded by New Jersey. Journal, IV, 269. 6 Journal, June 27, 1778, IV, 279-281. 7 Also demanded by Pennsylvania. New Jersey held slaves at this time. 236 THE STATES PROPOSE AMENDMENTS. also demanded that the assent of nine States out of thirteen should be necessary in determining matters of highest concern, even though the States should increase in number. Pennsylvania' desired a clause empowering a State to recall its delegates within a year, and to send others in their places, but it should not be allowed to send them merely for the remainder of the year. Congress should be required to report the post-office accounts annually to the legislatures. No less than twenty-one amendments were sent up by South Carolina.2 The discussion of the Articles by its assembly had been exhaustive, and its Chief Justice, Drayton, in the most elaborate speech on the Articles that has come down to us, advised against their adoption, and submitted a plan of government in their place. The "sovereignty of the States," he said, "should be restricted only in cases of absolute necessity," and Congress should have no powers save that "clearly defined in the nature of its operation." The conservative spirit of Drayton's oration is traceable in the amendments which the State proposed. Only free white inhabitants of States should be entitled to equality of rights and privileges, and to them all privileges and immunities under the Articles should be strictly limited. But the privileges and immunities of free white citizens should be regulated according to State laws. The day of the meeting of Congress should be changed from the first Monday in November to the nineteenth of 1 June 25, 1778; Journals of Congress, IV, 272. 2 Journals, June 25, 1778, IV, 272-274. 3 The Speech of Honorable William Henry Drayton, Esquire, Chief Justice of South Carolina, delivered on the 20th of January, 1778, in the General Assembly, Resolved into the Committee of the Whole upon the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America, 12, Principles and Acts of the Revolution, Niles, 98-114. RATIFICATION OF THE ARTICLES. 237 April. No State should be represented in Congress by less than three members, and no person should be eligible as a delegate for more than two years in six. In case of the outbreak of an Indian war, one State might aid and sustain another without the prior consent of Congress.1 The troops of a State should be primarily under its control, unless joined by troops from another, in which case Congress might appoint the commanding officer, but when called into the service of the United States, they should be paid out of a common treasury. The cumbersome article for settling difficulties between the States should be stricken out. The consent of eleven, instead of nine, States should be required in important cases specified in the Articles, and all other questions should be decided, not by the votes of the majority of the States in Congress, but by a majority of the States themselves; but the consent of eleven States instead of the requirement of unanimity, should be sufficient to amend the Articles. The delegate from Georgia informed Congress that as the State had shown so much readiness to ratify the Articles, even in an imperfect form (and it was much to the interest of Georgia to ratify), he had no doubt it would adopt the Articles as they stood.2 No delegates were present from Delaware and North Carolina, but from the Governor of the latter a letter was received announcing that its legislature had agreed to the Articles. A committee of three was now appointed to prepare a form of ratification. On the following day the form and a copy of the Articles were engrossed and approved, and a perfect copy 3 1 A suggestion due to the peril of the south-western frontier from the Creeks, Choctaws and Chickasaws. 2 Journal, June 25, 1778. 3 Id. Richard Henry Lee, Gouverneur Morris of New York and Francis Dana of Massachusetts, Journal, June 26, 1778. |