and resulted in the success of the Federalists.* An acrimonious debate in the press and in the shape of pamphlets on both sides of the question had meanwhile been carried on and every conceivable argument was used both in favor of and against the adoption.† There were papers by "Homespun, ""American Citizens," "Turk," "Tar and Feathers," "John Humble, Secretary," " Gaul,” "Briton," "One of the People," "Federal Constitution" and scores. of others. The Anti-Federalists were assisted by Richard Henry Lee, who published a series of papers entitled Letters from the Federal Farmer, thousands of copies of which were scattered throughout Pennsylvania. His chief objections were that he saw in the proposed plan the seeds of democracy and centralization; that in the National legislature the vote was to be by individuals and not by States; that this body had an unlimited power of taxation; that the Federal judiciary had too much power; that the members were to be paid out of the National treasury and would thus be independent of their own States; that an oath of allegiance to the Federal government was required; and that no bill of rights was included. "Turk" said: "Your President general will greatly resemble in his powers the mighty Ahdul

See McMaster, pp. 458-460.

Fiske, Critical Period, p. 312; McMaster, pp. 461-472.

Fiske, Critical Period, pp. 313-314.

Ahmed, our our august Senate will be his

7

Sultan - the divan - your

standing army will come in place of our janizaries - your judges unchecked by vile juries might with great propriety be styled cadis."* Pelatiah Webster and a few others put forth some powerful arguments in favor of the Constitution, and James Wilson made a speech before a mass meeting in the state house at Philadelphia "remarkable among the speeches at that troubled time for coolness of reasoning and dignity of language." Wilson did not have Hamilton's political genius nor Madison's talent for debate and constitutional analysis, but in the comprehensiveness of his views and in the perception of the necessities of the country he fully equalled them and was one of their most efficient and best informed coadjutors.‡

On November 20 the Convention assembled and a stormy session began, the members at various times almost coming to blows. Wilson and Thomas McKean led the Federalists; the Antis were led by Robert Whitehill, John Smilie and William Findley. So obstructive did the tactics of the Antis become that the Federalists grew enraged. Hour after hour was wasted by each side in abusing the other and whole days were spent

McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, p. 281.

McMaster, United States, vol. i., p. 463. See also Thorpe, Story of the Constitution, p. 153. Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., p. 642.

8

in discussing the meaning of simple words. In this way three weeks quickly passed. The chief objections to the Constitution were the omission of a bill of rights and because the existence of the States was endangered by the consolidation of the government.* The Antis also inveighed against the infrequency of elections, the exclusive authority of Congress and the powers of the judiciary. Wilson bore the brunt of the contest and made some remarkable speeches. † After three weeks of discussion, the Anti-Federalists offered fifteen amendments and proposed that the convention be adjourned so that the people of the State might discuss and approve or reject them. The Federalists resisted all such dilatory tactics, and by insisting upon an immediate rejection or ratification finally succeeded, December 12, 1787, in obtaining a ratification by a vote of 46 to 23. Excitement was high and it was claimed by the Anti-Federalists that the convention was illegal because of the use of force in the Legislature to secure a quorum to pass the resolution for calling the convention, because only 13,000 out of 70,000 voters in the State had

McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788 (1888), p. 268.

For some of the important features of these speeches, see Elliot, Debates, vol. ii., p. 422; McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, pp. 221, 227, 316, 415.

Elliot, Debates, vol. i., p. 319. See also Sharpless, Two Centuries of Pennsylvania History, p. 228; McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, pp. 285-287.

voted for delegates to the convention, and because though 46 delegates had voted to ratify, these 46 represented only 6,800 constituents. Several riots occurred between the adherents of the two parties and a number of dinners and processions were held to express joy at the favorable action.*

In the meantime, on December 7, the Constitution was unanimously ratified by Delaware (the first State to ratify), and she was followed on the 18th of the same month by New Jersey without a dissenting voice, and by Georgia on January 2, 1788, without an amendment or an adverse vote. On January 9, 1788, the Connecticut convention, after a stormy session of five days, also gave a large majority in favor of adoption, the vote standing 128 to 40. On April 28, 1788, after a sharp struggle, Maryland ratified by a vote of 63 to 11 (the minority, however, proposing 28 amendments); South Carolina ratified May 23 by a vote of 140 to 73 (with 4 amendments proposed).t The chief struggles were in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, and North Carolina, while

McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 472–475. See also McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, p. 429.

For the details of the conventions in these States, see Bancroft, vol. vi., pp. 381-395, 415420; McMaster, vol. i., pp. 474-476, 485-489; Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., chap. xxxiv. See also Orin G. Libby, The Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution, 1787–1788, in University of Wisconsin Bulletins in Economics, Political Science and History, series i., no. i. (1894).

Rhode Island refused to call a convention.*

The convention of Massachusetts opened in January 1788, and the Constitution was discussed paragraph by paragraph. It was supposed that if the Massachusetts convention should ratify, the other States would be greatly influenced to act favorably upon this important question. Most of the prominent men of the State were members of the convention, such men as James Bowdoin, Rufus King, and Fisher Ames advocating the Constitution, while opposed to them were men of no less courage and ability. John Hancock gave the Federalists only lukewarm support. Samuel Adams strongly opposed the Constitution, while Nathaniel Dane had denounced it and Gerry had refused to sign it.† As Schouler says, the very preponder⚫ance of learning, wealth, renown, and social respectability of the Federalists more closely united the opposition forces, jealous of city cliques, whose votes and influence could not be ignored. The subject was debated for an entire month and even then it was uncertain as to just what course the convention would follow.||

Richman, Rhode Island, p. 254; Bates, Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union, p. 162 et seq.

See McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, pp. 292–293; Thorpe, Story of the Constitution, p. 154; Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., p. 648 et seq.

Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 67.

On the proceedings see Bancroft, vol. vi., pp. 395-408; Elliot, Debates, vol. ii.

9

One of the members speaks of the opposition as follows:

"Never was there an assembly in this state in possession of greater abilities and information, than the present Convention; yet I am in doubt whether they will approve the Constitution. There are unhappily three parties opposed to it. 1. All men who are in favor of paper money and tender laws. These are more or less in every part of the state. 2. All the late insurgents, and their abettors. We have in the Convention eighteen or twenty who were actually in Shays's army. 3. A great majority of the members from the province of Maine. Many of them and their constituents are only squatters upon other people's land, and they are afraid of being brought to account. They also think, though erroneously, that their favorite plan of being a separate state, will be defeated. Add to these, the honest doubting people, and they make a powerful host." *

The proceedings began with a desultory debate on the various parts of the instrument, which lasted until January 30,† the friends of the Constitution having carefully provided at the outset that no separate question should be taken. After discussion

See also Fiske, Critical Period, pp. 316-320. In the debate concerning the army, one of the Maine delegates said: "Had I the voice of Jove I would proclaim it throughout the world; and had I an arm like Jove, I would hurl from the globe those villains that would dare attempt to establish in our country a standing army." Fear was expressed that the government would come into the hands of knaves, but Samuel West, a delegate from New Bedford, said: "I wish that the gentlemen who have started so many possible objections would try to show us that what they so much deprecate is probable. Because power may be abused, shall we be reduced to anarchy? What hinders our state legislatures from abusing their powers! May we not rationally suppose that the persons we shall choose to administer the government will be, in general, good men?" Abraham White of Bristol, however, said: "I would not trust them though every one of them should be a Moses." See Fiske, Critical Period, pp. 321-324.

10

He

had been exhausted, Theophilus Parsons moved that the instrument be assented to and ratified. One or two general speeches followed this motion and then Hancock, who had previously been detained by illness but who had taken his seat as president of the convention, descended from the chair and, with some conciliatory assertions, proposed some amendments which should later be incorporated into the Constitution. brought these amendments forward, he said, to quiet the apprehensions and remove the doubts of gentlemen "relying on their candor to bear him witness that his wishes for a good constitution were sincere." But his proposed form of ratification contained a distinct and separate acceptance of the Constitution, and the amendments followed it, with recommendation that they be "introduced into the said Constitution."’* Hancock's proposition gave a new aspect to the matter, and the amendments were referred to a committee and reported with some alterations. The result was that some of the members of the Convention like Samuel Adams, who had previously opposed the the Constitution, now became its warm advocates.† Jonathan Smith, a liberal-minded farmer of Lanesborough, stated the case almost as forcibly as Fisher

a

Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., pp. 653-654.

Elliot, Debates, vol. ii., p. 123; McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 478-479; Thorpe, Story of the Constitution, p. 157.

Ames, with all his eloquence. Said he:

"I am a plain man, and am not used to speak in public, but I am going to show the effects of anarchy, that you may see why I wish for a good government. Last winter people took up arms, and then, if you went to speak to them, you had the musket of death presented to your breast.

They would rob you of your property, threaten to burn your houses, oblige you to be on your guard night and day. Alarms spread from town to town, families were broken up; the tender mother would cry 'Oh, my son is among them! What shall I do for my child?' Some were taken captive; children taken out of their schools and carried away. How dreadful was this! Our distress was so great that we should have been glad to snatch at anything that looked like a gov ernment. ** Now, Mr. President, when I saw this Constitution, I found that it was a cure for these disorders. I got a copy of it, and read it over and over. * I did not go to any lawyer, to

*

ask his opinion; we have no lawyer in our town and we do well enough without. My honourable old daddy there, won't think that I expect to be a Congressman, and swallow up the liberties of the people. I never had any post, nor do I want one. But I don't think the worse of the Constitution because lawyers, and men of learning, and moneyed men are fond of it. I am not of such a jealous make. They that are honest men themselves are not apt to suspect other people. Brother farmers, let us suppose a case, now. Suppose you had a farm of fifty acres, and your title was disputed, and there was a farm of five thousand acres joined to you that belonged to a man of learning, and his title was involved in the same difficulty: would you not be glad to have him for your friend rather than stand alone in the dispute? Well, the case is the same. These lawyers, these moneyed men of learning are all embarked in the same cause with us, and we must all sink or swim together. Shall we throw the Constitution overboard because it does not please us all alike? Suppose two or three of you had been at the pains to break up a piece of rough land and sow it with wheat: would you let it lie waste because you could not agree what sort of a fence to make? Would it not be better to put up a fence that did not please every one's fancy, rather than keep disputing about it until the wild beasts came in and devoured the crop? Some gentlemen say, Don't be in a hurry; take time to consider. I say, There is a time to sow and a time to reap. We sowed our seed when we sent men

to the Federal Convention, now is the time to reap the fruit of our labors; and if we do not do it now, I am afraid we shall never have another opportunity."

Fisher Ames then arose and asked

for an immediate adoption of the Constitution, pointing out the danger of delay and the pending disaster which threatened the whole country should the Constitution fail to be

11

The long delay in the decision of the Massachusetts convention had raised the excitement to fever heat throughout the country. Not only were the New England people anxiously awaiting news of the action of the convention, but intrigues were going on as far south as Virginia to influence the result. On January 21 the Boston Gazette appeared with

States. He said:

"Shall we put every thing to hazard by rejecting this Constitution? We have great advantages by it in respect of navigation; and it is the general interest of the states that we should have them. But if we reject it, what security have we that we shall obtain them a second time against the local interests and prejudices of the other states? Who is there that really loves liberty, that will not tremble for its safety, if the federal government should be dissolved? Can liberty be safe without government? * The union is essential to our being as a nation. The pillars that prop it are crumbling to powder. The union is the vital sap that nourishes the tree. If we reject the Constitution, to use the language of the country, we girdle the tree, its leaves will wither, its branches drop off, and the mouldering trunk will be torn down by the tempest. What security has this single state against foreign enemies? Could we defend the vast country, which the British so much desire? Can we protect our fisheries, or secure by treaties a sale of the produce of our lands in foreign markets? Is there no loss, no danger, by delay? In spite of our negligence and perverseness, are we to enjoy at all times the privilege of forming a Constitution, which no other nation has enjoyed at all? We approve our own form of government, and seem to think ourselves in safety under its protection. We talk as if there was no danger of deciding wrong. But when the inundation comes, shall we stand on dry land? The state government is a beautiful structure. It is situated, however, on the naked beach. The union is the dyke to fence out the flood. That dyke is broken and decayed, and if we do not repair it, when the next spring tide comes, we shall be buried in one common ruin."

See Fiske, Critical Period, pp. 324–326.

CORRUPTION!!! The most diabolical plan is on foot to corrupt the members of the convention who oppose the adoption of the new Constitution. Large sums of money have been brought from a neighboring state for that purpose, contributed by the wealthy. If so, is it not probable that there may be collections for the same accursed purpose nearer home? "'* However this might have been, it is certain that Richard Henry Lee wrote to Gerry urging that the Constitution should not be adopted without insisting upon various amendments; and, in order to consider these amendments, it was suggested that another Federal Convention be held. Washington, however, offset the influence of this suggestion by writing:

"If another Federal Convention is attempted, its members will be more discordant and will agree upon no general plan. The Constitution is the best that can be obtained at this time.

The Constitution or disunion are before us to choose from. If the Constitution is our choice, a constitutional door is open for amendments, and they may be adopted in a peaceable manner without tumult or disorder."

Fiske, Critical Period, p. 328.