kind of fatality", Samuel Adams lamented (June 26), " still prevents our proceeding a Step in the important affair of the Confederation." On the 30th, however, he wrote more hopefully. There were but two or three things, he thought, which would be the subject of further debate, and upon them most of the members, he believed, had already made up their minds. The question of voting, he was inclined to believe, would be determined the next day. The next day did not, however, produce the expected decision or even a consideration of the subject. On the second of July a motion prevailed to take the confederation into consideration "tomorrow "; yet many morrows came and went before the subject is even so much as mentioned again in the journals. On August 16 a day was assigned for it, but the appointment was not kept. On September 2 an effort was made to have the confederation made a part of each day's business; but the motion was negatived.

Numerous letters in the meantime, during July, August, and September, show that the confederation was not absent from the minds of members and even that some attention had been bestowed upon it in Congress beyond what the journals record. Williams mentions, for instance, July 5, that a strenuous struggle was going on between the smaller and the larger states over the method of voting. From Lovell and Samuel Adams it is learned (letters of July 21 and 22, respectively) that an effort had been made to bring on the subject, but that it had been postponed because of Virginia's lack of representation. When Richard Henry Lee arrived (August 12) he found Virginia's charter bounds being strongly contested and the confederation otherwise obstructed “by the immensity of business created by the war" (letter of August 25). Charles Carroll of Carrollton declared (August 12) that almost every member of Congress was anxious for a confederacy, but he was inclined to despair of it unless "little and partial interests" could be laid aside; but to the usual reason that a confederacy formed on a rational plan would add weight and consequence to the United States collectively and give great security to each individually, he adds what had now become one of the principal arguments for it, that it would give "a credit to our paper money". "With the main Army at our Elbow ", wrote Lovell (September 7) we shall never want ten thousand interruptions to the Settlement of the Articles of Confederation and the Establishment of our Currency." "Confederation and financies", wrote Eliphalet Dyer the same day, "are now the great objects", and he thought Congress in a pretty good temper to do business, "if this plaguy fellow of an How does not disturb us".

66

It was not long before Howe did disturb them. In the afternoon of September 18, while Laurens was writing to Gervais concerning the contemplated removal of Congress, a member came in and reported, “in a burst of Laugh", that Congress would tomorrow" enter upon the weighty business of the Confederation". "Fright", remarks Laurens, "some

66

times works Lunacy." Before the break of another day Congress was in flight. On the 27th a quorum of the members gathered at Lancaster, the appointed rendezvous, held one session, then hurried across the Susquehanna to York; for, as Laurens expressed it (October 20), “ hearts were still fluttering in some bosoms". "Here", wrote James Duane (October 3)," we are sufficiently retired and can deliberate without interruption."

Members had scarcely alighted from their horses before they were writing that Confederation, taxation, and, if possible, the retrieving of the sinking currency would at once be undertaken. Accordingly, on the 2d of October one more resolution to take the confederation into consideration" tomorrow" is found duly recorded in the journals. It was not, however, taken up on the 3d, or the 4th, or the 5th; but on the 6th not only was the consideration set for tomorrow, but the resolution prescribed the precise hour, and also the precise article to be considered. For once Congress obeyed its own injunction to the letter; and from that day to the 15th of November, when the finished Articles were recorded in the journals, Congress held energetically to the task, with but little interruption. On the 7th it was decided that each state should have one vote; on the 14th, after five days of debate upon the various proposals, it was resolved that the proportion of the public expense to be paid by each state should be ascertained by the land values in each state, together with their improvements; on the 15th the third of the three "capital points so often spoken of by members in their letters, the question of the claims extending to the South Sea, was taken into consideration. Two significant motions were made, one that Congress should have sole and exclusive right and power to ascertain and fix the western boundaries of states thus claiming and to dispose of the land beyond those boundaries for the benefit of the United States, the other that Congress should lay out such land into separate and independent states. Both motions were negatived, the latter obtaining only the solid vote of Maryland and a single vote from New Jersey. Congress was accordingly denied the power to limit the western boundaries of the states, but not until those states had voluntarily ceded those territories to the United States could Maryland, the chief proponent of the measure, be prevailed upon to ratify the Confederation.

The three great questions having been determined many members began to take their departure (see, for instance, Laurens's letter of October 16). Whether this exodus was for the better or for the worse, Congress plunged with nervous energy into the remaining articles, revising, striking out, substituting, but pushing rapidly toward the completion of the instrument; pausing now and then, nevertheless, to give attention to other important problems, such as the reorganization of the commissary department, the establishment of the new board of war, and even to give ear to the clamorous Frenchmen; and rejoiced in the midst of their labors by the news of the victory over Burgoyne.

During this time there is abundant expression by members of their personal and sectional views upon the three pivotal questions; but it is significant that scarcely an intimation had hitherto been let fall by any member touching any other provision of the Confederation as it lay before them. Not, perhaps, because they were indifferent to other questions; they were only less contentious. The record of proceedings in the journals carries the same implications; for upon but few such questions was there a call for the yeas and nays. When they came to the council of state, if there was serious debate upon it, it is not mentioned, except that Lovell remarked (November 3) that he supposed it would be "thrown out and a Committee of Congress be left in recess to transact prudentials". This was accordingly done (November 7), by striking out the whole article concerning the council of state and substituting therefor the simple provision that there should be a committee of Congress, to be called the committee of the states, which should have only such powers, in the recess of Congress, as Congress by the consent of nine states might vest in them.

This completed the work upon the Articles as they then stood, but on the 12th and 13th certain additions were made, then the whole was arranged and spread upon the journals (November 15). There were no shouts of rejoicing, but there were many expressions of relief that at last the great task had been accomplished. As there was an earnest desire that the Confederation should speedily be ratified by the states, members appeared, upon the whole, to be confident that this would be done, although there were some misgivings as to the outcome. The reactions of members during this period of waiting, as recorded in their letters, are of especial interest. On the one side is the attitude of Thomas Burke. He had left Congress about the middle of October, and on November 4 he wrote to Governor Caswell: "As I consider the plan now in embryo as what can never be suited to the States, I think nothing decided on it is of consequence." He thought “a time of peace and tranquillity the proper time for agitating so important a concern "; and a little later he set forth at some length, for the benefit of his state's assembly, his views of the whole instrument. Another view, and it was that of many New England delegates, was expressed by Nathaniel Folsom. He was particularly displeased with the method decided upon for determining the respective quotas of taxation for general purposes, for he could see no justice in the rule. While many were anxious to hasten ratification, he made no doubt that the states would take as much time to deliberate upon the matter as they thought just and necessary (letters of October 27 and November 21). Probably more characteristic of Congress as a whole is the attitude of Richard Henry Lee. To President Meshech Weare of New Hampshire he wrote (November 24): "In this great business dear Sir we must yield a little to each other, and not rigidly insist on having everything correspondent to the partial views of every State. On such terms we can

never confederate." A fitting conclusion to the whole matter is the admirable presentation of the case for the Confederation in the circular letter, doubtless from the pen of Richard Henry Lee, which accompanied it to the several states. (The letter is found in the Library of Congress edition of the Journals, under November 17.)

It has been endeavored here, by the light of such expressions as have been left to us by the chief participants, flickering and spasmodic though such light may be, to follow the progress of the Articles of Confederation through their manifold vicissitudes on the floor of Congress, to their completion there, and their despatch to the several states for acceptance or rejection. Such a story of the Confederation is not of course the whole story; it is only such a view of the contest on the fighting front as these letters afford. The" home front ", the seethe and surge of ideas and their expression among the people, it has not of course been sought to envisage. Nor is this the place to follow the Articles through the next chapter of their career, their appearance before the several states, those thirteen courts of appeal which were to sit in judgment upon them. It is permissible, however, to give a moment's consideration to the instrument which had cost so much thought and labor, and whose mission among the states was so potent for good or evil.

To what extent the Confederation would be effective for the purpose for which it was designed; whether it would stand the strain of antagonistic views and interests; whether it would endure even for the period of the war; these events were in the laps of the gods. Most members of Congress evidently believed, and the majority of the people presently came to believe, that it would at least make for unity and efficiency in the accomplishment of what was all-important, the prosecution of the war to a successful conclusion and the achieving of independence. Few of them ventured to push predictions farther than that, although there were those among them who lifted their eyes and looked for the goal far beyond the conclusion of the war. In one of the earliest discussions of the confederation Franklin had declared: "If they have an equal vote without. bearing equal burthens, a confederation upon such iniquitous principles will never last long." And it is related of John Adams that, about the time when the instrument was being completed, he assumed the rôle of prophet and predicted that " before ten years this confederation, like a rope of sand, will be found inadequate to the purpose, and its dissolution will take place". In such a group of men, endeavoring to settle problems the solution of which they believed carried consequences so momentous, it would be remarkable if there had not been prophecies even more dire. Because the Articles of Confederation, on account of certain inherent weaknesses, proved inadequate and had in the end to be cast aside for an entirely new-forged constitution, it has been much the practice to pile criticisms upon them and even to treat them with a measure of scorn.

Whatever the faults of the Articles, they constitute nevertheless an important, a necessary, stage in the development of an efficient constitution, even as the confederation effected under them was an important, a necessary, step in the progress toward a more perfect union. There has been too little appreciation of the difficulties encountered in the formation of the Articles, too small an appraisement of the obstacles which stood in the way of even this tentative union. The generations that have lived under the noble instrument of government that has proved so adequate to our needs have beheld the period of the Confederation in the concentrated light of subsequent history and have been all too prone to impatience with the men of that time—and for what? For their short-sightedness, it is called; but actually because their foresight was not as broad and as deep and as far-reaching as our hindsight. A closer view of the conditions of that period, a warmer contact with the men of those times, a more sympathetic consorting with their thoughts and feelings, will not only give us a fuller comprehension of the materials with which they worked, but will surely lead us to a better understanding of what they wrought.

Upon a full view of all the facts, it is rather to be wondered at that these men had at length persuaded themselves to yield so much that to them had very great and very definite value for their individual centres of political life, had consented to give up these things in return for that quite vague and ill-defined, that altogether problematical thing, the "benefit of the whole". It is, when all things are considered, remarkable that they went as far as they did toward merging their own states, which hitherto had encompassed their lives and to them were very real, into a union whose figure was not only dim and whose value was uncertain, but which might in the end destroy its creators. So much had their vision enlarged in the two and a half years since Franklin had laid before them his tentative plan of union, so widely had their political horizons expanded. And yet, before even this imperfect union of the states could become an accomplished fact, there must be more yielding one to another; there must be other surrenders of partial views and separate interests; there must be a still further enlargement of vision, a still greater expansion of horizons.

EDMUND C. BURNETT,