dissertation ,debate in rhodes island over whether or not to ratify us constitution

8/3/2019 Dissertation ,Debate in Rhodes Island Over Whether or Not to Ratify US Constitution.

1/108

DEBATE IN RHODES ISLAND IN 1787-1788 0VER

RATIFICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

1


2/108

Table of Contents

TITLE ..........................................................................................................................1

DEDICATION .............................................................................................................2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................3

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION: RHODES ISLAND ....................................................................5

RHODES ISLAND 1787-1788..................................................................................5

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND TO POLITICS IN RHODE ISLAND DURING

THE REVOLUTIONARY AND CONFEDERATION ERAS...................................6

INTRODUCTION TO CONFEDERATION PERIOD (1780S)..................................9

CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................22

CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF THE RATIFICATION DEBATE IN THE

TWELVE STATES BESIDES RHODE ISLAND.......................................................25

INTRODUCTION TO THE TWELVE STATES........................................................25

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................43

CHAPTER 3: DEBATE IN RHODE ISLAND ON WHETHER OR NOT TO

RATIFY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION,FROM AUGUST 1787 THROUGH

MARCH 1788..................................................................................................................44

INTRODUCTION TO RATIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION

RHODE ISLAND HOLDS OUT OF THE UNION FOR SO LONG .........................44

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................58

CHAPTER 4: REFERENDUM IN RHODE ISLAND ON WHETHER OR NOT

TO RATIFY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION, FROM FEBRUARY 1788

THROUGH MAY 1788.................................................................................................60

INTRODUCTION TO RHODES REFERENDUM....................................................60

CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................80

CHAPTER 5: DEBATE IN RHODE ISLAND ON WHETHER OR NOT TO

RATIFY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION, FROM MARCH 1788 THROUGHAUGUST 1788.................................................................................................................81

INTRODUCTION TO RATIFICATION FROM IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE

STATE REFERENDUM ..........................................................................................82

CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................97

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................100

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................101

PRIMARY SOURCES ..............................................................................................106

SECONDARY SOURCES ........................................................................................107

2


3/108

ABSTRACT

This Dissertation analyzes on the state ratification in Rhodes Island, and utilizes conventions

of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Connecticut, Georgia and

Massachusetts studies are utilized in assisting in the development of an analytical thesis of

why Rhodes Island held out the union and why did it hold it for so long. Chapter one of this

dissertation, is a comprehensive study into the background of politics in Rhode Island

through the Revolutionary and Subsequent Confederacy eras (1760-1780s). Chapter 2

discusses the course of the proposed Constitution as it was ratified by the first twelve states,

starting with Delaware and ending with North Carolina. Chapter Three discusses the debate

over the Constitution in Rhode Island from August 1787 to March 1788 when a referendum

was held. Chapter 4 focuses on the referendum itself, its legality, validity and result while the

last chapter discusses the period immediately after the referendum.

3


4/108

DEBATE IN RHODES ISLAND IN 1787-1788 0VER WHETHER OR NOT TO

RATIFY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Introduction

The debate in Rhodes Island in 1787-1788 over whether to not to ratify the United

States Constitution is well articulated in this study. Besides, on entailing on Rhodes Island

arguments politically the study still focus on ratification debates for Antifederalists and

Federalists.1 Currently, the historiography is expanded through criticizing on the politics in

Rhodes Island in the Revolutionary and Confederation eras. Other major characters in the

Rhodes island politics have been emphasized through convention ownerships in American

politics. Nature of their influenced in negotiations among the various groups who were in the

competition has been clearly articulated.

The study focuses on conventions in the period. Philadelphia convention was the

original feature for states in the administering of the articles of confederation 2. Philadelphia

designed process of ratification (new governance) by which only nine states would be

required in the approval of constitutional ratification instead of the requirement by original

Articles of confederation in the ratification procedure by states legislature for approval of all

the thirteen states. State legislature elected the delegates of Philadelphia convention and

Specific assemblies3 were required by the Philadelphia convention.

1In reference to, American nationalism for Rhodes Island defines its political practices and

procedures within other 12 states that existed during the period.

John Kaminski, "Rhode Island: Protecting State Interests," in Michael Allen Gillespie and

Michael Lienesch, eds.,Ratifying the Constitution (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,1989).2 Used for amendments during revolutionary, and confederation eras.3 Separate from their sitting state assembly

4


5/108

In other hand, Massachusetts had a process4 that was exemplary in constitutional

ratification. They employed process of specific drafting assembly and furthermore a specific

ratification assembly. The approval of constitution was in 17 September 1787 through thirty-

nine votes. Rufus king, James Madison and Nathaniel Gorham all were involved in

submitting the document to north congress, Madison strategy was to break the power for

states through state ratification conventions endure state legislatures resistance under the

newly formed constitution. He wanted to appeal to the public to enable achievement of

ratification. With the acknowledgement of public as more important to the government rather

than the state was the main cause of fuel for ravaging debates along Rhodes Island and the

other 12 states constitution. Madison was behind the formation of freedom and voices that

formed the basic constitution for United States of America.

This study focuses on the role of various states in the state ratification. Firstly,

Massachusetts Antifederalists and federalists ensured unconditional ratification compromise.

Massachusetts convention was not contingent in constitution amendments in the state

ratification. Secondly, Pennsylvania5 was full of illegitimate procedures in ratification

Furthermore, New York6, Virginian7states played key role in unification part.

In this study, it analyses how the states ensured that America is governed by the

constitution. My research also, indicates the media types that influenced the ratification

debates by the Antifederalists and the federalist. The media mostly of personal letters,

4 In this reference, following the year 1780, the Massachusetts process was awarded the right

to informing the public, in the deliverance of a political document and in ensuring that the

divisions politically were sorted.5 Pennsylvania was national capital has it had a bigger territory and population, was a middle

union making the acceptance of constitution essential in ratification process.6 New York had influential federalist and necessary for economic stability. Pauline Maier,

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster,2010).7 Virginia constituted of revolution figures, many supporters suggested of it being the ninth

state in law making for the constitution. Ibid., 2010.

5


6/108

speeches, newspapers and Broadsides have been articulated clearly in this study to portray

how they influenced the emergence of debates. This gives information of who said what, and

the meaning and intentions of the many letters and speeches.

In the fall of 1787, Federal constitution was amid reactions all over the nations and

sparked various debates. The public politics involvement in American shores politics is of

major concern but the ratification debate for Rhodes Island encouraged participatory politics.

Major public8 interest into the constitution encouraged competing constituencies into

negations that boosted the learners on public opinion in ratification processes. The ratification

debate in the 12 states besides Rhodes Island encouraged the growth of political practices that

were more accustomed to formal voting acts. In all these aspects, my research will try to

expound on reasons that made Rhodes Island hold out of the union and why they hold out of

the union for so long.

8 In this study, Public constitutes the Whites during this era, the others group African

American influence politics through cultural activities which brought forth American

nationalism.

6


7/108

CHAPTER 1:

Politics in Rhode Island during the Revolutionary and Confederation Eras

Rhode Island was the first state to declare Independence. In this, it stands out as

leader of the American Revolution, mainly because of all the different colonies in America at

the time. It had the highest degree of self-rule and individual liberties. This means that when

England sort to reassert her position over the colonies, Rhode Island had the most to lose.

Economically, the colony thrived on bypassing the navigation acts, and a versatile economy

driven by smuggled goods that were sold on the black market. Politically the colony had

active political parties gathered around powerful clans. Culturally, the colony offered the

widest range of religious toleration. Finally, its charter guaranteed procedural rights beyond

what Englishmen could claim within the realm.

When England tried to ensure the operation of the Sugar Act (1764)9, the colonys

protests became increasingly violent and leaders of the protest used covert means to show

their defiance. Their acts of defiance included the burning of theLiberty, a British Customs

sloop in July 1769, the Gaspee, in 1772, and a Tea Party in Providence10 in March 1775.

Within the colony, political differences existed between the Ward and Hopkins families and

their retainers, but these wrangles were put aside when the leaders of the two functions

merged to foster a combined strategy to ending the injustices of colonialism. This consensus

was first exhibited in the Providence Town Meeting on May 17, 177411, when the factions

spokespersons agreed to resist the newly enacted Coercive Acts. Stephen Hopkins12 and

9 David Lovejoy,Rhode Island Politics and the American Revolution, 1760- 1776 (Brown

University Press, 1958). Xi.10 Patrick Conley, "First in War, Last in Peace: Rhode Island and the Constitution, 1786-1790,"in Patrick Conley and John Kaminski, eds., the Constitution and the States: The Role

of the Original Thirteen in the Framing and Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Madison:

Madison House, 1988).11 Ibid., 1958.12 Governor Hopkins was behind the writing of the essay [Boston Merchants [state of trade

before Rhodes island adopted remonstrance. Merrill Jensen, Tracts of the American

Revolution, 1763-1776(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril, 1966), xxv.

7


8/108

Samuel Ward13 were both appointed by a vote of the General Assembly to represent the

colony at the Continental Congress, one of the initial steps to fostering a combined

Revolution.

Meanwhile, Rhode Islands residents became even more aggravated with the

colonialists reaction to the Concord and Lexington skirmishes14 in April of 1775. A month

later, on May 4, the Island formally renounced their allegiance to the British monarch, then

King George III and subsequently ratified the much-anticipated Declaration of Independence.

When the Revolution begun, Rhode Island played a vital role, by supplying the army and

navy with men, weapons and ships15. With the stakes so high on the cause for independence,

the politicians encouraged volunteerism and even allowed slaves to form what was later to be

known as the Black Regiment.

The slave formation existed as detachment of the main regiment, the First Rhode

Island regiment, and was a respected unit for the confidence and bravery of its soldiers.

Rhode Island also helped create the first Continental navy, headed by Esek Hopkins, the

younger brother to the reverend Stephen Hopkins, one of the 55 men who signed the

Declaration of Independence. Nathaniel Greene, commander of the Kentish Guards under the

British Army, was given the title of Chief of the Southern Continental army, and was George

Washingtons second-in command.

Indeed, with such vital contribution to revolutionary arms, and the fact that Newport

was a key port, it was only a matter of time before the British attacked, and they did in

13 Ward was leader of Newport Faction. Hopkins once lost his annual election to ward. Ibid.

1966.14 British solders clashed with minute men 19 April 1775; there was escalation of a ten-year

political protest at Lexington, Concord, between Boston and Concord.[Editorial note]

Lexington and Concord: A Legacy of Conflict, Minute Man National Historical Park NationalPark Service, 2.15 David Lovejoy,Rhode Island Politics and the American Revolution, 1760- 1776(BrownUniversity Press, 1958), ixxi.

8


9/108

December of 1776, with a siege that lasted two years before they left voluntarily in October

of 1779. Less than a year later, Rochambeaus army made Newport its base and operated

from many other parts of the Island. They conducted themselves with such a high level of

dignity that it prompted the General Assembly to lift the ban that had existed on Catholicism.

The disability against Roman Catholics had been enacted in 1719, but the gesture now, made

its followers equal to Protestants in the public sphere.

As a result, the year after this religious disability was removed; the Negro

Emancipation Act16 was passed, giving freedom to all the children born to slaves after March

1, 1784, it did not grant the slaves the freedom they desired, but it was a step in that direction.

Its passage, surprising as it may be to a modern scholar, was a concerted effort by the Quaker

community that was anti-slave trade. They also advocated for the banning of the trade, and

succeeded when the General Assembly passed an act banning the same in October 1787.

Of the major towns in Rhode Island during the conflict, Newport suffered the most.

Its population decreased from 9, 209 to 5, 532 within the eight years of revolutionary war and

terrorism. Providence, which had became a settlement for its strategic importance and

sheltered location, did not suffer such losses during these years. The revolution therefore

made Providence the more stable and important of the two towns, and Newport never17

recovered its former glory.

Nevertheless, with its quick ratification of the Declaration of Independence, and the

Articles of the Confederation in 1778, one would expect that Rhode Island would have been

at the forefront of the push for a stronger central government. However, the fact that this state

had been founded on dissidence, and had matured as an individual state, with a higher level

16 Negro Emancipation Act was passed to Negro apprentices to be awarded with complete

emancipation [equality & rights in politics for Negros]. [Editorial Note] Irwin Polishook,

Rhode Island and the Union,1774-1796(Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969).17 As a resort Mecca, Newport in 1920s surpassed Providence

9


10/108

of democracy and a long tradition of autonomy meant that it would feel threatened by a

strengthened central government.

The best example of central governance was the fact that the use of paper money in

commerce. Paper money later became a bottleneck in its course to ratify the Constitution. It

drove the Country Party into power18in 1786. Jonathan Hazard, a native of South Kingstown,

led it. It was highly suspicious of a strong central government that would have mandate over

such a vast area of land, and the cost of running it. These were the main reasons why the

General Assembly declined to send any delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, in addition,

delayed in sending their representatives to Congress. When the Constitution was released to

the individual states for approval, Hazards faction used delay tactics, mainly their strong

numbers, to ensure that little debate was carried out concerning ratification. The result was

perhaps the only state in the original thirteen where the Federalists, as supporters of the

Union were called, did not have a clear majority. The Country Party represented largely rural

communities while the minority represented the mercantile communities, mainly from the

towns of Newport and Providence.

Accordingly, the fear of most of Rhode Islands representatives, and the populace as a

whole was that the freedom they had spearheaded would be at stake if a unified central

government were in place. They were wary of encroachment from London or even

Philadelphia. Their main worry was the issue of money (paper) in their economic industry

commerce and the effects of the federal government. With a central government in place, the

issue of taxes to fund operations would also have to come up, as would concerns about the

new Constitutions assertions that no individual state would be allowed to print its own

currency. Hazards Country Party had introduced paper money as the most suitable way of

paying off public and private debt.

18 Country Party power, which was a historically parochial unit.

10


11/108

Additionally, the other issue was slave trade, which the influential Quaker

Community vehemently opposed19. The fact that the first three drafts of the Constitution had

not expressly banned it, and at times seemed to give assent to its continuance meant that the

influential body of believers did not support the document, or the union. Even with all this

factors that pushed for a largely Anti-Federalist populace, the commercial benefits of being

part of the Union outweighed their concerns. The fact that a central government would have

to pay for all war-time reparations, a key concern for towns such as Newport, and that other

securities would also be paid made the Union a much more viable option to an independent

state.

Besides, the residents of Rhode Island, together with those of Massachusetts had been

at the forefront of slave trade before the Revolution. The Quakers, Congregationalists and

Anglicans pushed for the end of slave trade, a motion of which was presented to the General

assembly on the morning of Friday, 31 October, and which was subsequently passed by a

majority vote20. It is an interesting point to note that all sides were united in the need to

prohibit slave trade, and voted on the matter, but when it came to matters of federalism, each

side stuck to its guns. The political differences meant that Rhode Island could not be said to

be for or against, because all superficial actions indicated the former, while the majority

voted for the latter. The argument had long passed that of the religious considerations.

For example, Moses Brown was the Quaker leader at the time and was strongly

against slave trade while his brother, John, felt that prohibiting it would amount to interfering

with a free enterprise. John Brown was a Providence representative and he voted against the

prohibition when the matter came up in February 1784. Nonetheless, the House had chosen

19 David Lovejoy,Rhode Island Politics and the American Revolution, 1760- 1776(Brown

University Press, 1958). 256.20 Ibid., 1958

11


12/108

instead adopt a gradual prohibition, which was to be achieved by decreeing that children of

slave mothers would no longer be considered as slaves for life.

Therefore, the Bill would grant them freedom when they reached a majority age,

determined differently for male and female children. This move did not satisfy the religious

forces led by Samuel Hopkins and Moses Brown. Brown brought it up again at the Yearly

Quaker Meeting in June of 1787, and he used his extensive influence to get the meeting to

petition the House to look into the matter again and out rightly prohibit slave trade. As

mentioned earlier, the house sittings went through a tumultuous time during the year, as the

Country Party used its majority to deny the Assembly a quorum in order to conduct business.

The petition did not come up in the special session in September and Hopkins begun a public

campaign to garner support. He wrote an essay to the Constitutional Convention, and tried to

get his friend, Peter Edes to print it in the Newport Herald. The latter refused for fear of

aggravating those of his readers who engaged in the business.

In addition, it is clear that the Press was largely Federalist. The press at the time was a

partisan almost to a fault, and had influence on public opinion. Bennet Wheeler Printed the

United States Chronicle in Providence, John Carter the Providence Gazette and Paul Ede the

Newport Herald. They furthered the cause of the Union, although they got little success

because the Country party was a largely formed by rural communities. The party was

mercantile in their approach to constitution due to less acknowledgments and insignificance.

Local Baptists founded Brown University in 176421, with Reverend James Manning as

its first president. The very founding of the college was matter of power politics given that

the Baptists had intended it as a center for training ministers, while Providence and Newport

viewed it as an opportunity to outdo each other in progressive education. The other churches

21 Ibid., 1958

12


13/108

existing at the time also wanted to be part of the project because it would give them a chance

to participate in furthering the education system on the Island. It became a divisive factor

mainly between the two towns, as had many other things before, and providence, already on

an upward trend and eager to keep it, won the charter.

On further note to Brown University, it was named after the influential Brown family.

They were powerful and wealthy with vast interests in industrial, financial and commercial

fields. The most famous were Moses, Nicholas and Joseph, and their uncles Elisha and

Obadiah, all of whom formed the most formidable team. These made them very important

political allies. Other merchants such as James DWolf of Bristol, Christopher Champlin

from Newport, Joseph Wanton, Aaron Lopez and others were also instrumental in keeping

the commerce of Rhode Island afloat.

Meanwhile, Moses swayed from his family religious beliefs and culture and joined

other religious groups. Although he and his brothers were instrumental in the foundation of

Brown University, they had their political differences. His rise to power started from the fact

that his uncle Obadiah had elected as executor of the latter estate. The Brown sons were

descendants of one of the founders of the town of Providence, Chad Brown. Although his

family was Baptist, Moses differentiated himself, isolated himself even, by converting to

Quakerism. This conversion begun his long abolitionist advocacy and he freed his slaves in

1773. He used his personal status, often writing articles in the press and spreading

information on abolition.

John (Moses brother), was active in the trade and was arrested for his leadership in the

1772 Gaspee Affairthat sparked off the Revolution. He also funded the building of

Providence, a warship that defended the island, together with others that were later made.

During the Confederation era, John played an active role in advocating for federalism while

13


14/108

his brother Moses was anti-federalist. They differed on the nature of abolition, which John

saw as free trade and any acts banning it as interference with free enterprise. He was one of

the most notable Federalists when the state was asked to ratify the Constitution, and was

often at odds with the majority Country party over the Islands continued alienation from the

union.

Following this further, one of Brown family's greatest allies Jabez Bowen22, was a

prominent politician and soldier during the Revolution. He joined the town council in

Providence in 1773 and became a representative in the General Assembly in 1777. He later

became the deputy Governor of the new state, holding the post on two occasions (1778-1779,

1781-1786)23. In 1776, he was appointed a Superior Court Justice and Chief Justice from

1781. With such influence, Bowen was one of the most influential politicians during the

Confederation era. He was an ardent Federalist, which would suggest that he might have been

at odds with his friend Moses Brown who loathed the document for seemingly allowing the

Continuance of slave trade.

In addition, William West was yet another prominent politician. He was infamous for

organizing the riots that threatened the town of Providence for celebrating the passing of the

Constitution. He was a militia General, a high-ranking soldier during the Revolution. He was

instrumental in the signing of the document that sets Rhode Island apart as the first state to

declare its independence24. He was elected to the post of Deputy Governor and served within

1780-1781. He later served as a Judge in the Supreme Court in the Confederacy, and

distinguished himself as one of the most ardent Anti-Federalists. He is infamous for having

led the 1000-strong army he gathered from rural citizens into Providence to thwart attempts

22 Moses business partner and brother-in-law23 [1778-1779, 1781-1786]. Irwin Polishook,Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796(Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969).24 Ibid., 1969.

14


15/108

to celebrate and read the Constitution. Were compromises not reached between the two sides,

civil war would have erupted, and would have quickly spread to the other towns.

There existed isolationist behavior around that time. Isolationist behavior might have

disappeared during the Revolution, but it reappeared during the Confederacy era, and the

Anti-Federalist arguments during the debate about the Constitution25. The first issue was the

Impost of 1781, essentially an amendment to the Articles of the Confederation that would

allow the federal government to tax and control commerce. Alexander Hamilton asserted that

the primary reason was the increasing federal debt as well as the need to maintain a standing

army stationed at Yorktown. The other states were eager to fund a central government

because they needed order in trade and commerce.

Isolationist policies were always carried out by Rhodes Island. The colonies had long

suffered from unfair trade balance with Britain and to mitigate this factor, Rhode Island had

started what would later became one of the most divisive issue in its entry into the Union. It

introduced paper money, mainly to militate against economic repression and to ensure that

their fragile commerce did not collapse. The State therefore benefitted from increased trade

and a monopoly over printed money. Perhaps this best explains why most scholars view the

State as having been isolationist. The fact that its political leadership had control over the

printing of money, and that commerce was at an all time high for the entrepreneurs meant

that they would go the extra mile to protect their independence.

Undoubtedly, elections in Rhode Island were held once a year for all officials, and of

to the Lower House of the General Assembly were elected twice every year26. Perhaps this

best explains the reluctance of Rhode Island to appear as a part of the Confederation. These

25 (Confederacy Era). Irwin Polishook,Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796(Evanston:Northwestern University Press, 1969).26 Irwin Polishook,Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796(Evanston: NorthwesternUniversity Press, 1969). Lower House of the General Assembly. 245.

15


16/108

regular elections ensured that all elected officials were responsive and attentive to public

opinion. Unlike most states that had signed the Articles of the Confederation merely on the

ideas contributed by their leaders, Rhode Island carried out a referendum, as it did later when

ratifying the Constitution. The impending war after the Coercive Act was passed in Britain

meant that Rhode Island, isolationist as it was, had to be part of a bigger army. The resultant

referendum showed this unanimous resolve, with local politicians abandoning resolve to

thwart the threat of war. One would think that Britain, with knowledge of Rhode Islands

history, thought it would stick it out, where the former would defeat them and use their

coastal towns as a base. It would perhaps explain why there had their ships anchored at

Newport Harbor and Narragansett Bay27.

Rhode Island conducted town meetings where the matter for need for trade and

commerce by other states was debated. The politicians, as well as most freemen, insisted that

a strengthened central government would ruin their sovereignty. Since the matter was of

utmost importance, Rhode Island delayed voting on whether to ratify the amendment and sent

David Howell to Philadelphia as the state delegate at Congress.

Thereafter, in his defense of the State, Howell insisted that the State of Rhode Island

had suffered during the Revolution wars and needed the money for reconstruction. He also

mentioned the fact that tariffs would have to be passed on to the consumer, thereby increasing

the price of goods and local produce. The fact that Rhode Island had been free for longer

and had established its own trade links meant that the importers would have to pay the deficit

in the very likely scenario that the market could not handle the high price. Howell suggested

the sale of Western lands to raise money and insisted that the Impost would amount to an

infringement of state sovereignty by the federal government. Subsequently, the state voted

27 John Kaminski, "Rhode Island: Protecting State Interests,"in Michael Allen Gillespie and

Michael Lienesch, eds.,Ratifying the Constitution (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,1989), 406.

16


17/108

down the Impost and cause of the failure of the amendment because any such change could

only be effected by a unanimous vote from all the signatory states. Interestingly, the issue of

paper money was raised by farmers.

However, since the state had been a very vital part of the war, and had incurred great

debts in the course of the Revolution, it needed financing to pay debts and rebuild. The

agricultural mainland paid the bigger proportion and the farmers insisted that the lack of hard

money was the result of merchants hoarding the currency. They therefore demanded for the

printing of paper money as legal tender.

Jonathan Hazards Country Party had a clear lead in the majority of the General

Assembly. When the merchants refused to accept the bills as legal tender, the legislature

penalized them. The result, as had been other issues in the Island, elicited heated debate. It

was discussed in the press and in town meetings from 1785 until the next year, and

effectively made town meetings the real decision making organs within the state28. However,

this only increased the political differences between the rural majority Country party and the

mercantile minority. These lines acted up when the Philadelphia Convention asked the state

to ratify the Constitution.

While other states might have been concerned with the components of the

Constitution, the issues in Rhode Island went a notch higher. The main issue was that the

merchants knew they had no clear majority and they were suffering under the paper money

policy. They used their influence in the urban areas as well as their extensive networks

throughout the country to spread the federalist cause because they believed that a strong

central government would protect them from the unfair currency laws. The use of the press

became a very important matter at this point because the minority of the mercantile

28

[1785] Irwin Polishook, Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796(Evanston: NorthwesternUniversity Press, 1969).

17


18/108

community went further than the simple lack of numbers in the General Assembly, they also

lacked a clear majority within the town meetings and other political gatherings, and their only

hope was a strong central government.29

Rhode Islands isolationist policies are perhaps the reason that the other twelve states

adopted a carrot-stick method30 through offering rewards and at the same time punishments

during the Constitutional debate. Twice in the Confederacy era, the state had adopted policies

that went against the spirit of the Union, and seemed oblivious of the mayhem its decisions

caused. The first time had been during the Impost of 1781, which the state refused to ratify

even after all the other 12 states had ratified, and the other was when the General Assembly

passed a law requiring all creditors to accept Rhode Island paper money as payment despite

the fact that it was worthless.

Admittedly, some scholars suggest that the need to respond to the concerns of the

electorate might have been the reason why the Country Party seemed oblivious to the

financial elements of such a move. An attempt to pay their national debt as soon as possible

ruined the commerce because the payment of debt did not reflect the actual value of the

products or initial worth. Interestingly, the Assembly removed the right to trial-by-jury for

judicial matters concerning its debt policies. This goes against the idea of civil liberties that

its Anti-Federalist majority picked up from other states during the Constitutional debate.

Jonathan Hazard and William West led the Country Party from South Kingstown and

Scituate respectively. West was behind the protest in Providence on July 4 against the towns

29 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010).30 Carrot and stick method was used by politicians in the urge to enforce laws and still to keep

individuals from rebellious attributes.

Stick approach-applied force and aggression

Carrot approach-applied coaxing and sympathy by offering the opposition t o have a voice in

the constitutional debate changes.

18


19/108

celebrations that the Constitution had come into force with the ratification by the ninth state.

He had reason to oppose federalism because he had invested heavily in the paper currency,

and when it was subsequently ratified in 1790, he is said to have gone bankrupt.

Furthermore, Jonathan Hazard was a Quaker who had first been elected to the General

Assembly in 1776, and served in the Continental Army from 1778 until 1786 when he was

elected as the delegate representing Rhode Island to the Continental Congress31. His

leadership is said to have been one of the reasons why the Constitution was not ratified the

first time round, and realizing that the other states would follow through with their threats, he

kept quiet during the 1790 vote where the state ratified the document. This is said to have

adversely affected his political career and influence as Rhode Islanders remained increasingly

paranoid of the Union.

John Collins was the Governor during the Confederation era. He was the third

Governor of the state after Nicholas Cooke (1775-1778) and William Greene (1778-1786).

His political career might have started due to the decision of Cooke to send him to deliver a

letter to George Washington in 1776. The letter contained the condition of the colony and a

list of requests on s military stratagem on the best way to defend it. He was also one of those

sent in 1782 to deliver the letter containing the reasons why Rhode Island would not sign the

Impost Act to Congress32. His Governorship, however, was mostly because of his advocacy

for the agricultural areas and his support for the paper currency that the citizens so zealously

guarded. While he was in office, the issuance of this currency stabilized.

He had been the delegate to the Continental Congress in 1778, before William Ellery

took over in May of 1781, but he was re-elected the next year. While he was Governor, his

31 [1778-1786]. Irwin Polishook, Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796(Evanston:Northwestern University Press, 1969).

32 [Impost Act to Congress].Irwin Polishook, Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796(Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969).

19


20/108

policies boarded on what the majority of the Country Party would view as betrayal. He was

sharp enough to realize that it would be futile for Rhode Island to exist as an independent

state. The one majority vote for calling a convention in the state in January of 1790 is said to

have been his, and it cost his power, influence and position.

Assuredly, his predecessor, William Ellery, was revered as one of the 55 men who

signed the Declaration of Independence. He was also one of the founders of the predecessor

to Brown University, College in the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence

Plantations. His signing of the document had been a matter of accidence as Samuel Ward,

the original representative to the Continental Congress, died in 1776, before the Declaration

was signed. He served as a judge in Rhode Islands Supreme Court, a supporter of the

abolition of slave trade and the Island Paper currency33.

In addition, the other Rhode Island signatory of the Declaration, Stephen Hopkins had

served as Chief Justice, Delegate to the Colonial Congress, Governor and again as delegate to

the Continental Congress (1774-1776). He became the first chancellor of the newly created

predecessor to Brown University. His younger brother was the first commander in chief of

the newly created Continental Navy, making the family a key unit of the islands politics and

security. He holds the record of having been elected as Governor of the colony nine times in

1755-1767.

As one of the earliest supporters of abolition, he had led the way be first freeing his

own slaves in 1773, and tabling a bill in 1774 to ban slave trade. During the Revolution, his

contribution to the naval committee is said to have been priceless due to his extensive

knowledge of shipping business. He used this position to secure the commander post for his

33 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010).

20


21/108

brother. Although a supporter of most of Rhode Island policies, he died on July 13, 1785,

before the state had chance to study the new document.

Hopkins erstwhile rival, Stephen Ward, also served as Governor. He was the son of

Richard Governor, a previous holder of the same position. His first political duel with

Hopkins was the issuance of paper money as he supported hard money while the latter was as

staunch supporter of paper currency34. This rivalry went on until he died, as the two alternated

the post of Governor over the course of two decades. His importance is seen in the fact that

he was called out of retirement to represent the colony at the Continental Congress. He had

distinguished himself as an action leader, especially during the protest about the Stamp Act35

in 1765 when he was the only one among the Governors who refused to sustain it. Sadly,

Ward died three months before the signing of the Declaration of Independence that he had

struggled so much to bring to life. Even so, his legacy supported the federalist because a

decade later although their position was not as popular as the man himself was.

Similarly, while the two were bitter rivals on most things, they were patriots who

believed in an independent America. They were both against the continued satellite rule by

the monarchy and the British Parliament, and were instrumental in obtaining the freedom that

all the colonies desired. Realizing that freedom would be worthless without education, they

had joined Reverend James Manning and other religious leaders in founding the first college

in the state36. Its first president James Manning was an able and visionary leader. The

34 Merrill Jensen, Tracts of the American Revolution, 1763-1776(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril,

1966).

35 Ibid., 1966.36 Patrick Conley, "First in War,Last in Peace: Rhode Island and the Constitution, 1786-1790," in Patrick Conley and John Kaminski, eds., The Constitution and the States: The Roleof the Original Thirteen in the Framing and Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Madison:Madison House, 1988). Follow the link below for this book

21


22/108

conglomerate of Baptists, the Philadelphia Baptist Association37, had sent him. He thereafter

served as its president for the first twenty-six years and saw the college move from Warren to

providence in 1770.

Accordingly, his first contribution in the revolutionary era was his argument for

religious freedom, a largely unheard of concept at the time. It was also during his tenure that

Brown University had been converted into a military base for the French Army fighting for

American independence. His influence is the main reason why he was elected by a

unanimous vote as the delegate to the Confederation Congress. His appointment, although a

step towards unification, did not come without its troubles. The fact that the General

Assembly was increasingly wary of the proposed Union made it holds back the funding for

its delegates. He served out his term and returned to the College where he served until his

death in 1791 within which time the college managed to graduate 165 students.

As a Baptist, he was a strong abolitionist, and influential one at that. His main

arguments for or against unification, (although all evidence points to the former) was on the

matter of personal liberties and the fact that the Constitution did not expressly ban slave

trade. It was his extensive influence that had brought the first bill banning the trade, and it

had, to the surprise of many, passed without much ado.

Nevertheless, his main contribution to Rhode Island, apart from his political and

religious works, could very well be in education. He secured funding for the College from the

Brown family after the conversion to an encampment for the Revolution had left it in a

desolate state. He seems to have been a much-respected man, both within and outside of

Rhode Island.

37 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010), 181.

22


23/108

Admittedly, his stature was enhanced by the fact that he was a Baptist minister of high

standing and education (he had schooled at the College of New Jersey, the predecessor to

Princeton University). As a representative of the Island to the Confederation Congress,

Manning was one of the greatest contributors to a strong union, although the power politics at

home denied him the funding he needed to conduct his business38. He was also a strong

advocate of civil liberties, unafraid to articulate his position, and one of the first people to

suggest that the ban on Catholicism should be lifted after the French had helped the colonies

fight for their independence.

Indeed, Rhode Island had adopted isolationist policies long before the Revolution. It

existed as a unit while other colonies existed merely by name. The fact that it took over three

years of sustained pressure to convince the state to ratify the Constitution, and even so with

the slimmest majority, is the epitome of this fact. They had led the way with the Gaspee

Affair, and had signed their own declaration of Independence, denouncing the British

Monarch, a full two months before the famous July 4 document.

Founded on the civil liberty, Rhode Island was the only state at the time that allowed

freedom of worship, except for Catholicism, which was allowed after the French, helped

America ward off their former colonialists. The personalities who straddled the Rhode Island

Assembly and political life are many, and the most famous are Ward and Hopkins, whose

bitter rivalry might have forged itself as the Islands strength39. The latter signed the

Declaration of Independence because the former died weeks before he could do so, making

them important parts of Rhode Island history, and the union itself. Hopkins is often touted as

38 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:

Simon & Schuster, 2010).39 Merrill Jensen, Tracts of the American Revolution, 1763-1776(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril,

1966).

23


24/108

having the worst signature of the 55 men who signed the document, although it is said that his

hands were shaking while he signed it.

Conclusion

The Country Party was elected to popular office in 1786 because of the rural fear that

the issuance of paper money would cease if the state ratified the document. The traders and

merchants such as John Brown wanted a stronger Union because it would alleviate the

troubles they were having with the paper money whose only worth was in the Island itself,

and would allow them to trade freely among the thirteen states. His brother, as were other

vocal abolitionists, was more concerned that the document lacked a comprehensive Bill of

Rights and little mention of slavery. The Political climate in Rhode Island was always tense

because the freemen met frequently in town councils, elected assembly members, and their

representatives.

With such short mandate, none of the politicians could afford not to stay abreast with

the sentiments of his constituents. This would explain why the Country Party held a steady

majority throughout the four years of the Constitution debate. The mercantile politicians were

outnumbered in the Assembly, and their only power was in the towns where they had allies in

the press and other disciplines. They had articles reprinted and tried to foster debate on the

advantages of joining the Union, but with little success. Even with this divisions, the most

important parts of this society was religion and politics, and with Mannings stable guidance,

education.

24


25/108

25


26/108

CHAPTER 2:

Ratification Debate in the Twelve States Other Than Rhode Island

During the Constitutional Convention, it was collectively agreed that the Constitution

would be reprinted and distributed to all the thirteen states. Once it was ratified by at least

nine states, Congress would then prepare to commence a system under it. The issue of nine

states brought with it a lot of controversy, as the Articles of Confederation had already

established the Union a few years earlier. The Constitution was therefore a confirmation of

the Union, and although the majority point raised a great controversy, the document was

received with enthusiasm.

The main reason behind the nine-state rule was that the Convention had been

shrouded in secrecy for its entire course, leading to the emergence of extensive rumors such

as those discussed in the previous chapter in Rhode Island. The Constitution was then

distributed to all states, and the general populace, eager for a strong nation, welcomed it and

waited for reviews of learned men. Subsequently, newspapers started to publish the articles

and reviews of legislators and men of high esteem, and led to a divided country.

Admittedly, the differences were those who were for the Constitution, known as the

Federalists, and those who were vehemently opposed to it, known as the Anti-Federalists.

.For them, the battle was between [Federalists], who supported ratification of the

constitution as written (or as it now stands) and the [Anti- federalists] who never

supported.40 Among the former were most of the Congress, George Washington, James

40 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010): 551.

26


27/108

Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin41. Among the latter were Patrick Henry,

George Clinton and George Mason.

The Constitution was openly debated, and the partisans had their own opinion in the

press and the state legislatures. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison

wrote what was known as the Federalist a series of eighty-five essays in support of the

Constitution. Their writings were legend and constantly referred to by other federalists. All

the States, including Rhode Island, by May 1790, ratified the Constitution. King, Gorham

and Madison were members of the Convention as well as the Congress and they travelled

wide to try to garner support for the document. The document could only be ratified in the

individual states by conventions held for that purpose.

Delaware was the first state to ratify the document (on 7 th December 1787) with a

unanimous vote, four days later, Pennsylvania followed suit five days later with a 66.67%,

New Jersey on December 19th and Georgia on January 2nd with unanimous votes42.

Connecticut followed on January 9th, Massachusetts on February 6th, Maryland on April 28th,

South Carolina on May 23rd, New Hampshire on June 21st, Virginia on June 25th and new

York on July 26th43. The last two states were North Carolina and Rhode Island on November

21,1789 and May 29, 1790.

Apart from Rhode Island, New York proved to be the headache for Federalists, first

the fact that it was strategically placed in commerce and political power made it a key state

for any side to capture. The same issues that seemed to be plaguing the legislature in Rhode

41 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010).42 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:

Simon & Schuster, 2010), 97-125.43 The order of ratification by state is as follows: (1) Delaware, (2) Pennsylvania, (3) New

Jersey, (4) Georgia, (5) Connecticut, (6) Massachusetts, (7) Maryland, (8) South Carolina, (9)

New Hampshire, (10) Virginia, (11) New York, (12) North Carolina, and (13) Rhode Island.

27


28/108

Island, mainly the conspicuous lack of a Bill of Rights, made it a nightmare for the federalist

campaign, led by Alexander Hamilton, to strike any significant gains in at least the first few

months. The State, however, finally ratified the document on July 26 1788. George Clinton

was then the Governor of New York and he was vehemently opposed to movements.

New York was a divided legislature given that two thirds of the delegates who had

been at the Convention were opposed to the document. Hamiltons persuasive abilities, as

well as his ability to reach a consensus with the anti-federalists, made it possible for the

ratification to take place. There were radical and moderate anti-federalists, with George

Clinton leading the former and Melncton heading the latter44. The vote to ratify the

constitution was the closest at the time, with only a majority of three votes. The radical

opposes had actually suggested that New York should seek to secede from the Union if the

Bill of Rights was not included and some parts of the document amended.

Actually, Hamiltons compromise agreement with the legislators included a clause

that a bill of Rights should be added to the document. The only reason why the moderate anti-

federalists voted for the document was the fact they were promised that this amendments

would be effected, and Hamilton wrote to James Madison on the matter. With this

compromise, the possibility of a secession of the key state was averted. Although the other

states would have existed as a Union without New York, its strategic importance was a key

concern, which explains why the cadre of federalists was adamant on getting the written

support of the leading politicians and public officials at the time.

There was also overwhelming concern, even from members of Congress themselves,

that the Philadelphia Convention had exceeded their mandate. The basis of this was that the

original purpose of the Convention was to revise the law of the land at the time, known as the

44 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010), 94.

28


29/108

Articles of the Confederation, but it ended up creating a new form of government all together.

While Clinton led the Anti-Federalist surge45in New York, James Monroe and Patrick Henry

led the Virginia factions.

Admittedly, just three months after the document had been released for state

conventions; the president of the Convention, Thomas Collins, led the debate, and the

Delaware debate had very little substance. The main reason could be that the state was more

interested in securing the capital city status, the seat of government, from Philadelphia, than

to meaningful debate on the document.

The fact that, Delaware would be an easy score for federalists had been known long

before the Constitution was sent to the different states because all its delegates had been

vocal in their support. There was virtually no dissent from its [General Assembly]46, and all

its press publications indicated strong support for a federal government. The fact that the

State delegates ratified the document after only a few hours of debate on the floor of the

House is clear indication shows its overwhelming support.

Delawares strengths would only be shown in a strong federal government; it was a

small state whose primary concerns were trade and the determination of tariffs. This means

the business community was largely supportive of the document, and the legislature showed

no apparent opposition. Richard Henry Lee, although a Virginian, did actually try to

encourage opposition in Delaware, but the unanimous vote shows he did not succeed47.

Pennsylvania wanted to be the first state to ratify the document and had Delaware not

done it so fast, then they would have succeeded. They were, in actual sense, the first to start

45 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:

Simon & Schuster, 2010), 334.46 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010), 52.47 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010), 126.

29


30/108

the process by calling the first state convention. Unlike Delaware, however, the Pennsylvania

legislature went through the document clause by clause. The state had growing support for

anti-federalism, and the federalists strategy was to push for early convention and ratification

to catch the former flat-footed. By the start of the convention, two-thirds of the delegates had

openly supported the document48. Through the three weeks of scrutiny, there was little

changed in the numbers among the convention delegates.

Noting this strategy, the anti-federalists decided to use their numbers. They called for

a postponement of the ratification process and left the Assembly, thereby denying it a

quorum. The largely federalist crowds forcibly brought them back to obtain a quorum, a

standard strong-arm practice at the time. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas McKean, the Chief

Justice at the time, visited the ratification convention and spoke in support of federalism,

strengthening the debate for the latter.

Assuredly, the newspapers were almost all supportive, and the delegates used this to

get pro-federalism materials published. This left Anti-federalists with little in choice of the

papers that would print their arguments, and they became largely defensive, their only

considerable victory being that the Constitution is scrutinized clause by clause. It resulted to

several tactics during the course of those three weeks, first following the anti-federalist

standard of attacking the document for the omission of a bill of rights. There was also a

signed petition from 750 Cumberland Countys inhabitants, a list of amendments and a

botched filibuster49.

The result was that the debate in Pennsylvania was never fair. The field was tilted in

favor of federalism by a biased press and a majority support in legislature and at the

48 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010), 392.49 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010), 498.

30


31/108

Convention. This support meant that opposes had to result to defensive reactions, and in the

end, they were humiliated. As a testing ground for federalism support, the aftermath of the

debate proved to be a pointer of the need for consensus building instead of strong-arm tactics

and bullying to push for an affirmative vote.

New Jersey was no different from Delaware. Although very few records of the debate

exist, it can be gathered from delegate of the Philadelphia Convention that they expected

New Jersey to be an easy victory50. Most of the debate was centered on the same concerns as

Delaware, the fact that their state was small and the current document accorded them the

same representation as bigger states. They feared that were it to be amended, the state might

lose this right. The resultant widespread support for the document can be seen in the petitions

sent to the legislature from the people of Gloucester, Middlesex, Burlington and Salem

counties. The state ratified the Constitution with a unanimous vote on December 18, after a

two-day section-by-section scrutiny of the document.

Georgia followed suit on January 2, 1788, becoming the first Southern state to ratify

the Constitution51. Its set of problems was unique, which made the idea of federalism

attractive. The cultural diversity, with Spaniards in Florida being a security headache for the

Cherokee and Creek Indian nations, the state appears to have been more concerned about its

security issues that the contents of the Constitution, at least at first. The legislature actually

approached the proposed Constitution as an afterthought, given that they had gathered at the

time to consider the rising threat of a looming Indian War. The Delegate selection itself had a

strong majority of federalists, and by the time they came to a vote on January 2, a unanimous

vote was in the offing.

50 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010), 129.51 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010), 508.

31


32/108

To militate against any sentiments of Anti-federalism, the General Assembly

empowered the Convention to partially ratify the Constitution is there was a part, or parts,

that they felt did not represent the interests of Georgia. Despite the fact that leading

politicians such as George Washington did not like the idea and termed as either

wickedness, or insanity the state was fraught with support for the document52.

In addition, the articles by Elbridge Gerry and the famed Centine; were published in

Georgia newspapers in the weeks prior to the convention. The main concern in this particular

state was that the Philadelphia Convention, and Congress, had both accorded too little time

for the states to discuss the Constitution.

To Georgians, however, the concern of security was more pressing than any concerns

about the document itself. The election of the past governors, Edward Telfair, John Whereat

and Nathan Brownson, current Governor George Mathews and Jared Irwin and George

Handley, the last two who also became Governors, is perhaps the clearest indication of how

important the document was to the People. To them, the dangers of insecurity53 and a

powerful central government meant that they had to choose one of the lesser of two evils.

Connecticut followed on 9 January 178854. It was the first state where real debate was

carried out. Sharp divisions had existed since the ratification process started on 17 October

1787. The Anti-federalist campaign was headed in the Assembly by Benjamin Gale. The

divisions were geographical than about the proposed Constitution. The federalist campaign

was led by those who hailed from settled areas, while the hinterland representatives were

largely against the document.

52 Lampan, Ronald Watts, Reid, Darrel Robert & Herperger, Dwight.Parallel accords: TheAmerican Precedent. 1990 (ILGR, Queens University). 28.53 The final unanimous vote is an indication of the temper at which the discussions were

carried out.54 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010), 509.

32


33/108

Undoubtedly, the federalist campaign used the stature of its delegates to the

Philadelphia Convention, and other former governors, ministers, lieutenant governors,

governors and other distinguished members of the society to promote their cause. As with

New Jersey, the short time frame was of major concern to most of the anti-federalists. The

federalists used this to flood the Convention with as many of their supporters as possible,

leading to a significant majority. Some strong-arm tactics were used, as well as sabotaging

methods such as the shuffling of papers to disrupt the Anti-federalist speeches.

The federalists a fear tactic organized a charging that the Constitution would protect

the smaller state from their stronger, dominant neighbor, the state of New York. Connecticut

and New York had long been at odds over the latters bullying tactics. The Constitution was

therefore, in their argument, a vote against dominance of New York. The smaller state would

be defending itself by agreeing to join the Union as a member state. Still, the anti-federalists

argued that a central government went against55the principles of the state.

New York Anti-federalists helped them obtain supportive documents and analysis56.

They were shut out of the popular press, which was very biased to federalism, and they tried

to use the floor of the Convention to achieve their aims. This never succeeded, as most of the

delegates had already made up their minds by the time they went to the Convention.

The killer blow was the arrival of information from Georgia that the state had

unanimously ratified the Constitution. Even the floor of the Convention now rapidly turned

against the Anti-Federalists. In letters, they wrote to their supporters in New York, they

acknowledged the defeat and indicated that any hope of the Constitution failing was in the

hands of the conventions of New York and Virginia. Connecticuts only issue, and it seemed

55 Although their concerns were never addressed, as they should have, they also included the

omission of a bill of rights guaranteeing personal freedom. Pauline Maier,Ratification: ThePeople Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010),56 They never got the kind of publication that would have swayed the delegates opinion.

33


34/108

to work for the federalists, was the fear of domination by New York, which would result in

exorbitant tariffs for commercial goods and other forms of commercial oppression.

As with the other states, the federalists used this fear that had lasted since the

Revolution, and incited the public into supporting the Constitution as a measure to ensure that

the state was recognized as an independent state with equal powers to those of bigger states.

Up to this point, the states that had ratified the document seemed to be driven by the need to

be independent and have equal representation with the bigger states. The arguments did not

focus on the document, but on the need to be part of the union. The issue of Bill of Rights

was raised repeatedly, but the Federalists rebuttal was that the document restricted the rights

of the central government so much, so that it would interfere with personal liberty and press

freedom.

Massachusetts was considered as the bedrock of anti-federalism. It was the third most

populous state, and both sides knew that whichever way it voted would determine the course

of the ratification process. The documents was going to be very hard to sell in Massachusetts

should have been the hothouse of what the Federalists called [Antifederalism].57 The state

was largely Anti-federalists, and it was assumed that the majority of the Convention delegates

were against the document. In the first five states, the anti-federalists had resulted to sabotage

methods58. The fact that Governor himself was openly anti-federalist made the argument in

the Assembly even harder. They adopted a conciliatory strategy, the first of which was

introducing amendments that would accompany the document, if it were ratified.

Governor John Hancock represented the federalist argument to the convention, the

strength being that he had not been part of the proceedings due to a serious case of gout. The

57 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010): 128.58 This is through delaying of the ratification process to give their Antifederalism cause time

to gain momentum.

34


35/108

federalists promised him that they would support his bid for the Vice-Presidency of the

Union, and the Presidency should Virginia fail to ratify, which would make the revered

George Washington ineligible for the position. The strategy won over the fence-sitting

delegates such as Charles Turner who now supported the Constitution.

Again, the concern of Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts was the apparent lack of a

Bill of Rights. They used Thomas Jeffersons opinion on the Constitution to bolster their

argument. As suggested by Pauline Maier:

Jefferson also had strong reservations about the constitution when he first read it in

Paris. He was appalled by the lack of bill of rights and the term limits for the

president, thought Federalist fears of imminent anarchy were ridiculously

exaggerated, and even suggested, like mason, that a second convention should be held

after the people made their will known [Massachusetts].59

Indeed, he had written in support of the constitution, but raised concern on the lack of

the Bill of Rights. He was of the opinion that a second convention was needed to handle this

matter. Massachusetts was the Decisive test the entire process, the federalist strategy,

although ultimately crude but strategically executed, managed to create a division in the anti-

federalist opposition. Their ratified document was unique in that it included the formal

recognition of the concerns of the anti-federalists.

After the narrow victory in Massachusetts, the debate moved to Maryland. As the

debate had moved through the first five states, a worrying trend begun to emerge, the

Constitution was getting more and more opposition as other states put ratifying conventions

in place. In Maryland, the federalists scored an early victory by having 64 of the 76 total seats

59 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010): 231.

35


36/108

at the state convention. However, the fact that the Anti-federalists listed William Paca60, a

former Governor and an able orator, in their ranks bolstered their prospects.

The main concern, as had been that of other opponents in previous conventions in

other states, was the apparent lack of a Bill of rights. Realizing that his cause would never

prevail in open debate, Paca suggested a deal, where the document would be ratified as long

as it was accompanied by a list of proposed amendments. It was an adoption of the

Massachusetts strategy, and eager to ratify the Constitution with a unanimous vote, the

Federalists agreed.

Unquestionably, they withdrew their support for fear that such a move would appear

disjointed and disrupt the whole the process. Paca had calculated his move well, because

either way he would make a point. When the Federalists withdrew their support, the point had

already been made, that the document had some major flaws that needed to be addressed.

One wonders why the Federalists in Maryland did not use their numerical advantage

to vote for the Constitution without having to stake a deal with Paca and his team. There

could be several reasons for this, the most plausible of which is the fact that even with a clear

majority; the Federalists did not want to appear as insensitive to the issues raised. If this is

true, then neither side lost, since the Anti-Federalists only wanted a promise that once the

document was added, then the necessary amendments would be made.

South Carolina followed, and as in Maryland some weeks before, the Federalists led a

clear majority at the state Convention. While the 149-73 vote was a strong indication of the

support the document had, it also showed several geographical splits that make this state

particularly interesting. The low country areas were largely Federalist while the backcountry

60 William Paca was a healthy lawyer, who led the opposition of Marylands to Britain and he

was the one who signed the declaration of independence, he was the governor and chief

justice of its supreme court. Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution,

1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010): 244.

36


37/108

delegates were mostly Ant-Federalist. The Anti-Federalist issues, articulated by Rwalin

Loundes, were mostly the same as those that had been raised in previous states, except for a

few fear tactics that they tried, with little success, to employ. They argued that the document

was aimed at forcing the northern states anti-slavery concerns on the Southern states and that

if amended; the Articles of the Confederation would make a much better document.

The Federalists had first tried the Massachusetts precedent of accompanying

proposals on the ratified document, but the Anti-Federalists insisted on having the document

thrown out as a whole. Even with prodding from other Anti-Federalists such as General John

Lamb from New York to push for specific amendments, the South Carolina group failed to

read the signs, resulting in the 2-1 defeat at the ratification ballot. With little organization and

pure lack of tact, the opposition debate in South Carolina never became much of anything.

The only thing that united these divergent groups was their collective opposition to the

document61.

In New Hampshire, a unique aspect emerged because the document had to go through

two state conventions before it was finally ratified on 21 June 1788.62 The first Convention

had a clear Anti-Federalist majority but it adjourned without taking a vote. The reasons for

this adjournment were mainly procedural and had little to do with the actual debate itself. The

Convention was adjourned in favor of a second convention, which sat a few weeks later at

Concord.

Nobody denies the ensuing vote was a narrow 57-47 win for the Federalists, making

New Hampshire the ninth state to ratify the document. As per the Philadelphia Convention,

once nine states had ratified the Constitution, it would then be considered as a valid document

61 Ibid., 1990, 41.62 Pauline Maier,Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 2010): 125.

37


38/108

for the United States. New Hampshire was the last element in this controversial two thirds-

majority rule.

In New Hampshire, as had happened in South Carolina, the organization of the

Federalist campaign was far more organized compared to the Anti-Federalists. Most

delegates were already at the first convention before their opponents arrived, and they used

delay tactics, as well as procedural concerns and bargaining. The Anti-Federalist delegates,

unsure of the level of support, only agreed to a second convention when the Federalists

agreed to hold it in, what was considered as largely Anti-Federalist land. This move was a

very clever political move for the Federalists.

With a four month-gap between the conventions, they launched a strong campaign for

the Constitution in the newspapers.63 They also included reports of the ratification by

Maryland and South Carolina. They used two approaches at the Second Convention; one was

to agree to amendments and the other to emphasize the key role of the state in the entire

process as the ninth state.

The Anti-federalists realized that the majority had slipped from them and they

adopted a new strategy, one that required that the towns bind their delegates into voting

against the document. They lost because the Federalist tact was superior and included a host

of contingency plans, which worked very effectively. The adjournment of the Exeter

Convention had given the Anti-Federalists a false sense of confidence, and the federalists had

used that time to ensure that they popularized64the Constitution. The pragmatic approach,

63 This debate went past simple discourse about the Constitution, sometimes featuring

personalized attacks on the leaders of the Anti-Federalist campaign. Pauline Maier,

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster,

2010): 331.64 The fact that they had a flexible strategy also worked well for the entire process because

they showed a high sense of democracy, as opposed to the dictatorial approach they could

have adopted if they had a clear majority. Ibid, 2010.

38


39/108

which includes a concession to attach an amendment requiring the inclusion of a Bill of

Rights, stifled the opposition, and brought the Constitution, at least technically, into effect as

the Law of the Union.

Even with nine states having ratified the document, the strategic importance of the

next two states meant that the debate on ratifying the document had only reached its peak.

Without Virginia and New York, the Union would not be complete, and the Federalist had to

ensure that a decisive battle was won in both states.

Therefore, when the Virginia Convention met on June 2, 1788 at Richmond, it was a

high stakes event. The convention was composed of respected generals and lawyers, on both

sides of the debate. Leading the Anti-federalists were Richard Henry Lee, George Mason and

Patrick Henry. Leading the Federalists was the Governor at the time Edmund Rundolph and

James Madison. The former had an advantage in the form of George Washington, the

President of the Philadelphia Convention and a widely respected war hero. The fact that he

had been part of the process itself perhaps added validity to the federalist cause, but neither

side was assured of a clear majority.

It was in Virginia, and perhaps later in Rhode Island, that the opposition went on an

all out offensive to have the document amended before it could be ratified. Their only

weakness was that they were an openly divided camp, with Richard H. Lee and George

Mason arguing that however, Virginia voted would not really matter because nine states had

already ratified the Constitution. Richard H. Lee proposed that the state should therefore

adopt a combative approach, and ratify the document with an attachment that if a

comprehensive Bill of Rights were not inserted within two years, it would secede from the

Union. The concerns here went beyond simple personal liberty, it involved the powers that

39


40/108

the Constitution had accorded to Congress to regulate commerce. The strategy here is

commendable, even by todays standards because the Union was a foregone conclusion.

The other group of Anti-federalists, led by Patrick Henry did not like this approach.

They insisted on having the document amended before it could be ratified. These

amendments were necessary under, Henrys opinion; the document was into effect and could

be amended. He was the better orator of the group insisted on inclusion of a bill of rights,

press freedom, jury trial, rights of conscience and other changes he felt were necessary to the

document.

A trend seems to have emerged since the first two states ratified the document. The

Anti-federalists had several objections to rise about the document, but centered on the Bill of

Rights. It was no different in Virginia where the Anti-Federalists used the clause-by-clause

scrutiny to point out the various aspects of the Constitution that would harm state freedom.

The fact that the document lacked a Bill of Rights and the Constitution stated that the

document would be the Supreme law of the Union meant that any bill of rights enacted by

an individual State could be overridden. They were also worried that the document contained

a hegemonic and monstrous federal government.

On the other hand, the Federalists lacked tact, at least at first perhaps due to the

spirited double prong attacks from the Anti-federalists. Their counter argument was based on

James Wilsons theory that Congress could not legislate anything outside that which the

Constitution authorized it to. They argued that attaching conditional amendments would

weaken the states position and the other states could throw it out of the Union. This

difference splayed out in the introduction of two motions, one to ratify the document and the

other to do so but with set conditions. The Federalists tried the conciliatory approach that had

40


41/108

worked in Massachusetts, South Carolina and New Hampshire but the Anti-Federalists

refused to consider it, knowing very well that it was a short-term fix.

The conditional ratification motion was defeated with a ten-vote margin and on 25

June, Virginia voted to ratify the Constitution. A list of 20 improvements to the Constitution,

and 20 recommendations including the need for a Bill of Rights was included and forwarded

with the ratified document. The importance that Virginia was also due to the fact that George

Washington, a Virginian, would be locked out of the Presidency if the state did not ratify the

document.

With ten states already having ratified the Constitution, the battle then shifted to New

York. As with Virginia, the strategic position and significance of the State of New York

made the debate a very important win for any side, if only for the viability of the Union 65.

The state was largely divided from the start of the Philadelphia Convention, and it took the

two Houses of the assembly three days to agree on a motion to elect delegates to a

convention.

The only point of consensus was the advantage of holding a late convention to allow

the populace to read the document and give their views, and to test how it would do in other

states. They also hoped that by the time they held their ratification convention, the minimum

required for the document to be put into use would have been reached. They were also

worried that in case they rejected the Constitution before it became operational, then they

would cause a ripple effect that would lead to the failure of the entire process. They had also

hoped that they could influence two or three other smaller states to reject the document first,

but this was never the c

dissertation ,debate in rhodes island over whether or not to ratify us constitution

Documents