Last time we covered the ratification in New York which succeeded by the slimmest margin yet, and over the objections of most of the state leaders. New York became the eleventh state to join the union, with only Rhode Island having rejected it in a statewide referendum.
North Carolina
So for those of you proficient in math, you are probably saying to yourself, 11+1=12, and keen observers must be aware that there are 13 original states, so there’s got to be one more ratification story. Well right you are. The one state we haven’t discussed yet is North Carolina.
These efforts were unsuccessful, the new legislature still contained an anti-federalist majority. The members were willing to hold a convention, but pushed it back quite a bit to let other states consider the matter first. In early December, the General Assembly set an election for late March, with the ratifying convention itself scheduled to start on July 21 in Hillsborough.
This gave time for copies of the Constitution to circulate, along with articles and pamphlets discussing the pros and cons. The convention was one of the largest that was held among all the states. Each county could send five delegates, along with some towns, for a total of nearly 300 delegates. As we’ve seen in other states, coastal merchants favored ratification, while farmers, particularly in the west, opposed it.
The convention elections were contentious, and in some cases turned violent. An account from New Bern County relates that when the federalist candidate realized they were losing overwhelmingly, they pulled out clubs and began a riot to prevent the election from completing. They beat the sheriff and stole the ballot box to prevent a conclusion to the vote count.
When the convention delegates met in July, the anti-federalists were in a majority of about 2-1. They elected the newly-elected Governor Samuel Johnston as the chair of the convention. Johnston was a federalist who supported ratification, but was not an outspoken advocate.
The anti-federalists, seeing their advantage, wanted a quick vote and an end to the convention. The federalists, however, hoping to change things, demanded some debate, including going through the document clause by clause. With the encouragement of Governor Johnston, the delegates agreed to the lengthy review of each clause.
Federalists hoped that, like in other states, once the anti-federalists realized the new government was moving forward with or without them that they would compromise and accept some form of ratification with a record of their reservations and concerns.
The delegates were aware of the state of things from the beginning. On day one of the convention, the delegates were well aware that ten states had ratified and that the Constitution was already going into effect. The anti-federalist farmers, however, were not convinced that going with the other states was best for them. These were men who had lived through the regulator movement twenty years earlier. They were meeting at the same spot where six regulators had been hanged for resisting corrupt tax policies. Several of the federalist leaders at the convention had helped to crush their regulator movement.
Since then, North Carolina had adopted a state constitution that protected their rights. If this new Federal Constitution threatened to bring on a new distant government that could tax them into poverty again, they did not want to take that chance.
Debates at the convention were nothing that other states hadn’t argued. Delegates complained about the absence of a bill of rights, and too much power to the federal government, including direct taxing authority. It would also prevent the issuance of more state paper money, which had benefitted the indebted farmers.
Once the convention completed its review, Governor Johnston moved that the delegates ratify the constitution, and propose amendments. This was the only way North Carolina would have a say over these amendments which could go through the new federal congress. That argument had worked in New York.
A leading anti-federalist, Willie Jones, objected, He moved that the convention consider proposing amendments before any ratification. This came to a vote which carried, 183 to 84. The anti-federalists proposed a twenty part bill of rights, as well as twenty-six other proposed amendments.
Once again, Johnston opposed this plan. He noted that calling a second convention and adopting a bill of rights, could take up to two years, during which time North Carolina would not be represented in the new government. On August 1, the federalists again moved to ratify the constitution unconditionally with the proposal of six important amendments. This failed overwhelmingly, and the convention voted not to ratify by 184 to 83. North Carolina did not expressly reject the Constitution, but also refused to ratify it. Anti-federalists argued that their refusal would pressure the new government to adopt the appropriate amendments to get North Carolina to agree to join the new Union. But for now, North Carolina was out. The convention concluded and the delegates returned home.
Second Convention
As North Carolina was still in debate, Pennsylvania began having second thoughts about its ratification. On July 3, 1788 anti-federalists in Pennsylvania sent out a circular letter that raised concerns that Pennsylvania had acted too precipitously. Unlike other states that gave greater consideration, the keystone state had not proposed any amendments, nor a bill of rights.
Concerned Pennsylvanians held their own unofficial convention in Harrisburg to discuss necessary changes to the constitution. While they were not trying to take back the state’s ratification vote, they wanted to encourage the changes that they and other states wanted. They circulated a petition that called for a second constitutional convention to consider these amendments.
Pennsylvania’s petition was in line with New York’s circular letter, which also had called for a second convention to consider necessary amendments to the proposed constitution. This movement also appealed to Virginia governor Edmund Randolph, who had refused to sign the Constitution because he wanted a second convention to consider amendments.
Madison saw this movement as a threat. In a letter to Jefferson, Madison wrote:
the circular letter from the Convention of New York, has somewhat changed the aspect of things and has given fresh hopes and exertions to those who opposed the Constitution. The object with them now will be to effect an early Convention composed of men who will essentially mutilate the system
This second convention movement could have a fatal impact on the new government, essentially weakening it back to the level under the Articles of Confederation. Madison had little objection to a bill of rights, which many states had demanded. He saw it as unnecessary, but rather redundant.
Of greater concern was the demand to remove federal authority over direct taxation. Madison and others believed this was critical to the new federal government. Washington agreed. In August of 1788, he said
there are scarcely any of the amendments which have been suggested, to which I have much objection, except that whch goes to the prevention of direct taxation—and that, I presume, will be more strenuously advocated and insisted upon hereafter than any other.
Federalists were happy to consider some amendments. But they did not want to open up a whole second convention which could decimate all of the compromises that had been made to make the proposed constitution work for most people, and yet still be effective in overcoming the weaknesses of the Articles.
Election Ordinance
Whatever the results of this effort to call a second convention, the process for implementing the Constitution, as is, was moving forward. News of New Hampshire’s unconditional ratification as the ninth date arrived at the confederation Congress on June 24, 1788. The official forms arrived on July 1. The following day, Congress received word that Virignia had ratified as the tenth state. They voted to submit the matter to a committee for plans to put the new constitution into effect. Of the eleven states present, nine voted to approve. The Rhode Island delegation did not vote. The New York Convention was still meeting at the time. Abraham Yates was the only “no” vote in Congress. His no vote split the delegation, meaning New York also refused.
A week later, on July 9 Congress received a committee report calling for the first presidential election to take place on the first Wednesday in December. The electors would then meet in their home states to vote in January, 1789, and that Congress would assemble on the first Wednesday in February, and would confirm the vote of the electors. The committee did not specify a place for these meetings. New York’s ratifying convention was still ongoing at the time, and Congress did not want to make any decisions on location until New York decided whether it would join the union.
Even if New York ratified, there was no guarantee that the new government would meet in New York. Southern delegates had been pushing for a location further south. Various delegates were pushing for a move back to Trenton, Philadelphia, or Lancaster. Others wanted Wilmington, Delaware, Baltimore, or even somewhere on the banks of the Potomac River.
Beyond being too far to travel and parochial concerns, delegates raise issues like a capital being too close to the coast could make it easier for foreign navies to attack. Some delegates raised questions about a location that would not allow them to bring their slaves. Others were concerned about the costs of continually moving the capital.
This actually turned out to be the most contentious issue for Congress in agreeing to the new elections. Delegates debate moving the seat of Congress, either temporarily or permanent. In the end though, a majority of delegates wanted to keep everything in New York, at least for the moment.
On September 12, 1788, Henry Lee of Virginia moved that the current location of the Confederation Congress in New York should be the first meeting place of the new federal Congress. Fellow Viriginan, James Madison, who usually pushed any expedient to keep this process moving, proposed an alternative - moving the seat of government to a more central location. He called for a vote to move anywhere other than New York, hoping that disagreement of a final location would keep the anti-New York delegates together. Even so, his motion was defeated, and Congress voted nine to one to keep the location in New York. Only Delaware dissented. The Maryland delegates were so angry that the delegates walked out before the vote.
Despite the vote on location, many southerners objected that the situation would not give them enough time to implement new elections and then travel back to New York to start the new government. As a compromise, Congress pushed back their schedule by a month. Selecting presidential electors in January, voting in February, and the meeting of the first Congress in March.
The Confederation Congress continued to meet and do business for another month, mostly dealing with issues related to the army and the Northwest territory. On Friday, October 10, 1788, the delegates took a vote related to land warrants for veterans, which failed. The significance of that vote was that it was the last vote the Confederation congress would ever take. The following week, the Congress failed to gain a quorum.
The President of Congress, Cyrus Griffin, came to open a new session on November 15. When only two other delegates showed up, Griffin resigned his office and went home. A few delegates showed up over the next few months, but left when they realized nothing was happening. The final log in the journal is for March 2, 1789 when Phillip Pell of New York came to an empty hall and recorded his presence. The Confederation Congress simply faded out of existence.
Anti-Federalists On Board
The nation was focused on the new elections. Each state prepared to hold their own elections. for members of the House of Representatives on their own timetable. Senators were selected by the state legislatures.
The anti-federalists who had opposed implementation of the new Constitution so vehemently at the convention and during the ratification process mostly got on board and were willing to participate in the new federal government. They did not continue to fight after the battle had been lost.
Massachusetts delegate John Taylor, who had fought hard to oppose ratification said after the fact that he had been “fairly beaten” and returned home with a desire “to infuse a spirit of harmony”. Fellow delegate William Widgery, declared that he had been defeated “by a majority of wise and understanding men” and would also focus on “union and peace among the people he represented”
Others who had voted against ratification, including James Monroe and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia as well as Samuel Adams and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, accepted their loss and ran for office. New York Governor George Clinton received a few electoral votes for Vice President.
In the end, Anti-federalists made up about 30% of the Senate and over 40% of the first House of Representatives. These men were realists. They accepted the fact that the majority and implemented the new constitution. Their only option was to operate under it, and do their best to make sure the new Federal government did not do the things that concerned them so much during the ratification process.
Congressional Elections
Since each state could decide when to hold its elections, they were spread out over months. Several states got the ball rolling by having the state legislatures choose Senators. Pennsylvania was first out of the gate, choosing Robert Morris and William MacLay on September 30, 1788, just over two weeks after the Confederation Congress had authorized elections. A total of six state legislatures had selected US Senators by the end of the year.
House elections were more difficult since the Constitution required actual elections by voters, not legislative appointments. States not only had to schedule dates for elections, but had to pass election laws to determine how candidates would be elected.
South Carolina managed to beat Pennsylvania by holding its elections on November 24 and 25. Two anti-federalists, Thomas Sumter and Thomas Tudor Tucker won unopposed in the western part of the state. A third anti-federalist, Aedenus Burke was challenged, but won with more than 99% in another western district. Two federalists, William Smith and Daniel Huger, won the eastern districts
Pennsylvania, where federalists still dominated the state legislature, did note create voting districts. Instead, had the entire state vote for eight at-large candidates, hoping to shut out the anti-federalists, thinking that a majority state-wide would support a federalist slate. Even so, the anti-federalists managed to pick up two of the eight seats.
New Hampshire also held elections for its three representatives. In its elections on December 15, no candidate received a majority of votes. As a result, the top six candidates were selected for a second round. All six candidates were federalists, so New Hampshire sent a 100% federalist delegation to the first Congress. Similarly, Connecticut also held at-large elections sending five federalists to the House of Representatives. Among them was Roger Sherman, who played such an important role in the creation of the Constitution.
Massachusetts held elections on December 18, but failed to get a majority in four of its eight elections. It held another election on January 28, 1789, but managed to fill only two of the four remaining seats. It filled another in March, but the final district went through multiple rounds before finally choosing a candidate in May, two months after the Congress had begun meeting.
The rest of the states did not begin their elections until 1789. Delaware kicked off the year with a vote on January 7.
The federalists were not the only ones to play games with the election rules to their own advantage. In Virginia, Patrick Henry not only ensured that Madison would not be selected as a Senator, he made sure the district lines were drawn in such a way that Madison’s home was in a heavily anti-federalist district. Henry also encouraged James Monroe to oppose Madison for the seat. Despite these efforts, Madison managed to win with 57% of the vote, but only after promising voters that he personally would draft and introduce a bill of rights for the new Constitution.
Of the eleven states that had ratified the Constitution, New York, the final state to ratify was also the final state to hold elections. A political impasse between the federalists in the State Senate and the anti-federalists in the General Assembly resulted in an inability to pass a state election law for nearly six months.
In the end New York held its House elections on March 3-4, the same day that the first US Congress convened to start business. The results of the New York elections were not ready until April, meaning the delegation missed out on the early votes. New York also did not get around to appointing Senators until July.
So, with rather confused and contentious elections, the states managed to select the first Congress, which met on March 3, 1789.
Next week, we will cover the first Presidential elections.
- - -
Next Episode 358 Presidential Election of 1788-1789 (coming soon)
Previous Episode 356 New York and the Federalist Papers
 |
| 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.
Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List
Further Reading
Websites
Howard, Thomas L. “The State That Said No: The Fight for Ratification of the Federal Constitution in North Carolina.” The North Carolina Historical Review, vol. 94, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45184801
“From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 23 August 1788,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-0171
“From George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, 31 August 1788,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-06-02-0440
Congressional Election of 1789 (Madison v. Monroe) https://www.montpelier.org/the-congressional-election-of-1789
Boyd, Steven R. “Antifederalists and the Acceptance of the Constitution: Pennsylvania, 1787-1792.” Publius, vol. 9, no. 2, 1979, pp. 123–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3329737
Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)
Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1789 - Volume 34 Jan. 21, 1788 - March 2, 1789
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).
Ford, Paul L. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Brooklyn, NY: 1888.
Renwick, Henry B. Lives of John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, 1817-1895, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1840.
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)*
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).
Jensen, Merrill The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections, 1788-1790, Vol. 1 Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1976.
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.
Rossiter, Clinton Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. 1964 (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)
Storing, Herbert J. What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution, Univ of Chicago Press, 1981.
Van Doren, Carl The Great Rehearsal: The story of the making and ratifying of the Constitution of the United States, Viking Press, 1948. (borrow on archive.org)
No comments:
Post a Comment