ARP355 Virginia Ratification, 1788

Last week, we covered the states that ratified the Constitution in the spring of 1788.  We ended with the ninth state, New Hampshire, which managed to overcome intensive opposition to squeak through a “yes” vote at its second convention.  New Hampshire’s ratification brought the number of states to nine, meaning the Constitution came into effect.  Of course, it would still take time to hold elections and create the new government, so the Confederation Congress remained in operation.

Four states, of course, still had not approved it.  Virginia, by far the largest state, was still considering the matter. Many questioned whether a Union would work without them.  This week, we look at the ratification fight in Virginia.

Thanks to the efforts of James Madison, Virginia had been the state that had proposed the Constitutional Convention in the first place.  Despite that effort, ratification in the commonwealth was not a given.  Two of the three delegates who had refused to sign the final document were from Virginia.  One of those men who had refused to sign was Edmund Randolph, the state’s governor.

Edmund Randolph

I haven’t discussed Randolph, except in passing, so some background is probably in order.  Randolph came from a prominent Virginia family.  His Uncle Peyton Randolph had been the Speaker of the House of Burgesses before the war, then served as President of the First Continental Congress, as well as the first president of the Second Continental Congress.  Randolph left the Second Continental Congress after only a few days, due to illness, opening up the job for John Hancock.  Peyton returned later that year, only to die rather suddenly, while dining with his cousin, Thomas Jefferson.

Edmund’s father, John Randolph, was not quite as prominent, but did serve as Mayor of Williamsburg before the war.  John did not support the Revolution along with his brother.  He fled to Scotland after the war began, leaving with the  Royal Governor Lord Dunmore.  His twenty-two year old son, Edmund Randolph did not share his father’s views.  He remained behind and joined the Continental Army, serving as an aide to George Washington.  

He only remained in that role for a few months.  When Uncle Peyton died in 1775, Edmund returned to Virginia to settle his estate.  Edmund remained in Virginia, becoming the attorney general in 1776, at age 23.  He remained in that role for a decade before being elected governor in 1786.  Governor Randolph called for the Philadelphia Convention.  He led the Virginia delegation, and introduced Madison’s Virginia Plan at the Convention.

Despite his refusal to sign the Constitution, Randolph had played a pretty active role in drafting the document, serving on the final Committee of Detail that pretty much wrote the final version.  Randolph did not make clear his decision not to sign until about a week before the signing.  Randolph argued that the Constitution was not sufficiently republican.  He believed it it gave too much power to the president.  The House was too small.  There were no limits on a standing army.  He also found unacceptable the representation in the Senate by state, and the ability to pass commercial legislation by a simple majority.  

Edmund Randolph

Rather than sending the document out for ratification, Randolph had wanted the states to recommend changes, then hold a second convention to make some important corrections.  Until that happened, he could not support it.  Despite his refusal to sign, Randolph was not a full-throated opponent.  Before leaving Philadelphia, he told the delegates that he simply wanted to keep his options open at his state’s ratifying convention.

Perhaps part of Randolph’s reluctance was out of his respect for the views of George Mason, who also refused to sign.  Despite his position as governor, Randolph was the youngest delegate from Virginia, and one of the youngest delegates overall at the convention, only 34 years old at the time.  Mason was the oldest member of the Virginia delegation at age 62.

George Mason

Like Randolph, Mason had also supported the Virginia plan, but became increasingly disillusioned with the final document.  Mason also came from a prominent Virginia family.  He was actually George Mason IV.  His great-grandfather, George Mason I, had come to Virginia near its founding, following the end of the English civil war, where he had found himself on the losing side.  The Mason’s had long served in the House of Burgesses and George continued in that role.  

Mason was also the next door neighbor to George Washington at Mount Vernon.  Mason had been an active patriot during the war, serving in several state conventions after declaring independence.  He had written the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, as part of his efforts to create Virginia’s state constitution.

When the Revolutionary War ended, Mason tried to retire from public service, but his importance in establishing the state constitution, caused many to compel him to continue.  He served at the Annapolis Convention in 1786, and then as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.  Mason grew increasingly disenchanted with the constitution over the course of the convention.

George Mason

As someone who had authored a declaration of rights for a state constitution, he was deeply bothered by the absence of one for the new Federal Constitution.  He also argued that the House was too small to give proper representation, the judiciary was too powerful, and that the lack of a supermajority for commercial legislation would greatly disadvantage southern states.  He also said that presidential power was too large and should be limited through an executive council.  Also, despite being a slave owner, Mason wanted to give the government the power to end the slave trade immediately.  He wanted to see slavery come to an end.

Near the end of the Philadelphia Convention, Mason had moved to add a declaration of rights. This was unanimously rejected.  He also called for a vote on allowing states to propose amendments. The majority also rejected that motion.

Mason did not mince words, he told the delegates that the Constitution would eventually lead to “a monarchy or a corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy” and that he would “sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands.”

Unlike Randolph, who was still taking a wait and see approach, Mason was a full-throated opponent of ratification.  As soon as he got home, he began writing and publishing his reasons why Virginia should refuse to ratify.

Other Anti-Federalists

The anti-federalist leaders in the state went beyond these two former delegates.  Former Governor Patrick Henry strongly opposed ratification.  He quickly put his oratorical skills to use opposing ratification for a whole host of reasons.  He believed a powerful federal government would work against Virginia’s interests and that Virginia would be better off on its own that to join such a union.  

Patrick Henry

Another prominent opponent was former President of the Confederation Congress, Richard Henry Lee, the same man who, in 1776, had made the famous motion that the colonies should become free and independent states.  Lee had refused an appointment to the Constitutional Convention since he was serving in the Confederation Congress at the time.  Lee believed that the convention would simply make recommended changes to be brought before Congress. He was quite upset by the decision to bypass Congress and go directly to the states.  Beyond that, Lee shared similar concerns as voiced by the other opponents about the document itself, believing that it would greatly harm Virginia.

One other ratification opponent, although not as prominent at the time, was James Monroe.  At 29 years old, Monroe had already served as an officer in the Continental Army, then as a delegate to the Confederation Congress. In 1786, he resigned to come home and pass the bar.  He began working as an attorney and got elected to the Virginia House of Delegates.  Monroe was not completely opposed to the Constitution, and actually made statements both before and against at the ratifying convention, but did object to its ratification without a bill of rights.

Federalists

On the other side, James Madison was the most prominent supporter of the proposed Constitution.  This had been a passion that Madison had been pushing for years. While he was not crazy about some of the compromises that he had to make at the Philadelphia Convention, he was convinced that a failure to ratify would mean the end of the United States and probably everything that has worked and fought for during most of their lives.

Of course, George Washington probably had the greatest potential influence on almost any public matter.  Washington seemed to share Madison’s views about the importance of ratification, and said so in private letters.  Washington, however, did not see himself in the role of a public advocate.  

Washington rejected the opportunity even to attend the state’s ratifying convention, while encouraging Madison to go.  Even Madison himself was reluctant to go, believing that it was a conflict of interest for him to have been a part in writing it, and then play a role in voting to ratify it.  It was only after Washington urged him to go so that he could explain why the Convention produced the document that it did, that he finally agreed to go.

Scheduling the Convention

When the legislature started its new session on October 15, 1787, Governor Randolph introduced the proposed constitution.  The legislature put it on the schedule for consideration, ten days later on October 25.  When they finally took up the matter, members spent a week debating the merits of the Constitution, and whether they should even have a ratifying convention.  On October 31, the legislature agreed to hold elections in March, 1788.  Each county would send two delegates.  Towns that were independently represented in the General Assembly could also send a representative to the convention.  Following the elections, two more months would pass before the Convention began on June 2 at the state house in Richmond.

Convention Debates

Judge Edmund Pendleton was elected to chair the convention.  Shortly after the convention began, Patrick Henry rose to give a famous speech called Liberty or Empire in which he argued that by creating this new empire the people were giving up on government with a foundation on liberty.  The following is a snippet of his speech:

We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty; our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism.

The convention agreed unanimously to go through the Constitution clause by clause, not holding any votes until that was completed.  The Virginia delegates did not immediately flock all to one side or the other.  Men like Henry were clearly opposed. Madison clearly in favor.  But a great many fell somewhere in-between.

A good example of this is Governor Edmund Randolph.  Although Randolph had mixed feelings about the proposed documents, he did not stay away from the ratifying convention like Governor Hancock in Massachusetts. Randolph declared that he had refused to sign because of the Philadelphia Convention’s decision to demand an up or down ratification vote from the states, rather than allowing the states to offer amendments.  Even so, Randolph declared that he believed that a new and more powerful government was necessary, and that this constitution, with some amendments, was the best hope for the future.

George Mason spoke next, particularly focused on the power of the new federal government to levy direct taxes.  He objected to the double taxation, that the people would suffer as both the state and federal governments demanded revenue.  Mason also did not call for outright rejection of the constitution.  Rather, he wanted to see amendments, similar to those already proposed by Massachusetts and South Carolina.

Henry Lee, also known as “Light Horse Harry” also spoke early.  He attacked the “imbecility” of the Confederation and attacked Patrick Henry’s unwarranted fears of the new government.  This caused Henry to give another lengthy rebuttal.  He attacked the idea that the people should surrender their rights and privileges in order to improve trade, or to try to become a great and powerful empire.  For Henry, nothing could justify the sacrifice of liberty.  

Madison also responded in favor of the Constitution.  But he was not a great orator.  He went off on a historical tangent to explain why ancient republics were different from the needs of the current time.  Aside from being rather boring, Madison did not have a strong speaking voice and the person taking notes could not hear much of what he said.  Hence, we don’t have a good record of what Madison said at the convention. Beyond that, Madison fell sick about a week into the convention and had to miss several days.

James Madison

Over several weeks, the delegates debated issues of representation, standing armies, direct taxation, and a host of other concerns.  They also debated the amendments already proposed by Massachusetts and South Carolina, trying to determine if these could resolve their concerns and whether Virginia should back them as well.

Over the course of the debate, it became clear that a majority of delegates rejected Henry’s notion that Virginia would be fine to go it alone, without joining the Union.  The debate shifted more to a discussion of what amendments, if any, were necessary to make this new government protective of their rights and liberties.  

Henry, seeing the writing on the wall, altered his strategy, instead focusing on putting in a great many amendments to limit federal power in the new government.  Henry got hold of a letter that former Governor Thomas Jefferson had written to another delegate, from which he read to the convention.  Jefferson expressed hope that nine states would ratify to begin the new government, so that things could move along, but that four states would hold out until important amendments could be added.

Several times, Madison and other delegates complained that they were not going through the Constitution, clause by clause, as they had agreed, but rather going off on different tangents, usually started by one of Henry’s tirades.  They eventually gave up on trying to go through the document clause by clause, because no one seemed interested in that.

On June 13, Madison wrote to Washington that the outcome would likely be close, and that the Kentucky delegates might hold the outcome in their votes.  The anti-federalists began to debate the issue of access to the Mississippi River for trade, something dear to the western delegates.  Henry noted that John Jay had recently tried to negotiate a treaty that would sacrifice the Mississippi in exchange for other trade concessions from Spain.  Giving more treaty making power to the federal government would allow northern states to undercut Virginia’s interests.

Madison countered this argument by arguing that the weakness of the Confederation had weakened Jay’s bargaining power, forcing him to make that concession.  A stronger federal government would, in fact, improve America's power to demand things on the world stage.

As the days of debate continued, it seems Virginia Anti-federalists were trying to draw out the convention until they could work out a deal with New York anti-federalists to agree to a series of amendment demands before these two large states would ratify.

The convention continued on, day after day.  As they approached the end of June, the main dispute came down to whether the Convention would ratify the constitution outright, or whether ratification would be contingent on the addition of several amendments.  

Because there had been no votes up until this time, neither side was certain of its position.  On June 25, delegates called a vote to approve the Constitution, only contingent on the adoption of several amendments.   The delegates rejected this by a vote of 88 to 80.  Realizing that they had a majority then called for a vote to ratify the Constitution unconditionally.  This passed by a vote of 89 to 79.

That, however, did not end things.  To get several delegates to support the vote, the Federalists agreed that they would vote on proposed amendments after ratification.  Like earlier states, these would be recommended changes, but would not prevent Virginia from joining the union.

The delegates compiled a whopping forty amendments to deal with almost all the concerns raised during the ratification convention. Twenty of these were drawn pretty directly from the Virginia bill of rights, things like freedom of speech and religion, various due process rights, etc.  The other twenty amendments were structural, things like a larger Congress with one representative for every 30,000 people, term limits on the president, limitations on direct taxation, a two-thirds vote for commercial legislation.  Many of these were quite similar to what other states, like Massachusetts had proposed. I’m not going to go through all twenty of these, but have included links in my blog if you want to read through all of them.

The convention wrapped up.  James Madison personally carried Virginia’ ratification to New York to deliver to the Confederation Congress. It received these results on July 15.  With that, Virginia became the 10th state to join the union.

Next week: the other big hold out New York considers ratification. To help them along three authors generate a series of articles, known as the Federalist Papers.

- - -

Next Episode 356 New York and the Federalist Papers (coming soon)

Previous Episode 354 Ratification Spring

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 

 Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

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

Click here to donate

DONATE

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).

Click here to see my Patreon Page

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!

https://bookshop.org/shop/ARP

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Email*       

First Name 

Last Name 

Further Reading

Websites

Edmund Randolph https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/edmund-randolph

Kevin R. C. Gutzman. “Edmund Randolph and Virginia Constitutionalism.” The Review of Politics, vol. 66, no. 3, 2004, pp. 469–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149191

Patrick Henry, Liberty or Empire? https://www.redhill.org/speeches-writings/liberty-or-empire

“From Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 7 February 1788,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0602.

Kukla, Jon. “A Spectrum of Sentiments: Virginia’s Federalists, Antifederalists, and ‘Federalists Who Are for Amendments,’ 1787-1788.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 96, no. 3, 1988, pp. 276–96. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4249023

SMITH, ROBERT W. “Foreign Affairs and the Ratification of the Constitution in Virginia.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 122, no. 1, 2014, pp. 40–67. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24392923

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp

VIDEO: The Fate of the Revolution: Virginians Debate the Constitution, Oct 20, 2016. https://www.mountvernon.org/library/library-events-programs/ford-evening-book-talks/ford-evening-book-talk-lorri-glover

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America, Vol 2, Washington: Dept. of State, 1894. 

This Constitution: From Ratification to the Bill of Rights, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1988 (borrow only). 

Brant, Irving James Madison: Father of the Constitution, 1787-1800. Bobbs-Merrill Co. 1950 (borrow only). 

Donovan, Frank R. Mr. Madison’s Constitution: The Story Behind the Constitutional Convention, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1965 (borrow only) 

Ford, Paul L. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Brooklyn, NY: 1888. 

Kaminski, John, et. al (eds) The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution: Virginia (Vol 8-10) 1988-1993.

Robertson, David Debates and other proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, Richmond: Enquirer-Press, 1805.  

Rutland, Robert A. The Ordeal of the Constitution: The Antifederalists and the Ratification Struggle of 1787-1788, Northeastern University Press, 1983 (borrow only). 

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Bailyn, Bernard (ed) The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle Over Ratification, Part One, Library of America, 1984 (borrow on archive.org). 

Bradford, M.E. Original Intentions: on the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution, Univ. of GA Press, 1993 (borrow on archive.org). 

Conley, Patrick T & John P. Kaminski The Constitution and the States: The Role of the Original Thirteen in the Framing and Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Madison House, 1988 (borrow on archive.org).

Faber, Michael J. An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debates, Univ. Press of Kansas, 2019. 

Glover, Lorri, The Fate of the Revolution: Virginians Debate the Constitution, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2016.

Maier, Pauline Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. Simon & Schuster, 2010. 

Morris, Richard B. Witnesses at the Creation: Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the Constitution, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1985. 

Smith, Craig R To Form a More Perfect Union: The Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, 1787-1791, University Press of America, 1993 (borrow on archive.org) 

Storing, Herbert J. What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution, Univ of Chicago Press, 1981. 

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

ARP354 Ratification Spring

Last time we covered the three New England states that considered ratification in early 1788.  Connecticut backed it pretty overwhelmingly.  Massachusetts backed it pretty narrowly, with only about 53% of delegates voting in favor.  To get to that majority, supporters had to back a series of suggested amendments. Since they were suggestions, they would not hold up the ratification process, but they legitimized some of the criticisms that later states would use against ratification.  Rhode Island just flat out refused to hold a convention, and instead held a referendum in March of 1788 where voters overwhelmingly rejected the constitution.

So  by early spring of 1788, we had six states that supported ratification and one state against.  Under the terms of the Constitution, once nine states had ratified, the Constitution would go into effect.  Any dissenters or stragglers would be denied participation in the new union.  Other states were still moving along, just at their own pace.

New Orleans Fire

Before we continue into our discussions about ratification, I want to mention one other event that took place around this time, which has nothing to do with ratification.  New Orleans was under the control of Spain at this time.  Spanish officials considered the city critical as it controlled access to the Mississippi River. The river was critical to commerce and also operated as the border between the United States and Spanish territory.

On Friday March 21, the Spanish Royal Treasurer was lighting candles on an altar in his home to commemorate Good Friday.  The candles set the curtains on fire.  Quickly, the entire house was engulfed in flames.  New Orleans consisted almost entirely of wooden buildings, built close together, with little thought given to fire prevention.  Strong winds spread the fire across the city.  It did not help that priests refused to allow the ringing of church bells as an alarm, since it was Good Friday and bell ringing was prohibited.  By the time the fire was out, 80% of the city had been destroyed.

It would take years for New Orleans to be rebuilt, but the rebuilding resulted in many more brick and stone houses, as well as a much more Spanish design in the city overall.  So, that was the big non-ratification story for 1788. I thought I’d at least mention it before we continue on with the ratification fight.

Maryland Ratification

Maryland was the last of the middle states to take up consideration.  The Governor, former Continental General William Smallwood, did not even present the constitution until the end of November, 1787, more than two months after the Convention had finished its business.

Before calling for a convention, the Assembly asked the Maryland delegates who attended the convention to testify before the Assembly.  Maryland had sent five delegates to the convention, none of whom stayed for the whole thing.  Three delegates signed the final document two others, Thomas Mercer and Luther Martin left the Convention early because they objected to what the convention was doing.

Mercer did not appear before the Assembly, but Martin, who had been Maryland’s Attorney General for many years, and also served in the Confederation Congress before heading to the Convention, had a great deal to say.  Martin showed up to the Convention in mid-June, after the Philadelphia delegates had been debating for nearly a month.  He was outraged, not only by the efforts to create such a strong national government which would be dominated by the large states, but also by the decision to require all delegates to secrecy.  The people of his home state had no idea that this convention was writing an entirely new constitution, and he was prohibited from telling anyone.

Martin ended up giving a lengthy negative report to the Assembly, much of which was later made into a pamphlet called Genuine Information and distributed to further the anti-federalist cause.  The other three delegates who favored ratification and who had signed the Constitution also gave their testimony.  One of them even read Benjamin Franklin’s speech for compromise into the record.  Martin’s opinions, however, carried a great deal of weight with many of the people in the state.

Maryland had long been skeptical of central government.  It had been the last state to ratify the Articles of Confederation, insisting that Virginia give up western land claims before it agreed.  It saw its large neighbor to the south as a direct threat.  The new constitution’s adoption of proportional representation in the House meant that Virginia would have far greater power in the new government.

That said, there was a sizable faction of federalists in the Maryland government.  They recognized the need for a more powerful government.  In a relatively close vote on December 1, the House of Delegates voted 28-22 to schedule the election of Convention delegates four months later, in April.  With the Convention to begin on April 21, a couple of weeks after the election of delegates.  

That gave the people nearly five months to debate the merits of the proposed Constitution.  Newspapers and pamphlets from both sides flooded the state.  The federalists seem to win a majority of delegates.  The anti-federalists then developed a plan to end the convention without taking any vote on ratification.  The argument was that they should wait until Virginia voted on the matter.  The hope was that a delay might result in a greater chance later to shut down the whole effort.

This tactic ended up backfiring. When James Madison heard about the plan in Virginia, he wrote to George Washington, urging him to weigh in on the matter.  The day before the convention was scheduled to begin, Washington wrote a letter to Thomas Johnson, a federalist delegate to the convention, saying that adjourning without a vote would be tantamount to a rejection, and made clear Washington’s view that this would be a disaster.

Maryland leaders, like almost everyone in the country, greatly respected Washington’s views.  When Johnson read Washington’s letter to the convention, support for ratification grew even stronger.  On the sixth day of the convention, April 26, 1788, the delegates voted overwhelmingly, 63-11, to ratify the Constitution.  Maryland was on board.

South Carolina

Next up was South Carolina, which did not even begin to consider the Constitution until January, 1788.  When the new legislative session began, the Assembly voted to thank the four delegates who had attended the convention.  All four were also members of the assembly.  They insisted that they be allowed to testify.  All four delegates spoke in favor of ratification.  

Other representatives, however, spoke against ratification.  Former governor Rawlins Lowndes, who as a Senator at this time, took up the lead of the opposition.  The opposition raised arguments we’ve heard in other states, such as the new government having too much power, and that the Convention had exceeded its authority.  They also feared northern domination in the new government and that southern interests in issues of commerce and foreign treaties would receive short shrift.  They also objected to the fact that Congress could ban the slave trade after 20 years.  The vast majority of legislators in South Carolina believed that slavery was critical to the state’s future.

The federalist majority in South Carolina, however, stressed the benefits of union and a stronger government. By this time, it was clear the constitution was headed for adoption nationwide.  South Carolina could not afford to be out on its own.  Almost everyone also believed that the southern population would outstrip the north in the coming decades. By the time Congress had the power to eliminate the slave trade, the south would have far more political power in the House of Representatives.

Although the state was divided on the issue ratification, there was not much debate about holding a convention.  The Assembly voted unanimously to schedule the convention in May.  The more contentious debate was over where to have it.  The federalists wanted the convention in Charleston, where the Constitution was strongly favored.  Anti-federalists wanted a convention in the west where opposition was stronger.  In the end, Charleston won by a single vote.

Several contemporaries expressed a belief that a majority of people in the state opposed ratification.  The federalists still had one big advantage.  Although the western counties were the center of opposition, the eastern districts were still greatly over-represented in the legislature.  Those voting districts were also used to pick Convention delegates, meaning the federalists in the east got more delegates than their population should have dictated.  Following the elections in April, the federalists had a clear majority of delegates.

The convention met in Charleston beginning on May 12.  Three days later, they received word that Maryland had ratified.  This only grew the momentum in favor of ratification.  The opposition manage to get the convention to vote in favor of several recommended amendments.  These included the right of the states to set the dates of elections, a declaration that the government powers were limited only to those expressly mentioned in the constitution, and removing the power to levy direct taxes, 

The Amendments, however, were suggestions. They were not contingent to ratification.  The vote to ratify the Constitution unconditionally took place on May 23, with a vote of 149-73 in favor of ratification.  South Carolina became the eighth state to ratify.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire had hoped to be one of the early ratification states.  The state had shown little enthusiasm for the convention itself.  They nominated four delegates, but refused to pay their expenses to travel to Philadelphia.  As a result, only two delegates went, and they didn’t arrive until July, about two months into the convention.  Both delegates, however, did favor the final product and signed the constitution.

A strong federalist movement in the state legislature.  Governor John Sullivan, a former Continental general, also supported ratification.  John Langdon, one of the leading proponents wrote to George Washington in November saying: “I have not heard a single person object to the plan & very few find fault even with a single sentence, but all express their greatest desire to have it establish’d as soon as may be.”

The governor called a special session of the legislature in December to set dates for the election of delegates.  It then scheduled the convention for mid-February, 1788.  Rather than simply hold statewide elections, New Hampshire allowed local towns to select their delegates at town meetings held between late December and early February.

New Hampshire was facing the same fights that were taking place all over New England, and which had resulted in Shays' Rebellion in 1786 in Massachusetts.  Like the farmers in Massachusetts, farmers in New Hampshire were suffering under heavy debt and heavy taxes to pay off war debt.  Many of these farmers saw the new constitution as an effort by the wealthy merchants to give themselves more power to tax and collect debts, thus destroying the farmers.  John Langdon, who told Washington he had not heard of a person who objected, apparently did not spend much time chatting with farmers in the small towns across New Hampshire.

All the state newspapers supported ratification, as did most of the state’s ministers. The anti-federalists, however, organized and encouraged towns to send delegates to the convention to vote against ratifications.  These instructions were mandatory, meaning even if the delegate was convinced to support ratification at the convention, he was obligated to vote no.

When the convention assembled in Exeter, delegates quickly realized that perhaps one-quarter to one-third of the delegates had instructions to vote no, and quite a few more were inclined to vote no.  With the final result in doubt, the federalists developed their own strategy.  The first was to make sure all their people were there on the first day of the Convention only about half the delegates showed up that first day.  Two-thirds of them were committed federalists.  With this group, they voted a friendly chairman, Josiah Bartlett.  Publicly, Bartlett was uncommitted, but federalist leaders believed they could count on him for decisions in their favor.

They also adopted rules that no votes would be recorded, other than final ratification.  That way, those who had instructions to vote no, could vote freely on other matters without annoying their constituents.  They also added a rule that a vote to adjourn would take precedence over any other motion. That way, if the vote looked like it was going the wrong way, they could shut down the convention first.

Over the next few days, the delegates went through the constitution, noting objections.  Many anti-federalists objected to the power of the Congress, and the federal judiciary.  They also railed against the terms of office.  In New England, annual reelection was considered an important protection of representative government.  Two year terms for the House and six for the Senate were simply unacceptable.  Many also objected to the rule against any religious tests for elected officials.  New Hampshire had a rule that all elected officials must be protestants.  That was also considered a fundamental requirement of good government.

The federalists managed to win over some delegates, but some of those they won over were under instructions to vote no.  Those counting heads realized that between those with instructions and those who chose to vote no, ratification would fail an up or down vote.  The federalists managed to get some of the delegates under instructions to vote for adjournment.  That way, they would have time to regroup and plan for another convention.   The convention voted to adjourn by a vote of 56-51, without a vote on ratification.

Part of the agreement to adjourn was to push back the next meeting until June, four months away. They also agreed to hold the convention in Concord, which was an area that had more opposition to the constitution.  This was part of the compromise to get the adjournment.

But the delay gave federalists more time to strategize on a plan that would get the constitution ratified.  They flooded the state with pro-ratification articles and pamphlets, emphasizing how the new constitution would benefit everyone in New Hampshire.  They also attacked anti-federalists and anti-federalist views with being tied to the paper money riots that had plagued New Hampshire two years earlier.

One of the most effective anti-federalists who spoke at the convention in February was a lawyer named Joshua Atherton.  In addition to some of the usual anti-federalist arguments, Atherton also stressed the fact that the Constitution permitted the continued institution of slavery, which he strongly condemned.  New Hampshire had become increasingly anti-slavery, although there were still a few slave owners living in the state at this time.  Atherton had opposed the adjournment in February and had wanted the convention to hold a vote rejecting the Constitution.

During this interim period, between the two conventions, federalists attacked Atherton personally, dredging up his Tory tendencies during the war.  Atherton had taken a low profile during the war, believing that the Americans could never win.  He also associated himself with other more outspoken Tories, but had never taken up the loyalist cause actively.  He had been detained briefly, but had been released as nothing really stuck to him during the war.  Even so, federalists accused him of wanting to keep the government weak so that Britain could someday retake its American colonies.

The PR campaign had an impact, but was not enough to turn things around.  Federalists also focused on town meetings to get more pro-ratification delegates, and also to try to reduce the number of instructions to vote no.  They also tried to get some small towns who had not bothered to send a delegate to the February convention to send one to the June convention.

This also helped, but it still was not clear that the state would not have enough votes for ratification. The federalists then tried another strategy.  There were at least two dozen delegates who supported ratification but who were under instructions to vote no.  The federalists got these delegates to agree to simply make themselves absent from the convention at the time of the vote.  This would reduce the numbers voting against ratification.

When the convention met again on June 18, there was also another incentive.  Since the last convention, Maryland and South Carolina had both ratified.  That meant that the next state to ratify would be the ninth state, meaning they would have the honor of bringing the Constitution into effect.

On that first day of the June convention, federalists counted 90 of 116 delegates present.  Sixteen of those absent were delegates who were under instructions to vote no.  After a few credential fights for some delegates, the federalists hoped to get an up or down vote while the numbers favored them.  They waited until Friday, June 20.  

A committee reported on twelve amendments, very similar to what Massachusetts had recommended.  There were a few differences, one prevented soldiers from being quartered in private homes.  Another required a three-fourths vote of both houses to raise a standing army in times of peace.  One barred Congress from laws “touching religion “ or infringing on “the rights of Conscience”.  Finally, they wanted a prohibition on disarming any citizens unless they had engaged in actual rebellion. 

Following the report on amendments, Atherton made a motion to vote for conditional ratification.  That is, New Hampshire would not support the constitution until several amendments were added.  This was seconded.

The federalists thought they had the votes to defeat, but wanted to test that by calling for a vote to delay Atherton’s motion until the next day.  When that passed, the anti-federalists realized they were in the minority.  Atherton then moved to adjourn, but was voted down.  The federalists then moved to change the wording of Atherton’s motion from conditional ratification to unconditional ratification.  Four other delegates who supported ratification, but who were under instructions to vote no, then walked out of the convention.

The final vote in favor of unconditional ratification was 57-47 in favor.  Most were expecting a tight vote with a margin of maybe a couple of votes, so the ten vote margin seemed to surprise everyone.

With the ninth state having ratified, New Hampshire’s results were reported to the Confederation Congress on July 2, and they began to make plans to put the Constitution into effect.

While technically in effect, there were still two large and important states that had not ratified the Constitution: Virginia and New York.  

Next week: we’ll take a look at the Virginia ratification.

- - -

Next Episode 355 Virginia Ratification, 1788 (coming soon)

Previous Episode 353 New England Ratification

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 

 Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

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

Click here to donate

DONATE

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).

Click here to see my Patreon Page

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!

https://bookshop.org/shop/ARP

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Email*       

First Name 

Last Name 

Further Reading

Websites

Ermus, Cindy. “Reduced to Ashes: The Good Friday Fire of 1788 in Spanish Colonial New Orleans.” Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association, vol. 54, no. 3, 2013, pp. 292–331. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24396396

Luther Martin, Maryland and the Constitution https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/mlr/article/2710/&path_info=47_1_291_luther.pdf

Luther Martin, Genuine Information: https://www.consource.org/document/luther-martin-genuine-information-1787-12-28

“From George Washington to Thomas Johnson, 20 April 1788,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-06-02-0192.

Crowl, Philip A. “Anti-Federalism in Maryland, 1787-1788.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 4, 1947, pp. 446–69. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1919636

South Carolina Recommendatory Amendments, 23 May 1788 https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/debate-about-amendments/recommendatory-amendments-from-state-conventions/south-carolina-recommendatory-amendments-23-may-1788

Bradford, M. E. “Preserving the Birthright: The Intention of South Carolina in Adopting the U.S. Constitution.” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, vol. 89, no. 2, 1988, pp. 90–101. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27654601

Brunhouse, Robert L. “David Ramsay on the Ratification of the Constitution in South Carolina, 1787-1788.” The Journal of Southern History, vol. 9, no. 4, 1943, pp. 549–55. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2197664

Smith, Robert W. “DEFENDING THE RICE BARREL: FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION IN SOUTH CAROLINA.” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, vol. 118, no. 1, 2017, pp. 37–59. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45149585

Feb. 23, 1788 (NH Convention) https://www.cui.edu/centers-institutes/center-for-civics-education/convention-a-daily-journal/post/february-23-1788

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

This Constitution: From Ratification to the Bill of Rights, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1988 (borrow only). 

Brant, Irving James Madison: Father of the Constitution, 1787-1800. Bobbs-Merrill Co. 1950 (borrow only). 

Donovan, Frank R. Mr. Madison’s Constitution: The Story Behind the Constitutional Convention, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1965 (borrow only) 

Ford, Paul L. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Brooklyn, NY: 1888. 

Hall, Aaron An oration, delivered at the request of the inhabitants of Keene, June 30, 1788; to celebrate the ratification of the Federal Constitution by the state of New-Hampshire. 

Kaminski, John, et. al (eds) The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution: Maryland (Vol 11-12) South Carolina (Vol 27) and New Hampshire (Vol. 28), 2015-2017.

Rutland, Robert A. The Ordeal of the Constitution: The Antifederalists and the Ratification Struggle of 1787-1788, Northeastern University Press, 1983 (borrow only). 

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Bailyn, Bernard (ed) The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle Over Ratification, Part One, Library of America, 1984 (borrow on archive.org). 

Bradford, M.E. Original Intentions: on the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution, Univ. of GA Press, 1993 (borrow on archive.org). 

Conley, Patrick T & John P. Kaminski The Constitution and the States: The Role of the Original Thirteen in the Framing and Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Madison House, 1988 (borrow on archive.org).

Daniell, Jere R. Experiment in Republicanism: New Hampshire Politics and the American Revolution, 1741-1794, Harvard Univ. Press, 1970

Faber, Michael J. An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debates, Univ. Press of Kansas, 2019. 

Maier, Pauline Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. Simon & Schuster, 2010. 

Morris, Richard B. Witnesses at the Creation: Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the Constitution, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1985. 

Smith, Craig R To Form a More Perfect Union: The Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, 1787-1791, University Press of America, 1993 (borrow on archive.org) 

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

AR-SP33 Shots Heard Round the World, with John Ferling

Our American Revolution Round Table was joined by  Dr. John Ferling, author of Shots Heard Round the World: America, Britain, and Europe in the Revolutionary War

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.

* * * 

Get a copy of John Ferling's book ⁠Shots Heard Round the World: American, Britain and Europe in the Revolutionary War⁠.

Check out other books by John Ferling here:⁠ https://amzn.to/4kyg4pp⁠

To receive invitations to future live events, join my mailing list, ⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/d3445a9cd244/american-revolution-podcast-by-michael-troy⁠⁠

or become a member on Patreon.com: ⁠⁠ https://www.patreon.com/amrevpodcast⁠

ARP353 Ratification in New England

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.

Federal Pillars adding Massachusetts

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)

Previous Episode 352 First States to Ratify

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 

 Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

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

Click here to donate

DONATE

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).

Click here to see my Patreon Page

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!

https://bookshop.org/shop/ARP

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Email*       

First Name 

Last Name 

Further Reading

Websites

James Wilson’s Speech, Philadelphia, October 6, 1787 https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/17_James_Wilson_Speech_in_the_State_House_Yard.pdf

Letter by Elbridge Gerry to the Massachusetts State Legislature, Oct. 18, 1787: https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4519

Day-by-Day Summary of the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resource/massachusettstimeline

Massachusetts Ratification (with recommended changes) https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratma.asp

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

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

This Constitution: From Ratification to the Bill of Rights, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1988 (borrow only). 

Brant, Irving James Madison: Father of the Constitution, 1787-1800. Bobbs-Merrill Co. 1950 (borrow only). 

Donovan, Frank R. Mr. Madison’s Constitution: The Story Behind the Constitutional Convention, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1965 (borrow only) 

Ford, Paul L. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Brooklyn, NY: 1888. 

Harding, Samuel B. The contest over the ratification of the Federal Constitution in the state of Massachusetts, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1896. 

Jensen, Merrill (ed) Ratification of the Constitution by the States: Massachusetts, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1997 (Univ. Wisconsin website). 

Jensen, Merrill (ed) Ratification of the Constitution by the States: Delaware, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1978 (Univ. Wisconsin website). 

Mason, Alpheus T. The States Rights Debate: Antifederalism and the Constitution, Oxford Univ. Press, 1972. 

McCormick, Richard P. Experiment in independence: New Jersey in the Critical Period, 1781-1789, Rutgers Univ. Press, 1950 (borrow only) 

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Bailyn, Bernard (ed) The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle Over Ratification, Part One, Library of America, 1984 (borrow on archive.org). 

Bradford, M.E. Original Intentions: on the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution, Univ. of GA Press, 1993 (borrow on archive.org). 

Conley, Patrick T & John P. Kaminski The Constitution and the States: The Role of the Original Thirteen in the Framing and Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Madison House, 1988 (borrow on archive.org).

Faber, Michael J. An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debates, Univ. Press of Kansas, 2019. 

Morris, Richard B. Witnesses at the Creation: Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the Constitution, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1985. 

O’Connor, Thomas H. This Momentous Affair: Massachusetts and the Ratification of the Constitution of the United States, Trustees of the Public Library of the City of Boston, 1987 (borrow on archive.org). 

Smith, Craig R To Form a More Perfect Union: The Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, 1787-1791, University Press of America, 1993 (borrow on archive.org) 

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.