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.
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
 |
| 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
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
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment