THE POPULAR VOTE ON THE CONSTITUTION
In the adoption of the Constitution, says James Wilson, we have the
gratifying spectacle of “a whole people exercising its first and
greatest power—performing an act of sovereignty original and
unlimited.”[578] Without questioning the statement that for juristic
purposes the Constitution may be viewed as an expression of the will of
the whole people, a historical view of the matter requires an analysis
of “the people” into its constituent elements. In other words, how many
of “the people” favored the adoption of the Constitution, and how many
opposed it?
At the very outset, it is necessary to recall that the question whether
a constitutional Convention should be held was not submitted to popular
vote, and that it was not specially passed upon by the electors in
choosing the members of the legislatures which selected the
delegates.[579]
In the second place, the Constitution was not submitted to popular
ratification. The referendum was not unknown at that time, but it was
not a fixed principle of American politics.[580] At all events, such a
procedure does not seem to have crossed the minds of the members of the
Convention, and long afterward, Marshall stated that ratification by
state conventions was the only mode conceivable.[581] In view of the
fact that there was no direct popular vote taken on the Constitution, it
is therefore impossible to ascertain the exact number of “the people”
who favored its adoption.
The voters, who took part in the selection of delegates to the ratifying
conventions in the states, may be considered as having been divided into
four elements: those who were consciously in favor of the Constitution,
those who were just as consciously against it, those who were willing to
leave the matter to the discretion of their elected representatives, and
those who voted blindly.
The proportions which these four groups bear to one another cannot be
determined, but certain facts may be brought out which will throw light
on the great question: How many of the people favored the adoption of
the Constitution?
The first fact to be noted in this examination is that a considerable
proportion of the adult white male population was debarred from
participating in the elections of delegates to the ratifying state
conventions by the prevailing property qualifications on the suffrage.
The determination of these suffrage qualifications was left to the state
legislatures; and in general they adopted the property restrictions
already imposed on voters for members of the lower branch of the state
legislatures.
In New Hampshire the duly qualified voters for members of the lower
house were authorized to vote for members of the convention, and those
Tories and sympathizers with Great Britain who were excluded by law were
also admitted for this special election.[582] In Massachusetts the
voters were those “qualified by law to vote in the election of
representatives.”[583] In Connecticut, those “qualified by law to vote
in town meetings” were enfranchised.[584] In New Jersey, those who were
“entitled to vote for representatives in general assembly;”[585] and in
Delaware, those “qualified by law to vote for Representatives to the
General Assembly”[586] were empowered to vote for delegates to their
respective conventions. In Pennsylvania, voters for members of the
assembly selected the delegates to the convention.[587] In Maryland,
voters for members of the lower house;[588] in Virginia, those
possessing the “qualifications now established by law;”[589] in North
Carolina, those entitled to vote for members of the House of
Commons;[590] in South Carolina, those voting for members of the lower
house; and in Georgia, those voting for members of the legislature (one
branch) were admitted to participation in the election of delegates to
their respective state conventions.[591]
In New York alone was the straight principle of manhood suffrage adopted
in the election of delegates to the ratifying convention. Libby seems
inclined to hold that this exception was made by the landed aristocracy
in the state legislature because it was opposed to the Constitution and
wished to use its semi-servile tenants in the elections; but this
problem has not yet been worked out, and any final conclusion as to the
“politics” of this move is at present mere guesswork.[592]
It is impossible to say just what proportion of the adult males
twenty-one years of age was disfranchised by these qualifications. When
it is remembered that only about 3 per cent of the population dwelt in
towns of over 8000 inhabitants in 1790, and that freeholds were widely
distributed, especially in New England, it will become apparent that
nothing like the same proportion was disfranchised as would be to-day
under similar qualifications. Dr. Jameson estimates that probably
one-fifth of the adult males were shut out in Massachusetts,[593] and it
would probably be safe to say that nowhere were more than one-third of
the adult males disfranchised by the property qualifications.
Far more were disfranchised through apathy and lack of understanding of
the significance of politics. It is a noteworthy fact that only a small
proportion of the population entitled to vote took the trouble to go to
the polls until the hot political contests of the Jeffersonian era.
Where voting was _viva voce_ at the town hall or the county seat, the
journey to the polls and the delays at elections were very troublesome.
At an election in Connecticut in 1775, only 3477 voters took part, out
of a population of nearly 200,000, of whom 40,797 were males over twenty
years of age. How many were disfranchised by the property qualifications
and how many stayed away through indifference cannot be shown.[594]
Dr. Jameson, by most ingenious calculations, reaches the conclusion that
in Massachusetts about 55,000 men in round numbers or about 16 or 17 per
cent of the population were entitled to vote under the law. Assuming
that 16 per cent were entitled to vote, he inquires into the number who
actually exercised the franchise in the years from 1780 to 1790 in
elections for governor; and his inquiry yields some remarkable results.
To give his conclusions in his own words: “Something like three per cent
[of the population, or about one-fifth or one-sixth of those entitled to
vote] took part in the first election in the autumn of 1780. During the
next six years the figures remain at about two per cent only. In 1784,
only 7631 votes were cast in the whole state; in the spring of 1786 only
a little over eight thousand. Then came Shays’ Rebellion and the
political excitement of that winter brings up the votes in the spring
election of ‘87 to a figure nearly three times as high as in ’86, and
amounting to something between five and six per cent of the population.
The political discussions of the next two winters respecting the new
federal government keep the figure up to five per cent. Then it drops to
something between three and four and there it remains until 1794.”[595]
For the purposes of a fine analysis of the economic forces in the
ratifying process, it would be of the highest value to have the vote on
delegates to the state conventions in each town and county throughout
the whole country; but unfortunately no such figures are compiled and
much of the original materials upon which the statistical tables could
be based have doubtless disappeared.[596] Even such tables would be
unsatisfactory because in several instances there were no contests and
the issue of adoption or rejection of the Constitution was not squarely
put before the voters.
In a few instances, however, the number of voters participating in the
election of delegates to the state conventions has come down to us. In
Boston, for example, where the fight was rather warm, and some 2700 men
were entitled to vote, only 760 electors turned out to pass upon the
momentous issue of the national Constitution—about half as many as voted
in the next gubernatorial election.[597]
The treatises on the Constitution do not give any figures on the popular
vote for delegates to the state convention in New York, but the
following partial list taken from contemporary papers shows that in some
of the counties the vote ran to almost 10 per cent of the population,
while in others the percentage of the electorate participating (even
under the universal manhood suffrage provision) was about that in
Massachusetts, namely, 5 per cent. It will be noted also that the
distribution of representation in the convention was grossly unequal and
decidedly unfavorable to the Anti-Federalists. The classification into
Federalist and Anti-Federalist is based upon the election returns as
reported in the contemporary press, not on the vote in the state
ratifying convention.
FEDERALIST
═══════════════╤══════════╤══════════╤══════════╤══════════╤══════════
│ │ │ │ │ RATIO OF
│ │ HIGHEST │ HIGHEST │DELEGATES │DELEGATES
│POPULATION│FEDERALIST│ANTI-FEDERALIST│ IN │ TO
│ 1790 │ VOTE │ VOTE │CONVENTION[598]│POPULATION
───────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┬────┴─────
New York County│ 33,131│ 2735[599]│ 134│ 9│ 3,681
Westchester │ 23,941│ 694[600]│ 399│ 6│ 3,990
Queens[601] │ 16,014│ │ │ 4│ 4,003
Kings │ 4,495│ │ │ 2│ 2,247
Richmond │ 3,835│ │ │ 2│ 1,917
───────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
│ │ │ │ 23│
═══════════════╧══════════╧══════════╧══════════╧══════════╧══════════
Footnote 598:
Elliot, _Debates_, Vol. II, p. 206.
Footnote 599:
Daily Advertiser, May 30, 1788.
Footnote 600:
_Ibid._, June 3.
Footnote 601:
Queens vote was divided in the Convention.
ANTI-FEDERALIST
═══════════════╤══════════╤══════════╤══════════╤══════════╤══════════
│ │ │ │ │ RATIO OF
│ │ HIGHEST │ HIGHEST │DELEGATES │DELEGATES
│POPULATION│FEDERALIST│ANTI-FEDERALIST│ IN │ TO
│ 1790 │ VOTE │ VOTE │CONVENTION│POPULATION
───────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
Albany │ 75,921│ 2627[602]│ 4681│ 7│ 10,845
Ulster │ 29,397│ 68[603]│ 1372│ 6│ 4,899
Dutchess │ 45,266│ 892[604]│ 1765│ 7│ 6,466
Orange │ 18,478│ │ 340[605]│ 4│ 4,619
Columbia │ 27,732│ 1498[606]│ 1863│ 3│ 9,244
Montgomery │ 28,839│ 811[607]│ 1209│ 6│ 4,806
Suffolk │ 16,440│ │ │ 5│ 3,288
Washington[608]│ 15,647│ │ │ 4│ 3,911
───────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
│ │ │ │ 41│
═══════════════╧══════════╧══════════╧══════════╧══════════╧══════════
Footnote 602:
Daily Advertiser, June 4.
Footnote 603:
_Ibid._, June 4.
Footnote 604:
_Ibid._, June 6.
Footnote 605:
_Ibid._, June 14.
Footnote 606:
New York Journal, June 5, 1788.
Footnote 607:
_Ibid._, June 5.
Several conclusions are obvious from this table. Measured by the popular
vote, New York was overwhelmingly against the ratification of the
Constitution. With the apportionment of representation against them, the
Anti-Federalists elected nearly twice as many delegates as the
Federalists. The popular vote in favor of ratification was largely
confined to the urban centres of New York City and Albany City, thus
correcting assumptions based on the convention vote alone.
But with this decided popular vote against them the Federalists were
able to carry through their program by a narrow margin of thirty to
twenty-seven. Why did so many Anti-Federalists whose popular mandate was
clear and unmistakable, for there was a definite fight at the polls on
the issue, go over to their enemies? Three Anti-Federalist members, who
did go over and carry the day for the Federalists, John DeWitt, John
Smith, and Melancton Smith, later appeared as holders of public
securities;[609] but this does not explain the event.[610]
In Pennsylvania, the vote on the election of delegates to ratify the
Constitution was apparently very slight. The dissenting minority in
their famous manifesto declared: “The election for members of the
convention was held at so early a period and the want of information was
so great that some of us did not know of it until after it was over....
We apprehend that no change can take place that will affect the internal
government or constitution of this commonwealth unless a majority of the
people should evidence a wish for such a change; but on examining the
number of votes given for members of the present State convention, we
find that of upwards of seventy thousand freemen who are entitled to
vote in Pennsylvania, the whole convention has been elected by about
thirteen thousand voters, and though two-thirds of the members of the
convention have thought proper to ratify the proposed Constitution, yet
those two-thirds were elected by the votes of only six thousand and
eight hundred freemen.”[611] Though the partisan source of these figures
might lead one to question their accuracy, nevertheless it is hardly
probable that they would have greatly exaggerated figures that were open
to all.
Philadelphia was the scene of perhaps the hottest contest over the
election of delegates that occurred anywhere. The city had at that time
a population of about 28,000 inhabitants. At the election, the candidate
who stood the highest at the polls, George Latimer, received 1215 votes
while his leading opponent received only 235 votes.[612] Thus a total of
1450 votes was cast in the election—about 5 per cent of the population.
The total population of the state in 1790 was 434,373, and allowing for
the difficulty of journeying to the polls in the rural districts, it
seems that the estimate of the dissenters was probably not far from
correct.
It appears that in Baltimore 1347 voters participated in the election of
representatives from that city. McHenry at the head of the poll received
962 votes and it was known that he favored unconditional ratification of
the Constitution. His leading opponent received 385 votes.[613] This
vote was taken after a considerable demonstration, for a newspaper
report says that “On the same day, the ship builders, the tradesmen
concerned in navigation, the merchants, the manufacturers and several
thousand inhabitants walked in procession through the different streets
of the town.” Baltimore had at that time a population of 13,000 so that
a very large proportion of the adult males took part in the election.
Further light is thrown on the vote in Maryland by an opponent of
ratification in a long paper printed in the Maryland Journal of May 16,
1788, signed “Republican.” The author, says Steiner, “asserts that the
‘common class’ of people knew little of the Constitution. The two
thousand copies of that document printed by order of the Assembly were
too few to go far. The Annapolis paper is of small circulation, and the
two Baltimore ones are never seen on the Eastern Shore, while the severe
weather during the past winter prevented any newspapers from being sent
over thither. Of the 25,000 voters in the state, only 6000 voted at the
election and 4,000 of these votes were cast in Baltimore town and seven
of the counties. The rich and wealthy worked for the Constitution to
prevent the loss of their debts, and in some counties the opposition had
named no candidates.”[614]
In South Carolina, the distribution of representation in the convention
was such as to give a decided preponderance to the personalty districts
along the seaboard. The convention of 1788 was composed of approximately
twice the number of the house of representatives in 1794 and the
apportionment was similar in character. In the latter year, R. G.
Harper, under the pen-name of “Appius” pointed out the great disparity
in the weight of the upper and lower districts in the legislature: “The
lower country, including the three districts of Charleston, Beaufort,
and Georgetown [which were strongly in favor of ratification of the
Constitution], contains 28,694 white inhabitants, and it elects seventy
representatives and twenty senators. Divide 149,596, the whole number in
the state, by 28,694, those of the lower country, and the result will be
more than five, from whence it appears, that a large majority of both
branches of the legislature is elected by less than one-fifth of the
people.”[615] The upper district [largely Anti-Federal], on the other
hand, contained 120,902 white inhabitants, and sent only fifty-four
members to the house of representatives. On this basis, the
seventy-three votes cast in the convention against ratification may in
fact have represented a majority of the white inhabitants and voters in
the state.[616]
While one hesitates to generalize about the vote cast in favor of the
Constitution on the basis of the fragmentary evidence available, it
seems worth while, nevertheless, to put together several related facts
bearing on the matter.
In addition to the conclusion, brought out by Dr. Jameson, that about 5
per cent of the population voted in Massachusetts in the period under
consideration, we have other valuable data. Dr. Paullin has shown that
the electoral vote in the presidential election of 1788 in New Hampshire
was 2.8 per cent of the free population; that the vote in Madison’s
electoral district in Virginia in the same election was 2.7 per cent of
the white population; that the vote in the first congressional election
in Maryland was 3.6 per cent of the white population and that the vote
in the same congressional election in Massachusetts was 3 per cent.[617]
Speaking of the exercise of the franchise as a whole in the period, Dr.
Paullin says, “The voting was done chiefly by a small minority of
interested property holders, a disproportionate share of whom in the
northern states resided in the towns, and the wealthier and more
talented of whom like a closed corporation controlled politics.”
In view of these figures, in view of the data given above on the
election of delegates (to the ratifying conventions) in the cities of
Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, in view of the fact that the
percentage participating in the country was smaller than in the towns,
and in view of the fact that only 3 per cent of the population resided
in cities of over 8000, it seems a safe guess to say that not more than
5 per cent of the population in general, or in round numbers, 160,000
voters, expressed an opinion one way or another on the Constitution. In
other words, it is highly probable that not more than one-fourth or
one-fifth of the adult white males took part in the election of
delegates to the state conventions. If anything, this estimate is high.
Now in four of the states, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, and
Virginia, the conventions at the time of their election were either
opposed to the ratification of the Constitution or so closely divided
that it was hard to tell which way the final vote would go. These four
states, with Rhode Island and North Carolina,[618] which were at first
against ratification, possessed about three-fifths of the population—in
round numbers 1,900,000 out of 3,200,000 free persons. Of the 1,900,000
population in these states we may, with justice it seems, set off at
least 900,000, that is, 45,000 voters as representing the opposition.
Add to these the voters in Pennsylvania who opposed the ratification of
the Constitution, approximately 6000, and we have 51,000 dissenting
voters, against ratification. Adding the dissenters in Maryland, South
Carolina,[619] and Connecticut, and taking the other states as
unanimous, we may reasonably conjecture that of the estimated 160,000
who voted in the election of delegates, not more than 100,000 men
favored the adoption of the Constitution at the time it was put into
effect—about one in six of the adult males.
Admitting that these figures are rough guesses, it appears,
nevertheless, that the Constitution was not “an expression of the clear
and deliberate will of the whole people,” nor of a majority of the adult
males, nor at the outside of one-fifth of them.
Indeed, it may very well be that a majority of those who voted were
against the adoption of the Constitution as it then stood. Such a
conjecture can be based on the frank statement of no less an authority
than the great Chief Justice Marshall who took a prominent part in the
movement which led to the formation and ratification of the new
instrument of government.[620]
At all events, the disfranchisement of the masses through property
qualifications and ignorance and apathy contributed largely to the
facility with which the personalty-interest representatives carried the
day. The latter were alert everywhere, for they knew, not as a matter of
theory, but as a practical matter of dollars and cents, the value of the
new Constitution. They were well informed. They were conscious of the
identity of their interests. They were well organized. They knew for
weeks in advance, even before the Constitution was sent to the states
for ratification, what the real nature of the contest was. They resided
for the most part in the towns, or the more thickly populated areas, and
they could marshall their forces quickly and effectively. They had also
the advantage of appealing to all discontented persons who exist in
large numbers in every society and are ever anxious for betterment
through some change in political machinery.
Talent, wealth, and professional abilities were, generally speaking, on
the side of the Constitutionalists. The money to be spent in the
campaign of education was on their side also; and it was spent in
considerable sums for pamphleteering, organizing parades and
demonstrations, and engaging the interest of the press. A small
percentage of the enormous gain to come through the appreciation of
securities alone would have financed no mean campaign for those days.
The opposition on the other hand suffered from the difficulties
connected with getting a backwoods vote out to the town and county
elections. This involved sometimes long journeys in bad weather, for it
will be remembered that the elections were held in the late fall and
winter. There were no such immediate personal gains to be made through
the defeat of the Constitution, as were to be made by the security
holders on the other side. It was true the debtors knew that they would
probably have to settle their accounts in full and the small farmers
were aware that taxes would have to be paid to discharge the national
debt if the Constitution was adopted; and the debtors everywhere waged
war against the Constitution—of this there is plenty of evidence.[621]
But they had no money to carry on their campaign; they were poor and
uninfluential—the strongest battalions were not on their side. The
wonder is that they came so near defeating the Constitution at the
polls.