THE ECONOMICS OF THE VOTE ON THE CONSTITUTION
As in natural science no organism is pretended to be understood as long
as its merely superficial aspects are described, so in history no
movement by a mass of people can be correctly comprehended until that
mass is resolved into its component parts. To apply this concept to the
problem before us: no mathematically exact conclusion can be reached
concerning the material interests reflected in the Constitution until
“the people” who favored its adoption and “the people” who opposed it
are individualized and studied as economic beings dependent upon
definite modes and processes of gaining a livelihood. A really fine
analytical treatment of this problem would, therefore, require a study
of the natural history of the (approximately) 160,000 men involved in
the formation and adoption of the Constitution; but for the present we
must rely on rougher generalizations, drawn from incomplete sources.
It would be fortunate if we had a description of each of the state
conventions similar to that made of the Philadelphia Convention;[622]
but such a description would require a study of the private economy of
several hundred men, with considerable scrutiny. And the results of such
a search would be on the whole less fruitful than those secured by the
study of the Philadelphia Convention, because so many members of the
state ratifying bodies were obscure persons of whom biography records
nothing and whose property holdings do not appear in any of the
documents that have come down to us. In a few instances, as in the case
of Pennsylvania, a portion of this work has been done in a fragmentary
way—as regards economic matters; and it may be hoped that a penetrating
analysis of the public security holdings and other property interests of
the members of all state conventions may sometime be made—as far as the
sources will allow. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this study,
certain general truths concerning the conflict over the ratification of
the Constitution in the several states have already been established by
scholars like Libby, Harding, Ambler.
The first of these authors, Dr. Libby, has made a painstaking study of
the _Geographical Distribution of the Vote on the Constitution_, in
which he sets forth the economic characteristics of the areas for and
against the adoption of the Constitution. These conclusions are all
utilized in this chapter; but they are supplemented by reference to the
later researches of Harding[623] and Ambler,[624] and by a large amount
of new illustrative materials here presented for the first time. The
method followed is to exhibit, in general, the conflict of economic
interests in each of the several states over the adoption of the
Constitution.
_New Hampshire._—There were three rather sharply marked economic
districts in New Hampshire which found political expression in the
convention that ratified the Constitution. Two of the three were the
sea-coast area and the interior or middle region. “The former,” says
Libby, “the coast area, represented the commercial and urban interests;
here were to be found most of the professional men, leaders of thought,
men of wealth and influence. The second section, the interior, was
composed of those representing the small farmers; a population cut off
from the outside world by lack of good roads, and which raised little
for market except to exchange for the few things that could not be
produced at home. The former class, progressive and liberal and familiar
with the practical details of government, as a rule voted for the
Constitution. The latter, conservative by environment and having little
knowledge of what went on outside the narrow bounds of the home village
or township, quite as generally voted against the Constitution.”[625]
The third region in New Hampshire (whose representatives favored
ratification) was “the Connecticut valley or border district” whose
interests were akin to those of the sea towns because it had commercial
connection with the outside world through the Connecticut River. It was
to this region particularly that Oliver Ellsworth must have appealed in
his open letter to the citizens of New Hampshire in which he said: “New
York, the trading towns on the Connecticut River, and Boston are the
sources from which a great part of your foreign supplies will be
obtained, and where your produce will be exposed for market. In all
these places an import is collected, of which, as consumers, you pay a
share without deriving any public benefit. You cannot expect any
alteration in the private systems of these states unless effected by the
proposed government.”[626]
Several economic facts of prime significance in the ratification of the
Constitution in New Hampshire are afforded by the tax returns of 1793.
These show that of the £61,711:9:5 “total value of stock in trade” in
the state in that year (Vermont being then cut off) no less than
£42,512:0:5 or over two-thirds was in Rockingham county, the seat of the
commercial town of Portsmouth, whose citizens were the leading agitators
for the new system, and whose delegates in the state convention were
overwhelmingly in favor of ratification. Moreover, of the total amount
of the “money on hand or at interest” in the state, £35,985:5:6, about
two-thirds, £22,770:9:4 was in Rockingham county. It is of further
significance that of the £893,327:16:10 worth of real estate and
buildings in the state, less than one-half, £317,970:7:2, was in that
county.[627] Thus the stronghold of Federalism possessed about
two-thirds of all the personalty and only about one-half of the realty
values in the commonwealth.
All personalty was not equally interested in ratifying the Constitution,
as pointed out above; holders of public paper multiplied their values
from six to twenty times in securing the establishment of the new
system. Further interesting data would be revealed, therefore, if we
could discover the proportion of public securities to other personalty
and their geographic distribution.[628] The weight of the securities in
New Hampshire is shown by the fact that the tax list for 1793 gives only
£35,985 as the total amount of money on hand or at interest (including
public securities)[629] in the state, while the accounts of the Treasury
department show that $20,000 in interest on the public debt went to the
loan office of that state to discharge that annual federal
obligation.[630] It is highly probable that the tax list is very low,
but even at that the public securities constituted a considerable mass
of the capital of the commonwealth. The leading supporters of the
Constitution in New Hampshire were large holders of public paper,[631]
and there is no doubt that as personalty was the dynamic element in the
movement for the Constitution, so securities were the dynamic element in
the personalty.
_Massachusetts._—The vote in Massachusetts on the Constitution was
clearly along class or group lines: those sections in which were to be
found the commerce, money, securities—in a word, personalty—were in
favor of the ratification of the new instrument of government; and those
sections which were predominantly rural and possessed little personalty
were against it. Libby classifies the sections on the basis of the vote
as follows:—
Eastern section Yeas, 73 per cent Nays, 27 per cent
Middle section Yeas, 14 per cent Nays, 86 per cent
Western section Yeas, 42 per cent Nays, 58 per cent
Speaking of this table he says: “Such striking differences as these
indicate clearly that there is something fundamental lying back of the
vote. Each of these sections is an economic and social unit, the first
representing the coast region, the second the interior, and the third
the Connecticut valley and border districts of the state. In the eastern
section the interests were commercial; there was the wealth, the
influence, the urban population of the state.... The middle section of
Massachusetts represented the interior agricultural interests of the
state—the small farmers. From this section came a large part of the
Shays faction in 1786. The Connecticut valley or western district may be
subdivided into the northern, most interior, and predominantly
Antifederal section, and the southern section, nearest the coast and
predominantly Federal, with the trading towns of the Connecticut River
in its southeastern part.”[632]
Harding, after an independent study of the opposition to the
Constitution in Massachusetts, comes to substantially the same
conclusion. Among the weighty elements in the struggle he places “the
conflict of interest, partly real and partly fancied, between the
agricultural and the commercial sections of the state.” Underlying the
whole opposition, he continues, “was the pronounced antagonism between
the aristocratic and the democratic elements of society in
Massachusetts.... Massachusetts was not alone in this experience; in
most, if not all, of the states a similar contest had arisen since the
war. The men who at Philadelphia had put their names to the new
Constitution were, it seems quite safe to affirm, at that time
identified with the aristocratic interest.... There can be no question
that this feeling [of antagonism between democracy and aristocracy]
underlay most of the opposition in the Massachusetts convention.”[633]
Of course this second element of opposition—aristocracy _versus_
democracy—introduced by Harding is really nothing but the first under
another guise; for the aristocratic party was the party of wealth with
its professional dependents; and the democratic party was the agrarian
element which, by the nature of economic circumstances, could have no
large body of professional adherents. This economic foundation of the
class division was fully understood by Adams and set forth with
unmistakable clearness in his _Defence of the American Constitutions_.
Hamilton, Madison, and all thinkers among the Federalists understood it
also. To speak of a democratic interest apart from its economic sources
is therefore a work of supererogation; and it does not add, in fact, to
an exposition of the real forces at work. Harding himself recognizes
this and explains it in a luminous fashion in his introductory chapter.
And what were the economic and social antecedents of the opponents of
the Constitution in the Massachusetts convention? Harding, with his
customary directness, meets the inquiry: “A half-dozen obscure men, it
must be answered, whose names are utterly unknown, even to most students
of this period.” He continues: “William Widgery (or Wedgery) of New
Gloucester, Maine, was one of these.[634] A poor, friendless, uneducated
boy, he had emigrated from England before the Revolution, had served as
a lieutenant on board a privateer in that contest, had then settled in
Maine, had acquired some property, and by 1788 had served one term in
the Massachusetts legislature.... Samuel Thompson, of Topsham, Maine,
was another of the anti-federalist leaders. A self-made man, he had the
obstinacy of opinion which such men often show.... He was wealthy for
the times, but inclined to be niggardly.... Another determined opponent
of the proposed Constitution was Samuel Nasson (or Nason) of Sanford,
Maine. Born in New Hampshire and a saddler by trade, he became a store
keeper in Maine, served awhile in the War ... and finally settled down
as a trader at Sanford.... In 1787 he served a term in the General
Court, but declined a reelection because he felt ‘the want of a proper
education.’... From Massachusetts proper, Dr. John Taylor, of Douglas,
Worcester County, was the most prominent opponent of the new
Constitution.... But the slightest information, it seems, can now be
gathered as to his history and personality. He had been one of the
popular majority in the legislature of 1787 where he had taken an active
part in procuring the extension of the Tender Law.... Another delegate
from this part of the state who was prominent in the opposition was
Captain Phanuel Bishop, of Rehoboth, Bristol County. In him the Rhode
Island virus may be seen at work.... He was a native of Massachusetts
and had received a public school education. When or why he had been
dubbed Captain is not now apparent. Belknap styles him ‘a noted
insurgent’; and he had evidently ridden into office on the crest of the
Shaysite wave. His first legislative experience had been in the Senate
of 1787 where he had championed the debtor’s cause.”[635]
This completes the list of leaders who fought bitterly against the
Constitution to the end in Massachusetts, according to a careful student
of the ratification in that state: three self-made men from the Maine
regions and two representatives of the debtor’s cause. Nothing could be
more eloquent than this description of the alignment.
Neither Harding nor Libby has, however, made analysis of the facts
disclosed by the tax lists of Massachusetts or the records in the
Treasury Department at Washington, which show unquestionably that the
live and persistent economic force which organized and carried through
the ratification was the personalty interests and particularly the
public security interests. As has been pointed out, these had the most
to gain immediately from the Constitution. Continental paper bought at
two and three shillings in the pound was bound to rise rapidly with the
establishment of the federal government. No one knew this better than
the members of the federal Convention from Massachusetts and their
immediate friends and adherents in Boston.
Of the total amount of funded 6 per cents in the state, £113,821, more
than one-half, £65,730, was concentrated in the two counties, Essex and
Suffolk, of which Boston was the urban centre—the two counties whose
delegates in the state convention were almost unanimous in supporting
the Constitution. Of the total amount of 3 per cents, £73,100, more than
one-half, £43,857, was in these two counties. Of the deferred stock,
amounting to £59,872, more than one-half, £32,973, was in these two
counties. Of the total amount of all other securities of the state or
the United States in the commonwealth, £94,893, less than one-third or
£30,329, was in these counties. Of the total amount of money at interest
in the state, £196,698, only about one-third, £63,056, was in these two
counties, which supports the above conjecture that public securities
were the active element.[636]
Further confirmation for this conjecture seems to be afforded by the
following tables, showing the distribution of the vote and of public
securities.[637] The first group shows the votes of the delegates from
Essex and Suffolk counties—the Federalist strongholds—on the
ratification, and also the amount of public securities in each as
revealed by the tax lists of 1792:
ESSEX
For the Constitution 38 votes Against 6 votes
SUFFOLK
For the Constitution 34 votes Against 5 votes
Table of public securities listed for taxation in each of these
counties:
═══════════════════════╤═══════════════════════╤═══════════════════════
│ SUFFOLK │ ESSEX
───────────────────────┼───────────────────────┼───────────────────────
Funded, sixes │ £29,228│ £36,502
Funded, threes │ 17,096│ 26,761
Funded, not on interest│ 14,854│ 18,119
Other securities │ 14,056│ 16,273
Money at Interest │ 29,941│ 33,115
═══════════════════════╧═══════════════════════╧═══════════════════════
Now let us take the vote in the convention, and the property in two
counties which were heavily against the Constitution.[638] The vote is
as follows:
WORCESTER
For the Constitution 7 votes Against 43 votes
BERKSHIRE
For the Constitution 7 votes Against 15 votes
The tables of public securities and money in these counties follow:
═══════════════════════╤═══════════════════════╤═══════════════════════
│ WORCESTER │ BERKSHIRE
───────────────────────┼───────────────────────┼───────────────────────
Funded, sixes │ £12,924│ £981
Funded, threes │ 8,184│ 665
Funded, not on interest│ 5,736│ 384
Other securities │ 10,903│ 602
Money at interest │ 25,594│ 6298
═══════════════════════╧═══════════════════════╧═══════════════════════
Now if we take the securities in these two counties which went heavily
against the Constitution several economic facts are worthy of notice. Of
the total amount of 6 per cents in the state, only £13,905, or about
one-eighth is to be found in them. Of the 3 per cents, we find £8,849,
or about one-eighth of the total amount in the commonwealth. But if we
take money at interest, we find £31,892, or about one-sixth of the total
amount in the state. This is not surprising, for Worcester was the
centre of the Shays rebellion in behalf of debtors, and a large portion
of their creditors were presumably in the neighborhood.[639]
“The courts were burdened with suits for ordinary debts by means of
which creditors sought to put in more lasting form the obligations which
their debtors could not at that time meet. In Worcester county alone,
with a population of less than 50,000, more than 2000 actions were
entered in 1784, and during the next year 1700 more were put on the
list.”[640]
These figures, like all other statistics, should be used with care, and
it would require a far closer analysis than can be made here to work out
all of their political implications. We should have a thorough
examination of such details as the distribution of the public securities
among towns and individual holders; and such a work is altogether worthy
of a Quetelet.
Meanwhile, it may be said with safety that the communities in which
personalty was relatively more powerful favored the ratification of the
Constitution, and that in these communities large quantities of public
securities were held. Moreover, there was undoubtedly a vital connection
between the movement in support of the Constitution and public security
holding, or to speak concretely, among the leading men in Massachusetts
who labored to bring about the ratification was a large number of public
creditors.
For example, Boston had twelve representatives in the state ratifying
convention, all of whom voted in favor of the Constitution. Of these
twelve men the following were holders of public securities:[641]
Samuel Adams
James Bowdoin, Sr.
Thomas Dawes, Jr.
Christopher Gore
John Coffin Jones
William Phillips
Thomas Russell
John Winthrop
In other words, at least eight out of the twelve men representing the
chief financial centre of the state were personally interested in the
fate of the new Constitution. How deeply, it is impossible to say, for
the Ledgers seem to have disappeared from the Treasury Department and
only the Index to the funded debt remains. Supplementary records,
however, show some of them to have been extensively engaged in dealing
in paper. The four men who, apparently, were not security holders were
John Hancock, Caleb Davis, Charles Jarvis, and Rev. Samuel
Stillman.[642]
The towns surrounding Boston in Suffolk county also returned a number of
men who were holders of securities:[643]
Fisher Ames, Dedham
John Baxter, Medfield
James Bowdoin, Jr., Dorchester
Richard Cranch, Braintree
J. Fisher, Franklin
William Heath, Roxbury
Thomas Jones, Hull
Benj. Lincoln, Hingham
Rev. Daniel Shute, Hingham
Increase Sumner, Roxbury
Cotton Tufts, Weymouth
Ebenezer Wales, Dorchester
Ebenezer Warren, Foxboro
Rev. Anthony Wibird, Braintree
In other words, twenty-two of the thirty-four men from Boston and
Suffolk county who voted in favor of the ratification of the
Constitution in the Massachusetts convention were holders of public
securities, and all of the twenty-two except two (Wales and Warren)
probably benefited from the appreciation of the funds which resulted
from the ratification.[644]
[Illustration: Massachusetts]
To recapitulate. There were thirty-nine members of the Massachusetts
convention from Suffolk county, which includes Boston. Of these,
thirty-four voted for the ratification of the Constitution, and of the
thirty-four who so voted, two-thirds, or twenty-two to be exact, were
holders of public paper.
That other supporters of the Constitution from other Massachusetts
counties held paper so extensively is not to be expected, and a casual
glance through the records shows that this surmise is probably true.
Boston was the centre of the Federalist agitation, and it supplied the
sinews of war for the campaign which finally secured the adoption of the
new system of government.
_Connecticut._—The vote on the Constitution in Connecticut was so
largely in favor of ratification that no very clear lines of cleavage
are apparent on the surface.[645] The opposition, as measured by the
vote of the delegates in the Convention, was “scattered and unimportant.
Its two chief centres were in New Haven county on the coast, and in five
or six towns on the Connecticut river at the northern boundary,
connecting with a group of opposition towns in Massachusetts.”[646] It
is worthy of note that the considerable towns for the time, Windsor,
Norwalk, Stamford, Litchfield, Hartford, and New Haven were for the
Constitution, while much of the opposition came from small inland towns
like Cornwall, Norfolk, and Sharon.[647]
The map facing this page shows that the Federalist towns were the
financial centres of the time in Connecticut. The representatives of the
“shaded” towns in the state convention voted against the Constitution;
those from the partially “shaded” towns were divided; and those from the
plain white towns voted for the Constitution.[648] Each black dot
represents a holder of one 6 per cent assumed debt bond.[649] It is
apparent at a glance that there must have been some relation between
security holding and the “sentiments,” to use Madison’s term,[650] of
the respective proprietors. Hartford alone had almost as many security
holders as all of the Anti-Federalist towns combined. It would be
interesting to have a map showing the distribution of all other forms of
wealth as well as the assumed debt.
What a more searching study would produce were we able to carry the
contest back into the town meetings that chose the delegates cannot be
conjectured. But the local evidence—even that which was recorded—has
largely disappeared or would require years of search to unearth.
Moreover, the tax system in Connecticut at the time was not such as to
yield the data most needed for such an inquiry, for “loans to the state
and the United States were exempt from assessment.”[651] Whether this
grew out of a public policy or the fact that the chief politicians of
the day were large holders of securities—evidenced by the records in the
Treasury Department at Washington—is also a matter for conjecture. No
documents, no history.
Nevertheless, as in Massachusetts, the public securities formed a
dynamic element in the movement for ratification. One hundred and
twenty-eight members of the Connecticut convention voted in favor of the
new system. Of these men at least sixty-five held public paper in some
amount (ranging from a few dollars to tens of thousands) previous to or
about the time of the adoption of the Constitution. They are given here
in alphabetical order with the names of the towns which they
represented.
Nehemiah Beardsley, New Fairfield
Philip B. Bradley, Ridgefield
Hezekiah Brainerd, Haddam
Daniel Brinsmade, Washington
Gideon Buckingham, Milford
Thaddeus Burr, Fairfield
Charles Burrall, Canaan
Samuel Canfield, New Milford
Samuel Carver, Bolton
Jabez Chapman, East Haddam
Moses Cleaveland, Canterbury
Wheeler Coit, Preston
Seth Crocker, Willington
James Davenport, Stamford
John Davenport, Stamford
Benjamin Dow, Voluntown
Joshua Dunlop, Plainfield
Eliphalet Dyer, Windham
Pierpont Edwards, New Haven
Oliver Ellsworth, Winsor
Jabez Fitch, Greenwich
Daniel Foot, Colchester
Isaac Foot, Stafford
Mathew Griswold, Lyme (President of the Convention)
Nathan Hale, Canaan
Asaph Hall, Goshen
Jeremiah Halsey, Preston
William Hart, Saybrook
Cornelius Higgins, Haddam
Benjamin Hinman, Southbury
Caleb Holt, Willington
Jedediah Huntington, Norwich
Samuel Huntington, Norwich
Eli Hyde, Franklin
Wm. Samuel Johnson, Stratford
Richard Law, New London
Andrew Lee, Lisbon
Isaac Lee, Berlin
Elisha Mills, Stratford
Stephen Mitchel, Wethersfield
Josiah Mosely, Glastonbury
Roger Newberry, Winsor
Wm. Noyes, Lyme
Samuel H. Parsons, Middletown
Charles Phelps, Stonington
John Phelps, Stafford
Joshua Porter, Salisbury
Jeremiah Ripley, Coventry
Ephraim Root, Coventry
Jesse Root, Hartford
Lemuel Sanford, Reading
Epaphras Sheldon, Torrington
Roger Sherman, New Haven
Simeon Smith, Ashford
Jonathan Sturges, Fairfield
Dyar Throop, East Haddam
John Treadwell, Farmington
Jeremiah Wadsworth, Hartford
Ichabod Warner, Bolton
John Watson, East Winsor
Jeremiah West, Tolland
Ebenezer White, Chatham
William Williams, Lebanon
Joseph Woodbridge, Groton
Erastus Wolcott, East Winsor
Oliver Wolcott, Litchfield[652]
It must not be thought that the ramifications of economic interest ends
with these names.[653] A large number of men who do not appear on the
records as holding securities personally, belonged to families having
such holdings. For example, John Chester, of Wethersfield, is apparently
not on the books, but he was a colonel in the war and doubtless received
the soldiers’ certificates or other paper at some period. Thomas Chester
and Sarah Chester of Wethersfield appear on the records. Whether there
were family connections might be ascertained by a study of local
history. It is evident what infinite pains would be required to trace
out all of these genealogical data.
_New York._—There can be no question about the predominance of
personalty in the contest over the ratification in New York. That state,
says Libby, “presents the problem in its simplest form. The entire mass
of interior counties ... were solidly Antifederal, comprising the
agricultural portion of the state, the last settled and the most thinly
populated. There were however in this region two Federal cities (not
represented in the convention [as such]), Albany in Albany county and
Hudson in Columbia county.... The Federal area centred about New York
city and county: to the southwest lay Richmond county (Staten Island);
to the southeast Kings county, and to the northeast Westchester county;
while still further extending this area, at the northeast lay the
divided county of Dutchess, with a vote in the convention of 4 to 2 in
favor of the Constitution, and at the southeast were the divided
counties of Queens and Suffolk.... These radiating strips of territory
with New York city as a centre form a unit, in general favorable to the
new Constitution; and it is significant of this unity that Dutchess,
Queens, and Suffolk counties broke away from the anti-Federal phalanx
and joined the Federalists, securing thereby the adoption of the
Constitution.”[654]
Unfortunately the exact distribution of personalty in New York and
particularly in the wavering districts which went over to the Federalist
party cannot be ascertained, for the system of taxation in vogue in New
York at the period of the adoption of the Constitution did not require a
state record of property.[655] The data which proved so fruitful in
Massachusetts are not forthcoming, therefore, in the case of New York;
but it seems hardly necessary to demonstrate the fact that New York City
was the centre of personalty for the state and stood next to
Philadelphia as the great centre of operations in public stock.
This somewhat obvious conclusion is reinforced by the evidence relative
to the vote on the legal tender bill which the paper money party pushed
through in 1786. Libby’s analysis of this vote shows that “No vote was
cast against the bill by members of counties north of the county of New
York. In the city and county of New York and in Long Island and Staten
Island, the combined vote was 9 to 5 against the measure. Comparing this
vote with the vote on the ratification in 1788, it will be seen that of
the Federal counties 3 voted against paper money and 1 for it; of the
divided counties 1 (Suffolk) voted against paper money and 2 (Queens and
Dutchess) voted for it. Of the anti-Federal counties none had members
voting against paper money. The merchants as a body were opposed to the
issue of paper money and the Chamber of Commerce adopted a memorial
against the issue.”[656]
Public security interests were identified with the sound money party.
There were thirty members of the New York constitutional convention who
voted in favor of the ratification of the Constitution and of these no
less than sixteen were holders of public securities:[657]
James Duane, New York (C 6)
John DeWitt, Dutchess (N.Y. 3)
Alexander Hamilton,[658] New York
Richard Harrison, New York (C 6)
Jonathan Havens, Suffolk (C 6 as Trustee for a religious society).
John Jay, New York (C 6)
Samuel Jones, Queens (C 6)
Philip Livingston, Westchester (C 6)
Robert R. Livingston, New York (N.Y. 3)
Nicholas Low, New York (C 6)
Richard Morris.[659] New York (C 6)
Isaac Roosevelt, New York (R)
Gozen Ryerss, Richmond (N.Y. 3)
John Smith, Suffolk (C 6)
Melancton Smith, Dutchess (Conn.)
Philip Van Cortland, Westchester (C 6)
Jesse Woodhull, Orange (C 6)
_New Jersey._—New Jersey was among the states which pushed through the
ratification of the Constitution without giving the agrarian party time
to organize its forces; and, from the records, the vote in the state
convention was unanimous. This unanimity is rather startling in view of
the fact that the year before a paper money party had been able to force
through an emission bill by a narrow margin. Either there was a violent
reaction against inflation, or the Federalist campaign had been highly
organized. What little opposition appears to have been raised in that
state seems to have been by the debtor and paper money class.[660]
It must be admitted, however, that no detailed study of the ratification
in New Jersey has ever been made. Libby passes it over briefly; and the
older writers like Bancroft and Curtis dismiss it with their usual
lightness of touch. Unfortunately for such a study, the records of the
convention in that state are no more than bare minutes; and the
materials in the Treasury Department from the New Jersey loan office are
extremely fragmentary. Until extended search in local and state history
is made on the points here raised, New Jersey must be dismissed
cursorily.
There were thirteen counties in the state represented in the Convention,
and each of nine counties had one or more representatives who had
learned the elementary lessons in public finance through holding at
least some small amounts of public securities—often certificates of only
trivial value. The meagre character of the records of that state do not
permit of a satisfactory statement. There were three delegates from
Bergen county; of these John Fell appears on the Register of Land Office
Certificates; there is no record of Peter Zabriskie either as a
subscriber to original funds or as owner of securities; but a Jacob
Zabriskie appears on a later Ledger. From Essex county, John Chetwood
and David Crane appear among the holders; from Middlesex, John Beatty,
John Neilson, and Benjamin Manning—the entire delegation; from Somerset,
Fred. Frelinghuysen; from Gloucester, Andw. Hunter; from Salem, Edmund
Wetherby; from Hunterdon, David Brearley and Joshua Corshon; from
Morris, John Jacob Faesch; and from Sussex, Robert Ogden and Thomas
Anderson, and even the Secretary, Saml. W. Stockton, was a considerable
holder. Thus every county except Cumberland, Cape-of-May, Burlington,
and Monmouth had its spokesmen for public creditors.[661]
_Delaware._—Although there had been a strong paper money party in
Delaware it does not seem to have manifested any considerable influence
in the ratification of the Constitution, for that commonwealth was the
first to set its seal on the new instrument, and it did so with apparent
unanimity. No detailed scrutiny of the local contests over the election
of delegates has ever been made; and the records of the loan office of
that state preserved in the Treasury Department are defective. The
records for taxation are also of little help. The absence of any contest
of course contributes to obscuring the economic forces which may have
been at work.[662]
_Pennsylvania._—In strong contrast to the uniformity in Delaware is the
sharp division which existed in Pennsylvania. There, says Libby, “the
opposition to the Constitution came from those counties belonging to the
great interior highland of the state, extending from the head waters of
the Schuylkill to the Alleghany and Monongahela rivers, with only
Huntingdon county (one vote—Federal) interrupting the continuity from
east to west.... The Federal area contained ... York, Lancaster,
Chester, Montgomery, Philadelphia, Bucks, Luzerne, and Northampton, and
the largest population, most of the men of wealth and influence and the
commercial classes of the state. Pittsburg with 400 inhabitants was
Federal in an Anti-Federal county.”[663]
Each of the eastern counties of Pennsylvania was represented in the
state convention by one or more members who held public securities.[664]
From Philadelphia city and county, five of the ten members, all of whom
favored ratification, were interested in stocks, George Latimer, James
Wilson, Thomas M’Kean, Samuel Ashmead, and Enoch Edwards. From Bucks
came John Barclay, a large dealer, to whose credit $17,056.56 is set
down in one entry. Two of the six members from Chester, John Hannum and
Thomas Bull, were security holders. James Morris, of Montgomery county,
John Black and David Grier, from York, Timothy Pickering, from Luzerne,
Stephen Balliet, David Deshler, and Joseph Horsfield of Northampton
(three of the four from that county) were interested. From Lancaster
came Jasper Yeates, a large holder (one entry $11,986.65), Robert
Coleman, Sebastian Graff, and John Hubley (four of the six delegates),
who had a first-hand knowledge of the relation of a new and stable
government to public paper.
In other words at least nineteen out of the forty-six men who voted for
the Constitution in the Pennsylvania convention were interested in
public paper at or about the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Their names follow with the references to each,[665] but it is not to be
supposed that this list is complete, for the records of Pennsylvania are
not full, and a great many of the transactions in that state were not
with the local loan office, but directly with the Treasury, a part of
whose early records were probably burned in one of the fires at the
Treasury Building:
Samuel Ashmead (I)
Stephen Balliet (LT)
John Barclay (JA)
John Black (M)
Thomas Bull (I)
Robert Coleman (R)
David Deshler (M)
Enoch Edwards (JA)
Sebastian Graff (I)
David Grier (I)
John Hannum (3 C)
Joseph Horsfield (M)
John Hubley (77)
George Latimer (JB)
Thomas M’Kean (M)
James Morris (I)
Timothy Pickering (I)
James Wilson (I)
Jasper Yeates (JA)
Fortunately, also other data are easily available for the study of the
economic interests of the members of the Pennsylvania convention.
McMaster and Stone[666] have appended to their work on the ratification
of the Constitution in that state brief biographical sketches of the
members of the convention, in which many clues are given to their
respective economic interests. The following table is prepared from
these biographies, and every effort is made to state in the language of
the authors the exact occupation and interests of the delegates. These
details are given so that the student may draw his conclusions
independently.
MEMBERS WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF RATIFICATION
John Allison “received a thorough English and classical education;”
laid out the town of Greencastle in 1781; in the War, rank of Colonel.
John Arndt. Father a mill owner on the Bushkill; for a time a
commissary of supplies during the War; “advanced large sums of money
to the government, most of which was refunded to him;” devoted the
latter years of his life to “mercantile pursuits.”
Samuel Ashmead. “Little is known of his early history, save that he
received a good education and was brought up to mercantile pursuits.”
[Securities.]
Hilary Baker “received a good classical education, entered mercantile
life, became an iron merchant, which business he carried on for some
years.”
Stephen Balliet, “acquired a very limited education and was brought up
to mercantile life under his father;” an agent for forfeited estates
in Northampton county. Held many offices. Colonel in War.
[Securities.]
John Barclay “was a son of Alexander Barclay, an officer of the Crown
under the proprietary government, and received a classical education.”
Captain in the War and member of the Cincinnati. Sometime president of
the Bank of the Northern Liberties. [Securities.]
John Black was a graduate of Nassau Hall. Was an eminent Presbyterian
clergyman in his time. [Securities.]
John Boyd. Little known of early life and education. In the War.
Member of the Cincinnati. After the War “entered into merchandising at
the town of Northumberland” and was interested in a mill.
Thomas Bull. “Meagre education” and “learned the trade of a
stone-mason. Prior to the Revolution he was the manager of Warwick
Furnace.” Resumed this place after service in the War. [Securities.]
Thomas Campbell “was a farmer by occupation.” Captain in the War and
member of the Cincinnati.
Stephen Chambers. A lawyer. Captain in the War and member of the
Cincinnati.
Thomas Cheyney, “An intelligent and progressive farmer.” Grandfather
bequeathed to his father half of a large tract of land in Thornbury.
Robert Coleman. “By his energy and indomitable perseverance became the
most enterprising and successful iron-master in Pennsylvania.”
[Securities.]
David Deshler was a shopkeeper and afterwards operated grist and saw
mills. He “advanced money out of his private means at a time when not
only the United States treasury but also that of Pennsylvania was
empty.” [Securities.]
Richard Downing operated “a fulling, grist, and saw mill.”
Enoch Edwards “received a classical education, studied medicine, and
was in practice when he went into the War serving as a surgeon.”
[Securities.]
Benjamin Elliott “settled in the town of Huntingdon prior to the
Revolution.” Held many local offices. Regular occupation, if any, not
given.
William Gibbons resided for a time in Philadelphia and later moved to
“a fine farm left him by his parents”. Later held local offices.
Lieutenant Colonel.
Sebastian Graff. Son of a Lancaster “shopkeeper”, and was in “active
business when the War broke out.” [Securities.]
George Gray. “The fifth of that name in the line of descent from
George Gray, a wealthy member of the Society of Friends.”
Office-holder; in the War; apparently a gentleman of means.
David Grier. Classical education. Lawyer. Served in the War, rank of
Colonel. [Securities.]
John Hannum. Settled on a large farm. Local office-holder. In the War,
rank of Colonel. [Securities.]
Thomas Hartley. Classical education. Lawyer. In the War, rank of
Colonel; member of the Cincinnati. Purchased a tract of one thousand
acres of land during the Revolution.
Joseph Horsfield. Man of good education. Local postmaster under
Washington. [Securities.]
John Hubley was a lawyer by profession. [Securities.]
John Hunn was a captain in the merchant marine service at the outbreak
of the War. Engaged in privateering during the war and saw service in
the field also.
George Latimer was a merchant, bank director, and wealthy capitalist.
[Securities.]
Thomas M’Kean received a classical education. Was a lawyer. Extensive
office-holder. In the War, and a member of the Cincinnati. Capitalist
of some quality. [Securities.]
William MacPherson was the son of a noted “privateersman in the French
and Spanish wars.” Educated at the College of New Jersey. Officer in
the British Army; but joined the American cause. Major and member of
the Cincinnati. Man of some means.
James Morris possessed “a house and gristmill and ninety-four acres of
land” which his father had given him. [Securities.]
F. A. Muhlenberg. Studied at the University of Halle. Clergyman, but
entered into the politics of the Revolutionary War. Extensive
office-holder.
John Neville. Soldier and large landholder. Office-holder and member
of the Cincinnati.
Benjamin Pedan. Farmer and office-holder.
Timothy Pickering. Harvard graduate. In the War, rank of
Adjutant-general; member of the Cincinnati. Lawyer and office-holder
and land speculator. [Securities.]
John Richards owned a fine estate. He was “a progressive farmer, a
store-keeper, and iron-master.”
Jonathan Roberts was brought up as a farmer. Office-holder.
Benjamin Rush, graduate of the College of New Jersey and distinguished
physician in Philadelphia.
Thomas Scott settled in Western Pennsylvania as a farmer. Became local
office-holder and later (1791) entered the practice of law.
Henry Slagle was a provincial magistrate. Joined the Revolutionary
cause and held a number of political offices and was connected with
the loan office.
Abraham Stout seems to have been “an influential farmer.”
Anthony Wayne was the son of a farmer and surveyor. Soldier, and a
member of the Cincinnati.
James Wilson. Lawyer. Member of the constitutional Convention of 1787.
Wealthy land speculator. [Securities.]
William Wilson. Officer in the War. Office-holder. In mercantile
business and millowner.
Henry Wynkoop. Collegiate education. Major in the War and
office-holder.
Thomas Yardley, farmer owning a large tract of land.
Jasper Yeates, educated at the College of Philadelphia, lawyer, judge,
and man of large means for his time. [Securities.]
OPPONENTS OF RATIFICATION
John Baird “took up land” and “appears to have been a man of mark west
of the Alleghanies.” Held local offices.
Richard Bard was a farmer and proprietor of a mill.
John Bishop “was brought up as a farmer, an occupation he was engaged
in all his life.... He had extensive business connections, and became
an iron-master. He was a large landholder.” Advanced large sums of
money to the Revolutionary cause.
Nathaniel Breading received a classical education, taught school, was
in the War, and held local offices. “In deference to his constituents
he did not sign the ratification.”
William Brown descendant of a farmer; was a frontiersman; in the War.
James Edgar was born on a farm and died on a farm.
William Findley received a fair English education and “towards the
close of the war he removed with his family to Western Pennsylvania
and took up a tract of land ... on which he resided until his death.”
John Andre Hanna received a good classical education; admitted to the
bar and was a successful lawyer at Harrisburg.
John Harris was a farmer and laid out Mifflintown.
Joseph Hiester acquired the rudiments of a good education, and “until
near age he worked upon his father’s farm when he went to Reading and
learned merchandising.” Was in the War.
Jonathan Hoge. Nothing known.
Abraham Lincoln was brought up on a farm and died on a farm. Local
office-holder.
John Ludwig was a substantial farmer. Was in the War. Local
office-holder.
Nicholas Lotz was a millwright by occupation and established a mill
near Reading. Was in the War.
James Marshel “moved to the western country some three years prior to
the Revolution, and settled in what is now Cross Creek Township.”
Frontiersman and local officer.
James Martin was born in the Cumberland valley and resided in what was
then (1772) Colerain township. Was in the War.
Adam Orth was “brought up amid the dangers and struggles of
Pennsylvania pioneer life. He received the limited education of the
‘back settlements.’... He was one of the pioneers in the manufacture
of iron in Lebanon county.”
John Reynolds.
Joseph Powell.
John Smilie. His father settled in Lancaster county and evidently was
a farmer. In 1781 John Smilie “removed with his family to then
Westmoreland county,” which meant that he went to the frontier.
Office-holder.
William Todd went to Western Pennsylvania about 1765 and later
“removed to Westmoreland county where he settled upon land
subsequently warranted to him.”
John Whitehill, “son of an Irish immigrant who settled on Pequea Creek
in 1723.” Received a good education. Local office-holder. At his death
he left “a large landed estate”.
Robert Whitehill, brother of the above Whitehill. “In the spring of
1771 he removed to Cumberland county, locating on a farm two miles
west of Harrisburg.” Extensive public career. “Died at his residence
in Cumberland county two miles west of the Susquehanna.” Evidently
dependent largely upon agriculture, but farmer of some means.
Obviously such a table is more or less superficial so far as economic
aspects are concerned, for the forms of wealth possessed by each member
and the numerical proportions of the several forms at the time of the
Pennsylvania state convention are not apparent. More than the ordinary
margin must therefore be allowed for error on both sides. Evidently also
it is difficult to classify these men from the meagre data given; but
the following table may be taken to be roughly correct as to the men
about whom we have some economic facts.
═══════════════════════╤═══════════════════════╤═══════════════════════
│ FOR THE CONSTITUTION │ AGAINST
───────────────────────┼───────────────────────┼───────────────────────
Merchants │ 4│ 1
Lawyers │ 8│ 1
Doctors │ 2│
Clergymen │ 2│
Farmers │ 10│ 13
Capitalists │ 12│ 3
───────────────────────┼───────────────────────┼───────────────────────
Total classifiable │ 38│ 18
═══════════════════════╧═══════════════════════╧═══════════════════════
Of the thirty-eight in favor of the Constitution, who may be reasonably
classified, ten, or one-fourth, represented agricultural interests
primarily. Of the eighteen, opposed to the Constitution, who may be
satisfactorily classified, thirteen or more than two-thirds were
primarily identified with agricultural interests. Of the forty-six
favorable, twenty were capitalists and lawyers; of the twenty-three
opposed, four were in these categories. When all allowance for error is
made, the result is highly significant and bears out the general
conclusion that the Constitution was a reflex of personalty rather than
realty interests.
_Maryland._—In Maryland the mercantile interests of the towns were all
on the side of the Constitution; and as the urban centres were the seats
of operations in public securities these too must be thrown into the
balance. The opposition came from the rural districts and particularly
from the paper money constituencies. Libby discovered there, “a
correspondence between the friends of paper money and debt laws and the
Anti-Federal party of 1788, both as to leaders and to the rank and file
of the respective parties.”[667]
But it should be noted that we are now leaving the regions of small
farms and of estates tilled by free labor and are coming into the
districts where slavery and the plantation system dominate rural
economy. Indeed, the slaveholding plantations were so extensive and the
small farming class so restricted that the paper money party would have
been seriously weakened had it not been for the fact that their ranks
were recruited from other sources. A contemporary, speaking of the
election of delegates to the convention, says: “Baltimore and Hartford
counties alone are clearly anti-Federal, in which are many powerful and
popular men who have speculated deeply in British confiscated property
and for that reason are alarmed at shutting the door against state paper
money. The same men, their relations and particular friends are more
violently anti-Federal because they paid considerable sums into the
treasury in depreciated continental currency and are scared at the
sweeping clause ... which may bring about a due execution of the treaty
between Great Britain and America to their loss.[668]
_Virginia._—Fortunately, for Virginia we have a somewhat detailed study
of the economic forces in the politics of that commonwealth by Dr.
Charles H. Ambler. By way of preparation he examines the geographical
distribution of economic characteristics, and takes up first the
Tidewater region. Of this portion of the state, he says, “The
industrial, social and political life of the Tidewater centered in the
large estate.... The society which developed in the Tidewater ...
resembled that of the mother country. It consisted of several strata
separated by no clearly marked lines. Along the large rivers there were
the great landowners who lived in a style of luxury and extravagance
beyond the means of other inhabitants. Immediately below them were the
half-breeds, persons descended from the younger sons and daughters of
the landed proprietors. They had all the pride and social tastes of the
upper class but not its wealth. Then came the ‘pretenders,’ men of
industry and enterprise but not of established families.... Below these
classes were the ‘yeomen,’ most of whom were very poor. The system of
entail and primogeniture operated to preserve these strata intact.”[669]
The Tidewater region was almost solid in favor of ratifying the
Constitution.
The second geographical division of Virginia, according to Dr. Ambler,
was the Piedmont region, which resembled in many respects the Tidewater
but had some decided characteristics of its own. “Although one and
two-thirds times as large as the Tidewater, the Piedmont, in 1790
contained a much smaller negro slave population. Immigrants from the
northern colonies, who, as will be shown, had pushed into the Valley,
came into the Piedmont from the rear. For the most part they were
conscientiously opposed to slaveholding and consequently did not become
tobacco-growers. On the other hand the poorer whites of the Tidewater
had been pushed by the gradual advance of the plantation into the less
desirable lands of the Piedmont. Lack of ability and the presence of
conscientious scruples prevented them from becoming large planters.
These elements constituted a large and influential democratic and
non-slaveholding population in the Piedmont.”[670] This region was
largely against ratifying the Constitution.
Beyond the Piedmont lay the Valley which was largely settled by
Scotch-Irish and Germans, and the economic basis was the small farm with
all that it implies. Here the political theories, says Ambler “differed
widely from those entertained in the east. The Germans and the
Scotch-Irish brought to the Valley the sacred traditions of the years of
religious wars which taught hatred to an established church, antipathy
to a government by the privileged, and a love for civic and personal
liberty. To the Scotch-Irish, the political leaders, civil liberty meant
freedom of person, the right of fee-simple possession, and an open door
to civic honors.”[671] The markets for this region were at Baltimore and
Philadelphia. This fact, coupled with several peculiar social
characteristics may partially account for the heavy vote for the
Constitution; but the sentiment in favor of the new government in this
region has not yet been traced to economic reasons.
To the far West lay the Kentucky region whose frontier economic
characteristics need no description. There the sentiment was almost
solid against the ratification of the Constitution.
At the time of the movement for the adoption of a new national
Constitution, the self-sufficient western regions of Virginia were
practically indifferent; and the eastern section was the part of the
state in which there was a conscious determination to bring about a
change. At this time, says Ambler, “The towns of the Tidewater chafed
under the British restrictions upon trade and desired better commercial
relations between the states. Of the numerous petitions to the assembly
on these subjects, that from Norfolk was, perhaps, the most significant.
It claimed that the restrictions on the West India trade and the foreign
commercial monopolies were producing injury to Virginia, and asked for
restriction on British trade and better commercial relations between the
states.... Petitions of a similar tone came from Fredericksburg,
Falmouth, Alexandria, and Port Royal.”[672]
Against the indifference and opposition of the western districts, the
east prevailed in the contest over the proposition to send delegates to
the federal Convention; and Washington, Madison, Mason, Henry, Randolph,
Wythe, and Blair were named—“all residents of the Tidewater, except
Henry and Madison.”[673] This result was partly due to the fact that the
Tidewater region was over-represented in the state legislature according
to population, and partly to the superior cohesion of the interests
affected.[674]
The same economic antagonism that was manifested in the selection of
delegates to the federal Convention was again manifested in the state
convention called to ratify the Constitution. “The democratic leaders of
the interior,” says Ambler, “declared that it [the Constitution]
sacrificed the state’s sovereignty. Accordingly they made a desperate
fight to secure the election of delegates pledged to vote against
ratification. When the canvass was ended it was not known which side
would be successful, so evenly were the friends and enemies of the new
plan of federal government matched. From the Tidewater came a strong
delegation favorable to ratification. It numbered among its members the
most prominent characters of the Virginia bar, former sympathizers with
Great Britain, and representatives of interests essentially commercial.
The other delegates favorable to ratification came from the Valley and
the northwestern part of the state. Most of them had seen service in the
Revolutionary armies and were largely under the influence of Washington.
The Kentucky country and the Piedmont sent delegates opposed to
ratification.... The vote on the ratification was: ayes 89, nays 79 ...
practically all the lower Tidewater [being] in favor of ratification.
Only two delegates from Shenandoah valley and that part of the
Trans-Alleghany north of the Great Kanawha voted nay. The democratic
Piedmont and the Kentucky country was almost unanimous in opposition to
the Constitution.”[675]
These conclusions reached by Ambler closely support Libby’s survey. In
speaking of the distribution of the vote on the Constitution in
Virginia, he says: “Four well-marked sections are to be noted.... The
first, the eastern, comprised all the counties in tidewater Virginia.
Its vote on the Constitution stood 80 per cent for and 20 per cent
against ratification. This was the region of the large towns, and where
commercial interests were predominant. The middle district, lying
farther west to the Blue Ridge mountains, represented the interior
farming interests of the state; the class of small farmers made up the
principal part of its population. Its vote on the Constitution stood 26
per cent for and 74 per cent against adoption. The third, the West
Virginia district is really double, composed of the Shenandoah Valley,
in which lay the bulk of the population and the sparsely settled
Trans-Alleghany region. This, also, was an agricultural section with a
population chiefly Scotch-Irish and Germans from Pennsylvania. Its vote
stood 97 per cent for and 3 per cent against the Constitution....[676]
The fourth, or Kentucky district comprised all that territory west of
the great Kanawha to the Cumberland River. Its vote stood 10 per cent
for and 90 per cent against.... The question of the opening of the
Mississippi river was the decisive one in determining the vote of this
section.”[677]
That public securities also carried some weight in the Virginia counties
which were strongly favorable to the Constitution is shown by the
following table of the delegates (all, except Thomas Read, favorable to
the Constitution) to the state convention from the towns and the
seaboard or tidewater regions. Those italicised were holders of paper to
some amount and appear on the _Index to Virginia Funds_ in the Mss. of
the Treasury Department. Those not italicised were not discovered on the
books.
Fairfax County—_David Stuart_ and _Charles Simms_.
King George—Burdet Ashton and William Thornton.
Westmoreland—_Henry Lee_ and _Bushrod Washington_.
Northumberland—Walter Jones and Thomas Gaskins.
Richmond County—_Walker Tomlin_ (as Executor) and _William Peachy_ (as
Executor).
Lancaster—James Gordon and Henry Towles.
Gloucester—_Warner Lewis_ and Thomas Smith.
York—_John Blair_ and _George Wyeth_.
Princess Anne—Anthony Walke and Thomas Walke.
Norfolk—James Webb and _James Taylor_. (Portsmouth.)
Henrico—(Richmond City)—_Edmund Randolph_ and _John Marshall_.
James City—_Nathl. Burwell_ and _Robert Andrews_.
Elizabeth City—Miles King and Worlich Westwood.
Charlotte—_Paul Carrington_ and Thomas Read.[678]
_North Carolina._—North Carolina was at first overwhelmingly
Anti-Federal. It had peculiar economic characteristics. Though in the
south, it had a large body of small farmers; and the great slave-tilled
plantation was not such a marked feature of its economy as it was of
South Carolina. It had small mercantile interests as compared with
Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina,
with their considerable seaport towns. And perhaps most significant of
all was the fact that a very large proportion of the public securities
in that state were bought up by speculators from northern cities[679]
and therefore not held by native inhabitants in the centres of
influence. This must have had a very deadening effect on the spirit of
the movement for ratification.
Owing to these peculiarities, it is impossible to lay out North Carolina
into such sharply differentiated economic regions as some of the other
commonwealths. Nevertheless, certain lines are marked out by Libby in
his survey of the vote in 1789 when the Constitution was finally
ratified. “The counties around Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds constituted
the bulk of the federal area.... This region was the earliest settled,
the most densely populated, and represented most of the mercantile and
commercial interests of the state.” With this region went some
additional inland districts when the swing to the Federalists carried
the state for ratification. The second region was in the centre of the
state where the “interests were wholly agricultural;” this region was
strongly Anti-Federal. To it was added the Tennessee region, also
Anti-Federal, for the same reasons that carried western Virginia against
the Constitution.[680]
_South Carolina._—South Carolina presents the economic elements in the
ratification with the utmost simplicity. There we find two rather
sharply marked districts in antagonism over the Constitution. “The rival
sections,” says Libby, “were the coast or lower district and the upper,
or more properly, the middle and upper country. The coast region was the
first settled and contained a larger portion of the wealth of the state;
its mercantile and commercial interests were important; its church was
the Episcopal, supported by the state.” This region, it is scarcely
necessary to remark, was overwhelmingly in favor of the Constitution.
The upper area, against the Constitution, “was a frontier section, the
last to receive settlement; its lands were fertile and its mixed
population were largely small farmers.... There was no established
church, each community supported its own church and there was a great
variety in the district.”[681]
A contemporary writer, R. G. Harper, calls attention to the fact that
the lower country, Charleston, Beaufort, and Georgetown, which had
28,694 white inhabitants, and about seven-twelfths of the representation
in the state convention, paid £28,081:5:10 taxes in 1794, while the
upper country, with 120,902 inhabitants, and five-twelfths of the
representation in the convention, paid only £8390:13:3 taxes.[682] The
lower districts in favor of the Constitution therefore possessed the
wealth of the state and a disproportionate share in the convention—on
the basis of the popular distribution of representation.[683]
These divisions of economic interest are indicated by the abstracts of
the tax returns for the state in 1794 which show that of £127,337 worth
of stock in trade, faculties, etc. listed for taxation in the state,
£109,800 worth was in Charleston, city and county—the stronghold of
Federalism. Of the valuation of lots in towns and villages to the amount
of £656,272 in the state, £549,909 was located in that city and
county.[684]
The records of the South Carolina loan office preserved in the Treasury
Department at Washington show that the public securities of that state
were more largely in the hands of inhabitants than was the case in North
Carolina. They also show a heavy concentration in the Charleston
district.
At least fourteen of the thirty-one members of the state ratifying
convention from the parishes of St. Philip and Saint Michael, Charleston
(all of whom favored ratification) held over $75,000 worth of public
securities, which amount was distributed unevenly among the following
men:
John Blake
Danl. Cannon
Edw. Darrell
John F. Grimke
Wm. Johnson
Thomas Jones
Lewis Morris
Isaac Motte
C. C. Pinckney
John Pringle
David Ramsay
Nathaniel Russel
Josiah Smith
Danl. de Soussure[685]
_Georgia._—Georgia was one of the states that gave a speedy and
unanimous consent to the adoption of the Constitution. If there was any
considerable contest there, no record of it appears on the surface; and
no thorough research has ever been made into the local unprinted
records.[686] Libby dismisses the state with the suggestion that the
pressing dangers from the Indians on the frontiers, which were
formidable and threatening in the summer and autumn of 1787, were
largely responsible for the swift and favorable action of the state in
ratifying the new instrument of government that promised protection
under national arms.[687]
Three conclusions seem warranted by the data presented in this chapter:
Inasmuch as the movement for the ratification of the Constitution
centred particularly in the regions in which mercantile, manufacturing,
security, and personalty interests generally had their greatest
strength, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that holders of
personalty saw in the new government a strength and defence to their
advantage.
Inasmuch as so many leaders in the movement for ratification were large
security holders, and inasmuch as securities constituted such a large
proportion of personalty, this economic interest must have formed a very
considerable dynamic element, if not the preponderating element, in
bringing about the adoption of the new system.
The state conventions do not seem to have been more “disinterested” than
the Philadelphia convention; but in fact the leading champions of the
new government appear to have been, for the most part, men of the same
practical type, with actual economic advantages at stake.
The opposition to the Constitution almost uniformly came from the
agricultural regions, and from the areas in which debtors had been
formulating paper money and other depreciatory schemes.[688]