THE PROCESS OF RATIFICATION
On the 17th day of September, 1787, the Convention at Philadelphia
finished its work and transmitted the new Constitution to Congress, with
the suggestion that “it should afterwards be submitted to a convention
of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the
recommendation of its legislature for their assent and ratification; and
that each convention assenting to and ratifying the same should give
notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.” The
Philadelphia Convention further proposed that when nine states had
ratified the new instrument, it should go into effect as between the
states ratifying the same. Eleven days later, on September 28, the
Congress, then sitting in New York, resolved to accept the advice of the
Convention, and sent the Constitution to the state legislatures to be
transmitted by them to conventions chosen by the voters of the
respective commonwealths.
This whole process was a departure from the provisions of the then
fundamental law of the land—the Articles of Confederation—which provided
that all alterations and amendments should be made by Congress and
receive the approval of the legislature of every state. If to-day the
Congress of the United States should call a national convention to
“revise” the Constitution, and such a convention should throw away the
existing instrument of government entirely and submit a new frame of
government to a popular referendum, disregarding altogether the process
of amendment now provided, we should have something analogous to the
great political transformation of 1787–89. The revolutionary nature of
the work of the Philadelphia Convention is correctly characterized by
Professor John W. Burgess when he states that had such acts been
performed by Julius or Napoleon, they would have been pronounced _coups
d’état_.[539]
This revolutionary plan of procedure was foreshadowed in the Virginia
proposals at the opening of the Convention, and was, therefore,
contemplated by some of the leaders from the beginning. When it was
under consideration on June 5, Sherman, of Connecticut, opposed it on
the ground that it was unnecessary and that regular provisions were
already made in the Articles for amendments. Madison wanted to establish
the Constitution on some foundation other than mere legislative
approval. Gerry “observed that in the Eastern states the Confederation
had been sanctioned by the people themselves. He seemed afraid of
referring the new system to them. The people in that quarter have, at
this time, the wildest ideas of government in the world. They were for
abolishing the senate in Massachusetts.” King thought that “a convention
being a single house, the adoption may be more easily carried through it
than through the legislatures where there are several branches. The
legislatures also being to lose power will be most likely to raise
objections.”[540]
On July 23 the resolution regarding ratification came before the
Convention again for discussion,[541] when it was moved that the
Constitution be referred to the state legislatures. One of the principal
objections urged against this plan was the possibility of a later
legislature’s repealing the ratification by a preceding body of the same
authority; but the chief problem was whether there was more likelihood
of securing a confirmation by legislatures or by conventions. “Whose
opposition will be most likely to be excited against the system?” asked
Randolph. “That of the local demagogues who will be degraded by it from
the importance they now hold. These will spare no efforts to impede that
progress in the popular mind which will be necessary to the adoption of
the plan.... It is of great importance, therefore, that the
consideration of this subject should be transferred from the
legislatures where this class of men have their full influence to a
field in which their efforts can be less mischievous. It is, moreover,
worthy of consideration that some of the states are averse to any change
in their constitution, and will not take the requisite steps unless
expressly called upon to refer the question to the people.”
Mr. Gorham, of Massachusetts, was of the same opinion. He “was against
referring the plan to the legislatures. 1. Men chosen by the people for
the particular purpose will discuss the subject more candidly than
members of the legislature who are to lose the power which is to be
given up to the general government. 2. Some of the legislatures are
composed of several branches. It will consequently be more difficult in
these cases to get the plan through the legislatures than through a
convention. 3. In the states many of the ablest men are excluded from
the legislatures, but may be elected into a convention. Among these may
be ranked many of the clergy who are generally friends to good
government.... 4. The legislatures will be interrupted with a variety of
little business; by artfully pressing which, designing men will find
means to delay from year to year, if not to frustrate altogether, the
national system. 5. If the last article of the Confederation is to be
pursued the unanimous concurrence of the states will be necessary.”
In the Convention, Ellsworth preferred to trust the legislatures rather
than popularly elected conventions. “He thought more was to be expected
from the legislatures than from the people. The prevailing wish of the
people in the eastern states is to get rid of the public debt; and the
idea of strengthening the national government carries with it that of
strengthening the public debt.” After the plan of ratification by
conventions was carried in spite of Ellsworth’s objections, he defended
it in his appeal to the populace by saying: “It proves the honesty and
patriotism of the gentlemen who composed the general Convention, that
they chose to submit their system to the people rather than to the
legislatures, whose decisions are often influenced by men in the higher
departments of government, who have provided well for themselves and
dread any change least they should be injured by its operation. I would
not wish to exclude from a state convention those gentlemen who compose
the higher branches of the assemblies in the several states, but choose
to see them stand on an even floor with their brethren, where the
artifice of a small number cannot negative a vast majority of the
people. This danger was foreseen by the federal convention and they have
wisely avoided it by appealing directly to the people.”[542]
A study of the opinions of the members of the Convention shows that four
leading reasons led to the agreement on ratification by state
conventions. It permitted the disregard of the principle of unanimous
approval by the states. A firmer foundation would be laid for the
Constitution if it had the sanction of special conventions rather than
temporary legislatures. One of the first objects of the Constitution was
to restrict the authority of state legislatures, and it could hardly be
expected that they would voluntarily commit suicide. Another leading
purpose of the Convention was to pay the public debt at par, and the
members had learned from the repeated appeals to the state legislatures
for funds to meet this national obligation that no relief was to be
expected from this source. There was a better chance of getting the
right kind of citizens elected to a convention than to a legislature. By
separating the election of delegates to state conventions from the
election of members to the state legislatures, the supporters of the
Constitution were better able to concentrate their campaign of
education. As for the provision of the Articles of Confederation
requiring the approval of every state for any amendment in the Articles,
the urgent necessities of the advocates of the new system could not
permit such a mere technicality to stand in their way.
The question of their legal right to cast aside their instructions and
draft a totally new instrument was more or less troublesome for those
who entertained a strict regard for the observance of the outward signs
of propriety. No doubt the instructions of the delegations from the
several states limited them to the “revision” of the Articles of
Confederation, and it is highly improbable that in the state of public
temper then prevailing a Convention would have assembled at all if its
revolutionary purposes had been understood. During the debates behind
closed doors Mr. Paterson declared that the delegates were bound by
their instructions, but Randolph replied that “he was not scrupulous on
the point of power”; and Hamilton agreed with this view saying, “We owed
it to our country to do on this emergency whatever we should deem
essential to its happiness. The states sent us here to provide for the
exigencies of the union. To rely on and propose any plan not adequate to
these exigencies merely because it was not clearly within our powers
would be to sacrifice the means to the end.”[543]
Outside the halls of the Convention it also became necessary to defend
this revolutionary departure from their instructions. Madison took up
the cause in _The Federalist_[544] and made out an unanswerable case for
his side, frankly pleading the justification of revolution if the legal
arguments which he advanced were deemed insufficient.
At the outset he is unwilling to admit that the Convention had broken
with its instructions and performed a revolutionary act. He,
accordingly, puts forward a legal and moral justification first, based
upon an analysis of the instructions of the delegates. They were bound,
he shows, to make such revisions in the Articles as would render them
adequate to the exigencies of the union; but an adequate government, he
pleads, could not be made by revising the Articles, and the Convention
was either compelled to sacrifice the greater for the less by strictly
obeying its instructions or to do its whole duty by sacrificing the
letter of the law. Then he clinches the argument: “Let them declare
whether it was of most importance to the happiness of the people of
America that the Articles of Confederation should be disregarded and an
adequate government be provided and the Union preserved; or that an
adequate government should be omitted and the Articles of Confederation
preserved.”
But Madison, after having paid his respects to Legality, hastens to add
that in all great changes in government “forms ought to give way to
substance.” A rigid adherence to mere technicalities “would render
nominal and nugatory the transcendent and precious right of the people
‘to abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their safety and happiness.’” That is, the right of revolution
is, at bottom, the justification for all great political changes. If it
is argued that this right of revolution should not be exercised by a
small group of men, such as the Convention of fifty-odd delegates at
Philadelphia, Madison replies that it is impossible for the whole people
to move forward in concert, and “it is therefore essential that such
changes be instituted by some informal and unauthorized propositions
made by some patriotic and respectable citizen or number of citizens.”
This was the manner in which the recent revolt against England was
carried out; and in the present case the people had the right to pass
upon the work of the Philadelphia assembly.
The opponents of the Constitution were able to see the significance of
that clause of the Constitution which cast aside the legal system under
which they were living and provided that the new instrument should go
into effect when ratified by nine states—as between those states.
“Cornelius,” in Massachusetts, exhibited great anxiety on this point,
and in his letters of December 11 and 18, 1787, he asked concerning this
departure: “Will not the adoption of this constitution in the manner
here prescribed be justly considered as a perfidious violation of that
fundamental and solemn compact by which the United States hold an
existence and claim to be a people? If a nation may so easily discharge
itself from obligations to abide by its most solemn and fundamental
compacts, may it not with still greater ease do the same in matters of
less importance? And if nations may set the example, may not particular
states, citizens, and subjects follow? What then will become of public
and private faith? Where is the ground of allegiance that is due to
government? Are not the bonds of civil society dissolved? Or is
allegiance founded only in power? Has moral obligation no place in civil
government? In mutual compacts can one party be bound while the other is
free? Or, can one party disannul such compact, without the consent of
the other? If so, constitutions and national compacts are, I conceive,
of no avail; and oaths of allegiance must be preposterous things.”[545]
On all hands the “unconstitutional” procedure of the Convention was
attacked by the Anti-Federalists. “A system of consolidation,” says
another writer, “has been formed with the most profound secrecy and
without the least authority: And has been suddenly and without any
previous notice transmitted by the federal convention for
ratification—Congress not disposed to give any opinion on the plan, have
transmitted it to the legislatures—The legislatures have followed the
example and sent it to the people. The people of this state, unassisted
by Congress or their legislature, have not had time to investigate the
subject, have referred to the newspapers for information, have been
divided by contending writers, and under such circumstances have elected
members for the state convention—and these members are to consider
whether they will accept the plan of the federal convention, with all
its imperfections, and bind the people by a system of government, of the
nature and principles of which they have not at present a clearer idea
than they have of the Copernican system.”[546]
Whatever was thought of the merits of the controversy over the proposed
plan of ratification, it was accepted by the state legislatures which
were invited by Congress to transmit the Constitution to special
conventions. It remains to inquire, therefore, what methods were
employed in calling these conventions and setting the seal of approval
on the new and revolutionary proposals of the Philadelphia assembly.
The resolution calling the convention in New Hampshire to pass upon the
federal Constitution was adopted by the legislature on December 14,
1787. The time for holding the elections was left to the selectmen of
the several towns, who were instructed to warn the duly qualified voters
of the event. The date for the meeting of the convention was fixed on
the second Wednesday of February, 1788.[547] Four hundred copies of the
Constitution were ordered to be printed for distribution.
The elections seem to have been held about mid-January, for the New
Hampshire Spy, for January 25, 1788, contains a long list of delegates
already chosen, and adds that “several of the towns not mentioned in the
above list were to have had their meetings this week.”
A majority of the members of the state convention so chosen, writes a
student, who has inquired into the personnel of that body, “were
undoubtedly opposed to the Constitution.... The talent of the convention
was decidedly on the side of the Federalists and a majority of the
ablest members were in favor of ratification.... For a time the friends
of the Constitution had hopes of securing its ratification without a
recess of the convention. Although the greater number of the members
from the upper part of the state came down rather opposed to its
adoption, yet on the final question it was hoped that a majority would
be found to favor it. But these hopes proved delusive. While some of the
members who came to the convention instructed to vote against the
Constitution had been led by the discussions to a change of opinion and
now favored it, they still felt bound by their instructions, and frankly
said that if a final vote was to be taken before they had an opportunity
to consult their constituents their vote would be adverse to
ratification.”[548] Under these circumstances the Federalists adjourned
the convention and set to work to convert the enemy. When the convention
reassembled a few months later, they were able to carry the day by the
uncomfortably small margin of 57 to 47.[549]
In Massachusetts the Federalists lost no time in moving for a
convention. As early as October 20, 1787, they carried a favorable
resolution in the senate of the state, and secured the concurrence of
the house four days later. This resolve provided that the delegates
should be chosen by those inhabitants “qualified by law to vote in the
election of representatives,” and the elections should take place “as
soon as may be” in the several towns and districts. The date for the
meeting of the delegates was fixed as the second Wednesday in January
next. On January 9, 1788, the Convention met at Boston; and a real
battle of wits ensued.
As in New Hampshire, the delegates, when they came together fresh from
their constituents, appeared to be opposed to adopting the new
instrument of government. A careful scholar, who has studied the period
intensively, takes this view: “Had a vote been taken on the adoption of
the Constitution as soon as the convention assembled, there can be no
question but that it would have been overwhelmingly against the proposed
plan.”[550]
Even after powerful influences had been brought to bear, the margin for
the Federalists was uncomfortably close—187 to 168. Harding remarks:
“The majority in favor of ratification, it will be seen was only
nineteen. The nine delegates whose names were returned to the
convention, but who were not present when the vote was taken, might
almost have turned the scale in the other direction. Bearing in mind
that it was mainly the Antifederalist towns that were unrepresented, it
may be safely asserted that out of the forty-six delinquent corporations
there were enough which were Antifederalist to have procured the
rejection of the constitution. This calculation, however, is based on
the assumption that a corresponding increase did not take place in the
Federalist representation. Had all the towns entitled to send
representatives done so, and had all the delegates been present to cast
their votes, it is probable that the final result would not have been
changed, though the Federalist majority would have been cut down to
scarcely more than a bare half-dozen.”[551]
After turning over the debates in the Massachusetts convention, one can
scarcely escape the conclusion that the victory in eloquence, logic, and
pure argumentation lay on the side of the Federalists; and it would not
be worth while to consider at all the charges that improper influence
was brought to bear on the delegates, were it not for the fact that they
were made at the time and have lasted in the literature on the
ratification in Massachusetts. We have “the sober assertion of a
reputable historical writer within the last thirty years” to the effect
“that enough members of the Massachusetts convention were bought with
money from New York to secure the ratification of the new system by
Massachusetts.”[552] Harding, after making an examination of the
charges, dismissed them as “baseless”; and quite properly, for whoever
would convict men of such high standing in the community as King,
Gorham, and Strong of being associated with such a reprehensible
transaction should produce more than mere unsubstantiated evidence.
The legislature of Connecticut, determined not to be behindhand in
setting the approval of the state on the new instrument, called a
convention on October 11, 1787.[553] A month was given to the electors
to deliberate over the choice of delegates who were to decide the
momentous issue. The election was held on November 12; the convention
assembled on January 3, 1788; and after a few days’ discussion gave its
assent on January 9, 1788, by a vote of 128 to 40.[554]
In New York the voters were given more time than in Connecticut to
consider the new Constitution before they were called upon to settle the
question of ratification at the polls by choosing delegates to the state
convention. It was not until February 1, 1788, that the legislature of
that commonwealth issued the call for the special election to be held on
the last Tuesday of the following April.[555]
The contest in New York was hot from the start. Governor Clinton, in his
message to the legislature in January, 1788, did not mention the
Constitution—an omission which gave the Federalists some hope as they
had feared an executive attack. The resolution calling the state
convention passed the lower house by a narrow margin; and in the senate
a motion to postpone the matter was almost carried, receiving nine out
of nineteen votes.[556]
When, at length, the convention assembled, at least two-thirds of the
sixty-four members were found to be against ratification. Such is the
view of Bancroft, and the contemporary press bears out his
conclusion.[557] Nevertheless, by much eloquence and no little
manœuvring, the Federalist champions were able to obtain a majority of
30 to 27. The assent of the requisite number of opponents was secured
only after an agreement that a circular should be issued recommending
the call of another national convention at once to revise the
Constitution as adopted.
In pursuance of this agreement, the legislature at its next session, on
February 5, 1789, called upon Congress to summon another convention to
revise the new instrument of government at once. The address of the
legislature stated that the Constitution had been ratified “in the
fullest confidence of obtaining a revision of the said Constitution by a
general convention, and in confidence that certain powers in and by the
said Constitution granted would not be exercised until a convention
should have been called and convened for proposing amendments to the
said Constitution.” The legislature went on to say that it complied with
the unanimous sense of the state convention, “who all united in opinion
that such a revision was necessary to recommend the said Constitution to
the approbation and support of a numerous body of their constituents,
and a majority of the members of which conceived several articles of the
Constitution so exceptionable, that nothing but such confidence and an
invincible reluctance to separate from our sister states could have
prevailed upon a sufficient number to assent to it without stipulating
for previous amendments.”[558]
The commonwealth of New Jersey made haste to ratify the new Constitution
as soon as possible after its transmission by Congress. On November 1,
1787, the legislature issued the call for the convention, ordering the
inhabitants who were “entitled to vote for representatives in General
Assembly,” to elect delegates on the fourth Tuesday in the following
November, i.e., November 27. The date for the meeting of the convention
was fixed as the second Tuesday in December, the 11th, and on the 18th
day of that month, the members, “Having maturely deliberated on and
considered the aforesaid proposed Constitution,” unanimously agreed to
its adoption.[559]
The legislature of Delaware, influenced by “the sense and desire of
great numbers of the people of the state, signified in petitions to
their general assembly,” adopted a resolution on November 10, 1787,
calling for the election of delegates within a few days—that is on
November 26—for the state convention to pass upon the Constitution. The
convention met at Dover on December 3; and after four days’ deliberation
on the matter adopted the Constitution by unanimous vote on December 6,
1787.[560]
In Pennsylvania the proceedings connected with the ratification were
precipitous and narrowly escaped being irregular. Before it was known
that Congress would even transmit the Constitution to the states for
their consideration, George Clymer,[561] who had been a member of the
national Convention and was then serving in the Pennsylvania
legislature, “rose in his place and moved that a state convention of
deputies be called, that they meet at Philadelphia, and that they be
chosen in the same manner and on the same day as the members of the next
general assembly.”[562] In vain did the opponents urge that this was
irregular, that it was not known whether Congress would act favorably,
and that deliberation rather than haste should characterize such a
weighty procedure. The legislature, nevertheless, resolved to call the
convention, and adjourned until the afternoon, leaving the date of the
convention and manner of selecting delegates to be settled later. The
opposition thereupon decided to secure delay by staying away and
preventing the transaction of business for want of a quorum.
Meanwhile the news reached Philadelphia that Congress had sent the
Constitution to the states for their consideration. The Federalists in
the legislature, now having secured the sanction of regularity,
determined not to brook further delay, so they sent officers after some
of the recalcitrants, who thought “filibustering” justifiable in view of
the importance of securing more deliberation before acting. These
officers, ably assisted by a Federalist mob “broke into their lodgings,
seized them, dragged them through the streets to the State house, and
thrust them into the assembly room, with clothes torn and faces white
with rage. The quorum was now complete.”[563] The legislature (September
29) fixed the election of delegates to the state convention at a date
five weeks distant, November 6, 1787. Thus the people of the state were
given a little over a month to deliberate on this momentous issue before
selecting their agents to voice their will. Some Federalists, like Tench
Coxe, expressed regret at the necessity of adopting these high-handed
methods; but the stress was so great that it did not admit of delay.
After the convention assembled, the Federalists continued their
irregular practices, although from the vote on the Constitution in the
convention this latter manipulation seems to have been a work of
supererogation. Everything was done that could be done to keep the
public out of the affair. “Thomas Lloyd applied to the convention for
the place of assistant clerk. Lloyd was a shorthand writer of
considerable note, and when the convention refused his request,
determined to report the debates and print them on his own account. His
advertisement promised that the debates should be accurately taken in
shorthand and published in one volume octavo at the rate of one dollar
the hundred pages. These fine promises, however, were never fulfilled.
Only one thin volume ever came out, and that contains merely the
speeches of Wilson and a few of those of Thomas M’Kean. The reason is
not far to seek. He was bought up by the Federalists, and in order to
satisfy the public was suffered to publish one volume containing nothing
but speeches made by the two federal leaders.”[564] The Federalists
appear to have suppressed other attempts at issuing the debates, and
they “withdrew their subscriptions from every publication that warmly
supported the Antifederal cause.”[565] The Constitution was ratified by
a vote of 46 to 23.
Against these precipitous actions on the part of the Federalists in
carrying the ratification of the Constitution, a minority of the state
convention, twenty-one members, protested in an address to the people
after the day had been lost. The protestants told how the federal
Convention had been called by Congress, and then recited the facts as
they viewed them: “So hastily and eagerly did the states comply [with
the call of Congress for the Convention] that their legislatures,
without the slightest authority, without ever stopping to consult the
people, appointed delegates, and the conclave met at Philadelphia. To it
came a few men of character, some more noted for cunning than
patriotism, and some who had always been enemies to the independence of
America. The doors were shut, secrecy was enjoined, and what then took
place no man could tell. But it was well known that the sittings were
far from harmonious. Some left the dark conclave before the instrument
was framed. Some had the firmness to withhold their hands when it was
framed. But it came forth in spite of them, and was not many hours old
when the meaner tools of despotism were carrying petitions about for the
people to sign praying the legislature to call a convention to consider
it. The convention was called by a legislature made up in part of
members who had been dragged to their seats and kept there against their
wills, and so early a day was set for the election of delegates that
many a voter did not know of it until it was passed. Others kept away
from the polls because they were ignorant of the new plan; some because
they disliked it, and some because they did not think the convention
legally called. Of the seventy thousand freemen entitled to vote but
thirteen thousand voted.”[566] For a long time the war of the dissenters
against the Constitution went on in Pennsylvania, breaking out in
occasional riots, and finally in the Whiskey Rebellion in Washington’s
administration; but they were at length beaten, outgeneralled, and
outclassed in all the arts of political management.
In November, 1787, the Maryland legislature, after hearing Luther
Martin’s masterly indictment of the Constitution and McHenry’s effective
reply, “unanimously ordered a convention of the people of the state; it
copied the example set by Virginia of leaving the door open for
amendments; and by a majority of one the day for the choice and the day
for the meeting of its convention were postponed till the next
April.”[567] Several months were thus given for deliberation, in marked
contrast to the speedy despatch of the business in Delaware, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. The elections were duly
held on the first Monday in April, 1788; and the convention assembled on
April 21. The opponents of the Constitution, Chase, Mercer, and Martin,
hurled themselves against it with all their might; but, it is related,
“the friends to the federal government ‘remained inflexibly
silent.’”[568] After a week’s sessions, “the malcontents having tired
themselves out,” the convention ratified the Constitution by a vote of
sixty-three against eleven on the afternoon of Saturday, April 26. The
instrument was formally sealed on the 28th.
The legislature of Virginia, by a resolution passed on October 25, 1787,
and a law enacted on December 12th, called a convention to be elected in
March, 1788, and to assemble on June 2, 1788.[569] In no state were the
forces for and against the Constitution more ably marshalled and led. In
no state was there higher order of debate in the convention than took
place in Virginia, the birthplace of the Constitution. It was a
magnificent battle of talents that was waged during those June days,
from the 2nd until the 25th. Then “the roll was called; and from the
cities of Richmond and Williamsburg, from the counties near the ocean,
from the northern neck, and from the counties between the Blue Ridge and
the Alleghanies, eighty-nine delegates voted for the Constitution. From
the other central and southern border counties of Kentucky, seventy-nine
cried No.” The margin of victory was small, but it was safe.
North Carolina was recalcitrant. The call for the convention was issued
by the legislature on December 6, 1787;[570] the election was held on
the last Friday and Saturday of March, 1788; and the convention
assembled on July 21, 1788. In this body “the Antifederalists obtained a
large majority. They permitted the whole subject to be debated until the
2d of August; still it had been manifested from the first that they
would not allow of an unconditional ratification.” On that day the
convention deferred the ratification of the Constitution by a vote of
184 to 84,[571] and adjourned _sine die_. The new federal government was
inaugurated without North Carolina; but the economic pressure which it
brought to bear on that state, combined with the influence of eminent
Federalists (including Washington), and the introduction of
constitutional amendments in Congress, brought her into the union on
November 21, 1789.[572]
South Carolina was one of the most deliberative of all the states, for
it was not until January 18, 1788, that the legislature by unanimous
resolution called a convention which was elected in April, and organized
in Charleston, on May 13 of that year. The discussion there was
evidently of a high order. Those who participated in it took first rank
in the commonwealth, and the defenders of the new system put forth
efforts worthy of the distinguished forensic leaders of the Charleston
bar. The opponents exhausted the armory of their arguments, and seeing
the tide running against them, they sought an adjournment of five months
for further deliberation; but a motion to this effect was lost by a vote
of 89 to 135. Finally at five o’clock on the tenth day of the sessions,
May 23, the Constitution was carried by a large majority—149 to 73.[573]
The legislature of Georgia, on October 26, 1787, called for a state
convention to be chosen “in the same manner as representatives are
elected,” at the next General Election, held on the first Tuesday in
December, _i.e._, December 4, 1787. The convention was duly chosen, and
met at Augusta on December 25; and after “having taken into serious
consideration the said constitution” for four or five days, solemnly
ratified the instrument on January 2, 1788.[574]
Rhode Island was the last of the thirteen states to accept the
Constitution. She had refused to send delegates to the federal
Convention; and the triumphant paper money party there would have none
of the efficiency promised by the new system. It was not until May 29,
1790, that Rhode Island ratified the Constitution, and this action was
brought about by the immediate prospect of coercion on the part of the
government of the United States,[575] combined with the threat of the
city of Providence to join with the other towns which were Federalist in
opinion, in a movement to secede from the state and seek the protection
of the federal government.[576] Without these material considerations
pressing upon them, the agrarians of that commonwealth would have
delayed ratification indefinitely; but they could not contend against a
great nation and a domestic insurrection.
A survey of the facts here presented yields several important
generalizations:
Two states, Rhode Island and North Carolina refused to ratify the
Constitution until after the establishment of the new government which
set in train powerful economic forces against them in their isolation.
In three states, New Hampshire, New York, and Massachusetts, the popular
vote as measured by the election of delegates to the conventions was
adverse to the Constitution; and ratification was secured by the
conversion of opponents and often the repudiation of their tacit (and in
some cases express) instructions.
In Virginia the popular vote was doubtful.
In the four states which ratified the constitution with facility,
Connecticut, New Jersey, Georgia, and Delaware, only four or five weeks
were allowed to elapse before the legislatures acted, and four or five
weeks more before the elections to the conventions were called; and
about an equal period between the elections and the meeting of the
conventions. This facility of action may have been due to the general
sentiment in favor of the Constitution; or the rapidity of action may
account for the slight development of the opposition.
In two commonwealths, Maryland and South Carolina, deliberation and
delays in the election and the assembling of the conventions resulted in
an undoubted majority in favor of the new instrument; but for the latter
state the popular vote has never been figured out.[577]
In one of the states, Pennsylvania, the proceedings connected with the
ratification of the Constitution were conducted with unseemly haste.