Title The Documentary history of the ratification of the Constitution / edited by Merrill

Jensen.

Imprint Madison : State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1976-

Description v. ; 24 cm.

Notes Some vols. have microfiche supplement inserted.

Includes indexes.

Contents e -- v. 15. Commentaries on the Constitution, public and private -- v. 16. Commentaries on the Constitution, public and private. v. 1.constitutional documents and records, 1776-1787 -- v. 2. Ratification of the Constitution of the States: Pennsylvania -- v. 3. Ratification of the Constitution by the States: Delaware, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut -- v. 4. Ratification of the Constitution by the States: Massachusetts (1) -- v. 8. Ratification of the Constituti the Constitution by the States: Virginia -- v. 10. Ratification of the Constitution by the States: Virginia (3) -- v. 13. Commentaries on the Constitution, public and private -- v. 14. Commentaries on the Constitution, public

Looked at volumes 8-10, Ratification of the Constitution by the States: Virginia (pub. 1988, 1990, 1993). Checked index for Potomac and Mount Vernon Compact.

Vol. 9, p. 979

During the Virginia Convention debates, Edmund Randolph (who favored ratification), feared that if Virginia did not ratify (seceded from the Union) the compact with Maryland regarding the Potomac might be void.

On June 6, 1788, he argued that if Va. did not united with the other states, many problems might ensue. "To these considerations [as to why Va. should ratify the consititution], I might add many others of a similar nature. Were I to say that the boundary between us and North Carolina is not yet settled; I should be told, that Virginia and that State go together. But what, Sir, will be the consequence of the dispute that may arise between us and Maryland on the subject of Potowmack river. It is thought Virginia has a right to an equal navigation with them in that river. If ever it should be decided on grounds of prior right, their charter will inevitably determine it in their favor. The country called the Northern neck, will probably be severed from Virginia: There is not a doubt, but the inhabitants of that part will annex themselves to Maryland, if Virginia refuse to accede to the Union. The recent example of those regulations lately made respecting that territory, will illustrate that probability."

Fn. p. 1004-5, explaining what Randolph is talking about, says "If Viriginia seceded from the Union, the [Mount Vernon] compact might be voided and the inhabitants of the Northern Neck, who were economically dependent on the Potomac, might secede from Virginia and join the Union as part of Maryland, which had already ratified the Constitution."

Vol. 9, p. 1953

Patrick Henry (who opposed ratification), on June 9, 1788, said, , apparently in reply to Randolph: "When Gentlemen are thus driven to produce imaginary dangers, to induce the Convention to assent to this change, I am sure it will not be uncandid to say, that the change itself is really dangerous.-Then the Maryland compact is broken, and will produce perilous consequences. I see nothing very terrible in this. The adoption of the new system will not remove the evil. Will they forfeit good neighbourhood with us, because the compact is broken?

Randolph replied, also on June 9 (p. 1086), and I have no idea what he's talking about in this sentence, but it doesn't seem to relate to the Compact of 1785, but what he means I would like to know. He's talking about commercial hostility.

"Go to the Potowmack, and mark what you see. I had the mortification to see vessels within a very little distance from the Virginian shore, belonging to Maryland; driven from our ports by the badness of our regulations. I take the liberty of a freeman in exposing what appears to me to deserve censure."

George Mason replied on June 11 (p. 1161). He doesn't agree with Randolph. See Sam's notes on Mason's comment.