Dr. Ferling highlighted that while much is discussed about American politics during the war, there were significant political divisions in Britain as well. A large minority faction, primarily the Whigs, opposed the British policies that led to the war, such as taxation and tightening trade regulations. Many Whigs felt a kinship with the American protesters, viewing them as compatriots who were also offended by the monarch's policies, and feared King George III was becoming too powerful. They also doubted Britain's ability to win the war, arguing that the vast territory of the colonies would make suppressing a widespread rebellion very difficult. A significant concern for the Whigs was the fear that the Bourbon powers, France and Spain, would eventually enter the war on the side of the colonists, which they believed would leave the British with very little chance of suppressing the American rebellion. Prominent figures opposing the war included Lord Chatham (William Pitt), and Edmund Burke, part of the Rockingham faction within Parliament. They had consistently opposed new colonial policies since the Stamp Act and Townshend Duties starting around 1765.
While there was initially some effort to unite behind the war effort once it began, dissent in England began to grow significantly, particularly from around 1777. Factors contributing to this included growth in taxation, fear of driving Britain into bankruptcy, damage to British shipping, a depression in some industries (especially textiles) leading to considerable unemployment, and sinking morale. Many unemployed workers even joined the British army as their only means of support. This discontent arguably came to a head in the Gordon Riots in the summer of 1779, which were initially sparked by anti-Catholicism but likely had an anti-war and anti-government dimension. These riots caused significant property destruction in London, with Lord North's residence damaged and Edmund Burke having to seek shelter. Following the riots, American Secretary Germaine stressed to British generals like Sir Henry Clinton the urgency of ending the war quickly due to growing opposition and declining morale in Britain. The administration had even considered arming Irish Catholics for the war, which contributed to the anti-Catholic sentiment that spurred the Gordon Riots.
By 1779, the war had become a costly war of attrition and a stalemate, leading to sinking morale not only in Britain but also in America. American civilians faced scarcities, deprivation, and heavier taxes than they had before the war. Opinion in America was also divided from the beginning, with a significant portion remaining loyal to England (historians often estimate around 20% of activists were loyalists). By 1780, many American leaders were growing tired of the war. Arthur Lee, returning to America in 1780, was surprised to find that even leaders in Massachusetts, considered the "head of the snake" by the British, expected a negotiated settlement short of independence. The British, by 1780, believed that time was on their side, hoping that economic problems and sagging morale would eventually lead the colonists to accept a settlement short of full independence.
Initially, the British North ministry was convinced the war would be short, believing the navy could handle it and that American militia would not stand against regular soldiers. However, dissenters within the ministry warned that a prolonged conflict could bring France and Spain into the war. The British were right that they had time before France's entry, which occurred in February 1778, almost three years after the war began in April 1775. Dr. Ferling suggests it was conceivable Britain could have suppressed the rebellion militarily early on if they had followed the advice of General Thomas Gage, who recommended sending a large army before using force to quickly overwhelm the rebels. The North Ministry did not do this, starting the war with only 5,000 troops in America, leading to early British losses at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill.
France began sending secret agents to America almost immediately after the war started. One key agent was Bonvouloir, a French army officer posing as a businessman, who met with the Continental Congress's secret committee in Philadelphia. Bonvouloir reported back to French Foreign Minister Vergennes that the Americans had an army and militia but lacked crucial supplies like weapons, uniforms, and tents. He recommended France provide secret assistance. Vergennes advocated for this secret aid to King Louis XVI's council, emphasizing secrecy to avoid war for the moment. Despite fears from finance ministers that this would lead to bankruptcy (which it eventually did), the young King Louis XVI agreed to provide secret assistance and consistently supported Vergennes's plans throughout the war.
France's motivations for getting involved were twofold: revenge against Britain for losses in the Seven Years' War (Canada, territory in India, Africa, and west of the Appalachians) and the desire to weaken Britain by stripping it of its wealthy American colonies. Vergennes was the driving force behind this policy, which the French foreign ministry had considered since the Stamp Act a decade before the war. Dr. Ferling noted that Vergennes played a pivotal role in America's victory and is arguably a "forgotten founder" compared to figures like Lafayette, who became the public face of French support.
Initially, France's covert aid strategy may have been constrained by the need to rebuild its navy, which was decimated in the Seven Years' War and not expected to be ready until 1778. France was impressed by Washington's leadership and believed their assistance could help the Americans prolong the war until Britain granted independence. The American victory at Saratoga in October 1777 was a turning point. Vergennes feared that the British North government would offer peace terms that the Americans might accept, which would keep the colonies within the British Empire. To prevent this, Vergennes felt compelled to propose an open alliance and entry into the war. Louis XVI agreed, and the Franco-American alliance was quickly negotiated and finalized in February 1778. Washington believed the alliance assured American independence. France's greatest fear was that the Americans might make a separate peace with Britain, leaving France to face Britain alone. After the alliance, France provided crucial economic support to America.
Vergennes secured the king's sanction to send a large naval squadron under Admiral d'Estaing to America, hoping for a quick victory through cooperation with Washington. However, d'Estaing's efforts in America were unsuccessful due to issues like shallow harbors, weather, and heavy casualties in assaults. After d'Estaing's failures, opposition to the war grew in France, with some advocating withdrawal or shifting focus to other theaters like the Mediterranean.
Vergennes sought to bring Spain into the war, and Spain formally entered in 1780. Spain's demands in the negotiations with France were described as "extortionate," including regaining Gibraltar, Minorca, and Florida. The treaty committed France to staying in the war until Spain achieved these goals; Spain eventually gained Minorca and Florida but not Gibraltar. Spain's motivation was to take advantage of Britain's weakness and isolation, as Britain lacked its traditional European allies in this conflict. Spain never formally allied with the Americans but fought separately against Britain.
Following France's entry, Britain began retracting forces (like pulling out of Philadelphia) and adopted a defensive strategy, shifting their focus to the Southern states. This Southern Strategy, starting in 1778, aimed to capitalize on perceived loyalist support in the South after failing to suppress the rebellion in the North. The British hoped to hold Florida (which they had gained in the Seven Years' War) and conquer Georgia, the Carolinas, and potentially leave a smaller, surrounded independent America that might eventually return to the British Empire. The British considered this a wise strategy "on paper".
France and Spain planned a joint invasion of England in 1779, raising large armies and navies. However, this invasion attempt failed due to delays and widespread disease within the fleets. After the failed invasion, France opted against trying again in 1780, leading to the idea of sending a French army to America. Louis XVI agreed to send an army under General Rochambeau, which landed in Rhode Island in July 1780. Vergennes also pushed for a large French fleet, and in 1781, Admiral de Grasse was appointed commander of a major squadron (over 20 ships) that eventually sealed off Chesapeake Bay with nearly 30 ships, trapping Cornwallis at Yorktown. De Grasse's move to the Chesapeake was initially at Rochambeau's request, unknown to Washington, although Washington later approved.
Holland also played a role, initially funneling supplies to the Americans even before the war. As the war progressed and neutral trade suffered, Holland showed interest in joining the League of Armed Neutrality. Britain declared war on the Dutch once they did, and Holland suffered significant losses, with Britain continuing the war against them for a year after making peace with the other belligerents.
The war was costly and bloody, leading to significant deaths on all sides. The victory at Yorktown allowed the Americans to end the war on favorable terms. Peace negotiations began shortly after Yorktown. The American negotiating team initially included Benjamin Franklin, later joined by John Jay and John Adams. They achieved a "splendid treaty" that secured not only independence but also extensive territory west to the Mississippi River, which was more than stipulated in the alliance with France. To secure this western territory, the Americans signed a separate preliminary treaty with Britain in November 1782, violating the terms of the alliance with France, which angered Vergennes. The Americans justified it as a preliminary agreement contingent on France also making peace. This separate treaty undercut France and Spain's bargaining power. Spain was particularly upset about the Americans gaining western territory. Spain itself focused on regaining East and West Florida from Britain, which it did through military action during the war.
Dr. Ferling's book covers the scope of the war beyond the fighting in the 13 colonies, including naval engagements in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, English Channel, and on the high seas. It also examines the military forces of the belligerents and the experiences of civilians on the home front, including deprivation, atrocities, and the role of slaves seeking freedom. He also touched on **Baron de Kalb**, a French army officer and secret agent who came to America before the war in the late 1760s to assess the likelihood of war and American capability. Kalb reported war was not imminent and Americans lacked capability for another generation. Kalb later served with the Continental Army but was killed at the Battle of Camden in 1780.
Finally, the discussion briefly touched on the War of 1812, noting that weaknesses in the Treaty of Paris, particularly the unresolved border dispute with Canada, contributed to the later conflict. This border dispute remained unresolved until the 1840s. For about 100 years after the Revolution, there was considerable animosity between the US and Britain, fueled by issues like the impressing of American sailors. Relations improved later, partly due to Britain's concerns about Germany. Dr. Ferling is currently working on a new book about baseball from his childhood era, a departure from the American Revolution.
Last week we covered the first four state ratifications of the Constitution. Delaware, New Jersey, and Georgia, all relatively small states, ratified quickly and unanimously. Pennsylvania also ratified, but only after anti-federalists objected to how quickly the federalists pushed it through. Stronger headwinds began to blow as the opposition got more organized and the more skeptical states began to consider this document.
By the end of 1787, just over three months after its release, more than 200 printers had reproduced copies of the Constitution across the continent. Essays and editorials, both for and against ratification, pushed their way into the public debate as well.
There were a host of reasons that opponents raised, about both the process and the principles. The lack of a bill of rights became a major sticking point for many. But the more general philosophical objection was that this new Constitution was an attempt by powerful and wealthy interests to consolidate power. It was an attempt to deny the states the freedoms they had won in the Revolutionary War. Some argued that this new powerful federal government would be more arbitrary and despotic than even British rule had been.
At the same time the federalists, that is supporters of ratification, saw this as a fight between good government and anarchy. The union under the articles was falling apart. States were violating the rights of their own people and were moving closer to war with one another. If left unchecked, it would result in secession, civil war, and, perhaps, many states returning to British rule to avoid the threats of their neighbor states.
Even if this proposed constitution was imperfect, it represented the last best hope to save the union. They saw the opposition as men driven by selfish interests, wanting to hold onto their power at the state level and at the expense of risking the end of the union. They compared the antifederalists to the loyalists for their desire to destroy the United States, or as Shaysites for supporting civil unrest and mob rule over good government. With this ideological conflict raging the ratification efforts continued.
Connecticut Ratification
The next state to consider ratification was Connecticut. This was the first New England state to consider the new constitution.
Connecticut had been caught up in the political battles in recent years between the merchant class and the farmers that raged through all of New England. These were the same things that resulted in Shay Rebellion the year before, and the takeover of the Rhode Island government which was destroying the financial system in the state to assist indebted farmers. Since Connecticut had many of these same divisions, one would expect that there would be divisions over a more powerful federal government that could have more control over taxes, trade, commerce and financial systems.
The leadership in Connecticut seemed all in favor of the new Constitution. This was a document that would bring stability to a region threatened with anarchy. While there was still a minority in the legislature that expressed some opposition, they were a minority.
Connecticut newspapers all lent their strong support to the Constitution. There were six state newspapers at the time. All of them ran numerous essays in favor of the constitution, including several written by delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth. Although the papers ran a few anti-federalist articles that were reprinted from out of state papers, they pretty much ignored any local opposition.
Local supporter David Humphreys, in a letter to George Washington just after the end of the convention, noted that the professional classes, clergy, lawyers, physicians, and merchants, seemed uniformly in favor of the new government, as were former Continental officers.
The Connecticut legislature voted in October, about a month after the convention in Philadelphia had ended, to hold elections for a ratifying convention. That election took place on November 12, and the convention met beginning on January 3, 1788.
Many local towns debated the constitution at town meetings. Some of those who elected delegates to the convention sent them with instructions to vote no.
There was certainly disagreement at the ratifying convention, but the majority did not simply push through their vote. Delegates agreed to go through the constitution section by section. Roger Sherman, who had been a voice of moderation at the Philadelphia Convention, spoke up as one of the leading advocates at the ratifying convention.
The advocacy did have an impact. There were a number of delegates who spoke against the Constitution during the debates but who ended up voting in favor of ratification. At least one of these violated his instructions to vote no.
The final vote for ratification took place on January 9. The vote of 128 to 40 was not unanimous as it has been in three of the four previous conventions, but it was a much larger margin than the vote in the other large state, Pennsylvania, that had already ratified.
Massachusetts Ratification
On the same date, January 9, that the final ratification vote in Connecticut took place, the Massachusetts ratification convention began. Generally speaking, a majority in Massachusetts seemed to be in favor of a stronger federal government. Shays’ Rebellion reinforced this view among government leaders in favor of greater federal power. Even so, many state leaders seemed skeptical of the Constitution as proposed.
A month had passed between the end of the Convention in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787, and the assembly of the Massachusetts legislature on October 17. Several days after the session began, Governor John Hancock presented it to the legislature. When he did this, Hancock refused to endorse or object to the constitution but simply said that it was “not being within the duties of my office to decide upon this momentous affair.”
Privately, Hancock expressed concerns that the document was “subversive” of certain inalienable rights, although he did not get into specifics. He also commended that it was “not sufficiently democratic” and too restrictive of state and local powers. My view is that Hancock was behaving like a politician, mostly waiting to see how public opinion turned on the matter before committing himself. But he certainly wasn't leading in either direction on this issue.
Samuel Adams, at this time, was President of the State Senate. He came out against the Constitution initially, seeing a powerful national government as a threat to Massachusetts sovereignty. He thought the US was too large to be governed by a single government and that it could only work as a federal union of sovereign states. This proposal went too far in giving too much power to the central government.
Even so, Adams was also cautious politically. Although he did voice his concerns, he did not declare himself a full throated opponent of ratification. He also seemed willing to reconsider his views on the topic, if public opinion swayed one way or another.
Perhaps the loudest voice in opposition to ratification, was Elbridge Gerry. He was one of the most active delegates at the Convention, and one of only three who were there on the last day to refuse to sign the document.
Gerry had gone to the Philadelphia Convention in favor of a more powerful central government. But as the Constitution developed in Philadelphia, Gerry’s opposition grew. By August, he had become an opponent. The proposed Constitution was too powerful, and endangered the "liberties of the people and the independence of the states." He feared this new government would eventually morph into an aristocracy or a monarchy.
Nathan Dane, who had spoken against the Constitution at the Confederation Congress in New York, also became an outspoken opponent of ratification in Massachusetts. Speaker of the House James Warren also opposed ratification, writing several pamphlets in opposition. His wife, Mercy Otis Warren, also wrote a pamphlet against ratification. So the top leadership elected in the state, stood somewhere between tepidly opposed to the Constitution and very opposed to the Constitution. The leadership was not strongly in favor, as we've seen in previous states, where ratification had already been considered.
Support for ratification fell to two of the convention delegates, Rufus King and Nathaniel Gorham. Both of them led the campaign in favor. King regularly corresponded with James Madison to keep him informed of progress. Gorham did not participate much in the debates because he had been Chairman of the Committee of the Whole during the Philadelphia Convention. But he strongly supported ratification in Massachusetts.
Another person you might think might have an interest in this was John Adams. But he was still serving in London and could not really participate in the debate. Elbridge Gerry sent Adams a copy of the proposed document. Adams expressed some concerns, but ultimately favored ratification. Even so, his absence from the country meant that he could not have a meaningful voice in the debate.
Because there was not unified support among the state leaders, there was much greater doubt about the outcome in Massachusetts. There was no unified group of opinion leaders to push popular sentiment in favor of ratification.
In previous episodes, we've discussed the political divide that existed in Massachusetts at this time, between the farmers, primarily in the western part of the state and the merchants in the eastern part. When it came to ratification, the farmers opposed it. The merchants supported it.
Gerry kicked off the opposition debate by sending a letter to the legislature explaining the objections that caused him to refuse to sign the Constitution. A short time later, this was printed in local newspapers.
Massachusetts had twelve newspapers at the time, all of which printed the proposed constitution. Several began printing articles from the Pennsylvania Ratification Debate. Opinions by James Wilson and Benjamin Franklin were republished. Articles from other out of state debates also found their way into the papers. The majority favored the Constitution, but some were in opposition. There were actually very few articles written in Massachusetts in the early weeks of the debate.
After formally receiving the proposed Constitution on October 18, the Massachusetts legislature did what all legislatures like to do. It formed a committee to study the matter. The committee reported back a day later with recommendations to call a convention, that voters should choose the delegates to the convention, and that the number of delegates would be the same for each town district that they had for representatives in the state legislature. In other words, representation would be based on population, rather than a fixed number from each county, as earlier states had done. Initially, the convention was set to begin on December 12. There was also some argument over whether the towns would have to pay the expenses of their delegates. One suggestion was to just hold votes in town meetings and not have a state-wide convention. This was shot down, and the legislature eventually agreed to cover the costs of the delegates.
There were also those in the legislature who argued against a convention entirely. They gave the same arguments that we heard in other states, that the Philadelphia Convention had exceeded its authority by creating a new government, and that these changes violated the requirement that all amendments to the articles be unanimous.
The majority in the legislature, however, thought that all of this was a matter for the convention. They set the election of delegates beginning on November 19, the convention to begin on January 9.
More than 300 Massachusetts towns held elections for delegates. Some did not get around to selection until January 7, just two days before the ratifying convention began. There were probably close to 400 delegates who attended.
The ratifying convention first met in the State House, but the size of the convention, along with large numbers of people who wished to observe the convention, resulted in officials moving to a larger church on Brattle Street, and then an even larger one on Long Lane (today, Federal Street).
As had happened in Pennsylvania, the pro-ratification delegates hoped for a quick vote of approval without amendments. However, it became apparent that a majority of delegates were inclined to vote no. A great many of them had been sent with instructions by their towns to vote no.
The Massachusetts tradition of citizen debate and involvement in such issues resulted in an extended debate. Delegates agreed to go through the document, looking at each paragraph and letting everyone express their views. Rather than wrapping up the convention in a week, which had been the case in earlier states, the Massachusetts convention debated for a month.
Over the course of debates, several delegates who had initially been hesitant to support ratification, did in fact change their minds. Samuel Adams muted his initial objections, especially after a group of tradesmen in Boston voted in favor of ratification, and warned that anyone who opposed it was working against their interests. These men were convinced that the Constitution would improve trade and would therefore improve Boston’s economy and create more jobs. Adams, who relied on these men as the part of the core of his political power, saw could reason not to oppose them. Similarly, former governor James Bowdoin held a dinner shortly before the convention, where all the other Boston delegates expressed support. The merchant community also favored ratification. The result was that Adams moved from being opposed to “listening” at the convention, and eventually supported ratification.
Although John Hancock had been chosen as president of the ratifying convention, he did not show up for the first three weeks, claiming that his gout was acting up. Many at the time saw this more as a matter of not wanting to commit to either side. Rufus King suggested that his health would improve “as soon as a majority shows itself on either side of the convention”
Federalists met with the governor in his sick bed, trying to get him to back ratification. They offered him support for his reelection. They also tried to appeal to his ego, suggesting he might become the first president of the United States if Virginia failed to ratify. Hancock finally went to the convention on January 30, and offered his first comments the following day.
Up until that time, the convention seemed pretty evenly split. Opponents objected to all sorts of things, including the absence of a bill of rights, the lengthy terms of Senators and Representatives, the system for electing the president, too powerful a judiciary, the power to impose direct taxes, etc. There were also objections to continuing the slave trade and giving southerners voting power based on their slaves. Some objected to the lack of a religious oath for office holders.
The strongest opposition came from the farmers of western Massachusetts, still reeling from Shays’ rebellion and the policies that led to it. They feared that federal restrictions on paper money and debtor relief were going to destroy them. Given the divisions in the state, I’d guess that most western farmers would have objected for no other reason that the eastern merchants supported it. They were so divided, and saw their interests as so divergent, that it was difficult to agree on anything.
Hancock recommended that the convention ratify the Constitution. To placate the opponents, he recommended a specific list of amendments. While they needed to ratify the Constitution unconditionally to keep the process moving, these amendments would be addressed by the new government. Samuel Adams seconded Hancock’s proposal. The amendments went to a committee, which made some minor alterations.
In the end, the convention settled on nine suggestions. The first was that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government be retained by the states. In other words, this was going to be a limited government, not one with all the implied powers of a sovereign. Second, that there be one representative for every 30,000 people. Massachusetts believed that representation had to be kept to a very small number of people in order to remain democratic. Third, that Congress not set a date for elections unless a state refuses to hold free elections on its own. Massachusetts wanted to set its own dates for its elections. Fourth, that Congress not levy direct taxes on the people, but rather only on the states. Fifth, that Congress not give any merchants exclusive advantages of commerce (i.e. monopolies). Sixth, that grand juries be guaranteed for indictments. Seventh, that federal courts not hear cases between citizens of different states unless the matter exceeds $1500. Eighth, that civil trials be tried by jury, and ninth, that no person holding a federal office accept a title or office from a foreign king or state.
With agreement on these changes, a week later, on February 6, the Convention held a vote on ratification, which would be transmitted back to the Confederation Congress with their suggested changes. The final vote was 187 in favor of ratification to 168 opposed.
Massachusetts’ ratification was critical to the process, given the importance of that state. But the close vote and the need to suggest amendments would provide ammunition for anti-federalists in future ratifying conventions. These amendments circulated widely throughout the country and became a basis for more debate.
Rhode Island Referendum
A month after the Massachusetts ratification, the process suffered its first setback. Rhode Island,seemed to be a hotbed of opposition.
At first glance, one would think Rhode Island would support the constitutions for reasons that other small states like Delaware, Georgia, and New Jersey had. Rhode Island, however, was still dominated by a government pushing cheap paper money that benefitted the indebted farmers of the state. The Constitution would put a stop to that.
The Rhode Island legislature did not meet until February 25, 1788. When some delegates called for a ratifying convention, the legislature voted it down 43-15. Instead, legislators argued that such an important change be sent directly to the voters as a referendum, to be decided at town meetings. On March 24, voters rejected the constitution by a vote of 2714 to 238. More than 90% of those voting opposed it. Part of the lopsided vote was due to the fact that two larger towns, Providence and Newport, refused to participate. They wanted a convention. Another vote by the legislature for a convention failed.
The state held its annual elections in April, where the merchant party hoped to regain power and support the Constitution. Instead, the country party, which opposed ratification won in another landslide. Even later that year, after it was clear that the Constitution was going into effect, the legislature decisively voted down another attempt to hold a convention.
The people of Rhode Island decided that, even if the United States was forming under a new constitution, they were not going to be a part of it.
Next week, the ratification fight continues over the summer of 1788.
- - -
Next Episode 354 Ratification Spring (coming soon)
T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more. Get your favorite American Revolution logo today. Help support this podcast. https://merch.amrevpodcast.com
American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give. Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber. This is an option making monthly pledges. Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.
An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.
Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"
Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop. Support local bookstores and this podcast!
BROWN, RICHARD D. “Shays’s Rebellion and the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in Massachusetts.” Beyond Confederation: Origins of the Constitution and American National Identity, edited by RICHARD BEEMAN et al., University of North Carolina Press, 1987, pp. 113–27. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9780807839324_beeman.8
Morrow, Terence S. “Representation and Political Deliberation in the Massachusetts Constitutional Ratification Debate.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 3, no. 4, 2000, pp. 529–53. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41939630
Last week we covered the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and the decision by the Confederation Congress to express no opinion on the final product. Instead they simply forwarded it without comment to the states for their consideration. The decision to ratify or not was left up to the people of each state.
Delaware Ratification
The first state to receive the proposed Constitution was Pennsylvania. After the convention wrapped up its business on September 17, Printed copies of the document were available on the morning of September 18, and it was formally presented to the state legislature at 11:00 am that morning. Delivery was not difficult, The Pennsylvania legislature had been meeting on the second floor of the state house while the Convention was meeting on the first floor. The day after the convention disbanded, the state legislature moved downstairs into the room that had been used by the convention, and that’s where it received its copy.
Even though Pennsylvania got a copy first and acted quickly, it was not the first state to ratify. It lost that race to Delaware. The smaller state received the Constitution probably within a day or two of its printing. It’s likely that George Read brought a copy home with him when he left the convention. The legislature, however, was not in session, and had to be called into special session to consider the Constitution.
Despite being a small state, Delaware was politically divided. Since independence in 1776, conservatives and liberals in that state had some of the most violent partisanship over elections of any of the thirteen states. The conservatives, who mostly lived in the southern part of the state, were, at various times, called Tories, or the “court” “church” or “aristocratic” party. The liberals, who were concentrated in the northern part of the state, were known as Whigs or the “country” “Presbyterian” or “democratic” party., General elections for the state legislature, scheduled for October 1, 1787 had to be suspended in Sussex county after armed riots kept people from voting. The election had to be held on October 15th instead. Even after that, violence and threats during the elections would cause the state legislature to refuse to seat the winners.
Yet, when it came to the proposed Constitution, the state was amazingly united. Both the parties had favored a stronger federal government for many years. It had supported the Annapolis Convention in 1786, and sent one of the largest delegations to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Before the Convention was complete, the legislature convened in late August, anticipating a report. Members then went home to get ready for the October elections. When violence delayed the elections, the new legislative session did not begin until October 24. By that time, the proposed constitution had been circulating for over a month.
The Assembly took up the Constitution on its first day back and submitted it to a committee. The Committee took one day to report back and call for a state convention. The Assembly scheduled the Convention to start on December 3.
Although the new constitution gave proportional representation to the House, tiny Delaware was very happy that the Senate gave representation by state. But beyond that most of Delaware’s enthusiasm for the new constitution was economic.
Delaware received its imports through Philadelphia. Its population had to pay those import fees in the form of higher prices, while all of the benefits of those fees went to Pennsylvania. Under the new Constitution, import duties would be collected by Congress, for the benefit of everyone. Further, the sale of western lands, which came from other states, would benefit everyone as well. That funding meant that Congress would no longer be demanding appropriations from all states. Beyond that, the Constitution would pay the salaries of Congressional delegations. That was a burden on the state under the Articles. Delaware also expected the new federal government would assume its war debt. So Delaware would get lots of benefits and revenue would come from other states. Delaware leaders also hoped that fast action might contribute to their case to seat the new national government in Delaware.
Despite the fact that both factions supported the Constitution, there was still some fighting over the election of delegates. Once selected though, there was little argument. Ten delegates from each of the three counties met in Dover, as scheduled, on December 3, 1787. Thirty delegates showed up and found themselves in agreement. Four of the participants at the ratifying convention were men who had signed the Constitution on behalf of Delaware in Philadelphia. After four days of review and relatively little argument, the Convention voted to ratify the Constitution in full and without any amendment on December 7. It was a unanimous 30-0 vote. The convention also voted unanimously to donate land for the new federal capital.
Pennsylvania Ratification
Pennsylvania had hoped to be the first state to ratify. The Assembly proposed calling a convention on September 28, before they even heard that the Confederation Congress was forwarding it to the states. Its reason for the rush was that the session was supposed to end on September 29. Members of the assembly did not want this to wait until the next session. A majority in the current legislature favored the new Constitution. It was not clear if a new legislature, following elections, would be as enthusiastic. Pennsylvania also wanted to be a contender for the new national capital. It was thought that an early and enthusiastic ratification would help them in that competition.
Unlike Delaware, Pennsylvania had some opposition. These men, who came to be known as the antifederalists, objected to the new constitution. Initially, they objected to the speed with which the assembly was moving. They opposed calling a convention before the Confederation Congress had acted. One member of the assembly noted that Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation required Congress’ assent to any changes in the terms of the union Therefore Pennsylvania’s actions before Congress said anything was unconstitutional.
Most Pennsylvanians had not even had a chance to see the proposed document. Although the legislature rushed thousands of copies to be printed and distributed across the state, in both English and German, it would take time to reach remote parts of the state, where opposition was likely to be stronger.
Antifederalist members attempted to prevent a quick vote on a convention by staying away from the state house, thus denying the assembly the required two-thirds for a quorum. If they simply refused to show up, the legislature would dissolve on September 29th, and the state would have to wait until after the new elections to schedule a convention. This would mean that, even if Pennsylvania supported the constitution, it would not be until the spring of 1788, after many other states had already acted.
In response, the Assembly sent out the sergeant at arms who, with the assistance of a Philadelphia mob, dragged two unwilling delegates back to the state house, thus giving them a quorum and voting for the convention. The conservatives in the Assembly supported the measure, and were joined in support by nine of their traditional opponents. The result was an overwhelming vote in favor of the convention. Initially, the majority planned to call a convention in two weeks, mid-October. After some debate they moved this back a few more weeks to November 20.
Many local leaders expected the voters to be pretty evenly divided. Pennsylvania had dealt with a pretty radical political division for years. Its radical 1776 constitution was popular with the common people, but heavily criticized by wealthier merchants. Many saw the new US constitution as an opportunity to undermine some of the more radical elements of the state constitution.
Following the adjournment of the legislature, a large group of the opposition signed an address objecting to the treatment of their members being dragged into the state house to force a quorum and also to their more general objections to the constitution itself.
The election of delegates, however, came in much more in favor of the proposed constitution than most expected. Federalists at the convention outnumbered antifederalists by about two to one. Antifederalists proposed delaying the convention for another six months or so, giving the people more time to learn about the new constitution. Since most other states were not planning conventions until then, they saw no reason to rush. Federalist delegates, however, saw they had the advantage now, and voted down the proposal.
James Wilson was the only delegate to the Constitutional Convention who also went to the ratification convention. He led the delegates in favor of ratification, telling the delegates how the Convention had to make compromises to make a document palatable to all the states. His most important win was to get the convention to accept that they had to give a yes or no vote to the entire convention. They could not vote on parts of the constitution nor suggest changes.
Opponents proposed multiple amendments and moved that their suggested changes at least be recorded in the record. The majority rejected this and other efforts even to suggest any changes. Frustrated by being shut out of any discussions, Antifederalists published a pamphlet with their proposed changes to be circulated publicly. This might have gotten some public support, but it was too late for the convention.
After about three weeks of debate, the convention voted 46-23 in favor of the Constitution as proposed. Pennsylvania’s ratification of December 12 was just five days after Delaware’s.
Even after the state convention voted for ratification, the antifederalist circulated a petition, signed by thousands, objecting to the Constitutional Convention exceeding its authority and requesting that the legislature not confirm the results of the ratification convention. In the end, this was too little too late. Pennsylvania was committed to ratification.
New Jersey Ratification
The third state to ratify, and the only other state to complete the ratification process in 1787 was New Jersey. Much like Delaware, New Jersey saw the economic benefits of having import duties benefit the whole country. New Jersey imports came through the port of New York or Philadelphia, which benefited those states at the expense of New Jersey. It would also benefit from the sale of western lands that other states had to surrender. New Jersey’s government at the time was big on paper money, something the new federal Constitution would prohibit. Even so, state leaders seemed to think the Constitution would be a net positive for the state.
New Jersey also owned a disproportionate amount of federal debt from the war. If the new government increased chances of that money being repaid, it would greatly benefit the state. New Jersey had been the first state to choose delegates to attend the convention. Despite the fact that its delegates had initially proposed many of the changes made at the Convention, state leaders still strongly backed the final document as much better than the Articles of Confederation.
Like Delaware, the New Jersey legislative session began in late October. It took up the Constitution right away and quickly authorized a state convention. The election of delegates to the convention took place in late November. Three delegates were chosen from each of the state’s thirteen counties. The convention met in Trenton on December 11.
The New Jersey Convention was much like Delaware’s. There was almost no opposition, and a general consensus to support the document. The delegates spent a week setting up rules for themselves, reviewing petitions and letters sent in by citizens, and reviewing the document itself. With relatively little debate, the delegates agreed unanimously to approve the Constitution, without any changes, on December 18. The convention remained in session for two more days, while delegates signed two copies of their resolution, one to send to the Confederation Congress and the other for the state archives. Delegates also offered up ten square miles of land to host the new federal capital. They also paid delegates for their time and sent them home on December 20.
Georgia Ratification
A fourth state began consideration of the Constitution in 1787. Georgia received the proposed constitution on October 10 when William Pierce returned with a copy for Governor George Mathews. His copy also included Congress’ September 28th decision to transmit the proposed document to the states. The following day, a local newspaper printed copies to be distributed throughout the state.
One might expect to find some antifederalist sentiment in Georgia. The state had regularly quarreled with the Continental Congress both during and after the war. The biggest post war issue was with regard to treaties with Indians. Georgia wanted to make its own treaties, and openly resented Congress’ efforts to come to terms with the native inhabitants. Georgia had land claims reaching all the way to the Mississippi River. It had seen more westward expansion of its population than any other state since the end of the war. It did not want to cede even more diplomatic power to a federal government.
Georgia’s interest in the process up until this point had been less than enthusiastic. Georgia had appointed five delegates to the convention in Philadelphia. Only four showed up. None of them stayed for the entire convention. During most of the convention only two Georgia delegates were present, and none of them seemed to contribute much to the debate. Their most active delegate, Abraham Baldwin, spoke only eight times during the Convention.
One of the more important issues to the Georgia delegation was the protection of the slave trade. Because of the efforts of Georgia and South Carolina, the convention had ended up protecting the slave trade, but only for twenty years.
If Georgians were ambivalent about some of the provisions in the proposed Constitution, other matters had taken precedence. The state’s westward expansion had created another problem for Georgia. The Creek Indians, who had suffered continued encroachments on their land by Georgia settlers, were ready to start an all out war with Georgia. The hostility had heated up particularly throughout 1787 and was reaching a boiling point. Georgia, with a relatively small population, only slightly larger than Delaware, needed the help of other states if the Creek went to war with them. Refusal to join the new union of states could mean horrific defeat against an enemy known to be merciless in its warfare.
Georgia also shared a southern border with Florida, back in Spanish hands. There was a great concern that relations with Florida would not remain amicable. Georgia could not exist on its own next to such a powerful neighbor. George Washington gave his thoughts on Georgia’s ratification put it in a letter to another supporter in Pennsylvania: “if a weak state, with powerful tribes of Indians in its rear, & the Spaniards on its flank, do not incline to embrace a strong general Government there must, I should think, be either wickedness, or insanity in their conduct.”
Just over a week after news of the Constitution arrived in Georgia, Governor Mathews called the legislature into a special session to consider it. The legislature met on October 18, and considered the constitution the following week. After one day of debate, the Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a State convention to meet in Augusta beginning on December 25.
Only eight of the thirty-three delegates showed up on Christmas Day to begin the convention. They had to wait until the 28th before a quorum arrived.
The legislature had thrown a potential problem into the mix by authorizing its convention to adopt or reject the Constitution in whole or in part, meaning that delegates might simply decide some parts of the documents were unacceptable and only ratify certain parts of the Constitution. This would create a problem since there was no mechanism for other states to ratify the document in the same way that Georgia had. If different states picked apart the document, there would be no way to approve the final constitution by everyone, at least not without a second convention that could make alterations and redistribute to the states for further consideration. That could delay the process by years. Many believed it would prove fatal to the process.
Fortunately for the federalists, Georgia seemed motivated to ratify quickly. After reaching a quorum on Friday the 28th, the convention spent that day and Saturday electing officers, agreeing to convention rules, and reading through the Constitution. There is no record of any debate on the merits of the document itself, or any indication that the convention delegates gave any thought to rejecting any part of it. After taking the day off on Sunday, the delegates reassembled Monday morning and voted unanimously 26-0 to ratify the constitution in full with no changes or reservations.
It took two days to draw up the paperwork so that the convention formally confirmed its vote on January 2, 1788.
A Good Start
So, as 1787 came to an end, four states had ratified the constitution - three of them unanimously. The country was nearly half way toward the nine states needed for the constitution to go into effect.
These states had also set the precedent that ratifying conventions should simply vote yes or no. They should not try to demand amendments or other changes that would likely slow up the ratification process by years, and perhaps prevent any consensus entirely. We will continue with this next week as the ratifications move to New England.
- - -
Next Episode 353 Ratification in New England (coming soon)
T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more. Get your favorite American Revolution logo today. Help support this podcast. https://merch.amrevpodcast.com
American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give. Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber. This is an option making monthly pledges. Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.
An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.
Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"
Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop. Support local bookstores and this podcast!
Last week, we covered the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in September 1787. We left off with the delegates signing the draft Constitution and preparing to go home.
Farewell Parties
Before we leave Philadelphia, I want to say a few things about a few parties. The delegates worked six days a week during the convention, and spent most of their evenings, socializing either in public taverns or in someone’s home. Because they had taken an oath of secrecy, they tended to remain with each other in the evenings to talk about various issues at the convention, without involving any outsiders.
Occasionally though, some delegates would attend outside functions. George Washington was a particularly popular guest. Shortly after arriving in Philadelphia in May, Washington spent time dining with members of the Society of the Cincinnati, who were wrapping up their national meeting about the time the Federal Convention was getting started.
Benjamin Franklin hosted quite a few dinners, as did Robert Morris. It was at one of these parties that a famous bet took place.
Maryland delegate James McHenry recorded an incident at a party toward the end of the Convention. Alexander Hamilton was hanging out with Robert Morris and Governeur Morris. Hamilton, who had been a very close aide to Washington during the war, told the men that Washington never allowed any man to be familiar with him. By that, he meant, act in a casual and friendly way. Governeur called BS on Hamilton and said that among gentlemen, there was always the ability to be friendly and casual.
So Hamilton made a bet with Morris “If you will, at the next reception evenings, gently slap him on the shoulder and say, 'My dear General, how happy I am to see you look so well!” then Hamilton would buy him dinner for him and a dozen of his friends.” It could be that Morris was hesitant to take the bet until Hamilton said * oh yeah, I triple dog dare you! *
“A few days later, the men were at a party with Washington, Gouverneur Morris entered, bowed, shook hands, laid his left hand on Washington's shoulder, and said, 'My dear General, I am very happy to see you look so well!' Washington withdrew his hand, stepped suddenly back, fixed his eye on Morris for several minutes with an angry frown, until the latter retreated abashed, and sought refuge in the crowd." Hamilton paid off his bet, but Morris later noted his mortification and said that, although he had won the bet, he had wished he had never made it.
This is not to say that Washington did not enjoy a good party. The weekend before the Convention ended, Washington attended a farewell party at City Tavern thrown by his friends in the Philadelphia Regiment of Light Horse. Many of these men were veteran Continental Officers that Washington knew from the war.
The bar bill from that party had achieved some fame of its own. According to the bill, the men drank 54 bottles of Madiera wine, 60 bottles of Claret 22 bottles of hard cider, as well as many more of whiskey, beer, punch, cigars, etc. - with only 55 men in attendance. That meant multiple bottles of booze for each guest. The bill also included a charge for broken glassware, as well as even more alcohol for the twelve musicians who were hired for the night. The total cost of the party, over 89 pounds sterling, would be over $20,000 in today’s inflation adjusted currency.
A few days later, Washington attended another party at City Tavern, following the signing, where the delegates from the convention bade farewell to each other.
Delivering the Constitution
With the festivities behind them, the delegates headed home. On the night the final version was signed, printers worked overnight to publish 500 copies of the final document. One of the printers was John Dunlap, who had printed the Declaration of Independence on the night it was finalized, and who was also an attendee at the party at City Tavern with Washington and the soldiers of the Philadelphia Light Horse.
Many delegates brought copies of the Constitution directly from the convention directly to various state officials or other important leaders. Washington personally mailed copies to Thomas Jefferson in France, as well as his old friend the Marquis de Lafayette.
Even with the convention at an end, Washington observed his promise of secrecy, apologizing to the Marquis that he could not comment on the debates. Washington told his friend that he considered the final product “a Child of fortune, to be fostered by some and buffited by others.” Washington said he would not say anything for or against it and simply said the document would speak for itself. Washington headed for home the day after the Convention completed its business.
During his trip home, he had to cross an abandoned bridge in Maryland over a flooded river. The bridge collapsed as his carriage crossed the bridge, sending it crashing into the river. Fortunately, Washington and his travelling companion, John Blair, had exited the carriage before it had attempted the crossing. Washington continued home.
Like many, Washington had his concerns about the document. During the Convention, he wrote to Hamilton, who had left for a short time in July saying “I almost dispair of seeing a favourable issue to the proceedings of the Convention, and do therefore repent having had any agency in the business.”
By the end of the Convention though, believed that it was the best they could do, and that the alternative to ratification was worsening anarchy under the Articles. While Washington was not the most outspoken advocate of the final document, he most definitely supported its ratification and privately encouraged others to move forward with making it the basis of the new federal government.
The printed copy that was circulated immediately after the convention included the constitution itself, the letter to the Confederation Congress, and additional resolutions on ratification. All three were signed by Washington. The Convention Secretary, William Jackson, carried copies of the documents to New York to deliver to the Confederation Congress.
Hopefully, most of us are familiar with the preamble to the constitution, which tries to outline its purpose. But the letter to Congress, which also received a unanimous vote of the delegates and was signed by Washington, is often forgotten. I think it gives great insight into the delegates’ views on the importance of the proposed constitution. It’s a short letter, so I’ll read it in full:
Sir,
We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most adviseable.
The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-Hence results the necessity of a different organization.
It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.
In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible.
That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not perhaps to be expected; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interest been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.
It was then signed by George Washington and noted it was by the unanimous order of the Convention.
The third document included with the letter and the Constitution itself were the unanimous resolutions of the Convention on what should be done with the proposed document.
It resolved that the constitution should be laid before the Confederation Congress, then submitted to the states. It did not request that Congress vote on the document, endorse it, or do anything else. It was to be a simple intermediary to distribute the document to the states. Each state legislature should then call a convention of the people to ratify the document and then give notice to Congress of the state’s approval or disapproval.
The convention further resolved that as soon as nine states have ratified the constitution, that the Congress should fix a day on which electors, appointed by the states, to vote for a president. It would be up to the states to schedule elections for Senators and Representatives.
After the electors voted, they would present these votes to the Confederation Congress. The Congress would simply hold the votes until the newly elected Senators and Representatives convened to count the votes and certify the election. At that point, the new government would take the reigns of power and the Confederation Congress would simply dissolve and disappear.
It was pretty gutsy that this convention, which had been formed on the premise of recommending amendments to the Articles of Confederation, came back with an entirely new government and even provided the instructions on how to bring it into existence. It then essentially ordered the Confederation Congress to comply and to destroy itself in favor of a new government, implemented on the terms spelled out by the Convention.
It was probably only the fact that the most respected leaders in the country had done this, that it was given the deference that it received. That, and the national consensus that the Articles of Confederation were failing, made its members willing to go along with the Convention’s resolutions.
Confederation Congress
The Confederation Congress had been poorly attended over the summer, in part due to the fact that nearly one-third of its members were serving at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. By the time the Convention Secretary, William Jackson, arrived in New York on September 20, to deliver the Constitution to Congress, four of the delegates that had signed the document had beat him there. More arrived over the next week, when Congress began debating what to do with the proposed document. There were only eleven state delegations present. Maryland only had one delegate in Congress. Two were required for the state to cast a vote. Rhode Island, which was the only state not to send delegates to the Convention, had also not sent delegates to Congress. Rhode Island did send a note to Congress saying it had refused to send delegates to the convention out of a “fear… of making innovations on the Rights and Liberties of the Citizens at large.”
Delegates to the Confederation Congress were not sure what to do. They had supported a Convention to recommend amendments to the Articles of Confederation. This was an entirely new document. Further, the document called on the states to ratify it, not the Confederation Congress.
Some delegates questioned whether the Convention had the authority to do this and whether the Congress needed to do anything at all since the document clearly wasn’t asking them to make amendments to the Articles. There was some debate as to whether the Confederation Congress should make its own suggested changes to the proposed document before forwarding to the states. They also had the option to endorse or reject the document in its entirety.
James Madison had to rush to New York because his Virginia delegation was evenly divided on whether to support the constitution. He was the tie breaking vote in favor. Madison then fought to shut down proposals to have the Confederation Congress suggest changes to the documents. Many states were already considering the original proposal. If Congress made changes, then there would be two different documents to consider, making ratification far more complicated.
The constitution was read aloud in Congress on September 20th, the day it arrived. Congress then scheduled a date one week later, Wednesday, September 26, to consider the constitution. Congress knew that this was coming. Although the debates at the convention were secret, delegates who served on both bodies made sure Congress had some idea when it could expect the final product.
Back in mid-August, the President of Congress, Arthur St. Clair, instructed all states to make sure they had at least two delegates present by September 26. Rhode Island, which blew off the entire convention, also did not bother to send delegates to Congress. All other states had at least two delegates present, except Maryland which had only one.
Quite a few of the more active convention delegates who were no longer in Congress, also traveled to New York to be part of the discussion. These included Gouverneur Morris and Alexander Hamilton, who both lived in New York, as well as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, and John Rutledge of South Carolina.
Interestingly, Congress did not record any of their debates. The records for those days simply note that Congress was in session, that there was a motion to transmit the Constitution to the states, then on September 28, the notes reproduce the Constitution itself and the fact that Congress was transmitting it to the states.
Unlike the Convention, the Confederation Congress did not usually act in secrecy. Its proceedings were usually covered by the newspapers. Despite the importance of this issue, there were no newspaper reports of the debates. Most of what we know of the debates comes from New York Delegate Melancton Smith, who kept notes, and from letters written by other delegates who were present. But the public at the time remained in the dark.
Dissenters like Richard Henry Lee of Virginia argued that it was absurd that Congress could not make any changes to a document that was supposed to be a list of recommended changes for Congress. Lee, and Nathan Dane of Massachusetts were two of the most outspoken critics in Congress. They saw the Convention’s legitimacy, only as an advisory committee to Congress, not an independent power that was bypassing Congress.
To these men, this was a power grab. The Articles required that major changes had to be unanimous. This was to prevent sovereign states from being forced to cede power against its will. The Convention was now suggesting that a group of nine states could implement an entirely new government. Even if it wanted to do so, Congress could not endorse this plan unless all thirteen states agreed.
Given the fact that 10 of the 33 delegates present in New York had been delegates to the Convention, and given the general view that the Confederation Congress was a disaster and that speedy ratification as necessary, the majority voted not to amend, or even debate, the contents of the proposed Constitution.
Nationalists, like Madison, wanted Congress to endorse the new Constitution. That, of course, brought up the debate that members should be able to criticize parts of the proposed Constitution, and raise their objections. Lee proposed some pretty popular amendments, like guarantees for freedom of religion and the press, the right to a jury trial and independent judges, restrictions on a standing army in times of peace, protections against excessive bail, fines, cruel and unusual punishment, unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. How could any of these basic protections be objectionable? Why not add them?
No one objected to these protections on the merits, but for the federalists, making any changes, no matter how agreeable, would derail the process. Madison compared the Convention to another house in the government. If the Confederation made changes to the document, then it would have to be resubmitted to the Convention. That would be impossible since the Convention already dissolved. The document hammered out through considerable compromises. Unravelling all of that would tear all that apart and effectively end this process.
Others like Rufus King said that they all realized the Articles of Confederation were not working. That is why the states called for this convention in the first place. The states are the sovereign entities that stand for the will of the people. It should be up to the people of the states to decide whether this proposed constitution, as written by the convention, is worthy of ratification. If the people don’t like it, they will reject it. It’s not up to Congress to decide that for them. It’s Congress’ job to transmit the proposal to the people for their consideration.
In the end, a majority of all state delegations present supported a measure to transmit the proposed constitution to the states without comment or alternation. Total debate on the topic took only three days. On September 28, the Confederation Congress sent the proposed Constitution to the states. They did not recommend any changes and expressed no public views on it, in whole or in part. Congress considered its work on the matter complete.
Next week, we will take a look at how the states reacted to the proposed Constitution.
- - -
Next Episode 352 First States Ratify the Constitution (coming soon)
T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more. Get your favorite American Revolution logo today. Help support this podcast. https://merch.amrevpodcast.com
American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give. Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber. This is an option making monthly pledges. Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.
An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.
Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"
Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop. Support local bookstores and this podcast!
