Volume I Part 4 (1/2)
[Footnote 42: _Ibid._, 137.]
[Footnote 43: M.E. Lamb, _History of the City of New York_, Vol. 2, p.
320.]
[Footnote 44: _Hamilton's Works_, Vol. 1, p. 491.]
[Footnote 45: _Ibid._, p. 449.]
[Footnote 46: W.G. Sumner, _Life of Hamilton_, p. 139.]
Melancthon Smith was the ablest opponent of the Const.i.tution. Familiar with political history, and one of the ablest debaters in the country, he proved himself no mean antagonist even for Hamilton. ”He must have been a man of rare candour, too,” says John Fiske, ”for after weeks of debate he owned himself convinced.”[47] Whatever could be said against the Const.i.tution, Smith voiced it; and there was apparent merit in some of his objections. To a majority of the people, New York appeared to be surrendering natural advantages in much larger measure than other Commonwealths, while its concession of political power struck them as not unlikely to endanger the personal liberty of the citizen and the independence of the State. They disliked the idea of a far-off government, with many officers drawing large salaries, administering the army, the navy, and the diplomatic relations with nations of the Old World. It was so different from anything experienced since their separation from England, that they dreaded this centralised power; and, to minimise it, they proposed several amendments, among them one that no person should be eligible to the office of President for a third term. Time has demonstrated the wisdom of some of these suggestions; but commendable as they now appear after the lapse of more than a century, they were of trifling importance compared to the necessity for a closer, stronger union of the States in 1787.
[Footnote 47: John Fiske, _Essays Historical and Literary_, Vol. 1, p.
125.]
Federalists were much alarmed over the failure of New York to ratify.
Although the State ranked only fifth in population, commercially it was the centre of the Union. From the standpoint of military movements, too, it had been supremely important in the days of Montcalm and Burgoyne, and it was felt that a Federal Union cut in twain by the Mohawk and Hudson valleys must have a short life. ”For my own part,” said Hamilton, ”the more I can penetrate the views of the anti-federal party in this State, the more I dread the consequences of the non-adoption of the Const.i.tution by any of the other States--the more I fear eventual disunion and civil war.”[48] His fear bred an apparent willingness to agree to a conditional ratification,[49] until Madison settled the question that there could be no such thing as conditional ratification since const.i.tutional secession would be absurd. On July 11 Jay moved that ”the Const.i.tution be ratified, and that whatever amendments might be deemed expedient should be recommended.” This, however, did not satisfy the opposition, and the discussion continued.
[Footnote 48: _Hamilton's Works_, Vol. 8, p. 187.]
[Footnote 49: _Ibid._, p. 191.]
Hamilton, however, did not rely upon argument alone. He arranged for news of the Virginia and New Hamps.h.i.+re conventions, and while Clinton, clinging to his demand for conditional ratification, still hesitated, word came from New Hamps.h.i.+re, by a system of horse expresses, telling the glad story that the requisite number of States had been secured.
This reduced the question to ratification or secession. A few days later it was learned that Virginia had also joined the majority. The support of Patrick Henry had been a tower of strength to Governor Clinton, and his defeat exaggerated Clinton's fear that New York City and the southern counties which favoured the Const.i.tution might now execute their threat to split off unless New York ratified. Then came Melancthon Smith's change to the federalist side. This was like crus.h.i.+ng the centre of a hostile army. Finally, on July 28, a resolution ”that the Const.i.tution be ratified _in full confidence_ that the amendments proposed by this convention will be adopted,”
received a vote of thirty to twenty-seven. Governor Clinton did not vote, but it was known that he advised several of his friends to favour the resolution. On September 13, he officially proclaimed the Federal Const.i.tution as the fundamental law of the Republic.
Posterity has never severely criticised George Clinton's opposition to national development. His sincerity and patriotism have been accepted.
To Was.h.i.+ngton and Hamilton, however, his conduct seemed like a cold and selfish desertion of his country at the moment of its utmost peril. ”The men who oppose a strong and energetic government,” wrote Was.h.i.+ngton to Hamilton on July 10, 1787, the day of Yates' and Lansing's retirement from the Philadelphia convention, ”are, in my opinion, narrow-minded politicians, or are under the influence of local views.” This reference to ”local views” meant George Clinton, upon whose advice Yates and Lansing acted, and who declared unreservedly that only confusion could come to the country from a convention and a measure wholly unnecessary, since the Confederation, if given sufficient trial, would probably answer all the purposes of the Union.
The march of events has so clearly proved the wisdom of Hamilton and the unwisdom of Clinton, that the name of one, joined inseparably with that of Was.h.i.+ngton, has grown with the century, until it is as much a part of the history of the Union as the Const.i.tution itself. The name of George Clinton, on the contrary, is little known beyond the limits of his native State. It remained for DeWitt Clinton, the Governor's distinguished nephew, to link the family with an historic enterprise which should bring it down through the ages with increasing respect and admiration.
CHAPTER V
CLINTON'S FOURTH TERM
1789-1792
At each triennial election for twelve years, ever since the adoption of the State Const.i.tution in 1777, George Clinton had been chosen governor. No one else, in fact, had ever been seriously talked of, save John Jay in 1786. Doubtless Clinton derived some advantage from the control of appointments, which multiplied in number and increased in influence as term succeeded term, but his popularity drew its inspiration from sources other than patronage. A strong, rugged character, and a generous, sympathetic nature, sunk their roots deeply into the hearts of a liberty-loving people who supported their favourite with the fidelity of personal friends.h.i.+p.
The time had, however, come at last when Clinton's right to continue as governor was to be contested. Hamilton's encounter with the New York opponents of the Federal Const.i.tution had been vigorous and acrimonious. It was easy to stand with one's State in opposing the Const.i.tution when opposition had behind it the powerful Clinton interest and the persuasive Clinton argument that federal union meant the subst.i.tution of experiment for experience, and the exchange of a superior for an inferior position; but it required a splendid stubbornness to face, daringly and aggressively, the desperate odds arrayed against the Const.i.tution. Every man who wanted to curry favour with Clinton was ready to strike at Hamilton, and they covered him with obloquy. Very likely his att.i.tude was not one to tempt the forbearance of angry opponents. He did not fight with gloves.
Nevertheless, his success added one more to his list of splendid victories. He had beaten Clinton in his intolerant treatment of loyalists; he had beaten him in obtaining for Congress the sole power of regulating commerce; he had beaten him in the Philadelphia convention called to frame a federal const.i.tution; he had beaten him in a state convention called to ratify that const.i.tution; and now he proposed to beat him for governor in a State which would have great influence in smoothing the way for the new federal government.
After the close of the Revolution, there had been local parties in the various Stales, divided on issues of hard and soft money, on imposts, on treatment of Tories, and on state rights, and these issues had coincided in many of the States. During the contest growing out of the adoption of the Federal Const.i.tution, all these elements became segregated into two great political parties, those who supported the Const.i.tution being known as Federalists--those who were opposed to strengthening the bond between the States being called anti-Federalists.
The latter were clearly in the majority in New York, and Hamilton rightly inferred that, notwithstanding the people, since the adoption of the Const.i.tution, manifested a disposition to sustain the general government, a large majority of freeholders, having heretofore supported Clinton as a wise, patriotic governor, would not now desert him for an out-and-out Federalist. To meet this emergency, several Federalists, at a meeting held February 11, 1789, nominated Robert Yates, an anti-Federalist judge of the Supreme Court, hoping thus to form a coalition with the more moderate men of his party.
In support of such politics, of the doubtful wisdom of which there was abundant ill.u.s.tration in the recent unnatural coalition between Lord North and the brilliant Charles James Fox, Hamilton wrote to his friends in Albany that in settling upon a candidate, some difficulties occurred. ”Our fellow citizens in some parts of the State,” he said, ”had proposed Judge Yates, others had been advocates of Lieutenant-Governor Van Cortlandt, and others for Chief Justice Morris. It is well known that the inhabitants of this city are, with few exceptions, strongly attached to the new Const.i.tution. It is also well known that the Lieutenant-Governor and Chief Justice, whom we respect and esteem, were zealous advocates for the same cause. Had it been agreed to support either of them for governor, there would have been reason to fear that the measure would have been imputed to party, and not to a desire of relieving our country from the evils they experience from the heats of party. It appeared, therefore, most advisable to elect some man of the opposite party, in whose integrity, patriotism, and temper, confidence might be placed, however little his political opinions on the question lately agitated might be approved by those who were a.s.sembled upon that occasion.
”Among the persons of this description, there were circ.u.mstances which led to a decision in favour of Judge Yates. It is certain that as a man and a judge he is generally esteemed. And, though his opposition to the new Const.i.tution was such as his friends cannot but disapprove, yet, since the period of its adoption, his conduct has been tempered with a degree of moderation, and seems to point him out as a man likely to compose the differences of the State. Of this at least we feel confident, that he has no personal revenge to gratify, no opponents to oppress, no partisans to provide for, nor any promises for personal purposes to be performed at the public expense.”[50]