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

650. See above, p. 15.

651. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 423.

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

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

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

655. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 425.

656. Libby, op. cit., p. 59.

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

658. See above, p. 107.

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

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

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

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

663. Libby, op. cit., pp. 26 ff.

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

665. Ms. Treasury Department: “I,” Index to Funded 6 C; “JA,” Journal A, 1790–1791 (sixes and threes); “JB,” Journal B; “R,” Register Loan Office Certificates, 1788; “77,” Register Certificates of 1777; “3 C,” Ledger C, 3% Stock; “LT,” Treasury Ledger; “M,” Miscellaneous.

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

667. Libby, op. cit., p. 66.

668. Letter, quoted in Libby, op. cit., p. 65.

669. Sectionalism in Virginia, pp. 6–9; p. 58.

670. Ambler, op. cit., pp. 8, 59.

671. Ibid., pp. 15–16.

672. Ambler, op. cit., pp. 48–52.

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

674. Ibid., p. 36.

675. Ambler, op. cit., pp. 53 ff.

676. For an explanation of the Federalist complexion of this region see Ambler’s explanation, Sectionalism in Virginia, p. 16.

677. Libby, op. cit., pp. 34–35.

678. Voted against ratification.

679. This is evident from the records in the Treasury Department.

680. Libby, op. cit., pp. 38 ff.

681. Ibid., p. 42–43.

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

683. See above, p. 248.

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

685. Ms. Treasury Department: South Carolina Loan Office Ledger, consult Index. No general search was made for other names.

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

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

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

689. Writings, Vol. I, p. 423.

690. “Address to the Freemen of America,” The American Museum for June, 1787. Vol. I, p. 494.

691. New Hampshire Spy, November 30, 1787.

692. American Museum, July, 1788, Vol. IV, p. 85.

693. Above, p. 156.

694. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316; below, p. 299.

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

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

697. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 442.

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

699. Life and Letters, Vol. I, pp. 314 ff.

700. Harding, The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts, pp. 123–124.

701. Ford, Essays on the Constitution, p. 139.

702. Ford, Essays on the Constitution, pp. 144 ff.

703. Libby, op. cit., p. 58.

704. Connecticut Courant, May 21, 1787.

705. See above, p. 156.

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

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

708. See Harding, “Party struggles over the First Pennsylvania Constitution,” American Historical Association Report (1894).

709. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 305.

710. Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 339.

711. Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 358.

712. McMaster and Stone, op. cit., p. 73.

713. Ibid., p. 567.

714. Ibid., p. 367.

715. McMaster and Stone, op. cit., pp. 568–569.

716. Ibid., pp. 569–570.

717. Connecticut Courant, Oct. 1, 1787.

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

719. Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution, p. 254.

720. See above, p. 205.

721. Maryland Journal, March 21, 1788.

722. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 398. For the economics of this, see above, p. 30.

723. P. 295.

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

725. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 584.

726. Ibid., p. 577.

727. Elliot, Debates, Vol. III, p. 592. See W. C. Ford, “The Federal Constitution in Virginia,” in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1903.

728. Elliot, Debates, Vol. IV, p. 159.

729. Elliot, Debates, Vol. IV, p. 90.

730. McRee, Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, Vol. II, pp. 216, 219.

731. McRee, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 164 note.

732. See W. A. Schaper, “Sectionalism in South Carolina,” American Historical Association Report (1900), Vol. I.

733. Summary by T. Ford, The Constitutionalist (1794), p. 21.

734. Ford, op. cit., pp. 21–22.

735. Op. cit., p. 13.

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