The historian declares that the smaller states expressly committed to the New Jersey plan which sought to retain the sovereignty of the states were New Jersey, Connecticut and Delaware. Hildreth, in his “History of the United States,” takes the same position, and says: “The party of the smaller states, known also as the State Rights Party, included the delegates from Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware and a majority of those from Maryland and New York. “The party of the larger states, or National Party, included not only _the delegates from Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania_, but also those from _the two Carolinas and Georgia_, states which anticipated a very rapid increase of population.” (I could quote Woodrow Wilson to the same effect, only Woodrow isn’t worth while.) * * * * * Now it must occur to Mr. Adams that these facts are at war with his theory. Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, the two Carolinas and Georgia would never have been found opposing the equality of representation of the states in the Senate if the purpose of that senatorial equality was the perpetuation of the institution of slavery. There _was_ a compromise which the slave-owners wrung as a concession from the free states, but this compromise benefited them _in the lower House, not in the Senate_. When the Constitution gave the slave states representation based upon _three-fifths of the slaves_, the institution of slavery derived strength from the _national idea_ of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Virginia—_not from the State Rights idea_ of New Jersey, Delaware and Connecticut. “_Take the Children_” In France the Privileged Classes had created a situation which pleased them perfectly. A fifth of the soil belonged to 30,000 noble families; another fifth belonged to the clergy; another fifth belonged to the king and city governments; the remaining two-fifths belonged to all the other people, middle class and peasants. To the support of the Government the clergy contributed nothing except as a free gift; the nobility contributed pretty much what they pleased, and they did not please to contribute a great deal. The king’s family spent $55,000,000 per year. Two brothers of the king spent $2,000,000; and, to pay the debts of one princely bankrupt, King Louis XVI took $3,000,000 out of the public funds. Two hundred and ninety-five cooks served in the king’s kitchen. Nearly two thousand horses stood in his stables. A squad of soldiers escorted his dinner to the table. A magnificent band furnished music while he ate, and a dozen gallant lords, paid for the service, helped him to undress and get to bed when the arduous do-nothing of the day had been finished.