nce
of North Carolina and Rhode Island to come under "the new roof." Had
the convention which met on the 21st of July in North Carolina reached
a vote, it would probably have defeated the Constitution, but it was
doubtless restrained by the action of New York and adjourned without
coming to a decision. A second convention was called in September, 1789,
and in the meantime the new government had come into operation and was
bringing pressure to bear upon the recalcitrant States which refused to
abandon the old union for the new. One of the earliest acts passed by
Congress was a revenue act, levying duties upon foreign goods imported,
which were made specifically to apply to imports from Rhode Island and
North Carolina. This was sufficient for North Carolina, and on November
21, 1789, the convention ratified the Constitution. But Rhode Island
still held out. A convention of that State was finally called to meet
in March, 1790, but accomplished nothing and avoided a decision by
adjourning until May. The Federal Government then proceeded to threaten
drastic measures by taking up a bill which authorized the President to
suspend all commercial intercourse with Rhode Island and to demand of
that State the payment of its share of the Federal debt. The bill passed
the Senate but stopped there, for the State gave in and ratified the
Constitution on the 29th of May. Two weeks later Ellsworth, who was now
United States Senator from Connecticut, wrote that Rhode Island had been
"brought into the Union, and by a pretty cold measure in Congress, which
would have exposed me to some censure, had it not produced the effect
which I expected it would and which in fact it has done. But 'all is
well that ends well.' The Constitution is now adopted by all the States
and I have much satisfaction, and perhaps some vanity, in seeing,
at length, a great work finished, for which I have long labored
incessantly."*

* "Connecticut's Ratification of the Federal Constitution," by B.
C. Steiner, in "Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society," April
1915, pp. 88-89.

Perhaps the most striking feature of these conventions is the trivial
character of the objections that were raised. Some of the arguments
it is, true, went to the very heart of the matter and considered the
fundamental principles of government. It is possible to tolerate and
even to sympathize with a man who declared:

"Among other deformities the Constitution has an awful s