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.
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
 |
| Click here to donate |
 |
| Click here to see my Patreon Page |
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" |
Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List
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.
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.
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.
