Founding Myths (53 page)

33
.
  
Boyd,
Papers of Jefferson
, 1: 414.

34
.
  
“I did not consider it any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether, and to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before.” (Jefferson to Madison, August 30, 1823, Ford,
Writings of Thomas Jefferson
, 10: 267.)

35
.
  
Maier,
American Scripture
, 203–204.

36
.
  
Quoted in Garry Wills,
Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence
(New York: Doubleday, 1978), xix–xx.

37
.
  
Maier,
American Scripture
, 202.

38
.
  
Force,
American Archives, Fourth Series
, 6: 514.

39
.
  
Ibid., 5: 1206.

40
.
  
Wills,
Inventing America
, xxi. Lincoln's argument would have been stronger had Jefferson stayed with Mason's phrase “equally free and independent,” instead of paraphrasing the words of James Wilson, who had argued several years before that “all men are, by nature, equal and free.” To Lincoln's contemporary critics, the vague and undefined notion of “equality” was preposterous: people were obviously not equal with respect to all sorts of physical attributes, let alone social position or political standing. Mason's terminology would have eliminated this glib rebuttal: “equally free and independent” makes it clear that people are to be considered equal precisely because they are free and independent. This would have provided a much more forceful argument against slavery, although Mason, like Jefferson, probably had not intended his words to be used to this end. Mason's Declaration of Rights, however, had lost its luster—not because of inferior wording, but because the congressional Declaration had supplanted it in the public mind and its primary author had become president.

41
.
  
For Jefferson's attitudes on miscegenation, see his
Notes on the State of Virginia
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955; written in 1781), 138–140. Jefferson's
breeding of slaves for profit can be deduced from his letters. On January 17, 1819, Jefferson wrote to his plantation overseer: “I consider the labor of a breeding woman as no object, and that a child raised every 2 years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man.” The following year he reiterated this little piece of fiscal philosophy: “I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm. What she produces is an addition to capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption.” (Jefferson to Joel Yancy, January 17, 1819, and Jefferson to John W. Eppes, June 30, 1820, in Edwin Morris Betts, ed.,
Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book
[Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976] 43, 46. Whenever Jefferson ran into debt, which was often, he could and did sell slaves to meet the demands of his creditors. (Betts,
Jefferson's Farm Book
, 5.) Compromised ethically and politically, Jefferson tried to conceal these embarrassing transactions in human flesh: “I do not (while in public life) like to have my name annexed in the public papers to the sale of property,” he wrote—the “property,” in this case, being a euphemism for slaves. (Jefferson to Bowling Clarke, September 21, 1792, in Betts,
Jefferson's Farm Book
, 13.)

42
.
  
For a discussion of the relation of Lincoln to others who made this argument before him, see Maier,
American Scripture
, xix–xx, 202–203.

43
.
  
Vivian Bernstein,
America's History: Land of Liberty—Beginning to 1877
(Austin, TX: Steck-Vaughn, 1997), 81.

44
.
  
Joy Hakim,
A History of US
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2003) 3: 98–100. This is the cornerstone of Hakim's treatment of the American Revolution. The cover copy for volume 3,
From Colonies to Country
, reads: “Read all about it! How the people in thirteen small colonies beat a great and very powerful nation, became free, and went on to write some astounding words that inspired the whole world.”

45
.
  
James West Davidson and Michael B. Scott,
America: History of Our Nation
(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2014), 171; William Deverell and Deborah Gray White,
Holt McDougal United States History: Beginnings to 1877
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012), 110.

46
.
  
Although
Common Sense
circulated widely and certainly made its mark, only scant print records and no sales records survive, so we simply do not know how many copies were sold. The three numbers most often cited (100,000 and 120,000 and 150,000) were offered by Paine himself, who had no way of ascertaining the information but a great deal of interest in exaggerating his impact. The estimate of half a million was first posited by a biographer more than a century later. None of these estimates are realistic, given the demographics of the country, the state of the print industry, the location of the twenty-five known contemporary printings, and distribution patterns at that time. For the full story, see Trish Loughran,
The Republic in Print: Print Culture in the Age of U. S. Nation Building, 1770–1870
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 40–58 and 253–261. For a brief rendition, see Ray Raphael, “Thomas Paine's Inflated Numbers,” in
Journal of the American Revolution
(online), March 20, 2013:
http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/03/thomas-paines-inflated-numbers./
The biography that posited 500,000 is Moncure Daniel Conway's
The Life of Thomas Paine: With a History of His Literary,
Political, and Religious Career in America, France, and England
(New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892) 1: 69 (chapter 6).

47
.
  
Jefferson to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825, in Ford,
Writings of Thomas Jefferson
, 10: 343. See also Jefferson to James Madison, August 30, 1823, in Ford,
Writings of Thomas Jefferson
, 10: 268.

48
.
  
Jefferson to Dr. James Mease, September 26, 1825, in Ford,
Writings of Thomas Jefferson
, 10: 346.

7: An Assembly of Demigods

  
1
.
  
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay,
The Federalist Papers
(originally titled
The Federalist
), Yale Law School, Avalon Project:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed02.asp
.

  
2
.
  
Lester Jesse Cappon, ed.,
The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 1: 194–196.

  
3
.
  
John Robert Irelan,
The Republic, or, A History of the United States of America
(Chicago: Fairbanks and Palmer, 1888), 15: 164.

  
4
.
  
Charles A. Beard,
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution
(New York: Macmillan, 1913).

  
5
.
  
James Madison,
Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
, Adrienne Koch, ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 1987), May 30. On the Internet: Avalon Project, Yale Law School,
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
. In this chapter I cite dates rather than page numbers since there are so many different editions of Madison's
Notes
. All quotations from the Federal Convention with identifying dates in my text are from Madison, unless otherwise specified. In several places my treatment of the debates here follows the line I took in
Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right
(New York: The New Press, 2013), 35–55, and, where noted, in
Mr. President: How and Why the Founders Created a Chief Executive
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012).

  
6
.
  
Ibid., June 29. For the political challenge, see Clinton Rossiter,
1787: The Grand Convention
(New York: Macmillan, 1966), 182–96.

  
7
.
  
Ibid., June 30. Five days later, on July 5, Bedford offered a nonapology apology that did nothing to lessen the small-state, large-state divide: “He found that what he had said as to the small States being taken by the hand, had been misunderstood; and he rose to explain. He did not mean that the small States would court the aid & interposition of foreign powers. He meant that they would not consider the federal compact as dissolved untill it should be so by the Acts of the large States. In this case The consequence of the breach of faith on their part, and the readiness of the small States to fulfill their engagements, would be that foreign Nations having demands on this Country would find it their interest to take the small States by the hand, in order to do themselves justice. This was what he meant. But no man can foresee to what extremities the small States may be driven by
oppression. He observed also in apology that some allowance ought to be made for the habits of his profession [Bedford was a lawyer] in which warmth was natural & sometimes necessary. But is there not an apology in what was said by [Mr. Govr. Morris] that the sword is to unite: by Mr. Ghorum that Delaware must be annexed to Penna. and N. Jersey divided between Penna. and N. York. To hear such language without emotion, would be to renounce the feelings of a man and the duty of a Citizen.”

  
8
.
  
Ibid., July 5.

  
9
.
  
Ibid., June 29.

10
.
  
Many commentators suggest that Franklin was using the ploy to bring his colleagues to their senses. For a thoroughly researched discussion, see William G. Carr,
The Oldest Delegate: Franklin in the Constitutional Convention
(Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1990), 96–101.

11
.
  
Ibid., June 29.

12
.
  
Washington to Hamilton, July 10, 1787, W.W. Abbot and Dorothy Twohig, eds.,
The Papers of George Washington
(Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983–), Confederation Series, 5: 257. Hamilton left the Convention because he was consistently outvoted by his New York colleagues Robert Yates and John Lansing Jr.

13
.
  
Madison,
Notes of Debates
, July 14 (Martin) and July 12 (Davie).

14
.
  
As with any vote on multiple issues, it is difficult to dissect the returns, but judging from previous and subsequent positions, it appears that a bloc of small states was happy to achieve equal representation in the second branch whereas Virginia and Pennsylvania, not ready to compromise, refused to concede and voted against the measure. South Carolina and perhaps Georgia also resisted compromise, with at least some delegates holding out for full slave representation. Delegates from Massachusetts were divided over the slavery compromise, while three of the four North Carolina delegates thought compromise on all issues was in order. At first glance the five-to-four tally might have seemed inconclusive, subject to being overturned in the future. But two states were not present, and both likely would have approved: New Hampshire because it was a small state and New York because it appeared to give the states legal representation in Congress. Tiny Rhode Island, not present at the Convention, would also have favored equal representation for small states, and Georgia, had all its delegates been present, might well have voted yes rather than no. The vote was not as close as it might appear. (Richard Beeman,
Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution
[New York: Random House, 2010], 219–22.)

15
.
  
Madison,
Notes of Debates
, July 16.

16
.
  
Ibid., August 24.

17
.
  
Not all small-state delegates agreed with Dayton. Delegates from New Hampshire and Delaware, thinking that separate ballots would prove too cumbersome, broke ranks with their small-state brethren.

18
.
  
For Morris's opposition to legislative selection of the president see Raphael,
Mr. President
, 78–120 and 281–85, and for the devious methods used by Morris and the New Jersey delegation to get the matter into committee, see ibid., 101–6.

19
.
  
For the work of the committee and the creation of the electoral college, see ibid., 106–10.

20
.
  
Madison,
Notes of Debates
, September 4 and 5. On September 5, committee member Rufus King “observed that the influence of the small States in the Senate was somewhat balanced by the influence of the large States in bringing forward the candidates; and also by the concurrence of the small States in the Committee in the clause vesting the exclusive origination of money bills in the House of Representatives.” To this observation Madison appended a footnote: “This explains the compromise mentioned above by Mr. Govr. Morris. Col. Masson, Mr. Gerry & other members from large States set great value on this privilege of originating money bills. Of this the members from the small States, with some from the large States who wished a high mounted Govt endeavored to avail themselves, by making that privilege, the price of arrangements in the constitution favorable to the small States, and to the elevation of the Government.”