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 |
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
Previous Episode 352 First States to Ratify
 |
| 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
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.
