debt. This calculation made Burke of South Carolina,
usually an opponent of anything coming from Hamilton,
a strong advocate of assumption. He told the
House that “if the present question was lost,
he was almost certain it would end in her bankruptcy,
for she [South Carolina] was no more able to grapple
with her enormous debt than a boy of twelve years of
age is able to grapple with a giant.” Livermore,
representing a State never within the actual field
of military operations, at once replied: “I
conceive that the debt of South Carolina, or Massachusetts,
or of an individual, has nothing to do with our deliberations.
If they have involved themselves in debt, it is their
misfortune, and they must extricate themselves as well
as they can.” On a later occasion Stone
of Maryland, another State that lay outside the track
of war, gave the leading war-debt States an admonition
of the kind that adds insult to injury, saying “however
inconvenient it may be to Massachusetts or South Carolina
to make a bold exertion, and nobly bear the burthens
of their present debt, I believe in the end it would
be found to conduce greatly to their advantage.”
Burke made a crushing rejoinder. “Was Maryland
like South Carolina constantly grappling with the
enemy during the whole war? There is not a road
in the State but has witnessed the ravages of war;
plantations were destroyed, and the skeletons of houses,
to this day, point out to the traveler the route of
the British army; her citizens were exposed to every
violence, their capital taken, and their country almost
overrun by the enemy; men, women, and children murdered
by the Indians and Tories; all the personal property
consumed, and now is it to be wondered at that she
is not able to make exertions equal with other States,
who have been generally in an undisturbed condition?”
The argument pressed by the advocates of assumption
was that the state debts contracted during the Revolutionary
War were for the common defense, and that, unless
these were assumed by the general government, the
adoption of the new Constitution would do injury by
withdrawing revenue resources which the States had
formerly possessed. This position at the present
day seems reasonable enough, but it is certain that
at that time people worked themselves into a genuine
rage over the matter and were able to persuade themselves
into a sincere belief that it was outrageous the unfortunate
States should expect the others to bear their troubles,
and that Hamilton was a great rogue for proposing
such a scheme. Writing in his private diary,
Maclay characterized the plan as “a monument
of political absurdity,” and he was in the habit
of referring to Hamilton’s supporters as his
“gladiators” and as a “corrupt squadron.”