IF GILBERT LIVINGSTON HAD NOT VOTED NEW YORK INTO THE UNION
How many Americans of the present day realize that the State of New
York, at the time of the adoption of the national Constitution, was
radically and overwhelmingly opposed to entrance into the Union which
the Constitution proposed, and was at last forced into the league of
States only by the demonstration that the State would be isolated and
cut off from its neighbor States if it did not join, with a tariff wall
raised against it? It is indeed hard for New Yorkers to realize, as
they live to-day under the Stars and Stripes, having forgotten what
their State flag is, and being among the most zealous supporters of the
Union, that their State led the opposition to the Constitution, and that
but for the influence of a very few men in two other States, New York
might have prevented the consummation of that "more perfect union."
The contingency that prevented the State from dismembering the Union at
its start was a narrow one, but it had been provided for. Hamilton and
the Federalists had laid their plans well. They first furnished the
Southern States, and the smallest States in the North, with an
interested reason for joining the Union. They gave the men of the South
representation on their slaves. They made the little States equal with
the great States in the Senate. Then they provided that when nine States
had ratified the Constitution it should become effective, and a
confederation should be formed by those nine States, if there were no
others.
Then the ratifications began. The game was to get nine States. Little
Delaware said "Yes" first. Franklin and Wilson had a firm hold upon
Pennsylvania, and that State entered next under the pressure they
exerted. New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland and
South Carolina followed. This made eight States. Then things stuck fast.
Would there be a ninth?
Two thirds of the delegates in the convention of New York were firmly
opposed to ratification. They believed the Constitution meant an end of
the liberties of the States. They saw a royal throne looming up for
America. They feared, they said, a great central power which should
oppress and overtax the people of the States. Governor Clinton led the
opposition to ratification. Hamilton's able arguments had no effect. New
York would not come in.
All the remaining States were believed to be also opposed. New Hampshire
had refused to comply with the requisitions of the Confederation; why
should it look with more favor on the Constitution? In Virginia, Patrick
Henry led the opposition to ratification with impassioned eloquence.
Richard Henry Lee, William Grayson, George Mason and James Monroe, all
great men in the State, were unalterably opposed to ratification. It
certainly looked black for the Union.
But in this moment of apparent triumph, while the New York convention
was in session, Governor Clinton and his party in the convention heard
surprising news. New Hampshire, under the influence of Massachusetts and
of the wiser counsels of some of its own leaders, ratified the
Constitution on the 21st of June, 1788--more than nine months after the
adoption of the instrument by the Constitutional Convention at
Philadelphia.
This event put a new face on the situation in New York. The Union was
now decreed. If New York did not enter it, she must be prepared to stand
alone, as an independent nation. Could she do that? The new
Confederation would hem her in on both sides. To it would belong New
Jersey, which flanked her only seaport on the west, and Connecticut and
Massachusetts, which walled her in on the east. The shape of the State
adapted it very badly indeed for an independent position. Moreover,
influences were known to be at work which would precipitate a hostile
tariff against the States which remained out of the Union. A few months
later such a tariff was actually adopted against Rhode Island, which was
treated as a foreign country in the levying of duties on imports.
New York could not stand that. Gilbert Livingston and a few others
changed their votes under a distinct announcement that the pressure of
"sister States" had made it impracticable to continue the opposition.
But even at the last, the Constitution was ratified by a majority of
only two in a vote of sixty! Gilbert Livingston held the fate of the
State in his hands, and he, though pledged against the Union, put New
York into the Union by his vote.
One vote would have kept New York out.
We have noted the fact that New York's position was unfavorable for an
attempt at independence. But the fact that the voice of but one man
prevented the attempt shows that the other opposing delegates were not
much afraid of making the leap. Supposing Gilbert Livingston had voted
the other way, and the vote had been thirty-one to twenty-nine against
ratification, instead of the same figure in its favor? What would have
resulted?
Let us see. Two other States were radically opposed to the
Constitution--Rhode Island and North Carolina. Very likely they would
have been glad to form a defensive alliance with New York. Virginia
ratified a few days after New Hampshire, but she might easily have
retracted her ratification, for she had no heart in it. With Virginia,
the malcontent States would have had (census of 1790) a population of
1,550,306, against 2,378,908 for the remaining colonies, including
Vermont, which was not yet in. This would not have been an utterly
hopeless foundation for a new league, constituted on the easy terms upon
which, and upon which only, these States were willing to enter the
Union. The want of contiguity of territory would have been the worst
objection to the formation of the league.
But the real effect of New York's self-exclusion, so narrowly prevented,
would have been a negative one. It would have prevented all cohesion in
the new Union. It would have driven a wedge straight through the new
republic, from west to east. Worse, it would have erected secession into
a principle from the start. Ere long we should have had at least three
republics instead of one, and probably more. Politically we should have
been what Central and South America are now. Real progress would have
been barred. Wars would have been probable between the States. European
political influences would have penetrated the weaker States, or
alliances of States.
In short, the "American idea," government of the people by the people
and for the people, would probably have been stillborn. By his change of
vote, Gilbert Livingston signed the death warrant of the principle of
secession. Not only did he set going the unifying influences which
prevailed over State sovereignty, but he decreed the Empire State,
destined to be a bulwark against disunion.