PREFACE.

A

MERICA is sometimes said to be a nation without

a past. The remark may mean much or little, according to its application. It is made most frequently in referring to civil institutions. In particular, there has been a tendency to regard the Constitution of the United States as without sources or antecedents, new invention in political science.

a

Mr. Gladstone has observed, that "as the British Constitution is the most subtle organism which has proceeded from progressive history, so the American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man." His words, though not necessarily carrying such meaning, have been often quoted as expressive of this old-time idea, that the American Constitution is wholly new, that it is, in fact, an original creation of the convention which met in Philadelphia in 1787. What Dr.

1 Professor Morey well expresses this idea: "The organic law under which he [the American] lives is set forth in a written docuIt was put into form at a given time and place. It was fashioned in the heat of discussion by a chosen body of men, whose

ment.

Von Holst aptly calls the "worship of the Constitution' " has largely stimulated the idea. The philosophy of modern democracy — which, under the influence of the theories of Rousseau, long ignored historical facts has steadily cultivated it. And there is in it some truth; for not only was this constitution established as a written document by the convention, and in circumstances quite unique, but it has elements- many of them very important—which are altogether peculiar and characteristic. Hardly strange is it, that such traits of singularity should attract, as points of differentiation usually do, a somewhat disproportionate attention.

But it is beginning to be realized that the Constitution of the United States, though possessing elements of novelty, is not, after all, the new creation that this idea would imply. It is not, properly speaking, the original composition of one body of men, nor the outcome of one definite epoch, - it is more and better than that. It does not stand in historical isolation, free of antecedents. It rests upon very old principles, -principles laboriously worked out by long ages of constitutional struggle. It looks back to the annals of

work in its outlines and its details, he is accustomed to think, was solely the product of their creative wisdom. This idea was formerly so prevalent, that the apotheosis of the fathers occupies a large place in American political literature; and this view is not confined to native writers." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, April, 1891, p. 530.

1 Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History of the United States, I. 65.

the colonies and of the mother-land for its sources and its explanation. And it was rendered possible, and made what it is, by the political development of many generations of men.

When the preparation of the present work was undertaken, some years ago, there existed no popular recognition of these facts. The tendency was still to regard this constitution as solely the creation of the Philadelphia Convention; and the scant allusions to constitutional genesis, scattered in American literature, had seemingly left no impression on the general mind. While, however, the work has been in progress, American universities have gradually taken up the study of constitutional sources, occasional articles touching phases of the subject have been published in periodicals, and explicit references to it have found their way into current books, so that public opinion has been ripening.1 The path now seems opened for a comprehensive investigation. Yet, down to the present, no volume devoted to the theme has appeared.

The American Constitution is, strictly speaking, the document which goes by that name. The present work sources of its conWhatever influence

treats of the document, and of the tents, — avoiding all side issues.

1

Bryce, American Commonwealth, has some references. Hannis Taylor, Origin and Growth of the English Constitution, gives in the Introduction a brief but lucid outline. Douglas Campbell, Puritan in Holland, England, and America, treats of American institutions in general, but says little of the Constitution itself, and that little is practically limited to the question of Dutch antecedents.

various European races may have exerted upon American institutions in general, as existing to-day,' the antecedents of this great national document are traceable so directly and so almost exclusively through colonial and English channels, that no apology is necessary for taking such channels as the true line of investigation. The aim has been to place in the hands of scholars and the general public, a clear and concise survey of the salient features of such constitutional evolution.

There may still be persons in America who are unprepared to regard with favour such a study, and who look unwillingly to England or other countries for the origin of institutions they have long been accustomed to consider characteristically modern and American. But surely Americanism can never be more truly American, than when it welcomes, not merely such isolated fragments of fact as differentiate the United States from other nationalities, but every fact, whatever it be, that has to do with the nation; and among these, a most important fact is that of progression from the AngloTeutonic past. In reality, the light that comes from historical comparison will be found to give new and heightened colour to the national institutions, and to bring out more clearly than anything else could do, their true meaning and value.

Englishmen and dwellers on the Continent, who often appear to believe that the example of America leads toward a limitless democratic advance, may find in the

1 Recent claims have been made for Dutch, Scotch-Irish, etc.