American Revolution Podcast

Sunday, September 14, 2025

ARP364 New England Tour & NC Ratification

We recently covered the first session of Congress in 1789, where they recommended a Bill of Rights for ratification, passed the Judiciary Act and created the court system, created the various executive departments and a host of other things to get the country off to a good start. At the end of September 1789, the members of Congress left New York and went home for the rest of the year. George Washington remained in New York, continuing work on the establishment of a whole host of government functions. Once Congress left, Washington began planning to get out of New York for a while, but not to go home. Instead, he planned a trip to New England.

Washington’s Medical Crisis

The President had actually been rather ill for several months during the congressional session. In June, he was suffering from what he called a tumor on his left thigh. The word “tumor” today is largely associated with cancer. That was not the case in this situation. It was a swollen lump, likely caused by some sort of infection.

Arch erected in Boston, 1789
for President Washington's visit.

That said, any such malady in the 18th century could easily have been fatal. Washington developed a high fever. A witness described the tumor as the size of two fists. In June, Washington and his doctors decided surgery was required. Again, in the eighteenth century, before germs and infection were understood, any surgery carried with it a risk of death as well.

On June 17, Dr. Samuel Bard was called to the president’s residence to operate. The doctor cut out the tumor, without anesthesia. Washington remained awake and conscious through the procedure. Following the surgery, the president was bed ridden for about six weeks, unable even to sit up for several weeks.

The illness and the procedure had been largely kept quiet. When Washington remained in his home, not receiving visitors, rumors began to fly. Crowds began to grow around the residence as locals grew concerned for the president’s health. Officials blocked traffic in front of the presidential residence so that he would not be disturbed by the noise.

During this time, we can read panicked letters by members of Congress, including James Madison, who feared that, if the President died an untimely death at this critical time, it could derail the entire federal government. They saw Washington's leadership as that critical to the success of the United States.

By mid-August, Washington was able to begin corresponding again. He wrote to several friends and family that he had recovered from the surgery. He even made two personal appearances in the Senate that month. But the recovery was slow and painful. It was not until September, that Washington wrote his physician in Virginia, that he could report that most of the pain was gone.

Planning the Tour

Perhaps one reason for his decision to ride around New England was to dispel rumors about his health. It may also have been that Washington felt better when he was out riding, not cooped up in the city. Beyond any personal issues, though, Washington wanted to connect with the people he was responsible for governing.

Aside from all the legislation, one of the most important things Washington needed to do was to make sure the state of the union was strong. For many Americans, Washington was the personification of the union. Washington also wanted to know what the people were thinking. He wanted to get out of the capital and talk to people. He wanted to see for himself how the country was doing and what was on the people's minds.

The President had spent a great deal of time in the mid-Atlantic during the war, and had also stopped in many towns in his various trips from Mount Vernon to Philadelphia and New York after the war. He really hadn’t spent much time in New England though since the end of the Siege of Boston in 1776.

Washington thought he could rectify this by taking a tour of New England during the Congressional recess. After Congress went home at the end of September, Washington made plans for his trip. He invited Vice President Adams to join him. Adams knew his native New England pretty well, and would be heading to his home near Boston anyway.

Washington and Adams had never been particularly close. They had never really mixed socially. Sometimes they were on the same side of a political issue, sometimes not. When the two were selected to lead the new federal government, Washington reached out to the Vice President to get some advice, but was not impressed with the response. The two men largely operated separately

There are many reasons why Washington might have invited Adams. Washington might have thought it proper courtesy to invite the New England politician. It might also have been an opportunity for the two men to get to know each other during the trip. This really is just speculation though since Washington never articulated his thoughts on the matter.

We also don’t know how the two might have interacted on the trip since Adams declined the offer. The Vice President left for home several days before Washington left New York.

Connecticut

Washington began his trip on October 15. An honor guard, including John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and Henry Knox escorted him to the Connecticut state line. But Washington made the trip on his own. His only companions were his two personal secretaries, Major William Jackson and Tobias Lear. Six personal slaves took care of the coach and horses and the various servant duties that Washington found necessary.

Washington hoped to keep the pomp and circumstance to a minimum, which is probably why he travelled with such a small party. His diary made careful note of the farms he passed, noting that Connecticut had “few or no opulent Men and no poor.” As he approached each town, he would stop his coach and mount his white horse to make his entry. There would inevitably be some celebrations at each stop, with local officials wanting to toast the president and host dinners. Washington tried to use this time to understand the locals better, and get to know their concerns.

He was particularly interested in the budding textile and manufacturing industries. The president understood that American independence required economic independence. Most people still imported suits, or at least finished cloth, from Britain. Washington had worn a suit made of homespun cloth to his inaugural, hoping to encourage the fashion. Beyond textile, Washington was interested in the establishment of factories, producing things like glass, shoes, and furniture.

Washington had also determined not to stay in any private homes during his trip. He stuck to taverns and public houses. This was probably to avoid insulting anyone by choosing one home over another. It may also have been an attempt to avoid granting any appearance of favor to any person. The party spent their first night in Fairfield, Connecticut, then heading to New Haven the following day. The Connecticut legislature arranged for a greeting committee to escort him into town. They apparently missed him as he coach slipped by, and Washington rode into town without the escort.

A few days later, the president entered Hartford, where he toured a wool mill in which Congressman Jeremiah Wadsworth was a partner. Washington spoke with the mill workers and asked lots of questions. He spoke highly of the work they were doing, although he noted in his diary that he did not think the cloth was of the finest quality.

He also noted that a great many women and girls worked in these factories. He viewed this as a positive. One of the concerns with manufacturing and industry was that there would not be enough people producing food. So, women and girls, who were not as actively involved in agriculture, could work in factories, while the men farmed their fields. At least that is how they looked at it at the time.

Massachusetts

After about a week in Connecticut, Washington rode north into western Massachusetts. He did not want to travel east since that would have caused him to pass through Rhode Island. Since Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution, Washington consciously avoided the state. Instead he headed for Springfield, Massachusetts, then made his way east through the state, arriving in Worcester on October 23.

As he travelled through western Massachusetts, an express rider from Governor John Hancock informed him that the governor was making plans for the president’s arrival and invited him to stay at his home. Washington graciously rejected the offer, telling Hancock that he had determined not to accept any private offers for lodging, and that he had already made plans for lodging in Boston.

Hancock then responded that he hoped that Washington would at least join him for a dinner at his home, and inquired when Washington expected to reach Boston. This touched off a protocol dispute. Governor Hancock expected Washington to call on the Governor, as would a foreign ambassador coming to the state. Washington, however, believing the presidency superior to a state governor, believed that Hancock should call on him when he arrived in Boston.

As the President’s coach approached Boston, he was greeted by a military parade of about 800 men at Cambridge. Hancock noted that the soldiers would meet him on the same ground where he was received in 1775, when he would take command of the Continental Army. Washington tried to object, arguing it was uncomfortable to expect him to review men under arms when he was not their commander. But at the risk of snubbing the militia, Washington relented and went along with it.

Things got worse as Washington tried to enter Boston. The Governor’s Council, led by Lieutenant Governor Samuel Adams, met Washington at Cambridge, to escort him into the city. As the group tried to cross Boston Neck, the members of the Boston Town committee blocked the path, demanding that they, not the governor, control the events to host the president in town. The standoff lasted over an hour, as Washington grew more impatient as everyone stood out in the cold and rain. Finally, the Governor’s Council gave in, and permitted the town officials to take the lead.

Washington finally made it to the home he had rented, about a block from Governor Hancock. Washington then awaited the governor’s arrival. Instead, he received a note from Hancock asking Washington to join him at his home. Washington refused, creating a standoff. Instead he simply had dinner with Lt. Governor Adams, while Hancock remained at his residence with a large party, who expected Washington’s arrival.

The following morning, Hancock tried to excuse his absence, claiming he had been struck by a severe attack of gout. Washington did not really believe this, since Hancock had held a big party the night before, with guests anticipating the president's arrival. Washington remained firm, essentially saying that he’d love to receive the governor, but if Hancock was too sick, he would understand. Finally, Hancock showed up, carried by two servants and with his legs wrapped in flannel.

Washington spent nearly a week in Boston, enjoying a parade in his honor, as well as multiple banquets. The whole city turned out to greet the president. Several articles noted the absence of John Adams at the parade. The Vice President remained at his nearby home in Braintree.

Washington’s participation in events resulted in him coming down with a cold. He ended up cancelling a trip to Lexington so that he could recover. In fact cold and flu spread all over the east cost. Some members of Washington's family were sick in New York at this time. Everyone began calling it the president's flu.

After leaving Boston, Washington travelled north to Salem. He made stops in Lynn to inspect a shoe factory, and in Marblehead to hold a reunion with General John Glover. Washington noted that Marblehead had fallen on hard times. The fishing industry had never bounced back after the war. Nearly more than a quarter of the population consisted of widows and orphans. The dirty and destitute town had an impact on the president. Many people noted that he seemed saddened when he entered Salem later that day.

New Hampshire and Return

When Washington reached the New Hampshire border, he was met by New Hampshire Governor John Langdon, who personally escorted him to Portsmouth. There would be no dispute over who would call on whom in New Hampshire. Again, the city hosted him with banquets and parades. There, Washington also caught up with General John Sullivan. Washington’s former general had just completed three years as governor and had received an appointment to become the first federal judge in New Hampshire.

Washington crossed over the harbor to visit a fort in Maine, at the time, still part of Massachusetts. This was the northernmost point on his trip. He also paid a call on the wife of former colonial Governor Benning Wentworth, and also accompanied his secretary Tobias Lear on a visit to see his mother. Washington also spent one afternoon sitting for a portrait.

By the time Washington was ready to leave Portsmouth, it was already early November. There was apparently some consideration given to visiting Vermont. Washington declined. Part of the reason might have been that snow was beginning to fall. A trip into the inland areas might cause trouble getting back. There was also the concern that Vermont was not part of the union, although it very much wanted to be. Washington may have been concerned that his visit might open up disputes from New York, which still claimed that Vermont was part of New York.

Instead, Washington headed for home. His diary includes complaints of poor and crooked roads, as well as receiving poor directions from the locals. He also complained about having to comply with the local custom of not traveling on a Sunday. Instead, the President stopped and attended two local services at different churches. It took about a week and a half to get back to New York City.

Unlike his trip north, the return trip consisted of long rides each day, often beginning before dawn. I avoided major towns, not returning through Boston. He also made no attempt to announce his arrival. Many small towns were caught unaware as the president rode through. One minister in Milford, Massachusetts, recalled that he was shoveling manure when someone called out that the president was passing by. The minister quickly dropped what he was doing, washed and changed so that he could rush down to the tavern and meet the president.

Washington arrived back in New York on November 13, returning to the Presidential mansion and reuniting with Martha. In less than a month, he had recorded visits to sixty towns and villages.

Overall, his trip was considered a success. Washington had been celebrated wherever he went. People seemed ready to give the new federal government a chance, and appreciated a visit from their leader.

North Carolina

Shortly after his return to New York, Washington received good news from the south. North Carolina and Rhode Island were the only two states who refused to ratify the Constitution. They had been watching the new nation move along without them.

North Carolina Governor Samuel Johnston had sent his congratulations to Washington when the president was inaugurated, and expressed his hope that North Carolina would join the Union as soon as amendments were proposed.

Congress, of course, proposed a bill of rights in September and sent them off to the states for ratification. In November, North Carolina delegates met a second time for a Constitutional Convention. The second convention began in Fayetteville on November 16.

While there was still some opposition, the mood had changed radically since the first convention refused to ratify back in August, 1788. The United States was moving forward without them, and a bill of rights, which had been a major objection at the first convention, was well on its way to being ratified.

Also, Congress had implemented trade tariffs on anyone importing goods into the US. Since Rhode Island and New Carolina were considered foreign states, these tariffs would have greatly damaged trade and cost North Carolina merchants. After North Carolina petitioned Congress, it agreed to suspend the tariffs until January 15, 1790. State officials knew that tariff would go into effect if they failed to ratify in 1789.

These changed circumstances meant that there was a great deal more support for ratification and everyone knew that ratification would pass in this second attempt. Some of the leading opponents did not even bother to run to become delegates. A great many who had voted no at the first convention were ready to vote yes this time.

On their first day, Monday the November 15, the Convention chose Governor Samuel Johnston as president of the Convention. They did so, even though Johnston was sick and not in attendance. They voted for State Senator Charles Johnson to be Vice President. Charles Johnson took charge of the convention in the governor's absence. The following day they prepared and adopted rules.

On Wednesday, the Convention met in a committee of the whole to consider the Constitution. The delegates called for copies of the proposed bill of rights passed by Congress to be printed and circulated among the delegates..

By Friday, Governor Johnston made it to the convention and took charge. The Committee of the Whole had agreed to ratify the Constitution. On Saturday, the delegates moved to take up that report and agree to ratify the Constitution. The opposition still objected. James Galloway proposed that North Carolina only ratify conditionally. He still wanted Congress to address five amendments that North Carolina had demanded in its firs convention but which were not addressed in the Bill of Rights.

The mood in North Carolina, however, had turned. The majority wanted to get into the Union. They could work out whatever other details concerned them at a later time. The Convention rejected Gallaway’s proposal. They voted overwhelmingly, 194-77 to agree to unconditional ratification of the Constitution.

The Convention concluded its work on Monday. Following the Convention, Governor Johnston transmitted the results to President Washington on December 4, making North Carolina the twelfth state to join the Union. Washington then informed Congress when it returned to session in January, 1790.

Even before Congress officially received the news in January, the North Carolina General Assembly voted to ratify the Bill of Rights on December 22. It was the third state to do so, behind only New Jersey and Maryland. By the end of January, more states: South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Delaware, would also ratify the bill of rights.

Next Week: Washington delivers his first State of the Union Address to Congress.

- - -

Next Episode 365 State of the Union, 1790 (coming soon)

Previous Episode 363 French Revolution

Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast

Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora

Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more. Get your favorite American Revolution logo today. Help support this podcast. https://merch.amrevpodcast.com

Click here to donate

DONATE

American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give. Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).

Click here to see my Patreon Page

You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber. This is an option making monthly pledges. Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop. Support local bookstores and this podcast!

https://bookshop.org/shop/ARP

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Sunday, August 31, 2025

AR-SP37 Winning the Ten Crucial Days, with David Price

Our American Revolution Round Table heard a presentation from author David Price, about his book: Winning the 10 Crucial Days, which focuses on General Washington's campaign during the ten days between December 25, 1776, and January 3, 1777. This period encompasses the Trenton and Princeton campaigns, which are significant for being Washington's army's first three major victories of the war. These victories fundamentally changed the momentum of the conflict and transformed Washington's public image from an inept leader to a military genius and national hero.

Price explains that his book offers a unique framework, departing from a straight chronological narrative. Instead, it employs five interpretive themes or analytical factors, presented in order of priority: leadership, geography, weather, artillery, and contingency. He includes appendices in the book, one of which attempts to quantify these subjective factors and their percentage contribution to the campaign's outcome.

Here's a breakdown of the key analytical factors discussed:

Leadership: This is considered the priority factor, foundational to the campaign's success. It examines the strategy, tactics, character, and competence of officers on both sides. Key figures include George Washington (for his bold vision), Henry Knox (for directing the Delaware River crossing and artillery), Edward Hand (for holding off Cornwallis at Assunpink Creek), and John Cadwalader (for his actions and drawing a "spy map" of Princeton defenses). On the British/Hessian side, it looks at the erroneous assumptions of General William Howe, the failure of commanders like Rahl and Von Donop to cooperate, and Lord Cornwallis's tactical errors, such as approaching Trenton in a single column and failing to monitor Washington's troop movements.
Geography: This factor involves the terrain and natural barriers, particularly the Delaware River and Assunpink Creek. Examples include the vast and undefendable area the British were trying to occupy in New Jersey, the distance between their outposts making Trenton vulnerable, and the British inability to pursue Washington across the Delaware due to lack of boats. The swollen currents of Assunpink Creek posed an obstacle to Cornwallis, while the lack of impediments on the Princeton battlefield aided Washington's forces.
Weather: This covers natural elements like temperature, precipitation, river ice, and road conditions and their impact on army maneuvers and combat. The river not freezing until after the British left, the blizzard obscuring Washington's march to Trenton (potentially lulling Hessians), and the storm impeding Hessian defense at Trenton are cited. Later, rain and warm weather turned the road to Trenton into a "muddy morass" for Cornwallis, while a subsequent freeze hardened the ground, facilitating Washington's artillery movement to Princeton.
Artillery: This discusses the critical role of cannon in all three battles, highlighting the American numerical advantage and effective deployment under Henry Knox. The American superiority in field pieces was significant: approximately 18-6 at Trenton, 40-28 at Assunpink Creek, and 35-6 or 35-8 at Princeton. Cannon fire is seen as decisive in all American victories.
Contingency: Defined as "sheer dumb luck," this factor encompasses fortuitous decisions and non-weather events that benefited Washington's army. Examples include the capture of General Charles Lee, which arguably freed Washington from his skeptical second-in-command and expedited crucial reinforcements. Another instance is General Adam Stephen's unauthorized raid on December 25th, which, despite Washington's initial fury, may have inadvertently led Colonel Rahl to be less vigilant at Trenton.

The host also introduces "desperation" as an additional key factor, noting that Washington faced a "do or die" situation due to expiring enlistments, pushing him to attempt something audacious. Price elaborates that Washington was instinctively aggressive in military tactics and, after receiving reinforcements, sought the first opportunity for a counterattack.

Regarding the decision to attack Princeton, traditional accounts suggest it was a spontaneous decision made during a council of war. However, Price argues that it was a well-conceived plan Washington had "all along," supported by circumstantial evidence like scout reports and Cadwalader's "spy map" showing undefended areas of Princeton. While Princeton was a success, Washington's ultimate objective was New Brunswick, but he was advised against it by his officers due to his army's exhaustion.

- - -

To see a list of upcoming Round Table events, where you can participate on Zoom, go to: ⁠⁠https://amrevrt.org/virtual-round-table-events⁠

Order a copy of Winning the Ten Crucial Days: The Keys to Victory in George Washington's Legendary Winter Campaign at Amazon.

Subscribe to David Price's Blog, or find a list of this other books at https://dpauthor.com

To participate live in future Zoom events, be sure to join as a member on Patreon, or sign up for my mailing list.

Click here to see my Patreon Page

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Thursday, August 28, 2025

ARP 363b Declaration of the Rights of Man

This declaration was a key document of the early French Revolution. Although Lafayette produced the original draft, he consulted with Thomas Jefferson, who was still the American Minister to France at the time. You will hear a great deal of the same enlightenment principles that we heard in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. It clearly shows the American influence on the principles of the French Revolution.

Of course the ideals that took root in America, were also based on the work of earlier French leaders like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and The Baron de Montequieu. I don’t mean to say that the American founders invented the ideas. But the success of those ideas in the American Revolution prompted many in France to bring those ideas forward in their own country.

Lafayette’s original draft went through some changes in the National Assembly before its final release. He introduced it on July 11, 1789, just days before a Paris mob attacked and destroyed the Bastille. It did face controversy in a divided government before finally being approved at the end of August.

I will now read the Declaration of the rights of Man as approved by the National Assembly.

Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789

Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:

Articles:

1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

Ok, so that was the declaration. In many ways, this was bringing the radicalism that had taken root in America back to Europe. The ideals expressed, like due process, equality under the law, freedom of religion and communications, were not exactly new ideas, but having a government that enforced these ideals through the will of the people, rather than leaving all power with a monarch or even a group of aristocrats, was a radical idea.

These ideals would be challenged and even crushed at times over the course of the French Revolution. But the Declaration stood as a beacon to which the French people would try to return again and again. As we all know, freedom is not a gift bestowed by our leaders. We, the descendants of the ideals of both the American and French Revolutions, know that we are in nearly continuous battle with our government to ensure that they do not infringe on our rights. Having a Declaration like this one, that stood the test of time, is an important way of keeping our society moored to these timeless principles.

* * *

From the transcipt: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp

Sunday, August 24, 2025

ARP363 The French Revolution

As we go through the events taking place in America in 1789, it is important to remember how an important event in Europe also impacted America. The French Revolution began in 1789. I’m not going to go into detail about the French Revolution since this podcast is about the US. But it is a fascinating topic and there are several really good podcasts that cover it if you are interested. My focus, however, will be on how the French Revolution impacted the United States.

Crisis in France

France had been America’s closest ally. I think it’s fair to say that The French Army and Navy, along with French funding, kept the American Revolution going in its final years. The US owed not only a debt of gratitude to France, but also a large money debt from all the loans that France had provided during the war.

Storming the Bastille

When we talk about money, the amounts can get very confusing. Not only has the value of the US dollar changed greatly over time, but the French livre no longer even exists. I’ve read others, with far more expertise than I have, try to make sense of the relative values of this currency, but I’ll admit it’s all still very confusing to me. I’m going to try to speak in terms of US dollars, and I’m talking about dollars from this era, not inflation adjusted. But just keep in mind that most of these numbers are estimates or educated guesses. I’m using an estimate of about 5 French livres to 1 US dollar when I make my comparisons. This seems to be a rough consensus of comparative value at the time.

When Alexander Hamilton completed his calculations of US public debt in 1790, he estimated that the total Federal debt was just over $77 million. Most of that was owed to Americans for their contributions to the Revolutionary War, and paying back all those Continental dollars that Congress had issued. But a substantial amount, nearly $12 million, was due to foreigners. About $2 million was owed to Dutch investors, and probably about $10 million to France. Some of this included interest, so I can’t say exactly how much was lent in the first place.

For comparison’s sake, the entire Federal budget in 1790 was just over $500,000, and about 10% of that was paid interest on foreign debts.

I’ve seen estimates that claim France spent nearly $250 million on the American Revolution. But that amount is far more than the amount given in aid or loans. Those are the total costs of the war with Britain. Many French officials had been reluctant to get involved in the Revolutionary War because of the potential costs. They were still recovering from the costs of the Seven Years War. With all this debt, France was on the verge of bankruptcy. It didn’t help that the US could not repay its debts, but even if it did, the total French debt was overwhelming for the King and his ministers.

France was a large and wealthy country, but government mismanagement, not only due to foreign wars, but also many other costs, had caused French public debt to react roughly $1 billion by 1789. Interest on the debt alone was roughly $60 million. That was more than half of the total government revenues.

The French government had already raised taxes to nearly unbearable levels. To make matters worse, a poor harvest in 1788 caused food prices to go through the roof. People simply could not afford to feed their families.

In times like these, when things got bad, it forced people to look for a reason for their suffering. The commoners, who felt unfairly burdened by taxes, paid more attention to the tax exemptions given to the nobles and the clergy, known in France as the First Estate and the Second Estate. These two groups controlled most of the land, and were doing quite well. Yet they contributed almost nothing to government expenditures. For the commoners, also known as the Third Estate, this was becoming increasingly unacceptable. Riots began breaking out all over France.

In August of 1788, the royal treasury was empty. The treasury suspended payments of all government debts. The minister of finance resigned. His replacement Swiss bank Jacques Necker told officials that there was no way to get the finances in order unless the nobles and clergy started kicking in some taxes.

To move this process forward, the government called for a meeting of the Estates General in the spring of 1789. This was an opportunity for representatives of the three estates to come together to set policy: the nobles, the clergy, and the commoners. It had been nearly two hundred years since the last Estates General had met back in 1614. It was being revived to deal with the national emergency.

When the Estates General met in May, they began fighting over all sorts of things, including how to conduct votes. The elected commoners, who by the way were mostly lawyers, bankers and wealthy merchants, not peasants, began to complain about the clergy and nobility having too much power. They ended up demanding a new constitution for France which would give the common people more power in government. Many of the clergy representatives, who were parish priests, and some of the more liberal nobility, sided with the commoners in demanding more radical changes.

The government, realizing this was getting out of control, tried to shut down things, but the Assembly refused to disband. By July, they had renamed themselves the National Constituent Assembly, and began drafting a new constitution.

On July 11, the king dismissed Necker, the liberal finance minister who started all of this mess. That dismissal led to riots in Paris. Three days later, on July 14, rioters stormed the Bastille prison in Paris, killing the guards and administrators and seizing the gunpowder inside. A few days later, the king restored Necker, but by then it was too late.

Over the course of the summer, the government attempted to implement reforms as the people continued to riot. In late August, the Assembly adopts the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, drafted largely by the Marquis de Lafayette. Reformers move toward the goal of establishing a constitutional monarchy based on the principles of rule by the people and protecting human rights.

American Reaction

All of this unfolded during the spring and summer of 1789, just as the United States was implementing its new federal government. George Washington was kept well informed of events. He and the Marquis de Lafayette kept up a frequent correspondence in the years leading up to the French Revolution.

Lafayette had become a hero in France after the American Revolution and emerged as one of the leading reformers in the early years of the French Revolution. In hopes of restoring order, the King had appointed Lafayette as the Commander of the National Guard. Lafayette spoke with optimism about the reforms taking place in France. And was overjoyed to share this with his old friend at Mount Vernon.

Similarly, the American minister to France, Thomas Jefferson, viewed the events taking place in France with great joy. He personally attended the estates General in May. He helped Lafayette draft his Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. The document sets forth many of the same ideas found in the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Jefferson wrote letters back to America informing Americans of the progress. Most of his detailed letters went to John Jay, who was still handling foreign affairs under his authority from the Confederation Congress. Jay, of course, relayed this information to President Washington.

Thomas Jefferson, still in France until September of 1789 was an enthusiastic supporter of the revolution. He regularly corresponded with Lafayette, who was a leading figure in the revolution at the time. France appeared to be evolving into a constitutional monarchy, where the King of France would be limited by certain constitutional principles, similar to those that inspired the American Revolution.

Even in the colonial era, British colonists in America had celebrated Britain’s constitutional monarchy, where the king had very minimal political power and the government was run on Whig principles that protected basic rights from arbitrary rule. The American Revolutionary War was about the British government failing to observe those traditional constitutional principles that were important to any free society

During this colonial era, they contrasted the basic protections of the British common law and a constitutional monarchy, with the evils in France. There the king was seen as an absolute ruler who guaranteed no rights to the people.

We can argue that this view might have been a bit skewed, but it was the conventional wisdom at the time. The Americans overlooked their distaste for the French government during the Revolutionary War since they were just happy for the foreign aid. After the war, France remained the closest ally of the United States despite the fact that many Americans still believed that the French government still denied certain basic rights to their own people.

When the French Revolution began, many people saw this as an opportunity to implement the principles of constitutional monarchy that would ensure the liberties of the people of France. That’s what reformers like Lafayette were pushing, and that’s initially what seemed to be happening. The King of France was negotiating with the reformers for a government that would leave him in power but would restrict his authority, much like the King in Britain. In short, the French revolution appeared to move America’s closest ally toward government reform that would make that government much closer to what all Americans believed was a fair and just government.

Lafayette, at the time, saw himself as the French Washington. He would help establish a new government based on liberty, and could then withdraw into retirement himself, having established a new government for France. Around this time, he wrote to a friend:

My situation is truly extraordinary. Here I am at the center of a great adventure and the only thing I really want is to get out of it, free from all reproach at having indulged any thoughts of personal ambition, and, having put everything to rights, to withdraw into obscurity at a quarter of my fortune which was mine when I came into the world.

Jefferson was also optimistic, but still saw concerns. There were divisions among the reformer factions. There were also factions who wanted to restore the king to his former power, and those who were pushing the duc d’Orléans into a position of power. He saw Lafayette as the key to keeping the reformer factions together, and keeping the monarchist factions at bay. Lafayette controlled an army of 50,000, larger than any army ever commanded by Washington, and could lead that force to maintain stability while ensuring the reformers continued in power.

Jefferson also viewed with concern the economic condition of the people, which could cause the process of enlightenment reform to be pushed aside over a full civil war. In his final report to John Jay before leaving France, Jefferson noted that “civil war is much talked of and expected.”

Jefferson listed three possible problems that could lead to a full blown civil war in France. One was the lack of bread. The common people in Paris were unable to get enough bread to feed themselves, despite there being plenty of grain to make it. The incompetence of the reformers running Paris was the problem, and they could not seem to get their act together. A second problem was the government’s bankruptcy. Many people in a whole range of jobs relied on public funds to make a living. The inability to maintain these government jobs would create a huge class of disaffected Parisians. A third concern was the king leaving the country. King Louis was concerned about how things were going, and was essentially being held as a prisoner. He predicted that the revolution could turn much darker and very much would have liked to have taken his family to Austria, where Queen Marie Antoinette’s brother was emperor. Jefferson and the French reformers shared the concern that if the king left, it would sow chaos within the country and the factions would go to war with each other to fill that vacuum.

Despite these concerns, Jefferson reported

Upon the whole I do not see it as yet probable that any actual commotion will take place. And if it does take place I have strong confidence that the patriotic party will hold together, and their party in the nation be what I have described it.

Washington, and most Americans viewed the early reports of the revolution with the same enthusiasm as Jefferson. It was seen as a transfer of the principles of liberty and self-government that had fueled the American Revolution, making their way to Europe. Even so, men like Washington knew that such reforms never came easily.

Gouverneur Morris was also in Paris at this time. He was a private citizen, working with Robert Morris on business ventures between the US and France. In this role he was able to mix with the powerful and wealthy groups in Paris, hearing their gossip. Morris was less optimistic than Jefferson. He saw the Orléans faction as making an effort to fan the flames of chaos in hopes of benefitting from it. Lafayette aside, most of the leaders in Paris were less concerned about reforming government and much more interested in enriching themselves personally through the ongoing instability.

Morris also hoped Lafayette would step up to control events. He suggested to Lafayette that he take a position as the governor of the region that controlled Paris. Lafayette, preferring Washington’s example during the American Revolution, maintained that he would control the military and leave civil affairs to others.

By October, Washington had received most details from the first summer of the French Revolution. In a letter to Gouverneur Morris on October 13 Washington expressed his pleasure at the events so far, but a concern for the future:

The revolution which has been effected in France is of so wonderful a nature that the mind can hardly realise the fact—If it ends as our last accounts to the first of August predict that nation will be the most powerful and happy in Europe; but I fear though it has gone triumphantly through the first paroxysm, it is not the last it has to encounter before matters are finally settled. In a word the revolution is of too great magnitude to be effected in so short a space, and with the loss of so little blood.

So, by the end of 1789, many Americans were still very happy about the events in France. Those with more experience still saw the possibility of the reforms drifting into chaos and civil war, but that had not happened yet.

No Ambassadors

During this critical period, Jefferson left his post as Ambassador to France. No one replaced him in that role. Jefferson’s assistant, William Short who was appointed as charge d'affaires, became the head of the American delegation in France after Jefferson left. It would be several years before the US would send a new ambassador to France.

At the same time, the French Ambassador to the US was proving increasingly ineffective. The Comte de Moustier had come to America in 1787. He was a French aristocrat who, after his arrival, reported back his doubts about America’s capacity to govern itself.

His mission seemed to be more focused on encouraging more commercial relations between the US and France. He even visited Mount Vernon in 1788 to discuss trade issues with Washington, who was at the time a private citizen, but was expected to become the first president. But Americans were not happy with him. Madison, in a letter to Jefferson in 1788 wrote “Moustier proves a most unlucky appointment. He is unsocial, proud and niggardly and betrays a sort of fastidiousness toward this country.”

Moustier had a twenty year record as a diplomat and seemed suited for the role when he received it. But Moustier was not a revolutionary and remained a royalist as the revolution back home began to unfold. Jefferson called on officials in France to remove him.

Reformers in Paris wanted to recall him, but did not feel politically powerful enough to do so without good cause, beyond ideology, and without having another position where they could move him. As a result, reformers in France essentially told Washington and other Americans to ignore Moustier until they could find a replacement.

Moustier ended up leaving America in October of 1789, returning to France. Neither France nor the US had an Ambassador in the other’s country by the end of the year. I want to stress that this was not the result of countries recalling ambassadors because of some diplomatic rift. It just sort of happened. Jefferson was returning to become Secretary of State, and Washington saw no need to replace him for the next few years. Moustier returned to France, primarily because he was not on the same page politically as the reformers in the new government and really could not represent the new France to the US. The French government was too conflicted with its own factions to get around to appointing a new ambassador.

As 1789 came to an end, everyone seemed to be waiting to see what happened next with the French Revolution.

Next week, we’ll take a look at a more domestic foreign policy, as President Washington goes on tour, and the US finally convinces North Carolina to join the Union.

- - -

Next Episode 364 North Carolina Joins the Union (coming soon)

Previous Episode 362 Debating the Bill of Rights

Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast

Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora

Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more. Get your favorite American Revolution logo today. Help support this podcast. https://merch.amrevpodcast.com

Click here to donate

DONATE

Click here to see my Patreon Page

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop. Support local bookstores and this podcast!

https://bookshop.org/shop/ARP

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Sunday, August 17, 2025

ARP362 Debating the Bill of Rights

Last week we covered the conversion of James Madison from his opposition to a bill of rights to its main author. We left off with Madison preparing a proposed bill of rights to introduce into Congress. I also published a bonus episode mid-week where I read Madison’s complete list of proposed changes, in full, word for word.

House Reception

Although Madison worked on the exact wording of his proposed amendments on his own. He expected that there would be changes, but did not expect much controversy over passing something. After all, these were fundamental principles of a free government that were pretty much accepted as consensus.

Even so, Madison had tried to lay the groundwork for the amendments by putting language into George Washington’s inaugural address, which he wrote for the President. Washington, of course, wanted to defer the issue to Congress. His address only said that congress should consider the amendments that they consider expedient. He did not suggest any particular amendments, but said he would leave that up to Congress.

Madison continued to keep the topic in mind when he wrote the House of Representative’s reply to the President’s inaugural address, when he wrote "The question [of constitutional amendments] will receive all the attention demanded by its importance; and will, we trust be decided, under the influence of all the considerations to which you allude."

On May 4, 1789, less than a week after President Washington’s inaugural speech, Madison made a motion in the House of Representatives to debate amendments to the Constitution. He did not give any specifics. In fact, this motion was rushed because Madison became aware of another motion being prepared by the anti-federalists.

The following day, Congressman Theodorick Bland, presented a petition from the Virginia legislature calling for a second constitutional convention. Specifically, the petition called for a convention that would have "full power to take into their consideration the defects of this Constitution that have been suggested by the state Conventions, and report such amendments thereto." The day after that, Congressman John Laurence of New York presented a similar proposal from the New York legislature, also requesting a second convention.

This is what Madison was trying to avoid. It would reopen the Constitution to any number of changes before they even had an opportunity to see how the existing Constitution really worked. He supported efforts to table the proposals, but then doubled down on his work to complete a proposed set of Amendments.

While Madison was battling with the anti-federalists to prevent a second constitutional convention, he also found himself in conflict with most federalists who did not want to consider any changes at all, not a convention, no amendments. They argued that there were too many other things to deal with in this session. They were still busy creating all the new executive departments, creating a judicial system, developing rules, implementing a revenue system to begin getting some money for the government, creating trade regulations, establishing naturalization laws, patent laws, copyright laws, organizing the first census, and a range of other issues.

Besides, federalists believed that simply writing down rights did not really matter. The people had to fight for such things. As one federalist put it “It seems to be agreed on all hands that paper declarations of rights are triffling things and no real security to liberty. In general they are a subject of ridicule.” The federalist majority in Congress wanted to focus on more important issues before getting around to making any changes to the Constitution. The federalist majority in the House table the petitions calling for a second constitutional convention and took no immediate action on them. But neither were they in any hurry to consider amendments that might put off such a convention.

The position taken by the federalists had been the same as that Madison himself had taken before his election forced him to make amendments a priority. Other federalist representatives were not feeling this same pressure. Aside from his own immediate constituent pressure, Madison was concerned that if the federalists in congress put off any action for too long, that states would begin calling for a convention on their own. Under the Constitution, the states had the authority to call their own state conventions without Congress. If two-thirds of the states called for a second convention, it would happen whether Congress wanted it or not.

Proposed Amendments

It took Madison just over a month from when he introduced the idea of presenting amendments until he actually presented them on June 8. These are the amendments that we discussed at the end of last week and which I read in full in the bonus episode a few days ago, so I won’t repeat them again.

After introducing his amendments, Madison then moved to bring the house into a committee of the whole to discuss them. Several federalist representatives objected. They argued that the House was busy with too many other things. Until the House got the government organized and into full operation, it was irresponsible to dedicate so much time to changing the Constitution.

Many members also wanted to wait on the idea of making changes until they saw how the current version worked. One member compared the Constitution to a ship in drydock about to put to sea for the first time. It would be irresponsible to break down and rebuild the ship before the builders even put it to sea, where they could make a determination as to how it fared. Another member moved that consideration be postponed until the next session in March 1790.

Madison argued that they should not wait. The House should at least start consideration. So many people had called for these changes and the House needed to prove that it would address these concerns. He also noted that these amendments might finally convince North Carolina and Rhode Island to join the union. He noted that they were not making any fundamental changes to the Constitution. Rather, they were simply adding in protections for certain rights that people wanted and which had been entirely ignored in the original Constitution. He also raised the concern that the states might form a second convention if the House delayed too long.

While the House spent the day debating over whether it should debate the amendments, it did nothing regarding the consideration of Madison’s specific proposals. Madison’s draft proposal was entered into the record. Congress then went on with other business and did not bring up the matter again.

Six weeks later, on July 21, Madison called for reconsideration and moved that the Committee of the Whole debate his amendments. Once again, the majority argued they were busy with other things. Once again, they spent the entire day arguing over procedure. Madison wanted the Committee of the Whole to consider the amendments. Instead, the majority overruled him and voted to form a select committee of eleven members, one from each state. Another reason for sending it to a smaller committee was so members could discuss them without the public watching the full debate.

The committee would spend a week debating and discussing Madison’s amendments before making a report back to the House.

Committee Changes

The Select Committee did not keep any notes of its meetings, but we can tell from the final report what changes they made. The Committee did not make any real substantive changes to Madison’s proposal but they did change the wording a great deal. For starters, they removed Madison’s changes to the Preamble which said that the people had the “right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.” Committee members accepted that was self-evident, but saw no need to stress to the public that they would invite more changes.

The committee also made a bunch of other wording changes to the various amendments, but kept did not really add, abolish or change any of the fundamental principles that Madison had put forward. They limited the growth of the House to 175 members. They added a limit of at least $1000 before cases could be appealed to federal court. But basically they didn’t change much of substance.

Shortly after the committee completed its work, Madison sent a copy of the committee report to a friend who was still serving in the Virginia assembly. In his cover letter, he simply noted vaguely an equivocally “[Some] of the changes are perhaps for the better, others for the worse.”

House Debate

Although the committee completed its work quickly, the full house waited several more weeks before giving any time to discuss the report. Finally, on August 13, the House entered into a Committee of the Whole to consider the amendments. For the next eleven days, this was the main issue under consideration.

Many of the federalists continued to argue that consideration of amendments was premature and should be delayed. A few anti-federalists argued that these changes did not go nearly far enough.

One important stylistic change that came out of the House debate came from Connecticut Representative Roger Sherman. He argued that the original Constitution should not be changed. Rather, any amendments should simply be added to the end of the document. The original Constitution should remain unchanged, and that additions or changes should always just show up as additions or changes at the end of the document. Several other members agreed. They believed that over time, amendments would just make the document longer and longer, and that the original wording would just get lost among so many other changes.

Madison strongly opposed this idea. He believed that the Constitution should read as a single coherent document. Adding changes to the end would mean that parts of the original would remain in place, even though they had become irrelevant and void due to later amendments. He also argued that the amendments were just as valid as the original and that they should not keep the original in some unchangeable form as if it had become some untouchable masterpiece with the changes made separately. The argument over whether amendments should be incorporated or added to the end of the Constitution went on for days.

There were also lots of procedural debates. For example, one member objected on the grounds that the committee report should be approved by a two-thirds majority since the House had to approve the final amendments by two-thirds. The house voted down this idea and allowed committee reports to be reported by a majority.

The House also debated changes to the preamble. Madison and the committee wanted to change the beginning “We the People...” to “Government being intended for the benefit of the people...”. This was one of many changes to the preamble. After lengthy debate, the House eventually approved many of these changes.

After eleven days of debate the House came up with seventeen proposed amendments:

The first amendment guaranteed one representative for every 30,000 people, until the total number reached 100. After that, there would have to be one representative for at least every 40,000. When the Congress reached two hundred representatives, there could be one for each 50,000 people.

The second amendment carried on the idea that memes of congress could not alter their compensation until an election took place.

The third amendment barred establishment or religion, prohibiting its free exercise. It also barred infringement on the rights of conscience.

The fourth amendment guaranteed freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and petition for a redress of grievances.

The fifth amendment noted the importance of a well regulated militia and barred any infringement on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. It also protected those who had a religious objection to bearing arms from being compelled to provide military service.

The sixth amendment barred the housing of soldiers in private homes.

The seventh amendment protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The eight amendment protected people from more than one trial or punishment for the same offense, other than impeachment. It also protected against self-incrimination or deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process, or that property could be taken without just compensation.

The ninth amendment guaranteed accused criminals the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the charges, to be confronted with witnesses, to have the power to obtain witnesses on their behalf, and to have the assistance of counsel.

The tenth amendment guaranteed trial by jury for all but impeachment or military prosecutions.

The eleventh amendment allowed no appeal to the Supreme court if the value was less than $1000. It also protected that any finding of fact by a jury could not be reconsidered by appellate courts.

The twelfth amendment protected jury trials for most civil suits.

The thirteenth amendment barred excessive bail or fine, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.

The fourteenth amendment prevented states from denying jury trials, the rights of conscience, as well as freedom of speech or the press.

The fifteenth amendment assured that the enumerated rights should not be construed to deny other unenumerated rights.

The sixteenth amendment required that each of the three branches of government could never try to exercise the power of the other two branches.

The seventeenth amendment noted that any powers not delegated by the constitution or prohibited to the states, remained with the states.

By this time, even Madison was getting sick of discussing these amendments. In sending a progress report to a friend in late August, Madison referred to the “nauseous project of amendments.” He noted the importance of getting done, but you could tell he was sick of debating all the details.

At least with the agreement of the 17 amendments, the work in the House was done. There is no detailed final vote, but presumably a two-thirds majority favored the amendments, which then headed over to the Senate for approval.

Senate Debate

If the federalists in the House were reluctant to consider amendments, the Senators were even worse. We have less details in the Senate since debate was closed to the public, and the official record does not record debate. When the amendments arrived in the Senate. The first thing they did was move to postpone consideration until the next session. The majority, however, rejected postponement.

The anti-federalist Senator William Maclay noted that his fellow Pennsylvania Senator Robert Morris considered all of this a waste of time. Morris said the house was “playing with Amendments.” In a letter to a friend, Morris commented that they were only going through all these because Madison was afraid of losing his next election. He wrote “Poor Madison got so Cursedly frightened in Virginia, that I believe he has dreamed of amendments ever since." Morris referred to the "Nonsense they call Amendments," and that this whole effort was doomed to failure.

The anti-federalists also considered postponing or killing the amendments. Patrick Henry wrote to several members of Congress noting that if the amendment process died in Congress, it would spur on his hope to hold that second continental convention.

Virginia Senator Richard Henry Lee did not share Henry’s gambling attitude. Lee was an anti- federalist. He believed these amendments did not go far enough, but that something was better than nothing. As he put it “if we cannot gain the whole loaf, we shall at least have some bread.”

Unfortunately, Senator Maclay, who was our best note taker for senate debate, was out sick for most of the debates on the amendments. We do know that the Senate did take up the debate and considered twenty amendments of their own. These included a ban on direct taxation by the federal government, larger super majorities for treaties or standing armies, and other changes. Most, if not all of these had been proposed and rejected at the Constitutional Convention.

In the end, the Senate did not add any new amendments. In fact, they dumped all the changes to the preamble and reduced the House’s seventeen amendments to just twelve. Some of this was by combining several amendments. For example the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition got rolled into a single amendment.

But it did remove a few amendments completely. One of the biggest changes was the amendment which prohibited states from infringing on free speech, free press and jury trials. This would have given the federal government more power over state governments. Senators, who were appointed by state legislatures, wanted no part of that.

They also took out the amendment about the branches of government getting involved in the powers of other branches. The senators considered that redundant. They also removed the limit on appeals to federal courts on small dollar amounts. The Judiciary Act already covered that point.

Joint Committee

With the Senate’s change complete, both houses appointed members to a joint committee on September 21, to iron out the differences between the House and Senate versions. Remember, Congress wanted to adjourn by the end of the month, only a week and a half away. They had to act quickly.

The House delegation generally accepted most of the Senate changes, including the reduction from seventeen amendments to twelve. The joint committee changed some of the changes that the Senate made to the establishment clause. The Senate version said “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion,” The committee changed that back to the house version: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The Senate also took out language about the right to a jury in criminal trials, which the committee added back again.

Other than those and a couple of minor grammatical changes, the Senate version was pretty much accepted. The committee reported its work back to both the House and Senate in just four days.

On September 24, the House, which was busy trying to finish up about a dozen other laws that day, approved the committee report by a vote of 37-14. The following day, the Senate also voted in favor by a two-thirds majority, but did not record its vote.

Since amendments did not need to go to the President, the work was complete. The amendments went off to the states for ratification.

Next week, the new government is forced to focus on foreign policy as the French Revolution begins.

- - -

Next Episode 363 The French Revolution

Previous Episode 361 Bill of Rights - First Draft

Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast

Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora

Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more. Get your favorite American Revolution logo today. Help support this podcast. https://merch.amrevpodcast.com

Click here to donate

DONATE

Click here to see my Patreon Page

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop. Support local bookstores and this podcast!

https://bookshop.org/shop/ARP

American Revolution Podcast

Sunday, September 14, 2025

ARP364 New England Tour & NC Ratification

Washington’s Medical Crisis

Planning the Tour

Connecticut

Massachusetts

New Hampshire and Return

North Carolina

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Further Reading

Websites

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Sunday, August 31, 2025

AR-SP37 Winning the Ten Crucial Days, with David Price

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

Thursday, August 28, 2025

ARP 363b Declaration of the Rights of Man