The new state constitutions in their broad outlines followed colonial models.  For the royal governor was substituted a governor or president chosen usually by the legislature; but in two instances, New York and Massachusetts, by popular vote.  For the provincial council there was substituted, except in Georgia, a senate; while the lower house, or assembly, was continued virtually without change.  The old property restriction on the suffrage, though lowered slightly in some states, was continued in full force to the great discontent of the mechanics thus deprived of the ballot.  The special qualifications, laid down in several constitutions, for governors, senators, and representatives, indicated that the revolutionary leaders were not prepared for any radical experiments in democracy.  The protests of a few women, like Mrs. John Adams of Massachusetts and Mrs. Henry Corbin of Virginia, against a government which excluded them from political rights were treated as mild curiosities of no significance, although in New Jersey women were allowed to vote for many years on the same terms as men.

By the new state constitutions the signs and symbols of royal power, of authority derived from any source save “the people,” were swept aside and republican governments on an imposing scale presented for the first time to the modern world.  Copies of these remarkable documents prepared by plain citizens were translated into French and widely circulated in Europe.  There they were destined to serve as a guide and inspiration to a generation of constitution-makers whose mission it was to begin the democratic revolution in the Old World.

=The Articles of Confederation.=—­The formation of state constitutions was an easy task for the revolutionary leaders.  They had only to build on foundations already laid.  The establishment of a national system of government was another matter.  There had always been, it must be remembered, a system of central control over the colonies, but Americans had had little experience in its operation.  When the supervision of the crown of Great Britain was suddenly broken, the patriot leaders, accustomed merely to provincial statesmanship, were poorly trained for action on a national stage.

Many forces worked against those who, like Franklin, had a vision of national destiny.  There were differences in economic interest—­commerce and industry in the North and the planting system of the South.  There were contests over the apportionment of taxes and the quotas of troops for common defense.  To these practical difficulties were added local pride, the vested rights of state and village politicians in their provincial dignity, and the scarcity of men with a large outlook upon the common enterprise.