digious means were already in existence to oppose a new constitution of government, which not only transferred from the states some of the highest sovereign prerogatives, but laid prohibitions upon the exercise of other powers, which were at that time in possession of the popular favour. The wonder, indeed, is not, under such circumstances, that the constitution should have encountered the most ardent opposition; but that it should ever have been adopted at all by a majority of the states.
§ 288. In the convention itself, which framed it, there was a great diversity of judgment, and upon some vital subjects, an intense and irreconcilable hostility of opinion.[1] It is understood, that at several periods, the convention were upon the point of breaking up without accomplishing any thing.[2] In the state conventions, in which the constitution was presented for ratification, the debates were long, and animated, and eloquent; and, imperfect as the printed collections of those debates are, enough remains to establish the consummate ability, with which every part of the constitution was successively attacked, and defended.[3] Nor did the struggle end here. The parties, which were then formed, continued for a long time afterwards to be known and felt in our legislative and other public deliberations. Perhaps they have never entirely ceased.
- ↑ 2 Pitk. Hist. 225 to 260; Dr. Franklin's Speech, 2 Amer. Museum, 534, 538; 3 Amer. Museum, 62, 66, 70, 157, 559, 560; 4 Elliot's Debates.—Three members of the convention, Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts, and Mr. Mason and Mr. Randolph of Virginia, declined signing the constitution; 3 Amer. Museum, 68. See also Mr. Jay's Letter in 1787; 3 Amer. Museum, 554 to 565.
- ↑ 5 Marshall's Life of Washington, 128.
- ↑ 2 Pitk. Hist. 265 to 283.
