IV.] The Ordinance of 1787. 115 the consent of all parties. At all events, the Ordinance preserved freedom in the North-west. Furthermore, by the policy thus formulated, the American people, for the first time in the history of mankind, voluntarily promised to those who should form colonies in these new territories, equal rights with the inhabitants living in the older States. This promise has been rigidly adhered to, and thus the United States has grown, not by forming colonies according to the usual meaning attached to the phrase, but by absorbing into the Union States formed on the national domain. This process has disguised the fact that during the last century the United States has been the greatest and most successful colonizing power in the world. Congress and the Army, 1778-83. At the time of the ratification of the Articles, the complaints of the soldiers of the Revolutionary army were so loud and threatening as seriously to menace the safety of the republic. The situation of the army officers, and of the soldiers as well, was very distressing. They had abandoned their means of securing a livelihood and were serving their country for a compensation which did not cover their own personal expenses. The families of many of them were in great need. Under these circumstances, as early as 1778, large numbers of the officers of the Continental Line had either resigned their commissions or had threatened to resign. This wholesale change in the personnel of the company and regimental officers would have been disastrous. Washington interfered, and exerted himself to the utmost to secure the adoption by Congress of some scheme of half-pay for life or of pensions which might induce the officers to remain in the service. The people, as a whole, were very jealous of the army. Probably they feared it. At all events, Congress no sooner passed a vote favourable to the soldiers than public opinion compelled it to annul its vote. In the autumn of 1780, when the army seemed to be on the point of dissolution, the Continental Congress promised half-pay for life to those who The first Congress of should serve until the end of the war. the Confederation repudiated this action upon the unworthy pretext that nine States (the number required under the Articles) had not voted for it. The officers then offered to compromise by commuting the half-pay for life to full pay for seven years. This was the condition of affairs in March, 1783, when an anonymous address was published at Newburg on the Hudson, where the army was encamped, calling a meeting to determine what measures should be taken to obtain justice. Washington, with great tact, averted the danger by calling another meeting. He there met the officers and induced them to intrust their affairs to him. Had Washington at that time spoken the word, there can be little doubt that he might have played the part of other great commanders in civil strife and made himself a king. But to a suggestion of that nature he replied in such a manner that it was never repeated. Congress was now induced to grant full pay for five years in money or in such promises to pay as other creditors of the Confederation received. Towards the end of the year the army was disbanded, Washington bidding farewell to his officers on December 14th, 1783. The Finances of the Confederation. This dispute as to half-pay had run to this dangerous length because Congress had neither the means to satisfy the demands of the army nor any prospect of obtaining them. In 1783, the total debt of the United States was about forty millions of dollars, including nearly five millions due to the army. The annual interest on this debt amounted to nearly two and one-half millions. Of the total of forty millions, some eight millions were owed abroad to the French government and to other foreign governments and individuals. The interest on this portion of the debt was met by the proceeds of new loans contracted in Europe. The interest on the domestic debt, as that owed to Americans was called, was not paid at all. Between 1782 Iv.] Weakness of the Confederation. 117 and 1786, Congress made requisitions upon the States to the amount of six millions. Of this, only one million had been paid up to the end of 1786. At no time in the life of the Confederation was Congress able to pay the running expenses of the government. This was the defect in the Articles of Confederation which has attracted most attention. An attempt was made to remedy it before the Articles came into operation. At that time (1781) it was proposed to give Congress the right to levy duties on imports to the extent of five per cent. ad valorem. But this very moderate proposal fell through owing to the obstinacy of Rhode Island and the fickleness of Virginia. At another time (1783) the suggestion was made that Congress should be given power to levy certain duties, partly specific and partly ad valorem, to be collected by officials appointed by the States, but responsible to Congress. To this proposition the people also turned a deaf ear. The attention of the country had been called, however, to the fact that there was a national debt and that there was no national income. Foreign A government so weak at home was neither feared nor respected abroad. Great Britain, for example, immediately enforced against the people of the United States all the restrictions of the pre-revolutionary commercial system. The United States was helpless. The central government had the power to conclude treaties, but it had no power to regulate commerce. There were no restrictions on trade which its agents could offer to abandon as the price of reciprocity; and the Congress could not, as foreign nations well knew, impose any such restrictions. Congress, therefore, was unable to conclude a commercialtreaty with England. Nor had it the means to compel obedience to treaties already in existence. Congress made the recommendation as to the Loyalists in accordance with the Treaty of 1783. Instead of complying with it, the States seemed to vie with one another in imposing new hardships on Loyalists remaining in or returning to the Disputes with Great Britain and Spain. United States. This was impolitic and unjust, but it was not an infraction of the treaty. The clause providing that no obstacles should be placed in the way of the collection of debts contracted before the war was broken again and again, and the central government, having no coercive power, could not enforce the supremacy of the treaty over State laws. On the other hand, the British government infringed the treaty in two important respects. First, the posts in the North-west were not surrendered to the United States but were retained together with the profitable fur trade which had grown up about them; and secondly, compensation for slaves taken away at the time of the evacuation of New York and Charleston was refused. Relations with Great Britain were in this unsatisfactory state when the government was organized under the Constitution. Against Spain also there was considerable complaint. That power refused to recognize the 31st parallel of latitude as the southern boundary of the United States, and maintained that Florida, which had been ceded back to her by Great Britain at the close of the war (1783), extended as far north as the Yazoo River (32° 30' N. L.) as that was the northern boundary of West Florida during the later years of the English domination. Nor would Spain recognize the right of the people of the new nation to the free navigation of the Mississippi. Spain held both sides of the river, not only at its mouth, but for more than two hundred miles inland. This was a serious matter for the United States, as the inhabitants of the new settlements in Tennessee and Kentucky, west of the Alleghanies, reached tide-water most conveniently by the Mississippi route. They threatened to join Spain or Great Britain unless the United States could protect them in the enjoyment of their rights in the navigation of the Mississippi. At the time, this danger IV.] Financial Heresies. 119 seemed real and great; but it is not unlikely that it was unduly exaggerated. In 1784, the imports into the United States amounted in round numbers to three million seven hundred Financial thousand pounds sterling. The exports during heresies, 1784-87. the same year were estimated by the same authority at seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling. The balance of three million pounds was paid by the exportation of specie. The country was soon drained of gold and silver and a cry arose throughout the land for inconvertible paper money. In spite of the terrible disasters which paper money had wrought within recent years all the States, with the exception of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Virginia, issued inconvertible paper money. The most extraordinary fruits of this vicious policy were seen in Rhode Island. In that little State, there was a sharp line of demarcation between the "town and country," or better, perhaps, between those engaged in agricultural and those occupied in mercantile pursuits. The farmers were in the majority. They secured the passage of a law entitling an owner of land to receive paper money from the State in exchange for a mortgage on his land equal to double the amount of the paper money received. The merchants refused to take the money from the first holder and it depreciated in a few months to one-sixth of its nominal value. Several expedients were then resorted to to secure its circulation. One act obliged all persons to accept this currency under penalty of disfranchisement, and a fine of one hundred pounds in case of refusal - the case to be tried without a jury, by judges annually appointed by the legislature. The merchants closed their doors rather than do business on these terms; and, to starve them into obedience, the farmers withheld the produce of their farms. In the case of Trevett against Weeden, one of the most famous in the history of the country, the question was brought before the courts, when the judges, to their honour be it said, |