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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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).
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!
Knowles, Lilian. “New Light on the Economic Causes of the French Revolution.” The Economic Journal, vol. 29, no. 113, 1919, pp. 1–24. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2223136
Ziesche, Philipp. “Exporting American Revolutions: Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, and the National Struggle for Universal Rights in Revolutionary France.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 26, no. 3, 2006, pp. 419–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30043431
Hyslop, Beatrice F. “The American Press and the French Revolution of 1789.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 104, no. 1, 1960, pp. 54–85. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/985604
Ottinger, Sebastian, and Lukas Rosenberger. The American Origin of the French Revolution. IZA - Institute of Labor Economics, 2023. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep64595
McDonald, Forrest. “The Relation of the French Peasant Veterans of the American Revolution to the Fall of Feudalism in France, 1789-1792.” Agricultural History, vol. 25, no. 4, 1951, pp. 151–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3740964
PALMER, R. R., and David Armitage. “THE FRENCH REVOLUTION: THE EXPLOSION OF 1789.” The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800, REV-Revised, Princeton University Press, 2014, pp. 347–72. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hhrg5.20
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.
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
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).
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!
RUMBLE, WILFRID E. “JAMES MADISON ON THE VALUE OF BILLS OF RIGHTS.” Nomos, vol. 20, 1979, pp. 122–62. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24219130
Leibiger, Stuart. “James Madison and Amendments to the Constitution, 1787-1789: ‘Parchment Barriers.’” The Journal of Southern History, vol. 59, no. 3, 1993, pp. 441–68. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2210003
Gerber, Scott D. “Roger Sherman and the Bill of Rights.” Polity, vol. 28, no. 4, 1996, pp. 521–40. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3235344
“George Washington to James Madison, 31 May 1789,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-02-02-0305 “James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 17 October 1788,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-0218
Finkelman, Paul. “James Madison and the Bill of Rights: A Reluctant Paternity.” The Supreme Court Review, vol. 1990, 1990, pp. 301–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3109663
Zink, James R. “James Wilson versus the Bill of Rights: Progress, Popular Sovereignty, and the Idea of the U.S. Constitution.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 2, 2014, pp. 253–65. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24371781
Gerber, Scott D. “Roger Sherman and the Bill of Rights.” Polity, vol. 28, no. 4, 1996, pp. 521–40. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3235344
