THE STRUGGLE FOR RATIFICATION
The plot thickens fast. A few short weeks will determine the
political fate of America. (Washington.)
On Sunday, June 1, 1788, the dust lay deep in the streets of the little
town of Richmond. Multitudes of horses were tethered here and there or
stabled as best the Virginia Capital's meager accommodations permitted.
Cavalcades of mounted men could be seen from Shockoe Hill, wending their
way over the imperfect earthen roads from every direction to the center
of interest.[982] Some of these had come hundreds of miles and arrived
in the garb of the frontier, pistol and hanger at belt.[983] Patrick
Henry, prematurely old at fifty-two, came in a one-horse, uncovered gig;
Pendleton, aged, infirm, and a cripple, arrived in a phaeton.[984]
As we have seen, it was very hard for members of Virginia's Legislature
to get to the seat of the State Government even from counties not far
distant; and a rainy season, or even one week's downpour during the
latter part of May, would have kept large numbers of the members of the
Virginia Convention from reaching their destination in time and perhaps
have decided the impending struggle[985] before it began. The year's
great social and sporting event added to the throng and colored the dark
background of political anxiety and apprehension with a faint tinge of
gayety.[986]
Although seven months had elapsed since the Federal Convention had
finished its work, there was, nevertheless, practically no accurate
knowledge among the people of the various parts of the "New Plan" of
government. Even some members of the Virginia State Convention had never
seen a copy of the Constitution until they arrived in Richmond to
deliberate upon it and decide its fate.[987] Some of the most inquiring
men of this historic body had not read a serious or convincing argument
for it or against it.[988] "The greater part of the members of the
[Virginia] convention will go to the meeting without information on the
subject," wrote Nicholas to Madison immediately after the election of
delegates.[989]
One general idea, however, had percolated through the distances and
difficulties of communication to the uninformed minds of the people--the
idea that the new Constitution would form a strong, consolidated
National Government, superior to and dominant over the State
Governments; a National Sovereignty overawing State Sovereignties,
dangerous to if not entirely destructive of the latter; a general and
powerful authority beyond the people's reach, which would enforce
contracts, collect debts, impose taxes; above all, a bayonet-enforced
rule from a distant point, that would imperil and perhaps abolish
"liberty."[990]
So a decided majority of the people of Virginia were against the
proposed fundamental law;[991] for, as in other parts of the country,
few of Virginia's masses wanted anything stronger than the weak and
ineffective Government of the State and as little even of that as
possible. Some were "opposed to any system, was it even sent from
heaven, which tends to confirm the union of the States."[992] Madison's
father reported the Baptists to be "generally opposed to it"; and the
planters who went to Richmond to sell their tobacco had returned foes of
the "new plan" and had spread the uprising against it among others "who
are no better acquainted with the necessity of adopting it than they
themselves."[993] At first the friends of the Constitution deceived
themselves into thinking that the work of the Philadelphia Convention
met with approval in Virginia; but they soon found that "the tide next
took a sudden and strong turn in the opposite direction."[994] Henry
wrote to Lamb that "Four-fifths of our inhabitants are opposed to the
new scheme of government"; and he added that south of the James River "I
am confident nine-tenths are opposed to it."[995]
That keen and ever-watchful merchant, Minton Collins, thus reported to
the head of his commercial house in Philadelphia: "The New Federal
Constitution will meet with much opposition in this State [Virginia] for
many pretended patriots has taken a great deal of pains to poison the
minds of the people against it.... There are two Classes here who oppose
it, the one is those who have power & are unwilling to part with an atom
of it, & the others are the people who owe a great deal of money, and
are very unwilling to pay, as they are afraid this Constitution will
make them _Honest Men_ in spite of their teeth."[996]
And now the hostile forces are to meet in final and decisive conflict.
Now, at last, the new Constitution is to be really _debated_; and
debated openly before the people and the world. For the first time, too,
it is to be opposed in argument by men of the highest order in ability,
character, and standing--men who cannot be hurried, or bullied, or
shaken, or bought. The debates in the Virginia Convention of 1788 are
the only masterful discussions on _both_ sides of the controversy that
ever took place.
While the defense of the Constitution had been very able in Pennsylvania
and Massachusetts (and later in New York was to be most brilliant), the
attack upon it in the Virginia Convention was nowhere equaled or
approached in power, learning, and dignity. Extravagant as the assertion
appears, it nevertheless is true that the Virginia contest was the only
real _debate_ over the whole Constitution. It far surpassed, especially
in presenting the reasons against the Constitution, the discussion in
the Federal Convention itself, in weight of argument and attractiveness
of presentation, as well as in the ability and distinction of the
debaters.
The general Federal Convention that framed the Constitution at
Philadelphia was a secret body; and the greatest pains were taken that
no part of its proceedings should get to the public until the
Constitution itself was reported to Congress. The Journals were confided
to the care of Washington and were not made public until many years
after our present Government was established. The framers of the
Constitution ignored the purposes for which they were delegated; they
acted without any authority whatever; and the document, which the
warring factions finally evolved from their quarrels and dissensions,
was revolutionary.[997] This capital fact requires iteration, for it is
essential to an understanding of the desperate struggle to secure the
ratification of that then unpopular instrument.
"Not one legislature in the United States had the most distant idea when
they first appointed members for a [Federal] convention, entirely
commercial ... that they would without any warrant from their
constituents, presume on so bold and daring a stride," truthfully writes
the excitable Gerry of Massachusetts in his bombastic denunciation of
"the fraudulent usurpation at Philadelphia."[998] The more reliable
Melancton Smith of New York testifies that "previous to the meeting of
the Convention the subject of a new form of government had been little
thought of and scarcely written upon at all.... The idea of a government
similar to" the Constitution "never entered the minds of the
legislatures who appointed the Convention and of but very few of the
members who composed it, until they had assembled and heard it proposed
in that body."[999]
"Had the idea of a total change [from the Confederation] been started,"
asserts the trustworthy Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, "probably no
state would have appointed members to the Convention.... Probably not
one man in ten thousand in the United States ... had an idea that the
old ship [Confederation] was to be destroyed. Pennsylvania appointed
principally those men who are esteemed aristocratical.... Other
States ... chose men principally connected with commerce and the
judicial department." Even so, says Lee, "the non-attendance of eight or
nine men" made the Constitution possible. "We must recollect, how
disproportionately the democratic and aristocratic parts of the
community were represented" in this body.[1000]
This "child of fortune,"[1001] as Washington called the Constitution,
had been ratified with haste and little or no discussion by Delaware,
New Jersey, Connecticut, and Georgia. The principal men in the first
three Commonwealths felt that the Constitution gave those States large
commercial advantages and even greater political consequence;[1002] and
Georgia, with so small a population as to be almost negligible, felt the
need of some strong Government to defend her settlers against the
Indians. It is doubtful whether many of the people of these four States
had read the Constitution or had heard much about it, except that, in a
general way, they were to be better off under the new than under the old
arrangement. Their ratification carried no weight other than to make up
four of the nine States necessary to set the new system in motion.
In other States its friends had whipped up all possible speed. Not a
week had passed after the Federal Convention had laid the proposed
Constitution before Congress when a resolution was introduced in the
Legislature of Pennsylvania for the election, within five weeks,[1003]
of delegates to a State Convention to ratify the "New Plan." When its
opponents, failing in every other device to delay or defeat it, refused
to attend the sessions, thus breaking a quorum, a band of
Constitutionalists "broke into their lodgings, seized them, dragged them
though the streets to the State House and thrust them into the Assembly
room with clothes torn and faces white with rage." And there the
objecting members were forcibly kept until the vote was taken. Thus was
the quorum made and the majority of the Legislature enabled to "pass"
the ordinance for calling the Pennsylvania State Convention to ratify
the National Constitution.[1004] And this action was taken before the
Legislature had even received from Congress a copy of that document.
The enemies in Pennsylvania of the proposed National Government were
very bitter. They said that the Legislature had been under the yoke of
Philadelphia--a charge which, indeed, appears to be true. Loud were the
protests of the minority against the feverish haste. When the members of
the Pennsylvania Convention, thus called, had been chosen and had
finished their work, the Anti-Constitutionalists asserted that no fair
election had really taken place because it "was held at so early a
period and want of information was so great" that the people did not
know that such an election was to be held; and they proved this to their
own satisfaction by showing that, although seventy thousand
Pennsylvanians were entitled to vote, only thirteen thousand of them
really had voted and that the forty-six members of the Pennsylvania
Convention who ratified the Constitution had been chosen by only
sixty-eight hundred voters. Thus, they pointed out, when the State
Convention was over, that the Federal Constitution had been ratified in
Pennsylvania by men who represented less than one tenth of the voting
population of the State.[1005]
Indeed, a supporter of the Constitution admitted that only a small
fraction of the people did vote for members of the Pennsylvania State
Convention; but he excused this on the ground that Pennsylvanians seldom
voted in great numbers except in contested elections; and he pointed out
that in the election of the Convention which framed the State's
Constitution itself, only about six thousand had exercised their right
of suffrage and that only a little more than fifteen hundred votes had
been cast in the whole Commonwealth to elect Pennsylvania's first
Legislature.[1006]
The enemies of the proposed plan for a National Government took the
ground that it was being rushed through by the "aristocrats"; and the
"Independent Gazetteer" published "The humble address of the _low born_
of the United States of America, to their fellow slaves scattered
throughout the world," which sarcastically pledged that "we, the _low
born_, that is, all the people of the United States, except 600 or
thereabouts, _well born_," would "allow and admit the said 600 _well
born_ immediately to establish and confirm this most noble, most
excellent, and truly divine constitution."[1007]
James Wilson, they said, had been all but mobbed by the patriots during
the Revolution; he never had been for the people, but always "strongly
tainted with the spirit of _high aristocracy_."[1008] Yet such a man,
they declared, was the ablest and best person the Constitutionalists
could secure to defend "that political monster, the proposed
Constitution"; "a monster" which had emerged from "the thick veil of
secrecy."[1009]
When the Pennsylvania State Convention had assembled, the opponents of
the Constitution at once charged that the whole business was being
speeded by a "system of precipitancy."[1010] They rang the changes on
the secret gestation and birth of the Nation's proposed fundamental law,
which, said Mr. Whitehill, "originates in mystery and must terminate in
despotism," and, in the end, surely would annihilate the States.[1011]
Hardly a day passed that the minority did not protest against the
forcing tactics of the majority.[1012] While much ability was displayed
on both sides, yet the debate lacked dignity, courtesy, judgment, and
even information. So scholarly a man as Wilson said that "Virginia has
no bill of rights";[1013] and Chief Justice McKean, supported by Wilson,
actually declared that none but English-speaking peoples ever had known
trial by jury.[1014]
"Lack of veracity," "indecent," "trifling," "contempt for arguments and
person," were a few of the more moderate, polite, and soothing epithets
that filled Pennsylvania's Convention hall throughout this so-called
debate. More than once the members almost came to blows.[1015] The
galleries, filled with city people, were hot for the Constitution and
heartened its defenders with cheers. "This is not the voice of the
people of Pennsylvania," shouted Smilie, denouncing the partisan
spectators. The enemies of the Constitution would not be "intimidated,"
he dramatically exclaimed, "were the galleries filled with
bayonets."[1016] The sarcastic McKean observed in reply that Smilie
seemed "mighty angry, merely because somebody was pleased."[1017]
Persons not members of the Convention managed to get on the floor and
laughed at the arguments of those who were against the Constitution.
Findley was outraged at this "want of sense of decency and order."[1018]
Justice McKean treated the minority with contempt and their arguments
with derision. "_If the sky falls, we shall catch larks; if the rivers
run dry, we shall catch eels_," was all, said this conciliatory
advocate of the Constitution, that its enemies' arguments amounted to;
they made nothing more than a sound "like _the working of small
beer_."[1019]
The language, manners, and methods of the supporters of the Constitution
in the Pennsylvania Convention were resented outside the hall. "If
anything could induce me to oppose the New Constitution," wrote a
citizen signing himself "Federalist," "it would be the indecent,
supercilious carriage of its advocates towards its opponents."[1020]
While the Pennsylvania State Convention was sitting, the Philadelphia
papers were full of attacks and counter-attacks by the partisans of
either side, some of them moderate and reasonable, but most of them
irritating, inflammatory, and absurd. A well-written petition of
citizens was sent to the Convention begging it to adjourn until April or
May, so that the people might have time to inform themselves on the
subject: "The people of Pennsylvania have not yet had sufficient time
and opportunity afforded them for this purpose. The great bulk of the
people, from the want of leisure from other avocations; their remoteness
from information, their scattered situation, and the consequent
difficulty of conferring with each other" did not understand the
Constitution, declared this memorial.
"The unaccountable zeal and precipitation used to hurry the people into
premature decision" had excited and alarmed the masses, "and the
election of delegates was rushed into before the greater part of the
people ... knew what part to take in it." So ran the cleverly drawn
indictment of the methods of those who were striving for ratification in
Pennsylvania.[1021] In the State Convention, the foes of the
Constitution scathingly denounced to the very last the jamming-through
conduct of its friends; and just before the final vote, Smilie dared
them to adjourn that the sense of the people might be taken.[1022]
Even such of the people as could be reached by the newspapers were not
permitted to be enlightened by the Convention "debates"; for reports of
them were suppressed.[1023] Only the speeches of James Wilson and Chief
Justice McKean, both ardent advocates of the Constitution, were allowed
to be published.[1024]
But although outnumbered two to one, cuffed and buffeted without mercy
in debate, scoffed at and jeered at by the people of the Quaker City,
the minority was stiff-necked and defiant. Their heads were "bloody but
unbowed." Three days after the vote for ratification, forty-six "ayes"
to twenty-three "nays," had been taken, the minority issued an address
to their constituents.[1025] It relates the causes which led to the
Federal Convention, describes its members, sets forth its usurpation of
power, details the efforts to get popular support for the Constitution
even "whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave."
The address recounts the violence by which the State Convention was
called, "not many hours" after the "New Plan" had "issued forth from the
womb of suspicious secrecy"; and reaffirms the people's ignorance of the
Constitution, the trifling vote, the indecorous, hasty, "insulting"
debate. It gives the amendments asked for by the minority, and finally
presents most if not all the arguments which before had been or since
have been advanced against the Constitution, and especially the National
principle which pervades it.
The powers given Congress would produce "one consolidated government,
which, from the nature of things, will be an _iron handed despotism_";
the State Governments would be annihilated; the general welfare clause
would justify anything which "_the will and pleasure_ of congress"
dictated; that National body, "with complete and unlimited power over
the _purse_ and the _sword_," could[1026] by taxation "command the whole
or any part of the property of the people"--imposts, land taxes, poll
taxes, excises, duties--every kind of tax on every possible species of
property and written instrument could be laid by the "monster" of
National power. By the Judiciary provided in the Constitution "the rich
and wealthy suitors would eagerly lay hold of the infinite mazes,
perplexities and delays ... and the poor man being plunged in the
bottomless pit of legal discussion" could not get justice.[1027]
Two coördinate "sovereignties," State and National, "would be contrary
to the nature of things"; the Constitution without a bill of rights
"would of itself necessarily produce a despotism"; a standing army might
be used to collect the most burdensome taxes and with it "an ambitious
man ... may step up into the throne and seize upon absolute
power"[1028]--such are the broad outlines of the document with which the
undismayed enemies of the Constitution began their campaign against it
among the people of Pennsylvania after the Convention had ratified it.
The wrath of the Pennsylvania foes of the Constitution fed and grew upon
its own extravagance. The friends of the "New Plan" tried to hold a
meeting in Carlisle to rejoice over its ratification; but the crowd
broke up their meeting, wrecked their cannon, and burned the
Constitution in the very bonfire which the Constitutionalists had
prepared to celebrate its victory. Blows were struck and violence
done.[1029] For almost a year, an Anti-Constitutionalist paper in
Philadelphia kept up the bombardment of the Constitution and its
advocates, its gunner being a writer signing himself "Centinel."[1030]
His ammunition was a mixture of argument, statement, charge, and abuse,
wrapped up in cartridge paper of blistering rhetoric. The Constitution
was, wrote "Centinel," a "spurious brat"; "the evil genius of darkness
presided at its birth" and "it came forth under the veil of
mystery."[1031]
Should the small fraction of the people who had voted for the members of
the Pennsylvania State Convention bind the overwhelming majority who had
not voted, asked "Centinel." No, indeed! The people, wrote he with pen
of gall, had nothing but contempt for the "solemn mummery" that had been
acted in their name.[1032] As to the citizens of Philadelphia, everybody
understood, asserted "Centinel," that the "spirit of independency" was
dead within _their_ breasts; Philadelphia merchants, as was well known,
were mere vassals to a commercial "colossus" (Robert Morris) who held
the city in "thraldom."[1033]
"Mankind in the darkest ages, have never been so insulted," cried
"Centinel," as the men of Pennsylvania had been by this "flagrant ...
audacious ... conspiracy [the Constitution] against the liberties of a
free people."[1034] The whole thing, he declared, was a dastardly plot.
The conspirators had disarmed the militia, kept out of the mails such
newspapers as had dared to voice the "people's rights";[1035] and "all
intercourse between the patriots of America is as far as possible cut
off; whilst on the other hand the conspirators have the most exact
information, a common concert is everywhere evident; they move in
unison."[1036]
The Constitutionalists were not content with their vile work in
thrusting upon Pennsylvania "the empire of delusion," charged
"Centinel,"[1037] but their agents were off for Virginia to do the like
there.[1038] The whole world knew, said he, that the Constitutionalists
had rushed the Constitution through in Pennsylvania;[1039] and that the
"immaculate convention [that framed the Constitution] ... contained a
number of the principal public defaulters,"[1040] chief of whom was
Robert Morris, who, though a bankrupt in the beginning of the
Revolution, had, by "peculation and embezzlement of the public
property," accumulated "the immense wealth he has dazzled the world with
since."[1041]
If only the address of Pennsylvania's heroic minority, "Centinel"
lamented, had reached Boston in time, it would "have enabled patriotism
to triumph" there; but, of course, the "_high born_" Constitutionalist
managers of post-offices kept it back.[1042] Was not the scandal so
foul, asked "Centinel," that, on the petition of Philadelphia printers,
Pennsylvania's Legislature appealed to Congress against the suppression
of the mails?[1043] Of course Philadelphia was for "this system of
tyranny"; but three fourths of the people in the eastern counties and
nineteen twentieths of those in the middle, northern, and western
counties were against it.[1044]
The grape and canister which its enemies poured upon the Constitution
and its friends in Pennsylvania brought an answering fire. The attacks,
said the Constitutionalists, had been written by "hireling writers" and
"sowers of sedition"; their slanders showed "what falsehoods
disappointed ambition is capable of using to impose upon the public."
According to the Constitutionalists, their opponents were "incendiaries"
with "infamous designs."[1045] "If every lie was to be punished by
clipping, as in the case of other forgeries, not an ear would be left
amongst the whole party," wrote a Constitutionalist of the conduct of
the opposition.[1046]
But the Constitutionalists were no match for their enemies in the
language of abuse, recklessness in making charges, or plausibility in
presenting their case. Mostly they vented their wrath in private
correspondence, which availed nothing. Yet the letters of business men
were effective in consolidating the commercial interests. Also they
illuminate the situation.
"That restless firebrand, the Printer of your city [Oswald, editor of
the "Independent Gazetteer"], is running about as if driven by the
Devil," wrote a New York merchant to a Philadelphia business
correspondent, "seemingly determined to do all the mischief he can;
indeed, in my opinion he is an actual incendiary & ought to be the
object of legal restraint. He is in his own person a strong argument of
the necessity of speedily adopting the new System & putting it into
immediate motion."[1047]
And "firebrands," indeed, the Anti-Constitutionalists prove themselves
in every possible way.
Madison was alarmed. He writes to Jefferson that the "minority ... of
Pennsylvania has been extremely intemperate and continues to use very
bold and menacing language."[1048] Little did Madison then foresee that
the very men and forces he now was fighting were laying the foundation
for a political party which was to make him President. Far from his
thought, at this time, was the possibility of that antipodal change
which public sentiment and Jefferson's influence wrought in him two
years later. When the fight over the Constitution was being waged, there
was no more extreme Nationalist in the whole country than James Madison.
So boiled the stormy Pennsylvania waters through which the Constitution
was hastened to port and such was the tempest that strained its moorings
after it was anchored in the harbor of ratification.
In Massachusetts, "all the men of abilities, of property and of
influence,"[1049] were quite as strong for the Constitution as the same
class in Pennsylvania; but, impressed by the revolt against the tactics
of hurry and force which the latter had employed, the Constitutionalists
of the Bay State took an opposite course. Craft, not arrogance, was
their policy. They were "wise as serpents," but appeared to be "as
harmless as doves." Unlike the methods of the Pennsylvania
Constitutionalists, they were moderate, patient, conciliatory, and
skillful. They put up Hancock for President of the Convention, in order,
as they said, "that we might have advantage of [his] ... name--whether
capable of attending or not."[1050]
The Massachusetts adversaries of the Constitution were without a leader.
Among them "there was not a single character capable of uniting their
wills or directing their measures."[1051] Their inferiority greatly
impressed Madison, who wrote to Pendleton that "there was scarce a man
of respectability" among them.[1052] They were not able even to state
their own case.
"The friends of the Constitution, who in addition to their own
weight ... represent a very large proportion of the good sense and
property of this State, have the task not only of answering, but also of
stating and bringing forward the objections of their opponents," wrote
King to Madison.[1053] The opponents admitted this themselves. Of
course, said they, lawyers, judges, clergymen, merchants, and educated
men, all of whom were in favor of the Constitution, could make black
look white; but "if we had men of this description on our side" we could
run these foxes to earth.[1054] Mr. Randall hoped "that these great men
of eloquence and learning will not try to _make_ arguments to make this
Constitution go down, right or wrong.... It takes the best men in this
state to gloss this Constitution.... Suppose ... these great men would
speak half as much against it, we might complete our business and go
home in forty-eight hours."[1055]
The election of members to the Massachusetts Convention had shown
widespread opposition to the proposed establishment of a National
Government. Although the Constitutionalists planned well and worked
hard, some towns did not want to send delegates at all; forty-six towns
finally refused to do so and were unrepresented in the Convention.[1056]
"Biddeford has backsliden & fallen from a state of Grace to a state of
nature, met yesterday & a dumb Devil seized a Majority & they voted not
to send, & when called on for a Reason they were dumb, _mirabile
dictu_!"[1057] King Lovejoy was chosen for Vassalborough; but when the
people learned that he would support the Constitution they "called
another Meeting, turned him out, & chose another in his room who was
desidedly against it."[1058]
The division among the people in one county was: "The most reputable
characters ... on ... _the right_ side [for the Constitution] ... but
the middling & common sort ... on the opposite";[1059] and in another
county "the Majority of the Common people" were opposed,[1060] which
seems to have been generally true throughout the State. Of the sentiment
in Worcester, a certain E. Bangs wrote: "I could give you but a very
disagreeable account: The most of them entertain such a dread of
arbitrary power, that they are afraid even of limited authority.... Of
upwards of 50 members from this county not more than 7 or 8 delegates
are" for the Constitution, "& yet some of them are good men--Not all
[Shays's] insurgents I assure you."[1061]
Judge Sewall reported from York that the delegates there had been
chosen "to Oppose the Business.... Sanford had one meeting and Voted not
to Send any--But M^r. S. come down full charged with Gass and Stirred up
a 2^{nd} Meeting and procured himself Elected, and I presume will go up
charged like a Baloon."[1062] Nathaniel Barrell of York, a successful
candidate for the Massachusetts Convention, "behaved so indecently
before the Choice, as extorted a severe Reprimand from Judge Sewall, and
when chosen modestly told his Constituents, he would sooner loose his
Arm than put his Assent to the new proposed Constitution, it is to be
feared many of his Brethern are of his mind."[1063]
Barrell explained to Thatcher: "I see it [the Constitution] pregnant
with the fate of our libertys.... I see it entails wretchedness on my
posterity--Slavery on my children; ... twill not be so much for our
advantage to have our taxes imposed & levied at the pleasure of Congress
as [by] the method now pursued ... a Continental Collector at the head
of a standing army will not be so likely to do us justice in collecting
the taxes.... I think such a Government impracticable among men with
such high notions of liberty as we americans."[1064]
The "Address of the Minority" of Pennsylvania's Convention had reached a
few men in Massachusetts, notwithstanding the alleged refusal of the
post-office to transmit it; and it did some execution. To Thomas B. Wait
it "was like the Thunder of Sinai--its lightenings were irresistible"
to him. He deplored the "darkness, duplicity and studied ambiguity ...
running thro' the whole Constitution," which, to his mind, made it
certain that "as it now stands but very few individuals do or ever will
understand it.... The vast Continent of America cannot long be subjected
to a Democracy if consolidated into one Government--you might as well
attempt to rule Hell by Prayer."[1065]
Christopher Gore condensed into one sentence the motives of those who
favored the Constitution as the desire for "an honorable & efficient
Govt. equal to the support of our national dignity--& capable of
protecting the property of our citizens."[1066]
The spirit of Shays's Rebellion inspired the opponents of the
Constitution in Massachusetts. "Many of the [Shays's] insurgents are in
the Convention," Lincoln informed Washington; "even some of Shays's
officers. A great proportion of these men are high in the opposition. We
could hardly expect any thing else; nor could we ... justly suppose that
those men, who were so lately intoxicated with large draughts of
liberty, and who were thirsting for more would ... submit to a
Constitution which would further take up the reins of Government, which,
in their opinion, were too straight before."[1067]
Out of three hundred and fifty-five members of the Massachusetts
Convention, one hundred and sixty-eight held out against the
Constitution to the very last, uninfluenced by the careful, able, and
convincing arguments of its friends, unmoved by their persuasion,
unbought by their promises and deals.[1068] They believed "that some
injury is plotted against them--that the system is the production of the
rich and ambitious," and that the Constitution would result in "the
establishment of two orders in Society, one comprehending the opulent
and great, the other the poor and illiterate."[1069] At no time until
they won over Hancock, who presided over the Massachusetts Convention,
were the Constitutionalists sure that a majority was not against the new
plan.
The struggle of these rude and unlearned Massachusetts men against the
cultured, disciplined, powerful, and ably led friends of the
Constitution in that State was pathetic. "Who, sir, is to pay the debts
of the yeomanry and others?" exclaimed William Widgery. "Sir, when oil
will quench fire, I will believe all this [the high-colored prophesies
of the Constitutionalists] and not till then.... I cannot see why we
need, for the sake of a little meat, swallow a great bone, which, if it
should happen to stick in our throats, can never be got out."[1070]
Amos Singletary "wished they [the Constitutionalists] would not play
round the subject with their fine stories like a fox round a trap, but
come to it."[1071] "These lawyers," said he, "and men of learning and
moneyed men, that talk so finely, and gloss over matters so smoothly,
to make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get
into Congress themselves; they expect to be the managers of this
Constitution, and get all the power and all the money, into their own
hands, and then they will swallow up all us little folks like the great
_Leviathan_; ... yes, just as the whale swallowed up _Jonah_."[1072]
Replying to the Constitutionalist argument that the people's
representatives in Congress would be true to their constituents, Abraham
White said that he "would not trust a 'flock of Moseses.'"[1073]
The opposition complained that the people knew little or nothing about
the Constitution--and this, indeed, was quite true. "It is strange,"
said General Thompson, "that a system which its planners say is so
plain, _that he that runs may read it_, should want so much
explanation."[1074] "Necessity compelled them to hurry,"[1075] declared
Widgery of the friends of the Constitution. "Don't let us go too
fast.... Why all this racket?" asked the redoubtable Thompson.[1076] Dr.
John Taylor was sure that Senators "once chosen ... are chosen
forever."[1077]
Time and again the idea cropped out of a National Government as a kind
of foreign rule. "I beg the indulgence of this honorable body," implored
Samuel Nason, "to permit me to make a short apostrophe to Liberty. O
Liberty! thou greatest good! thou fairest property! with thee I wish to
live--with thee I wish to die! Pardon me if I drop a tear on the peril
to which she is exposed: I cannot, sir, see this brightest of jewels
tarnished--a jewel worth ten thousand worlds; and shall we part with it
so soon? O no."[1078] And Mr. Nason was sure that the people would part
with this brightest of jewels if the Constitution was adopted. As to a
standing army, let the Constitutionalists recall Boston on March 5,
1770. "Had I a voice like Jove," cried Nason, "I would proclaim it
throughout the world; and had I an arm like Jove, I would hurl from the
globe those villains that would dare attempt to establish in our country
a standing army."[1079]
These "poor, ignorant men," as they avowed themselves to be, were rich
in apostrophes. The reporter thus records one of General Thompson's
efforts: "Here the general broke out in the following pathetic
apostrophe: 'O my country, never give up your annual elections! Young
men, never give up your jewel.'"[1080] John Holmes showed that the
Constitution gave Congress power to "institute judicatories" like "that
diabolical institution, the _Inquisition_." "_Racks_," cried he, "and
_gibbets_, may be amongst the most mild instruments of their
[Congress's] discipline."[1081] Because there was no religious test,
Major Thomas Lusk "shuddered at the idea that Roman Catholics, Papists,
and Pagans might be introduced into office, and that Popery and the
Inquisition may be established in America";[1082] and Singletary pointed
out that under the Constitution a "Papist, or an Infidel, was as
eligible as ... a Christian."[1083]
Thus the proceedings dragged along. The overwhelming arguments of the
advocates of the Constitution were unanswered and, apparently, not even
understood by its stubborn foes. One Constitutionalist, indeed, did
speak their language, a farmer named Jonathan Smith, whom the
Constitutionalist managers put forward for that purpose. "I am a plain
man," said Mr. Smith, "and get my living by the plough. I am not used to
speak in public, but I beg leave to say a few words to my brother
plough-joggers in this house"; and Mr. Smith proceeded to make one of
the most effective speeches of the Convention.[1084] But all to no
purpose. Indeed, the pleadings and arguments for the Constitution seemed
only to harden the feeling of those opposed to it. They were obsessed by
an immovable belief that a National Government would destroy their
liberties; "and," testifies King, "a distrust of men of property or
education has a more powerful effect upon the minds of our opponents
than any specific objections against the Constitution."[1085]
Finally, in their desperation, the Constitutionalist managers won
Hancock,[1086] whose courting of the insurgents in Shays's Rebellion had
elected him Governor. He had more influence with the opposition than
any other man in New England. For the same reason, Governor Bowdoin's
friends, who included most of the men of weight and substance, had been
against Hancock. By promising the latter their support and by telling
him that he would be made President if Washington was not,[1087] the
Constitutionalist leaders induced Hancock to offer certain amendments
which the Massachusetts Convention should recommend to Congress along
with its ratification of the Constitution. Hancock offered these
proposals as his own, although they were drawn by the learned and
scholarly Parsons.[1088] Samuel Adams, hitherto silent, joined in this
plan.
Thus the trick was turned and the Massachusetts Convention ratified the
Constitution a few days later by a slender majority of nineteen out of a
vote of three hundred and fifty-five.[1089] But not without bitter
protest. General Thompson remarked that "he could not say amen to them
[the amendments], but they might be voted for by some men--he did not
say Judases."[1090] The deal by which the Constitutionalists won Hancock
was suspected, it appears, for Dr. Charles Jarvis denied that "these
amendments have been artfully introduced to lead to a decision which
would not otherwise be had."[1091] Madison in New York, watching the
struggle with nervous solicitude, thought that the amendments influenced
very few members of the Massachusetts opposition because of "their
objections being levelled against the very essence of the proposed
Government."[1092] Certainly, those who changed their votes for
ratification had hard work to explain their conversion.
Nathaniel Barrell, who had pledged his constituents that he would part
with his arm rather than vote for the "Slavery of my children," had
abandoned his vow of amputation and decided to risk the future bondage
of his offspring by voting for the Constitution. In trying to justify
his softened heroism, he said that he was "awed in the presence of this
august assembly"; he knew "how little he must appear in the eyes of
those giants of rhetoric, who have exhibited such a pompous display of
declamation"; but although he did not have the "eloquence of Cicero, or
the blaze of Demosthenian oratory," yet he would try to explain. He
summarized his objections, ending with his wish that "this Constitution
had not been, in some parts of the continent, hurried on, like the
driving of Jehu, very furiously." So he hoped the Convention would
adjourn, but if it would not--well, in that case, Mr. Barrell would
brave the wrath of his constituents and vote for ratification with
amendments offered by Hancock.[1093]
Just as the bargain with Hancock secured the necessary votes for the
Constitution in the Massachusetts Convention, so did the personal
behavior of the Constitutionalists forestall any outbreak of protest
after ratification. "I am at Last overcome," wrote Widgery, "by a
majority of 19, including the president [Hancock] whose very Name is an
Honour to the State, for by his coming in and offering Som Amendments
which furnished many with Excuses to their Constituants, it was adopted
to the great Joy of all Boston."[1094] The triumphant Constitutionalists
kept up their mellowing tactics of conciliation after their victory and
with good results, as appears by Mr. Widgery's account.
The "great bone" which had been thrust into his throat had not stuck
there as he had feared it would. The Constitutionalists furnished
materials to wash it down. "After Taking a parting Glass at the Expense
of the Trades men in Boston we Disolved";[1095] but not before the
mollified Widgery announced that the Constitution "had been carried by a
majority of wise and understanding men.... After expressing his thanks
for the civility which the inhabitants of this town [Boston] have shown
to the Convention, ... he concluded by saying that he should support
the ... Constitution" with all his might.[1096]
"One thing I mus menchen," relates Widgery, "the Gallerys was very much
Crowded, yet on the Desition of so emportant a Question as the present
you might have heard a Copper fall on the Gallery floor, their was Sush
a profound Silance; on thirs Day we got throw all our Business and on
Fry Day, there was a federal Ship Riged and fix^d on a Slead, hald by 13
Horses, and all Orders of Men Turn^d out and formed a procession in the
following ordor Viz first the Farmers with the plow and Harrow Sowing
grain, and Harrowing it in as they went Som in a Cart Brakeing and
Swingeing Flax ... Tradesmen of all sorts, ... the Bakers [with] their
Bread peal ... the Federal Ship ful Riged ... the Merchants ... a nother
Slead, Halled by 13 Horses on which was a Ship yard, and a Number of
smaul Ships &c. on that. in this order thay march^d to the House of Each
of their Delegates in the Town of Boston, and returned to Fanuels Aall
where the Merchants gave them 3 or 4 Hogsheads of Punch and as much wine
cake & cheese as they could make way with ... one thing more
Notwithstanding my opposition to the Constitution, and the anxiety of
Boston for its adoption I most Tel you I was never Treated with So much
politeness in my Life as I was afterwards by the Treadesmen of Boston
Merchants & every other Gentleman."[1097]
Thus did the Massachusetts Constitutionalists take very human and
effective measures to prevent such revolt against the Constitution,
after its ratification, as the haughty and harsh conduct of their
Pennsylvania brothers had stirred up in the City and State of Brotherly
Love. "The minority are in good temper," King advises Madison; "they
have the magnanimity to declare that they will devote their lives and
property to support the Government."[1098] While there was a little
Anti-Constitutionalist activity among the people after the Convention
adjourned, it was not virulent. Gerry, indeed, gave one despairing
shriek over departing "liberty" which he was sure the Constitution would
drive from our shores; but that lament was intended for the ears of New
York. It is, however, notable as showing the state of mind of such
Anti-Constitutionalists as the Constitution's managers had not taken
pains to mollify.
Gerry feared the "Gulph of despotism.... On these shores freedom has
planted her standard, diped in the purple tide that flowed from the
veins of her martyred heroes" which was now in danger from "the
deep-laid plots, the secret intrigues, ... the bold effrontery" of those
ambitious to be aristocrats, some of whom were "speculating for fortune,
by sporting with public money." Only "a few, a very few
[Constitutionalists] ... were ... defending their country" during the
Revolution, said Gerry. "Genius, Virtue, and Patriotism seems to nod
over the vices of the times ... while a supple multitude are paying a
blind and idolatrous homage to ... those ... who are endeavouring ... to
betray the people ... into an acceptance of a most complicated system of
government; marked on the one side with the _dark_, _secret_ and
_profound intrigues_ of the statesman, long practised in the purlieus of
despotism; and on the other, with the ideal projects of _young
ambition_, with its wings just expanded to soar to a summit, which
imagination has painted in such gawdy colours as to intoxicate the
_inexperienced votary_ and send _him_ rambling from State to State, to
collect materials to construct the ladder of preferment."[1099]
Thus protested Gerry; but if the people, in spite of his warnings,
_would_ "give their voices for a voluntary dereliction of their
privileges"--then, concluded Gerry, "while the statesman is plodding for
power, and the courtier practicing the arts of dissimulation without
check--while the rapacious are growing rich by oppression, and fortune
throwing her gifts into the lap of fools, let the sublimer characters,
the philosophic lovers of freedom who have wept over her exit, retire to
the calm shades of contemplation, there they may look down with pity on
the inconsistency of human nature, the revolutions of states, the rise
of kingdoms, and the fall of empires."[1100]
Such was the resistance offered to the Constitution in Massachusetts,
such the debate against it, the management that finally secured its
approval with recommendations by that Commonwealth,[1101] and the after
effects of the Constitutionalists' tactics.
In New Hampshire a majority of the Convention was against the
Constitution. "Almost every man of property and abilities ... [was] for
it," wrote Langdon to Washington; but "a report was circulated ... that
the liberties of the people were in danger, and the great men ... were
forming a plan for themselves; together with a thousand other
absurdities, which frightened the people almost out of what little
senses they had."[1102]
Very few of the citizens of New Hampshire knew anything about the
Constitution. "I was surprised to find ... that so little information
respecting the Constitution had been diffused among the people," wrote
Tobias Lear. "The valuable numbers of _Publius_ are not known.... The
debates of the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Conventions have been read
by but few persons; and many other pieces, which contain useful
information have never been heard of."[1103]
When the New Hampshire Convention assembled, "a great part of whom had
positive instructions to vote against it," the Constitutionalists, after
much argument and persuasion, secured an adjournment on February 22
until June.[1104] Learning this in New York, nine days later, Madison
wrote Pendleton that the adjournment had been "found necessary to
prevent a rejection."[1105] But, "notwithstanding our late
Disappointments and Mortification," the New Hampshire Constitutionalists
felt that they would win in the end and "make the people happy in spight
of their teeth."[1106]
When, therefore, Virginia's great Convention met on June 2, 1788, the
Nation's proposed fundamental law had not received deliberate
consideration in any quarter; nor had it encountered weighty debate from
those opposed to it. New York's Convention was not to assemble until two
weeks later and that State was known to be hostile. The well-arranged
plan was working to combine the strength of the leading enemies of the
Constitution in the various States so that a new Federal Convention
should be called.[1107]
"Had the influence of character been removed, the intrinsic merits of
the instrument [Constitution] would not have secured its adoption.
Indeed, it is scarcely to be doubted, that in some of the adopting
States, a majority of the people were in the opposition," writes
Marshall many years afterwards in a careful review of the thorny path
the Constitution had had to travel.[1108] Its foes, says Marshall, were
"firmly persuaded that the cradle of the constitution would be the grave
of republican liberty."[1109]
In Virginia's Convention, the array of ability, distinction, and
character on both sides was notable, brilliant, and impressive. The
strongest debaters in the land were there, the most powerful orators,
and some of the most scholarly statesmen. Seldom, in any land or age,
has so gifted and accomplished a group of men contended in argument and
discussion at one time and place. And yet reasoning and eloquence were
not the only or even the principal weapons used by these giant
adversaries. Skill in political management, craft in parliamentary
tactics, intimate talks with the members, the downright "playing of
politics," were employed by both sides. "Of all arguments that may be
used at the convention," wrote Washington to Madison, more than four
months before the Convention, "the most prevailing one ... will be that
nine states at least will have acceded to it."[1110]
FOOTNOTES:
[982] Grigsby, i, 25.
[983] Travelers from the District of Kentucky or from the back
settlements of Virginia always journeyed fully armed, in readiness to
defend themselves from attack by Indians or others in their journey
through the wilderness.
[984] Grigsby, i, 27-28.
[985] _Ib._, 25.
[986] The Jockey Club was holding its annual races at Richmond when the
Constitutional Convention of 1788 convened. (Christian, 31.)
[987] Grigsby, i. 31.
[988] Humphrey Marshall, from the District of Kentucky, saw for the
first time one number of the _Federalist_, only after he had reached the
more thickly peopled districts of Virginia while on his way to the
Convention. (_ib._, footnote to 31.)
[989] George Nicholas to Madison, April 5, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v,
footnote to p. 115.
[990] "The most common and ostensible objection was that it [the
Constitution] would endanger state rights and personal liberty--that it
was too strong." (Humphrey Marshall, i, 285.)
[991] Tyler, i, 142. Grigsby estimates that three fourths of the people
of Virginia were opposed to the Constitution. (Grigsby, i, footnote to
160.)
[992] Lee to Madison, Dec. 1787; _Writings_: Hunt, v, footnote to p. 88.
[993] Madison's father to Madison, Jan. 30, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v,
footnote to p. 105.
[994] Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788; _ib._, 103.
[995] Henry to Lamb, June 9, 1788; Henry, ii, 342.
[996] Minton Collins to Stephen Collins, March 16, 1788; Collins MSS.,
Lib. Cong.
[997] Even Hamilton admitted this. "The framers of it [the Constitution]
will have to encounter the disrepute of having brought about a
revolution in government, without substituting anything that was worthy
of the effort; they pulled down one Utopia, it will be said, to build up
another." (Hamilton to Washington, Sept., 1788; Hamilton's _Works_:
Lodge, ix, 444; and also in Jefferson, _Writings_: Ford, xi, footnote to
330.) Martin Van Buren describes the action of the Federal Convention
that framed the Constitution, in "having ... set aside the instructions
of Congress by making a new Constitution ... an heroic but lawless act."
(Van Buren, 49-50.)
Professor Burgess does not overstate the case when he declares: "Had
Julius or Napoleon committed these acts [of the Federal Convention in
framing and submitting the Constitution], they would have been
pronounced _coups d'état_." (Burgess, i, 105.)
Also see Beard: _Econ. I. C._, 217-18.
[998] Ford: _P. on C._, 14.
[999] _Ib._, 100-01.
[1000] Ford: _P. on C._, 284-85. And see Jameson, 40-49.
[1001] Washington to Lafayette, Sept. 18, 1788; _Writings_: Sparks, ix,
265.
[1002] Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware had practically no ports
and, under the Confederation, were at the mercy of Massachusetts, New
York, and Pennsylvania in all matters of trade. The Constitution, of
course, remedied this serious defect. Also, these smaller States had
forced the compromise by which they, with their comparatively small
populations, were to have an equal voice in the Senate with New York,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia, with their comparatively great populations.
And therefore they would have practically equal weight in the law--and
treaty-making power of the Government. This was the most formidable of
the many rocks on which the Federal Convention all but broke up.
[1003] One proposition was to call the State Convention "within _ten_
days." (See "Address of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention," in
McMaster and Stone, 458.)
[1004] _Ib._, 3-4; and see _ib._, 75. An excuse for these mob methods
was that the Legislature previously had resolved to adjourn _sine die_
on that very day. This would put off action until the next session. The
Anti-Constitutionalists urged--with entire truthfulness--that even this
delay would give the people too little time to inform themselves upon
the "New Plan" of government, as it was called, which the Convention was
to pass upon in the people's name. "Not one in twenty know anything
about it." (Mr. Whitehall in debate in the Legislature; _ib._, 32.)
[1005] McMaster and Stone, 459-60. This charge was wholly accurate.
Both sides exerted themselves to carry the "election." The
Anti-Constitutionalists declared that they stood for "the principles of
the Revolution"; yet, asserts Graydon, who was at Reading at the time,
they sought the support of the Tories; the country lawyers were opposed
to the "New Plan" and agreed not "to practice or accept any office
under the Constitution"; but the Constitutionalists promised
"prothonotaryships, attorney generalships, chief justiceships, and what
not," and the hostile attorneys "were tempted and did eat." Describing
the spirit of the times, Graydon testifies that "pelf was a better goal
than liberty and at no period in my recollection was the worship of
Mammon more widely spread, more sordid and disgusting."
Everybody who wanted it had a military title, that of major being "the
very lowest that a dasher of any figure would accept." To "clap on a
uniform and a pair of epaulettes, and scamper about with some militia
general for a day or two" was enough to acquire the coveted rank. Thus,
those who had never been in the army, but "had played a safe and
calculating game" at home and "attended to their interests," were not
only "the men of mark and consideration," but majors, colonels, and
generals as well. (Graydon, 331-33.)
Noting, at a later time, this passion for military titles Weld says: "In
every part of America a European is surprised at finding so many men
with military titles ... but no where ... is there such a superfluity of
these military personages as in the little town of Staunton; there is
hardly a decent person in it ... but what is a colonel, a major, or a
captain." (Weld, i, 236-37.)
Such were the conditions in the larger towns when the members of the
Pennsylvania Convention were chosen. The small vote cast seems to
justify the charge that the country districts and inaccessible parts of
the State did not even know of the election.
[1006] McMaster and Stone, 503-04.
[1007] McMaster and Stone, 173-74.
[1008] _Independent Gazetteer_: _ib._, 183-84.
[1009] _Ib._, 184-85.
[1010] Pennsylvania Debates, in McMaster and Stone, 231. Elliott prints
only a small part of these debates.
[1011] _Ib._, 283-85.
[1012] _Ib._, 219.
[1013] McMaster and Stone, 253.
[1014] Findley covered them with confusion in this statement by citing
authority. Wilson irritably quoted in retort the words of Maynard to a
student: "Young Man! I have forgotten more law than ever you learned."
(_Ib._, 352-64.)
[1015] _Ib._, 361-63.
[1016] _Ib._, 365.
[1017] _Ib._
[1018] _Ib._, 419.
[1019] McMaster and Stone, 365.
[1020] _Ib._, 453. The conduct of the Pennsylvania supporters of the
Constitution aroused indignation in other States, and caused some who
had favored the new plan of government to change their views. "On
reception of the Report of the [Federal] Convention, I perused, and
admir'd it;--Or rather, like many who still _think_ they admire it, I
loved Geo. Washington--I venerated Benj. Franklin--and therefore
concluded that I must love and venerate all the works of their
hands;--.... The honest and uninformed _freemen_ of America entertain
the same opinion of those two gentlemen as do European _slaves_ of their
Princes,--'_that they can do no wrong_.'"
But, continues Wait, "on the unprecedented Conduct of the Pennsylvania
Legislature [and Convention] I found myself Disposed to lend an ear to
the arguments of the opposition--not with an expectation of being
convinced that the new Constitution was defective; but because I thought
the minority had been ill used; and I felt a little curious to hear the
particulars," with the result that "I am dissatisfied with the proposed
Constitution." (Wait to Thatcher, Jan. 8, 1788; _Hist. Mag._ (2d
Series), vi, 262; and see _infra_.)
Others did not, even then, entertain Mr. Wait's reverence for
Washington, when it came to accepting the Constitution because of his
support. When Hamilton asked General Lamb how he could oppose the
Constitution when it was certain that his "good friend Genl. Washington
would ... be the first President under it," Lamb "reply'd that ... after
him Genl. Slushington might be the next or second president." (Ledlie to
Lamb; MS., N.Y. Hist. Soc.)
[1021] McMaster and Stone, 432-35.
[1022] _Ib._, 424.
[1023] _Ib._, 14-15.
[1024] _Ib._
[1025] "Address of the Minority"; McMaster and Stone, 454-83.
[1026] "Address of the Minority"; McMaster and Stone, 466.
[1027] _Ib._, 469-70.
[1028] _Ib._, 480.
[1029] See various contemporary accounts of this riot reprinted in
McMaster and Stone, 486-94.
[1030] The authorship of the "Letters of Centinel" remains unsettled. It
seems probable that they were the work of Eleazer Oswald, printer of the
_Independent Gazetteer_, and one George Bryan, both of Philadelphia.
(See _ib._, 6-7, and footnote.)
[1031] "Letters of Centinel," no. 4, _ib._, 606.
[1032] _Ib._, 620.
[1033] _Ib._, 625.
[1034] McMaster and Stone, 624.
[1035] _Ib._, 630, 637, 639, 642, 653, 655.
[1036] _Ib._, 629.
[1037] _Ib._, 641.
[1038] _Ib._, 631; and see _infra_, chap. XI.
[1039] _Ib._, 639.
[1040] _Ib._, 658.
[1041] _Ib._, 661.
[1042] _Ib._, 667.
[1043] McMaster and Stone, 667.
[1044] _Ib._, 668.
[1045] "A Real Patriot," in _Independent Gazetteer_, reprinted in
McMaster and Stone, 524.
[1046] "Gomes," in _ib._, 527.
[1047] H. Chapman to Stephen Collins, June 20, 1788; MS., Lib. Cong.
Oswald, like Thomas Paine, was an Englishman.
[1048] Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 102.
[1049] Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 101.
[1050] Gore to Thatcher, June 9, 1788; _Hist. Mag._ (2d Series), vi,
263. This was a very shrewd move; for Hancock had not yet been won over
to the Constitution; he was popular with the protesting delegates, and
perhaps could not have been defeated had they made him their candidate
for presiding officer; the preferment flattered Hancock's abnormal
vanity and insured the Constitutionalists against his active opposition;
and, most of all, this mark of their favor prepared the way for the
decisive use the Constitutionalist leaders finally were able to make of
him. Madison describes Hancock as being "weak, ambitious, a courtier of
popularity, given to low intrigue." (Madison to Jefferson, Oct. 17,
1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 270.)
[1051] Madison to Jefferson, Feb. 19, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 101.
[1052] Madison to Pendleton, Feb. 21, 1788; _ib._, 108.
[1053] King to Madison, Jan. 27, 1788; King, i, 316.
[1054] _Ib._, 317.
[1055] Elliott, ii, 40.
[1056] Harding, 48. These towns were bitterly opposed to the
Constitution. Had they sent delegates, Massachusetts surely would have
rejected the Constitution; for even by the aid of the deal hereafter
described, there was a very small majority for the Constitution. And if
Massachusetts had refused to ratify it, Virginia would, beyond the
possibility of a doubt, have rejected it also. (See _infra_, chaps. X,
XI, and XII.) And such action by Massachusetts and Virginia would, with
absolute certainty, have doomed the fundamental law by which the Nation
to-day exists. Thus it is that the refusal of forty-six Massachusetts
towns to send representatives to the State Convention changed the
destiny of the Republic.
[1057] Hill to Thatcher, Dec. 12, 1787; _Hist. Mag._ (2d Series), vi,
259.
[1058] Lee to Thatcher, Jan. 23, 1788; _ib._, 266-67.
[1059] _Ib._, 267.
[1060] _Ib._
[1061] Bangs to Thatcher, Jan. 1, 1788; _Hist. Mag._ (2d Series), vi,
260.
[1062] Sewall to Thatcher, Jan. 5, 1788; _Hist. Mag._ (2d Series), vi,
260-61.
[1063] Savage to Thatcher, Jan. 11, 1788; _ib._, 264.
[1064] Barrell to Thatcher, Jan. 15, 1788; _ib._, 265.
[1065] Wait to Thatcher, Jan. 8, 1788; _Hist. Mag._ (2d Series), vi,
261. Wait was an unusually intelligent and forceful editor of a New
England newspaper, the _Cumberland Gazette_. (_Ib._, 258.)
[1066] Gore to Thatcher, Dec. 30, 1787; _ib._, 260.
[1067] Lincoln to Washington, Feb. 3, 1788; _Cor. Rev._: Sparks, iv,
206.
[1068] See _infra_.
[1069] King to Madison, Jan. 27, 1788; King, i, 317.
[1070] Elliott, ii, 105-06.
[1071] _Ib._, 101.
[1072] Elliott, ii, 102.
[1073] _Ib._, 28.
[1074] _Ib._, 96.
[1075] _Ib._, 94.
[1076] _Ib._, 80.
[1077] _Ib._, 48.
[1078] Elliot, ii, 133.
[1079] _Ib._, 136-37.
[1080] _Ib._, 16.
[1081] _Ib._, 111.
[1082] _Ib._, 148.
[1083] _Ib._, 44.
[1084] Elliott, ii, 102-04. Mr. Thatcher made the best summary of the
unhappy state of the country under the Confederation. (_Ib._, 141-48.)
[1085] King to Madison, Jan. 20, 1788; King, i, 314.
[1086] Rives, ii, 524-25. "To manage the cause against them (the jealous
opponents of the Constitution) are the present and late governor, three
judges of the supreme court, fifteen members of the Senate, twenty-four
among the most respectable of the clergy, ten or twelve of the first
characters at the bar, judges of probate, high sheriffs of counties, and
many other respectable people, merchants, &c., Generals Heath, Lincoln,
Brooks, and others of the late army." (Nathaniel Gorham to Madison,
quoted in _ib._)
[1087] "Hancock has committed himself in our favor.... You will be
astonished, when you see the list of names that such an union of men has
taken place on this question. Hancock will, hereafter, receive the
universal support of Bowdoin's friends; _and we told him, that, if
Virginia does not unite, which is problematical, he is considered as the
only fair candidate for President_." (King to Knox, Feb. 1, 1788; King,
i, 319. The italics are those of King.)
[1088] _Ib._, ii, 525.
[1089] Elliott, ii, 178-81.
[1090] _Ib._, 140.
[1091] Elliott, ii, 153.
[1092] Madison to Randolph, April 10, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 117.
[1093] Elliott, ii, 159-61.
[1094] Widgery to Thatcher, Feb. 8, 1788; _Hist. Mag._ (2d Series), vi,
270.
[1095] _Ib._
[1096] Elliott, ii, 218.
[1097] Widgery to Thatcher, Feb. 8, 1788; _Hist. Mag._ (2d Series), vi,
270-71.
[1098] King to Madison, Feb. 6, 1788; King, i, 320.
[1099] Gerry, in Ford: _P. on C._, 1-23.
[1100] _Ib._, 23. When a bundle of copies of Gerry's pamphlet was
received by the New York Anti-Constitutionalists in Albany County, they
decided that it was "in a style too sublime and florid for the common
people in this part of the country." (_Ib._, 1.)
[1101] During the debates the _Boston Gazette_ published the following
charge that bribery was being employed to get votes for the
Constitution:--
/#
_BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION!!!_
"The most diabolical plan is on foot to corrupt the members of
the Convention, who oppose the adoption of the new Constitution.
Large sums of money have been brought from a neighboring state
for that purpose, contributed by the wealthy. If so, is it not
probable there may be collections for the same accursed purpose
nearer home? CENTINEL." (Elliott, ii, 51.)
#/
The Convention appointed a committee to investigate (_ib._); it found
that the charge was based on extremely vague rumor. (Harding, 103.)
There the matter appears to have been dropped.
More than eighty years afterward, Henry B. Dawson, the editor of the
_Historical Magazine_, a scholar of standing, asserted, personally, in
his publication: "It is very well known--indeed, the son and biographer
of one of the great leaders of the Constitutionalists in New York has
frankly admitted to us--_that enough members of the Massachusetts
Convention were bought with money_ from New York _to secure the
ratification of the new system by Massachusetts_." (_Hist. Mag._ (2d
Series), vi, 268, footnote, referring to Savage's letter to Thatcher
telling of the charge in the _Boston Gazette_.)
Professor Harding discredits the whole story. (Harding, 101-05.) It is
referred to only as showing the excited and suspicious temper of the
times.
[1102] Langdon to Washington, Feb. 28, 1788; _Cor. Rev._: Sparks, iv,
212. "At least three fourths of the property, and a large proportion of
the abilities in the State are friendly to the proposed system. The
opposition here, as has generally been the case, was composed of men who
were involved in debt." (Lear to Washington, June 22, 1788; _ib._,
224-25.)
[1103] Lear to Washington, June 2, 1788; _Cor. Rev._: Sparks, iv, 220.
[1104] Langdon to King, Feb. 23, 1788; King, i, 321-22.
[1105] Madison to Pendleton, March 3, 1788 (_Writings_: Hunt, v, 110),
and to Washington, March 3, 1788 (_ib._, 111); and to Randolph; March 3,
1788 (_ib._, 113).
[1106] Langdon to King, May 6, 1788; King, i, 328.
[1107] Washington to Lafayette, Feb. 7, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 220.
[1108] Marshall, ii, 127.
[1109] _Ib._
[1110] Washington to Madison, Jan. 10, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 208.