Yale University Library

39002002108596

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

R

ES6WM©eK-RQQ#

HARVARD
HISTORICAL STUDIES

PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT FROM THE INCOME OF

C&e %%zmy Warren Correi? tfuvto

Volume II.

Harvard Historical Studies.
Published under the Direction of the Department of History and
Government from the Income of the Henry Warren Torrey
Fund.

THIS SERIES will comprise works of original research
selected from the recent writings of teachers and
graduate students in the Department of History and Gov
ernment in Harvard University. The series will also include
collections of documents, bibliographies, reprints of rare
tracts, etc. The monographs will appear at irregular inter
vals; but it is hoped that at least three volumes will be
published annually.
The volumes of the series published in l8g6 are:
I. THE SUPPRESSION OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE-
TRADE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
1638-1870. By W. E. B. Du Bois, Ph.D., Professor in
Wilberforce University.
II. THE CONTEST OVER THE RATIFICATION OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN THE STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS. By S. B. Harding, A.M., Assistant
Professor of History in Indiana University.
III. A CRITICAL STUDY OF NULLIFICATION IN SOUTH
CAROLINA. By D. F. Houston, A.M., Adjunct Pro
fessor of Political Science in the University of Texas.
The following volumes will be published in l8gj :
A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BRITISH MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
By Charles Gross, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History in
Harvard University.
THE LIBERTY AND FREE SOIL PARTIES IN THE
NORTHWEST. By Theodore C. Smith, Ph.D.
NOMINATIONS FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE IN THE
UNITED STATES. By Frederick W. Dalltnger, A.M.

LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., Publishers,
91 AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK.
LONDON AND BOMBAY.

THE

Contest over the Ratification

OF THE

^jfetieral Constitution

IN THE

STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

BY

SAMUEL BANNISTER HARDING, A.M.
m
SOMETIME MORGAN FELLOW IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN INDIANA UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
LONDON AND BOMBAY
1896

Copyright, 1896,
By the President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Cross C^rrxp^
r\4 vl^7

University Press :
John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, U.S.A.

PREFATORY NOTE.
This paper is the result, in the main, of work done in
connection with the Seminary of American History and
Institutions of Harvard University during the academic
years 1893-94 and 1894-95. Much of what value it
may possess is due to the kind assistance and guidance
of the directors of the seminary. For the opinions ex
pressed herein, however, and for such errors of fact as
may have crept into it, the author alone is responsible.
The work was undertaken largely from a belief that
only through a more thorough study than had hitherto
been made of the internal political history of the States,
in the period during and immediately following the Revo
lution, could a right understanding be obtained of the
subsequent party struggles in national politics by which
the interpretation of the Constitution was fixed and
the scope and general policy of the new government
were determined. So far, the author has been able to
deal extensively with but two of the thirteen States,
namely, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Some of the
results arrived at with reference to the former State have
been set forth in the Papers of the American Historical
Association for 1894; those relating to the latter State
are here presented. It is only necessary to add that, as
the work has progressed, the conviction with which it
was begun has steadily grown stronger.
S. B. H.
Bloomington, Indiana,
May, 1896.

CONTENTS.

Chapter Page
Introductory  . i
Arguments against the Constitution .... 15
Calling the Convention  45
Opposition in the Convention  59
Ratification  82
Reception of the Ratification: its Influence 105

APPENDICES.
A. Letter of "Cornelius"  117
B. Letters of "A Republican Federalist" . . . 129
C. Bibliographical Note  173
D. List of Authorities Cited  .180
Index  185

THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

IN

MASSACHUSETTS.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
It may, perhaps, be taken as an axiom of politics that Factors in
under a popular form of government a decision is never §°cisions
reached solely upon the merits of the question. No
matter how momentous the issue, no matter how intense
the desire to decide aright, extraneous influences will
inevitably affect the result. Prejudice will usually
prove a more potent factor than reason, and the course
of the individual or the community will be determined
chiefly by its existing habits of political thought and
action. In endeavoring, therefore, to arrive at an understand- Antecedent
ing of the causes that in Massachusetts led so many con ltl0ns-
persons to oppose the ratification of the Federal Consti
tution, it will be necessary to start with the antecedent
conditions. Now, it may safely be asserted that two of
the chief characteristics of the political life in that State
in 1787, and the two which most directly fostered the
development of the opposition to the newly proposed
Federal system, were (1) the inordinate self-confidence .
of the mass of the people as to their ability to pass upon
the most abstruse questions of government, and (2) a

introductory.

Self-confidence of the
people,

as shown by
the Ashfield
Resolves ;

\ pronounced antagonism in political matters between the
j upper and the lower classes. A few words as to each
of these features will make clear what is meant.
Even before the Revolution, keenness of the po
litical sense was a marked characteristic of the Massa
chusetts man, its development being in large part due
to the fostering influence of frequent participation in the
business of the town-meeting. There he became familiar
with the routine administration of affairs, was imbued
with the healthy spirit of liberty which underlay New
England institutions, and was familiarized with the stock
precedents of government which constituted the common
heritage of the English race. It was with the art of
politics, however, rather than with" its philosophy that
he was concerned : his knowledge was one of particular
instances rather than of general theories. With the
latter he was first familiarized in the political agitations
that preceded and accompanied the break with the
mother country. Then for the first time he was made
acquainted with the political philosophy founded on the
theory of the social compact and the doctrine of the
rights of man. The appeal to this philosophy, moreover,
was accompanied by a flattery of the masses on the part
of the Revolutionary agitators, which, together with the
easy simplicity of the doctrines presented, led perhaps
inevitably to the exaggerated sense of political capacity
which has been named as one of the most marked char
acteristics of the men of this period.
This temper came to light as soon as the attempt
was made to build up some sort of settled govern
ment to replace the repudiated royal administration.
Owing to the absence of most of the men of learn
ing and political experience, either in the army or as
refugee loyalists, men of lesser calibre usually took the
lead. In the Ashfield_(Hampshire) Resolves of October
4, 1776, we have a curious instance of the "result. In

self-confidence of the people. 3
these it is recited that " for as the Old Laws that we
have Ben Ruled by under the British Constitution have
Proved Inefectual to Secuer us from the more then
Savige Crualty of tiranical Opressars and Sense the God
of Nature hath Enabeled us to Brake that yoke of Bond
age we think our Selves Bound in Duty to God and our
Country to Opose the Least Apearanc of them Old
Tiranical Laws taking Place again ; " therefore it is voted
"that we will take the Law of God for the foundation of
the forme of our Goverment . . . that it is our opin-
nion that we Do not want any Goviner but the Goviner
of the univarse, and under him a States Ginaral to Con
sult with the wrest of the united States for the Good of
the whole . . . ; that the Asembelly of this Stat Con
sist of one Colecttive body the Members of which body
Shall Anually be Alected . . . that all acts Pased by the
Ginaral Cort of this State Respecting the Seviral Towns
Be Sent to the Sevaral Towns for thair acceptants Be
fore they Shall be in force," etc.1 At Pittsfield (Berk
shire) wiser heads were in control, and an abler pen —
that of Rev. Thomas Allen — wrote the resolves; but
the self-confident temper was the same. In that county,
from 1775 to 1780 every attempt at the exercise of au
thority based on the provincial charter was resisted by
the so-called " Constitutionalists ; " and in j'ustification and by the
of their conduct they wrote to the General Court, May 29, con'stitufion-
1776: "Knowing the strong bias of human nature to alists.
tyranny and despotism, we have nothing else in view
but to provide for posterity against the wanton exercise
1 Massachusetts Archives (State House), CLVI. 131. At the
opposite pole to the inhabitants of Ashfield, so far as relates to the
government which they desired for the country as a whole, stood
the men of Boothbay. These, in 1778, expressed the wish that
after the war " all distinction of Separate States " should be abol
ished, and the union of America be secured " by reducing the whole
into one great Republick." Ibid., p. 368.

T6^.

4 introductory.
of power, which cannot otherwise be done than by the
formation of a fundamental constitution. . . . We have
heard much of government being founded in compact:
what compact has been formed as the foundation of
government in this Province?"1
Other Nor are these instances unique : throughout the State
examples. there was manifest the sames^pMLoJLpcJitical unrest and
of confidence in the ability of the average irfa-n. to con
struct anew, and with advantage, the whole machinery
^- — .  of -government." ' To quote from a letter from John Win-
throp to John Adams, under date of June i, 1776:
" There is such a spirit of innovation gone forth as I
am afraid will throw us into confusion. It seems as if
everything was to be altered. Scarce a newspaper but
teems with new projects. This week produced three:
First, For county assemblies ; Second, for a registry of
deeds in each town; Third, for the probate of wills,
etc., to be made in each town by a committee, to
be annually chosen for that purpose at the meet
ing ; " 2 projects which, his correspondent replied, were
" founded in narrow notions, sordid stinginess, and- pro
found ignorance," and which tended " directly to
barbarism." 3
It was natural that this spirit should be most con
spicuously manifested at the beginning of the Revo
lution, when all constitutional relations were disor
ganized ; but the point to be noted is that something
Persistence of of the same temper persisted for a number of years,
spirit?" en and played a considerable part in determining the atti
tude of the people when the Federal Constitution was
submitted to them.
With the people of Massachusetts such a question
1 Smith, History of Pittsfield, I. 351-4.
2 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, Fifth Series,
IV. 30S.
8 Ibid., p. 310.

tion,

SELF-CONFIDENCE OF THE people. 5
was by no means merely formal. In matters even so as seen in the
weighty as the framing' of a Constitution they did not theArtkles01
hesitate to form decided and independent judgments. ofConfedera-
The history of the ratification of the Articles of Con
federation illustrates this. In 1777 that instrument was
submitted by the General Court to the towns, that
they might instruct their representatives in the matter.
Thereupon the town of Palmer reported that they ap
proved all except the section " which Delegates a power
In Congress to have the Sole & Inclusive Rite of De
termining on peace and war, which Reather at present
appears to us ought to be more perticularly Vested in
the people." 1 Amesbury wished to amend the Articles,
not only as to the determining of peace and war, but
also so that the charges of government should be ap
portioned among the States " according to the Value and
income of Personal as well as Real Estate." 2 Bridge-
water wished no question to be determined by less than
eleven States.3 The town of Westborough reported
that they " are of Opinion that the Protestant Reli
gion", is not duly Guarded in Said Confederation ; also
we think it might be well to Acknowledge, the Su-
perintendency of Heaven, in the Style ; " 4 while Lex
ington wished as a " further Barrier to the Freedom
and Independence of This, and the other States," and
a " standing Check upon the Arts and Schemes of
crafty, designing and ambitious Men " that the right be
reserved to the States of suggesting amendments to
Congress.5 Still more clearly is the same temper shown in the
formation of the State Constitution. In this the part
1 Massachusetts Archives, CLVI. 294. My attention was first
called to these votes by Mr. C. A. Duniway, at that time a fellow-
student in the Harvard Graduate School.
• 3 Ibid., p. 300. 4 Ibid., p. 299,
s Ibid., p. 302. 6 Ibid., p. 295.

6

introductory.

and in the
formation of a State
Constitution.

Constitution
of 1778
rejected.-

Constitutionof 1780
adopted.

played by the towns was even more pronounced than
in the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. In
1776 the House of Representatives, acting under the
Provincial Charter, called upon the towns to decide
whether the existing General Court should be em
powered to enact a Constitution; but because of the
non-concurrence of the Council, or for some other
reason, only a minority of the towns responded. In
1777 the attempt was again made, and the towns were
advised to select their representatives for the ensuing
year with care, and to instruct them with regard to
drafting a Constitution for the State. When these
representatives met, they with the Council resolved
themselves into a Constitutional Convention, and drafted
a Constitution, which in 1778 was submitted to the
'people. By a vote of more_than two to one this was
rejected, Boston' leaoTLng==^e-c:©pp©sitianJi, The next
year the towns were asked, (1) whether they wanted a.
Constitution or not, and (2) whether they would em
power the next General Court to call a Convention
expressly to frame such an instrument. Both propo
sitions were accepted by overwhelming votes ; and by
a Convention called under this authorization the admi
rable Constitution of_i 780 .Mas-framed. Accompanied
by an address so conciliatory as to be almost ludicrous,
this Constitution was then submitted to the people of the
towns for ratification, and having secured the approval
of the required two-thirds of the freemen of the State,

1 Smith (History of Pittsfield, I. 357) asserts that it was the
aristocratic element which defeated the Constitution of 1778. This
element, he says, had dictated the government of the interregnum,
and wished its continuance for selfish reasons. The real reason for
the opposition, however, seems to have been the loose nature and
generally unsatisfactory character of the Constitution proposed.
The Constitution of 1778 may be found in the fournal of the
Convention of 1779-80, Appendix V.

FORMATION OF STATE CONSTITUTION. 7
it was finally proclaimed by the Convention at a second
session.1 Thus, the people of Massachusetts were called upon Frequent par-
six times in less than as many years to passupjon_the thePaeoOIie0L
"Tflo^tfundamental questions thaFcoTrh=W5e-s^Tbmitted to constitution-
their suffrages. In their dealings with neither the Arti- 1" ' ' =
cles of Confederation nor the State Constitution were
they restricted in the exercise of their right to a mere
acceptance or rejection in its entirety of the instrument
proposed to them : in connection with both of these, the1
right to reject specific sections and to propose amend
ments was expressly recognized and was freely exercised.
Every citizen of the State was thus admitted to an active
participation in the constitution-making, as well as in
the administration of government, of this epoch. Un
doubtedly, one result of this was that the men of Massa
chusetts were thereby better prepared to act intelligently
upon the Federal Constitution of 1787, when it was sub- and its results.
mitted to them. It was this preliminary training in
the processes of constitution-making, together with the
generally better developed political sense of the New
Englander, which prevented the discussion in the ratify
ing Convention of that State from being confined entirely
to a very few leaders on each side, as was the case, for
example, in Pennsylvania. Nothing is truer, however,
than that " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." A
more pernicious result of this frequent submission of
fundamental questions to popular suffrage was the de
velopment and confirmation of the belief, among the
masses, that in the framing of a constitution no higher
order of intellect is necessary than in the laying out
of a county road, or in the formulation of rules for the
1 In this account of the steps leading to the adoption of the
Constitution of 1780, I have followed in the main a MS. thesis in
Harvard College Library on The Struggle for the Constitution in
Massachusetts, by Dr. F. E. Haynes (1891).

8

INTRODUCTORY.

Antagonismbetweenclasses.

M\

pasturing of swine on the town common.1 Hence, in the
proceedings relating to the Federal Constitution, we find
that not only is the idea widely prevalent among the
citizens of the State, both in and out of the ratifying
Convention, that they could themselves have framed a
better, or at least a safer, Constitution than the one sub
mitted to them; but also the demand is advanced
that the Constitution be submitted to the individual
towns for their ratification, — a course of procedure
which would have rendered the cause of ratification
hopeless. _.
By the antagonismH5efween the upper and the lower
classes, which has been named as the second great char
acteristic of this period, is meanfsomething more than the
latent hostility, born of envy, which always exists on the
part of those who have not toward those who have. This
certainly was an element in its composition, but not the
sole or the most important one. Economic and politi-

\ cal influejjeesrof Tar^gl^feT^velghtLent^red into it ; and
it was chiefly owing to these that byftreyear 1787 the
\ antagonism of classes had developed into an earnest, if
not a bitter, contest between the forces of aristocracy and
• democracy for the control of the State government.
Its causes. In the development of this contest, it was the democ
racy that had taken the initiative. The distrust of the
upper classes, to which this was due, was partly a natural
consequence of the growth of the democratic spirit
which accompanied the Revolution ; partly, too, it was
1 In refreshing contrast to the action of many of the towns, is
the return made from the town of Bluehill Bay upon the Constitu
tion of 1778. " Sur and If there is Aney thing that we have Om-
metted in the Return," write the twenty-six inhabitants of the town
by their chairman, after signifying their assent to the measure, " I
Would have you Let us know by Capt. Haskell for we Are so as it
Ware Out of the Wourld that We Dont hardley know Wether we
Do Rite or Rong But we Mean to Do as Well as We Can."
Massachusetts Archives, CLVI. 418.

ANTAGONISM BETWEEN CLASSES. 9
the result of special causes. One of these causes lay in
the fact that so many of the professional men, and men
of property and education, either remained loyalists or
gave but a lukewarm support to the measures of the
patriot party ; another cause was the natural antagonism
of interest between town and country, between, agricul
tural and commercial sections ; and still a third is to be
found in the economic and legal conditions of the time,
which after the conclusion of peace speedily brought into
wide disrepute one of the most conspicuous elements of
the aristocracy, namely, the legal class. It was the
antagonism between town and country, accentuated Antagonism
after the war by the contrast between the poverty of andTountr^11
the farming regions and the comparative luxury of the
maritime towns, that established the removal of the
capital from Boston as an article of the Shaysite plat
form ; x and that helped to break down the popular
prejudice against impost and excise taxes, this in turn
leading to the attempt to throw the burden of taxation on
commerce.2 Opposition to the " overbearing power of Opposition
Voppressive lawyers " 3 was even more widespread in 1786- t0 lawyers-
1787 than the desire for the removal of the capital. " Per-
1 In the instructions voted by the' town of Braintree to its
representatives in 1778, for example, the first is "to remove the
Court [legislature] from Boston." (Adams, History of Quincy,
p. 264.) Many such instructions may be found in this period. See
Benedict and Tracy, History of Sutton, p. 125, for like instructions
voted by that town in 1786; and Jameson, Records of Amherst,
p. 97, for like action by Amherst in 1787. By the latter town the
reasons for desiring the removal are stated to be : (1) the undue
influence which the presence of the capitol in Boston gives to
merchants and others of its inhabitants ; (2) the noise and other
influences that tend to divert the attention of representatives;
(3) the fact that " eatables are much Dearer " at second and third
hand. 2 Minot, Historyof the Insurrections in Massachusetts, pp. 9-13.
3 "Perseverance," in Massachusetts Centinel, June 17, 1786.

IO

INTRODUCTORY.

Inferior men
elected.

Shays's
revolt.

haps since the settlement of this country, independence
not excepted" says one newspaper statesman, speaking
of the articles in which the matter was first broached,
" there never was a more popular question agitated than
this by Honestus." l Undoubtedly, there was much legiti
mate ground for dissatisfaction with~-th£_ao!mHHstratfon
of thejaw as it was conducted at this time. Fges_of^all
sorts were high, and imprisonment for debt was not
onlyallowed, but was of frequent occurrence. The form
which the movement took was twofold: (i) to abolish
"ye pernicious practice of ye Law," allowing each citi
zen to " support and defend his cause before any Court
of law with ye same freedom . . . as . . . before Arbi
trators ; " 2 and (2) to exclude lawyers from all offices
within the gift of the people.
The result of the growing distrust of the upper
classes was to be seen in the change in the character
of the men who after the Revolution were intrusted
with office. This was remarked by John Adams upon
his return, in 1788, from his nine-year residence abroad.
"The constancy of the people in a course of -annual
elections," he writes, " has discarded from their confi
dence almost all the old, stanch, firm patriots, who
conducted the revolution in all the civil departments,
and has called to the helm pilots much more selfish
and much less skilful." 3
The revolt which broke out in the western counties
in 1 786-1 787 under Daniel Shays,4 and which was

1 "Jus," in Massachusetts Centinel, April 22, 1786.
2 Dedham instructions to representative, May 17, 1786, in
Huntoon, History of Canton, p. 428.
8 John Adams, Works, IX. 557.
4 What seems to be a fair account of the classes of persons
entering into the uprising is given by Barnabas Bidwell, a young
Yale graduate, whose home was in Berkshire County, Massa
chusetts, and who visited the counties concerned soon after the

SHAYS'S REVOLT. II
designed to coerce the government into granting the
demands of the popular leaders, seems to have been
the last straw with the aristocracy. It was this which
crystallized the existing class hostility into definite
political opposition. A writer signing himself "Atti- "Atticus"
cus," in the Independent Chronicle of Boston for ^allSon
October 18, 1787, undertakes to assign the very
moment at which this change took place. From the
countermanding of the order for the troops to go to
Concord to support the Court of Common Pleas, in
September, 1787, two pjirtigs^Jie says, had resulted in
the State : first, " that of thejaopulace," which tended to
"general levelism, and democratic turbulence; " second,
that of the rich, of men of "austere, political principles," \X
which tended to " an alteration of the_ Constitution of/\
our State, and the subjetfffmr"oTThe people to a rigid
aristocracy." The reason why these parties arose just at
that time, according to this writer, was that the populace
thought that the moment had come when they could
shake off their obligations to the rich without punish-
subsidence of the troubles. After mentioning the fact that " the
Gentlemen of learning and the liberal professions . . . are uni
versally for Government," he goes on to say: "Debtors are
generally on the other side ; and this class comprehends more
than half of the people. Persons guilty of crimes, or who wish to
commit crimes ; Rhode Island Emigrants and almost all of the
denomination of Baptists ; men of warm passions and but little
reason ; men of fickle minds, fond of every new scheme and proud
of an enterprising spirit, — such have pretty generally engaged in
the Insurrection. They have been joined by many, who have no
attachment to any establishment, but were glad of the commotion,
as it gave them something to do. They have also drawn in a large
number of boys ; and also of the ignorant, uninformed, but well-
meaning common people, who hearing such a dreadful outcry
against Government, believed there were some intolerable griev
ances, although they knew not what." To David Dagget, June
16, 1787: American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, April, 1887,
New Series, IV. 368.

12

INTRODUCTORY.

Views of
aristocratic
element.

Abolitionof State gov
ernmentsadvocated.

ment, while the rich judged from the countermanding
of the order to the troops that the existing laws were
no longer sufficient for the protection of their interests.
The attitude which seems to have been taken gener
ally by men of education and property at this time,
is indicated by a letter from Theodore Sedgwick to
Rufus King. " Every man of observation," he writes,
" is convinced that the end of government security
cannot be attained by the exercise of principles founded
on democratic equality. A war is now actually levied
on the virtue, property and distinctions in the com
munity, and however there may be an appearance of a
temporary cessation of hostilities, yet the flame will
again and again break out." 1 Henry Knox took even
a more downright view of the matter. " The democracy
might be managed, nay, it would remedy itself after
being sufficiently fermented," he wrote to King, who
was then attending the Federal Convention at Philadel
phia ; " but the vile State governments are sources of
pollution, which will contaminate the American name
perhaps for ages. Machines that must produce ill, but
cannot produce good, smite them in the name of God
and the people."2

1 Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, I. 224.
2 Drake, Life of Knox, p. 96. For further illustration of
the views of the aristocratic faction, see the pamphlet entitled
Thoughts upon the Political Situation of the United States of
America, in which that of Massachusetts is more particularly
considered. . . . By a native of Boston [Jonathan Jackson],
Worcester, 1788. In this the author, after commenting on the
fact that " much has been lately said of aristocratical men and
principles," and that great alarms have been founded thereon,
asserts that the greatest risk to the people is " their proneness to a
highly democratical government; a government in which they would
be directed by no rule but their own will and caprice, or the inter
ested wishes of a very few persons, who affect to speak the
sentiments of the people " (p. 55). " The people in any numbers,"

\ \

ARISTOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY. 1 3
Undoubtedly, such ultra-aristocratic views as those of Democratic
Knox reacted to strengthen democratic tendencies in s^gJhened
many who did not sympathize with the schemes for
debt-repudiation which were championed by the popu
lar party. For example, Mrs. Mercy Warren, whose
affiliations through her husband and his friends were
with the democratic faction, saw in Shays's revolt only
" discontents artificially wrought up, by men who wished
for a more strong and splendid government." 2 To the
same effect is a communication in one of the papers of
the day. " A number of men, who have pretended to
be disgusted at the late unhappy commotions," asserts
the writer, with what seems to have been more than a
grain of truth, " secretly rejoice at the opportunity of
establishing, under pretence of necessity, a tyrannical
rule; in the room of oiir free, and happy Constitution.
A certain mark by which these are distinguished, is
their repeated declarations, that the people have not
virtue enough to bear a free government, when in fact
nothing has taken place here, but what has happened
in every form of government yet established in the
world."2 Thus, by the close of 1787 we havejn..Massachusetts Political
a democracy, incensed at what it considers the oppres- gj^^gg
sions, actual aild prospective, of the aristocracy, fairly
united in its plans of political action, and abundantly
he says in another place, " cannot even be trusted to appoint those
who shall manage for them, they are so liable when together in
large numbers, to be acted upon and cajoled by those, who in
every community are upon the watch to deceive, and active to gain
authority to themselves for sinister views." Hence he proposes a
novel scheme for action through a complicated system of inter
mediate electors, the lowest units to be circles composed of ten
voters each (p. 168).
1 Mrs. Warren, History of the American Revolution, III. 346.
2 Independent Chronicle, Oct. 4, 1787. This was probably writ
ten before the appearance of the Constitution in Massachusetts.

14

INTRODUCTORY.

and their
effect on
the fate of
the Federal
Constitution.

confident of its power to decide all political matters
whatsoever, unaided by the- counsel or advice of the
upper classes. The aristocratic element in the State
had looked to the Convjsfen-at-L5h^a^elphiaibr such
a Fed-et^~€cm"sTifution as wouKr-tJirable" iL to^jcfjaintain
trrarraseei^eiw^4flrjriattejrs, ofgovernment which had of
old been the lot of men of wealth and education, but
which of late had been seriously threatened by the
encroachments of the jealous democracy. Though it
did not get all that was desired at the hands of the
Convention, the aristocracy^ found the new Constitution
in- the -main--ax^gp2abler But just in proportion as it
was welcomed by the upper classes, it promised to
prove unaoie.ptable--to_Jthe populace. Under the in
fluence of the existing antagonism of social elements,
that which met with the favor of the aristocracy came
shortly to be regarded with suspicion*T>yTrTe a'emoc-
racj^Tlml^rrn^^
the dread of irretrievably fastening upon themselves in
some way the power of the aristocracy unquestionably
formed the chief factor in determining the greater por
tion of the inhabitants of the State, especially those
of the rural districts, in a fixed opposition to the adop
tion of the new system.

CHAPTER II.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
The Constitution was received at Boston late in the Publication
evening of September 25, 1787, 1 and was published stitution?11
the next day in an " extra " of the Massachusetts Cen-
tinel. On the 27th it appeared in the Independent
Chronicle ; on the 28th, in the Massachusetts Gazette;
on the 30th, in the American Herald. The Salem
Mercury gave it to its readers on October 2, the
I Hampshire Gazette on the 3rd. Within ten days
from its reception at Boston it had appeared in all
the papers of the State. Various pamphlet editions
also were soon offered for sale. A little later the
General Court ordered an edition to be printed con
taining the Constitution, the accompanying letter from
Washington as president of the Convention, and the
resolution of Congress transmitting it to the States;
three copies of the pamphlet were to be sent to the Copies sent to
selectmen of each town and district in the Common- towns-
wealth.2 Thus, in the course of a few weeks the new
plan was made accessible to all the reading citizens
1 See Massachusetts Centinel, date cited ; also Sullivan to
King, Sept. 25, 1787, in Amory, Life of Sullivan, I. 220.
2 See Resolves of October 25, calling State Convention, Docu
mentary History of the Constitution of the United States, II.
p. 91 ; also Debates of the Convention of 1788, p. 23. The refer
ences to the Debates are to the edition issued by the State in 1856,
which contains much illustrative matter not found in the other
editions.

l6 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

Expectancy
with which it
was awaited.

Its favorable
reception.

of the State, and speedily became the chief subject
of discussion both in public and in private.
In Pennsylvania and New York, before the measures
proposed by the Convention had been divulged, the
foundation for opposition had been laid by persons
selfishly interested in the maintenance of the existing
status. In Massachusetts there appears to have been
nothing of this kind. The result of the Convention
was there awaited with great eagerness and expecta
tion, not only in the maritime section of the State,
whose interests were more immediately concerned, but
in the interior as well. Even in those regions where
the revolt had occurred but a few months before, "all
classes," we are told, seemed to "await with the great
est impatience the event of the federal Convention,
looking up to it as to the fountain from which those
streams of political felicity are to flow, the which shall
make them happy. " 1 When it finally appeared, the
first impression was generally favorable. Knox, an
ardent advocate of a strong national aristocracy, wrote,
October 3 : " The people of Boston are in raptures with
it as it is, but would have liked it still better had it been
higher-toned."2 On the 7th Christopher Gore re
ported to King : " The federal plan is well esteemed,
and as far as can be deduced from present appearances,
the adoption will be easy."3 Even James Sullivan,
at the same time that he gave utterance to serious
doubts as to the provisions concerning the judiciary
power, wrote: "I . . . cannot express the heartfelt
satisfaction I have from it. ... I flatter myself it
will meet with no opposition in this State." 4
1 Independent Chronicle, Oct. 4, 1787 ; on authority of a "gen
tleman from Great Barrington."
2 Sparks, Correspondence of the Revolution, IV. 178.
3 Life of King, I. 261.
4 Ibid., p. 259. The date here attached to this letter (September

OPPOSITION DEVELOPS. 1 7
Part of the apparent preponderance of sentiment in Advocates \
favor of the Constitution was doubtless due to the fact j£alf opp^V
that the advocates of the plan came forward at first nents;
more readily than its opponents.1 It was not long,
however, before such extravagant expectations as those
entertained by Sullivan were removed. The intem
perate conduct of the friends of the Constitution in
Pennsylvania speedily aroused the suspicion of many
that all was not right.2 The discovery that the una
nimity in the Convention was one of States and not of
individuals, and the perusal of the published letters
of the dissenting members, confirmed this suspicion.
Finally, the Antifederalist pamphlets and newspaper but an opposi-
articles of "The Federal Farmer," "Cincinnati," tiondevelops-
" Brutus, " " Centinel, " and others of that stamp fanned/
this suspicion into flaming opposition, which thence
forth needed no foreign aid to keep it alive.3
23) is clearly wrong ; eight days at least were then necessary to
transmit intelligence from Philadelphia to Boston. This would
make the date about September 25, which is the date attached to
this letter in Amory, Life of Sullivan, I. 220.
1 See Madison to Randolph, Oct. 7, 1787, Madison Papers,
II. 647-
2 This was the case, among others, with Thomas B. Wait, pub
lisher of the Falmouth Gazette, Maine. See his letter to Thatcher,
Jan. 8, 1788, in "Selections from the Papers of Hon. George
Thatcher," in the Historical Magazine of November and Decem
ber, 1869. Hereafter these selections will be referred to as Thatcher
Papers. 3 The first series of ^^^^^^^^£^Lettersof^g^^^.l
Farmer was put on sale inBoston early in January by the Ameri
can Herald (see advertisement in issues of Dec. 31, 1787, and
Jan. 7, 1788). There is also ground for believing that they were
circulated in western Massachusetts by the New York Committee
of Federal Republicans, of which George Clinton, John Lamb, and
Charles Tillinghast were the leading spirits, at the same time that
they were circulated by them in New York, Connecticut, Pennsyl
vania, and elsewhere. Lee was in frequent correspondence with

///

1 8 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
Part played In the contest which ensued, Elbridge QErry^jaJ- ' •' •'
by Gerry. though he had been one of the dissentients in the . . .
Convention, seems in the main to have kept in the
background; but owing to his participation in that
body, his published objections j£. the Constitution
carried with them considerable weight. These, there
fore, though not the first in order of publication, may
well be the first to occupy our attention. In his letter
Samuel Adams, detailing to the latter his objections as early as
October 5. The letters signed " Cincinnatus," which were exten
sively copied in Massachusetts from a New York paper, were also
ascribed to Lee. Many of the letters of " Brutus," supposed to
have been written by Thomas Treadwell, of Suffolk County, New
York, were reprinted in Massachusetts. The letters of " Centinel "
(Samuel Bryan, of Pennsylvania) were systematically reprinted only
by the American Herald; the Address and Reasons for Dissent of
the Pennsylvania Minority was put on sale by the same paper
about the time when the Massachusetts Convention met. Most of
the letters of " Philadelphiensis " also were republished by the
Herald, and occasionally one of the series may be found else
where. . George Mason's letter giving his reasons for dissent was
widely published in Massachusetts, but generally with the para
graph relating to Eastern control of commerce omitted. Randolph's
letter was published by several papers ; but the letters of Yates
and Lansing of New York, and Luther Martin of Maryland, were
given only in the American Herald. These were the principal
Antifederalist writings from without the State which were circulated
in Massachusetts. It is rather curious to note that the letters of " Publius," which,
when collected, formed the Federalist, were systematically repub
lished in Massachusetts only by the American Herald, the most
ardent of the papers opposed to the Constitution.
In Massachusetts, as in Pennsylvania, there was a good deal
of complaint from the printers that newspapers from beyond the
Hudson no longer reached them ; but no attempt was there made
to fix the blame on the Federalists (see, e. g., Massachusetts Cen
tinel, Feb. 16, 1788). Newspapers not then being admitted to
the mail-bags, they were carried only through the courtesy of post-
riders ; and a change in postal regulations at this time seems to
have been the cause of their less certain transmission.

GERRY'S OBJECTIONS. ig
of October 18 to the Massachusetts General Court, — a His letter to
letter which, by the way, he is said to have composed court6"6™1
at New York in concert with Richard Henry Lee, the
arch-enemy of the proposed system,1 and which the
advocates of the Constitution admit did considerable
harm to their cause,2 — he gives the principal reasons
for his dissent. These were, that in the Constitution
as submitted (i) there was no adequate provision for a Reasons for
representation of the people, and no security for the ms dlssent ,
right of election; (2) that some of the powers of the'
legislature were ambiguous and others indefinite and_
dangerous; (3) that the executive was blended with
and would have an undue influence over the legisla
ture ; (4) that the judicial department would be oppres
sive; (5) that treaties of the highest importance might*
be made by the President, with the advice of two-_
thirds of a quorum of the Senate; and (6) that the sys

tem was without the security of a Bill of Rights.
These objections, with explanations and augmenta
tions, were printed, after the termination of the
contest in Massachusetts, in a very readable little
pamphlet entitled Observations on the new Constitution,
and on the Federal and State Conventions, by a Colum
bian Patriot, which was 'extensively circulated in New
York State.4
1 Bancroft, History of the Constitution, II. 230 ; Worcester
Magazine, IV. 158.
2 Gore to King, Dec. 30, 1787, Life of King, I. 267.
8 The letter was published in the Massachusetts Centinel of
Nov. 3, 1787. It is most conveniently found in Austin, Life of
Gerry, II. 42-3.
4 Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution, p. 407. The chief
objections alleged in this pamphlet, in addition to the foregoing,
are the departure from annual elections, the omission of a pro-
. . , —""I'" ' ¦¦ '¦•¦>»™«»™~«>«ra>-~M.~miMnm«i|»*i1»^™^
vision for rotation in office, the monopoly oFall sources of revenue
by*To1JgTe^7t^5engtrrof term for senators, the election of the
President by " an aristocratic junto " (as the electoral colleges are

2t> ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
The attack The first publication against the Constitution in
begins.preSS Massachusetts, so far as has been ascertained, was
\< in the Massachusetts Gazette of Octobero. In that
issue the editor gave a list of objections to the Con
stitution, which he said had been " handed " to him
"by a correspondent." The system proposed, said this
writer, needed careful revision and correction, before
it would be perfect or be likely to contribute to the
happiness of any State. The representation was too
mi ¦! 11 II* ,1.11  MMIIIIIIIIIII IMH | —
, i small, while the term .was too toy. The authority
01 the FeaeraT government would extend not only to
foreign commerceTTu"r't^ oflhe
States as well. These would be depjj^ejijpf Jhcxight to
levy impost? .indjxpjse^ "
taxelTalone ; while the Federal control of the militia
would deprive them of the right to compel the obe
dience of their subjects.
Authorship of With each successive issue of the press thereafter,
pieceederaliSt the number of Antifederalist pieces increased. In the
main, the 6ngtn^-l~arti-c're"s'"were the work of a com
paratively few men living at or near Boston ; these

called), the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, consolida
tion, and the unconstitutional mode of adoption provided for.
In addition to this pamphlet and the letter cited above, the only
material contributions of Gerry to the literature of this contest
were : (i) two letters in reply to Oliver Ellsworth's " Letters of a
Landholder," one of which appeared in the Massachusetts Gazette
of Jan. 5, 1788, and the other in the American Herald (both being
reprinted in Ford, Essays on the Constitution, and in Scott, The
Federalist and other Constitutional Papers') ; and (2) a " statement
of facts," which he submitted to the State Convention, concerning
the proceedings of the Federal Convention with reference to the
Senate, and his letter to the Convention reviewing the controversy
to which this statement gave rise. These two documents are printed
in the Debates of the Convention (1856), pp. 65-71, note 18. Gerry's
influence, however, can unquestionably be traced in various publi
cations by others of the Boston group of Antifederalists.

OPPOSITION IN THE PRESS. 21
were then copied in the papers of the interior, and,
with articles clipped from papers outside the State,
formed the bulk of the Antifederalist literature. From
the nature of the case, it is difficult to identify with
certainty the authors. Various indications, however,
seem to justify the belief that James Warren, Benjamin
Austin, James Winthrop, and Samuel Adams were the
chief persons concerned.1 In general, the articles
1 For a sketch of Warren, and reasons for connecting him with
these writings, see Appendix.
Austin apparently was the author of the " Honestus " letters of
1786 attacking the lawyers.
James Winthrop was librarian of Harvard College from 1772 to
1787 ; he is said to have written over the signature of "Agrippa"
(Gore to King, Dec. 23, 1787, Life of King, I. 265). The articles
bearing this signature are seventeen in number, the first eleven be
ing addressed "to the people," the remainder "to the Massachu
setts Convention; " they appeared originally in the Massachusetts
Gazette, between Nov. 23, 1787, and Feb. 5, 1788, and have been
reprinted in Ford, Essays 011 the Constitution, and Scott, The Fed
eralist and other Constitutional Papers. The author of these arti
cles seeks to arouse the fears of the shipping interest that undue
advantage may be given to other sections of the country at the ex
pense of Massachusetts. He shows himself opposed to Shays's re
bellion and like movements, and styles a forced depreciation of the
State debt a "dirty and delusive scheme" (Scott, Ibid., p. 512). He
asserts that the question at issue is " whether they will have a lim
ited government or an absolute one f " (Ibid., p. 508). He argues
at length in favor of a mere amendment to the Articles of Confed
eration, giving the Congress (1) a limited revenue, with a right to
collect it, and (2) a limited right to regulate intercourse with for
eign nations, — alienation of State territory, conferring of special
or exclusive trading privileges, and naturalization being expressly
excluded (Ibid., pp. 527, 531, 541). He is, however, ready to ac
quiesce in the adoption of the Constitution upon various conditions,
among which are the following : that Congressional control over
elections extend only to fining States which neglect to send sena
tors or representatives ; that the power to levy a direct tax or excise
be refused ; that each State shall have the command of its own
militia, and that continental forces (except for guarding public

22 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
Their evince decency, good temper, literary ability, and a
11 ""r fair amount of candor. The latter, however, is by no
means an invariable characteristic, as will doubtless
be evident to any one who takes the trouble to read
the samples of that literature herewith presented.
In order to arrive at a clear understanding of the
causes underlying- the opposition in Massachusetts, it
will be necessary to examine at some length the most
important of these pieces against the Constitution. The
first to be considered are several articles which were pub-
stores, etc.) be admitted into no State in time of peace without that
State's consent ; that the President be chosen annually from the
several States in succession ; that the judicial power be materially
limited, and that trial by jury be held sacred in all cases ; that the
States be permitted to emit bills of credit without making them
legal tender, and to coin money according to the continental stand
ard ; that only such powers as are expressly given be exercised by
any officer, and that officers offending against any State law be
accountable to such State; and that nothing in the Constitution
deprive a citizen of any State of the benefits of his State Bill of
Rights (Ibid., pp. 555-7)-
Gore charges Samuel Adams with the authorship of a skilful
piece of declamation signed " Helvidius Priscus," in the Independ
ent Chronicle of December 27 (Life of King, I. 266). In this arti
cle, James Wilson's celebrated speech at Philadelphia defending
the Constitution is taken as a text, from which the writer endeavors
to prove that the members of the Federal Convention were lacking
both in ability and patriotism ; yet, it is asserted, they had " ambi
tiously and daringly presumed (without any commission for that
purpose) to annihilate the sovereignties of the thirteen United
States; to establish a Draconian code; and to bind poster
ity by their secret councils.'''' " May the people," the article
concludes, " awake from a kind of apathy which seems to pervade
them, before they are aroused by the thunder of arms, or the inso
lence of dragooning parties, to arrest from the peasant, and the
mechanic, the last farthing of their hard earnings to support the
splendid fabrick of Mr. Wilson's federal republic" This
writer completes his arraignment of the delegates to the Federal
Convention by asserting that they ought not to be permitted to sit
in the State ratifying Conventions.

"CANDIDUS." 23 54,
lished in the Independent Chronicle, during the month
of December, over the signature of " Carjdi4us, " and Article by
which were variously asxiibed to Samuel Adams and
Benjamin Austin.1 ("The Constitution proposed,"
this writer maintained, "may aggrandize a few in
dividuals : The offices of honor and profit, may please
the AMBITION of some, and relieve, the EMBARRASS
MENTS of others. It may serve to multiply Judicial
controversies, and embarrass the citizens of the several
States, by appeals to a Federal Court. It may give an
undue influence to Congress, by the appointment of a
numerous Body of Officers. It may discourage Indus
try, by promoting an infinite train of dependants and
seekers. ^3 But the great object of commerce, — ourj
national respectability, — together with industry and
frugality, would probably be the happy consequences of
a Commercial Confederation." Accordingly, he pro- Proposes
ceeds to outline such a " confederacy of commerce and ™|nj of Con-

jgiuiyy as he would prefer. vTrChuut going into the federation.
details of his plan, it may be said that it amounted to
a mere increase of the powers of the existing Cong
leaving these powers vested in a single house, and~ J to,
not providing for a separate executive, although a su- '
preme judiciary court for Federal purposes was con
templated. Kxperience having shown the futility oF
the attempt to secure any alteration of the Confederacy
in the way provided for in the Articles, " Candidus "
was willing to follow the Convention in what was rep
resented by many as its most unwarranted step, and to
put his proposed scheme in execution upon securing,
the consent of but nine States.2
1 For the identity of " Candidus," see Massachusetis~££MMtel,
Dec. 26, 1787 (article signed "Candidus," — a transparent person
ation) ; Dec. 29 (" Thomas a Kempis ") ; Jan. 5 (card signed by
Jonathan and Benjamin Austin); Jan. 9 ("Honestus Jr.").
2 Independent Chronicle, Dec. 20, 1787.

24 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
Articles by Similar to these letters in literary ability, but far
v/i°t." e surpassing them in extravagance of declamation, is
a series of articles by "John de Witt," which ap
peared in the American l^emla of Boston during
October, November, and December, 1787. These arti
cles were addressed "to the free citizens of the Com
monwealth of Massachusetts," and their especial object
was to influence the election of delegates to the State
Convention.
Their The series is constructed with consummate skill. In
'"'"" c""" the first article the writer begins temperately with the
statement that the eagerness with which the Consti
tution was received by " certain classes of our fellow
citizens " should teach the necessity of inquiry and
delay in its adoption.1 In the next he gradually grows
, warmer, animadverts upon the lack of a Bill of Rights. •
I predicts that, when the new plan is once adopted,
amendments can never be made except by force of
arms, and asserts that if they are to accept the Consti-
Results of ac- tution they must be prepared to determine: "That the
Consul urion • Present Confederation shall be annihilated: — That the
future Congress of the United States shall be armed
with the powers of Legislation, Judgment and Execu
tion: — That annual elections in this. C,9.0gisssj0isha.ll
not be kmmi^arrcHffie'"most powerful body, the Senate,
in^htcrf"' a'^tftre" |froport"i6ri " off 'Jepf esenta„tJ£rjL, is not
preserved, and in which the smallest State has equal
weight with the largest, be the longest in duration : —
That it is riot'necessary for the publick good, that per
sons habituated to the exercise of power should ever
be reminded from whence they derive it, by a return to
the station of private citizens . . . : — That you will
hereafter risque the probability of having the Chief
Executive Branch chosen from among you; and that it
1 American Herald, Oct. 22, 1787.

"JOHN DE WITT." 2$
is wholly indifferent, both to you and your children
after you, whether this future Government shall be
administred within the territories of your own State, j
or at the distance of four thousand miles from them.— =.
You must also determine, that they shall have the Dangerous
exclusive power of imposts and the duties on imports Powers m
and exports, the power of laving excises ^nd other \
duties, and the additional power of laying internal ^^"
taxes .upon your lands, your goods, your chattels, as
well as your persons at their sovereign pleasure: —
That the produce of these several funds shall be appro
priated to the use of the United States, and collected
by their own officers, armed with a military force, if a
civil aid should not prove sufficient: — That the power
of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia shall S
be lodged in them . . . ; they shall have also the
power of raising, supporting and establishing a stand
ing army in time of peace in your several towns, and I
see not why in your several houses: — That should an
insurrection or an invasion, however small, take place,
in Georgia, the extremity of the Continent, it is highly
expedient they should have the power of suspending /
the writ of Habeas Corpus in Massachusetts, and as
long as they shall judge the public safety requires it : —
You must also say, that your present Supreme Judicial and in the
Court shall be an Inferior Court to a Continental Cour^t, ^ederal
. ' courts;
which is to be inferior to the Supreme Court of the
United States : — That from an undue biass which they
are supposed to have for the citizens of their own
States, they shall not be competent to determine title
to your real estate, disputes which may arise upon a
protested Bill of Exchange, a simple note of hand,>or
book debt, wherein your citizens shall be unfortunately
involved with disputes of such or any other kind, with
citizens either of other States or foreign States. . . .
In short, . . . you must determine that the Constitu-

26 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

The system
purely aris
tocratical.

tion of your CoinmorrvEfialthr^hich is instructive, beau
tiful and Consiitent in practice, ... a Constitution
which is especially calculated for your territory, and
is made conformable to your genius, your habits, the
mode of holding your estates, and your particular inter
ests, shall be reduced in its powers to thosejiis^Gity^
Corporatioi$r-T~rT~rirthis new^ia^Murie^set of ideas,"
he concludes, "and in this total dereliction of those
sentiments which animated us in 1775, the Political
Salvation of the United States may be very deeply
interested, but BE CAUTIOUS."1
¦""""In the third and succeeding letters his tone becomes
more violent. Now, he maintains, was the time to
examine the Constitution, before it was too late. Its
advocates were ambitious men, waiting to make it the
stepping-stone to posts of honor and emolument, men
openly tired of Republican government and longing
for one of force. The Constitution itself was "noth
ing less than a hasty stride to Universal Empire in this
Western World, flattering, very flattering, to young
ambitious minds, but fatal to the liberties of the peo
ple." Senators would be able to hold themselves com
pletely independent of the people, and at the same
time insure repeated re-election. The President would
be wholly under their influence. The small number
of representatives, and biennial elections, would make
of the House merely "an Assistant Aristocratical
Branch;" indeed, there was a possibility that eventually
the House might be dropped and the government con
tinued under the Senate alone. In short, he maintained,
" Place the Frame of Government proposed, in the most
favorable point of view, . . . and enlarge as much as
you please, upon the great checks therein provided,
notwithstanding all which, there cannot remain a doubt

1 American Herald, Oct. 29, 1787.

"JOHN DE WITT." 27
in the mind of any reflecting man, that it is a Svsteir^
purely Aristocratical, calculated to find employment
for men of ambition, and to furnish means of sporting
with the sacred principles of human nature." 2
1 American Herald, Nov. 19, 1787. In like manner, a writer
signing himself"" ^l" Fe3elralTslli7*''Tri the Boston Gazette and
Country Journal of Nov. 26, 1787, tries to make use of the pop
ular distrust of the upper classes to discredit the Constitution.
" The hideous daemon of Aristocracy," he writes, " has hitherto
had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation,
preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of
liberal information of its qualities." But now "the deceptive
mists cast before the eyes of the people by the delusive machi
nations of its interested advocates begin to dissipate. Those
furious zealots," he continues, "who are for cramming it down
the throats of the people, without allowing them either time or
opportunity to scan or weigh it in the balance of their understand
ings, bear the same marks in their features as those who have
been long wishing to erect an aristocracy in this Commonwealth
— their menacing cry is for a rigid government, it matters little to
them of what kind, provided it answers that description." They
demand the adoption of the Constitution, he says, because it
" comes something near their wishes ; " they " brand with infamy"
all persons opposing it ; they cry that " the whole must be swal
lowed or none at all," and have "strived to overawe or seduce
printers, to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have endeav
ored to hasten it to a decision." Among those favoring the Con
stitution, the writer of this article continues, were to be found " many
undesigning citizens," who wished its adoption from the best of
motives ; but these, he asserts, were comparatively modest and
silent. The greater number were for 'having the people "gulp
down the gilded pill blindfolded," whole and without any qualifi
cation whatever. These, he continues, " consist generally of the
noble order of C[incinnatu]s, holders of publick securities, B[an]k-
[er]s, and L[aw]y[er]s : these with their train of dependents form
the Aristocratic combination — the L — y — rs in particular keep
up an incessant declamation for its adoption, like greedy gudgeons
they long to satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait.
The numerous tribunals to be erected by the new plan of consoli
dated empire, will find employment for ten times their present
number; these are the loaves and fishes for which they hun-

28 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
This series of articles was designed, as has been said,
primarily to influence the elections to the Convention;
accordingly, it ends abruptly with the Boston election
early in December. Almost immediately, however,
Articles by another series, over the signature of " A Republican
cat Federal"- Federalist," was begun in the Massachusetts Centinel,
ist." addressed "to the Members of the Convention of
Massachusetts," seven numbers of which appeared
before the ratification by the Convention abruptly
brought it to a close. There seems to be good rea
son for attributing at least the greater part of these
articles to General Tames Warren, for many years
Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Represen
tatives.1 The argumentation is able and ingenious,
and at times is unanswerable on strictly constitutional
grounds. The most is made of the fact that in fram
ing the Constitution the delegates at Philadelphia
ger ; they will probably find it suited to their habits, if not to the
habits of the people." Hence he suggests that few of them be
elected to the State Convention.
Another writer (" Bostonian," in the American Herald oi Feb. 4,
1788) calls for such an amendment to the Constitution' as will1 ex
clude lawyers from a seat in Congress : their fortunes, he asserts,
depended on the inaccuracies of the law, "its vague and ambigu
ous terms, its incomprehensibleness ; " hence they were the last
persons in the world to be intrusted with the function of law-making.
For an example of the " stifling free discussion" alluded to by
"Federalist" above, see the American Herald, — the most vio
lent of Boston's Antifederalist sheets, — for Nov. 26 and Dec. 17,
1787. In the former issue the editor inquires feelingly whether the ,
inhabitants of Boston have become so illiberal as to refuse their
custom " for impartially publishing the observations of [their] fellow
citizens at a time when the happiness of posterity depends on the
public decision ? " After the contest was over, the Herald was
forced to remove to Worcester, where it seems to have been
assumed, though erroneously, that its Antifederalist tenets would
ensure it a more liberal support.
1 For the articles in full, and the reasons for ascribing them to
him, see Appendix.

"A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 29
exceeded the authority delegated to them; that the
system proposed had not been "agreed to ' by Con- *
gress,1 as provided for by the Articles of Confedera
tion; that the mode of ratification proposed was Ratification
unconstitutional; and, finally, that ratification would ^e s7a°eate
produce changes in the Massachusetts Constitution Constitution.
which would be a violation of that compact. " A system
of consolidation,"2 the writer asserts, summing up a
long argument, " has been formed with the most pro
found secrecy, and without the least authority, and has
been suddenly and without any previous notice trans
mitted by the federal convention for ratification. Con
gress, not disposed to give an opinion on the plan, have
transmitted it to the legislatures. The legislatures have
followed the example and sent it to the people. The Procedure
people of this state, unassisted by Congress or their legis- considered.1
have referred to the news-papers for information, have
been divided Dy contending writefS, and under such
circumstangg^ Con
vention — and these members are to consider whether
tffey%iir accept the plan of the federal convention
w*£i^y^£2^^ a
system of government of the nature and principles of
1 The author was evidently acquainted with the struggle which
had taken place in Congress when the Constitution was transmitted
to it, and with the compromise — namely, the omission of all words
of approval from the resolutions accompanying it — by which its
unanimous transmission to the State legislatures had been secured.
2 That it was intended to produce a " consolidation of the
union," which he interprets as equivalent to "an abolition of the
State governments " (No. VI, Massachusetts Centinel, Feb. 2, 1788,
" Extra "), he proves by the letter to Congress accompanying the
Constitution (Np. II, Ibid., Jan. 2). In framing and submitting
the Constitution, he maintains, the members, though animated by
" honest zeal," were guilty of " usurpation " and " tyranny " (No.
IV, Ibid., Jan. 12).

30 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
which they have not at present a clearer idea than
they have of the Copernican system." 2 As for the pro
posed plan itself, he asserts that it is " excellently well
adapted ... to the establishment of a baleful aris-
EstabHshes tocr^y 2 and that it " establishes a precedent ... for
desnntkm °X HufTdirig on its ruins a coJnpl'eat^slem^Tf^e^fiottsm.'' 3
uespotism. ^ ° rf««„^,, ^
He undertakes to snow that there is a probability if
not a certainty, that when Congress shall have estab
lished their revenue-acts and standing army, which will
be accomplished in a few years, they will reduce the
number of representatives so low, and regulate their
elections in such a manner, as effectually to destroy
Property will the representation of the people. " Property, he asserts,
representation wl11 probably be made the basis of apportionment and
and suffrage, the suffrage, "whereby sixty or a less number of
wealthy men, may elect as many representatives as
sixty thousand yeomen."4 All difficulties will be
evaded by means of the " omnipotent " necessary-and-
proper clause, and by the abolition of the State gov
ernments, which will follow the adoption of the Consti
tution.6 Thus, QiaLv,^ few persons, he maintains, will be
--. 1 • • u 1 cc ^™^^a*??r"'^ftrw^lTW'ntr[ipBiiTir'"',''''i'"f'i'T>i«iriii«iiiiii.i
*- eligible to office. On the other nand, the revenue laws
ana™tWsTtv?f' establishment " will necessarily produce
through the Continent swarms of officers," with whom
will act the military officers, militia officers, and all
the officers of the late army. With such support, how
and Congress easy then will it be for Congress, which will be com-
ei'ections. posed of able men, to "establish the elections of federal
representatives at the metropolis [or] any other place, in
each state, and when this is effected, to collect the con
gressional or crown officers (as they soon will be called)
1 No. II, Ma^sady^tts^fntinel, Jan. 2, 1788.
2 No. VII, Ibid., Feb. 6, 178X"
8 No. IV, Ibid., Jan. 12, 1788.
* No. VI, Ibid., Jan. 30, 1788.
6 No. VI, Ibid., Feb. 2, 1788, "Extra."

"HAMPDEN." 31
at that place, and carry the elections for these senators
and representatives who shall be in the aristocratical
interest of the federal government, leaving out all
honest republicans, who shall have been so vulgar as to
have paid any regard to the interest of their constitu
ents ? " 1 In fine, he maintains, there were but two safe
courses for the Convention to pursue. One was to ad- Advises ad
journ until the sense of Virginia, the second great re"u"™o"con-
leader of America, could be known ; the other was " to stitution to
r- ¦ Congress.
return the proceedings of the federal Convention to the
legislature," to be remitted to Congress, there to be
amended and re-submitted to the States in a manner
agreeable to the provisions of the Articles of Confed
eration. The acceptance of the Constitution as it
stood, he claimed, would be in effect a dissolution of
the government of Massachusetts, a violation of the
compact contained in the State Constitution, and hence
could not be binding on the citizens of the State.2
Of quite a different stamp from the foregoing were Letters of
two letters which appeared in the Centinel of January amp en-
26 and February 2, and which equally with the above
were designed to influence the action of the Conven
tion. The signature attached to these was " Hamp
den; " the author may, possibly, from internal evidence,
be identified with James Sullivan.3 In them a series
m  
1 No. VII, Massachusetts Centinel, Feb. 6, 1788.
2 No. V, Ibid., Jan. 19, 1788; also No. I, Dec. 29, 1787. The
Federalists grew exceedingly restive under this stream of absurd
argumentation. Their temper is shown by a card addressed to the
author of the articles. "But thou — Oh! the extremity of cow
ardice ! " it runs, " afraid to be a rogue, and not wishing to be an
honest man, art chequered with a mixture of open depravity and
deceiving profession." It asks him whether he considers the
"tender laws " a violation of compact, and advises him to desist.
(Ibid., Jan. 16, 1788.)
8 The objections stated by Sullivan in a letter to Rufus King,
Sept. 28, 1787, are, so far as they go, identical with those advanced

32 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
of amendments was proposed, some of which might
well have been adopted. They provided (i) for the
limitation of Congressional regulation of elections to
cases where States might themselves refuse to prescribe
Proposed time and place therefor; (2) for the issue of the writ
amendments, of habeas corpus by the State Supreme Courts, as well.
as by the Federal Courts; (3) for the elimination of
the word "taxes" from the section defining the powers
of Congress, thus restricting the possible sources of
revenue to " duties, imposts and excises : " (4) for the "
omission of the words "between a State and citizens
of another State," and "between citizens of different
States," in the section defining the jurisdiction of
the Federal Courts : " Laying a State liable to be
sued," he says, "robs it of all its sovereignty;" (5)
for the trial by a jury of all issues of fact; and (6) for
jury trial "in, or near the County," in criminal cases.
The provision of the Con^titufa&a--€eaeeTning amend
ments he liked exceedingly, so far as it related to
ameiudments the necessity for which should arise after
the new government had gone into operation ; but for
those the necessity for which now seemed apparent,
by " Hampden" (Life of King, I. 259). Moreover, in 1789 Sulli
van published a pamphlet against the suability of the States ; and
this also is one of the points of objection upon which stress is
laid by " Hampden." From Amory's biography of Sullivan we
learn that he was suspected, at the time, of writing other articles
against the Constitution. On the other hand, it is pretty certain
that Sullivan was the author of seven rather vigorous Federalist
articles, over the signature " Cassius," which appeared in the
Massachusetts Gazette between Nov. 27 and Dec. 25, 1787 (re
printed in Ford, Essays on the Constitution, and Scott, The Fed
eralist and other Constitutional Papers'). This in itself is not
incompatible with his authorship of the "Hampden" letters as
well; but "Hampden," in his communications, expressly states that
he has not had a hand in the publication of previous articles con
cerning the Constitution. Still, this is not conclusive.

?¦

"CORNELIUS." 33
he advocated a different procedure. Let the State and advises
Conventions ratify on condition that the new Congress ratification.
should, at the very outset, in joint session, voting by
States, take into consideration the amendments pro
posed by the several Conventions, those in which any
seven States agreed to be forthwith incorporated into the
Constitution ; if there were none in which seven States
agreed, then the Constitution should remain as it was.1
As has before been stated, most of the articles
against the Constitution — and for it, too, it may be
added — originated at or near Boston. In theanle=-
rior of the Statejmly— twuixontributions of any consid
erable length seem to hajeJ^e-a-^ma^^riJ^e'TitCTaTure
against the new system. One of these appeared in Letters of
the Hampshire Chronicle of December n and 18, and
is given in the Appendix to this paper. It is an able, '
fair-minded production, showing a considerable degree
of political knowledge and independence of thought;
but it is tinctured with a democratic jealousy of
government and a distrust of commercial interest^
which was then characteristic of most of the rural dis
tricts of this State. The proposed Constitution, this
writer maintained, was a subversion of the compact
contained in the Articles of Confederation. The
abandonment of annual elections, of the power to re-
1 Massachusetts Centinel, Jan. 26 and Feb. 2, 1788. The plan
of amendment here suggested differs somewhat from that proposed
by others. " An Old Whig," following apparently the course sug
gested by R. H. Lee (to Samuel Adams, Oct. 5, 1787, Memoir of
R. H. Lee, II. 74), proposes: (1) That each Convention state its
objections and propose its amendments; (2) that these be trans
mitted to Congress, to be referred to another Federal Conven
tion ; (3) that the States pledge themselves to abide by the
result ; (4) if for any reason a Convention should fail to meet, then
let the State Conventions pass finally upon the Constitution as
it stands. See Salem Mercury, Dec. 18, 1787, from Freeman's
Journal. 3

34 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
! call delegates in Congress, and of their payment by the
i individual States, were material defects in the scheme.
The power of each house to judge of the qualifications
of its members was "equal to that of a negative on
Power of Con- elections in general." The writer could conceive of
elections6.1" vpnly one reason why power to prescribe the times,
/manner, and especially the places of elections had
been given to Congress, — namely, that thereby it
might manipulate the elections in favor of its own mem
bers, by holding them in " such particular parts of the
several States where the dispositions of the people shall
appear to be the most subservient to the wishes and
views of that honourable body; or where the interests
of the major part of the members may be found to lie."
Furthermore, it would be possible for Congress to
prescribe that elections should be by a plurality and
not by a majority vote. This would benefit the sea
board, or mercantile section, at the expense of the in
terior, or agricultural section. On the seaboard the
population was numerous, and intercourse was con
stant ; voters there would thus be enabled to " centre
their votes where they please." In the interior the
case was different. There the inhabitants were scat
tered far and wide, and had but little intercourse with
each other. For them to concert plans for carrying
an election was accordingly out of the question : their
votes, " if given at all, will be no less scattered than
are the local situations of the voters themselves. . . .
Mercantile Thus I conceive," the writer continues, "a foundation
dominate?11 1S *aid for throwing the whole power of the federal
\ government into the hands of those who are in the
mercantile interests ; and for the landed, which is the
great interest of this country, to lie unrepresented,
forlorn, and without hope."1 In elections to the
1 In both this and the preceding series of articles, it will be
observed, the assumption is made that the election of representa-

"A WATCHMAN."

35

Watchman."

presidency, he feared that venality and corruption Corruption
would enter, and that there would be " violent compe- \ ^^^^
titions " between individuals, between States, between
the east and the south, and that pretexts for armed con
flict would easily be found. The burden of taxation,
he thought, would be insupportable; the apportion
ment of direct taxes he knew to be unequal and injuri
ous to the non-slaveholding States. In fine, he said,
he should be most agreeably disappointed, if the new
government did not "prove, in its operation, to be one
of the most unequal, arbitrary, oppressive, venal and
corrupt governments that is extant." x
The other article contributed to the discussion by Article by "A
the western part of the State appeared in the Worcester
Magazine for the first week in February, 1788, over the
signature of " A Watchman. " It is stated to be the
first production against the Constitution in Worcester
County. In political and literary ability it is far below
the preceding article; but its prevailingtoneisthat-of-
gross ignorance andjrns^ffip^£tjp_nt_ralher than of po-
liticaLIcnaveryr It illustrates, probably, the effect of
inflammatory articles, such as those by "A Republi
can Federalist" and "John de Witt," upon the mind
of the average farmer, and may be looked upon as rep
resenting the sentiments of the majority of the Anti-
federalists of that section. The new Constitution, the
author asserts, "appears much like an aristocratical
form ; and will, if it is established, demolish a part of
tives to Congress would be held in each State in practically the
same manner as that in which elections for Parliament were held
in England in each county, — namely, in a primary meeting, in which
all representatives for that State would be chosen, and to which all
persons must come or lose their votes. This assumption is com
paratively common in the Antifederalist literature. That it was
legally possible to adopt such a method seems indisputable.
1 Hampshire Chronicle, Dec. 11 and 18, 1787.

36 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

, Monarchy
/ and military
governmentfeared.

Freedom of
religion, of
speech, and
of the press.

State govern
ments almost
annihilated.

our democratical government, and deprive us of a part
of our liberties. " If they should suffer it to be estab
lished, " it is probable that in a few years some design
ing men will attempt to pull that down, and set up one
that is monarchical, and so bring the country under a
military government." Then follow the specific ob
jections which he finds to the new system. Jews,
Turks, and heathen may hold even the highest offices
under the Constitution, but "there is no liberty given to
the people to perform religious worship according to the
dictates of their consciences." Freedom of speech and
the liberty of _the press are not prxmiefed for. To vest
the legislative power in three branches "will be a
great clog to business, and a hindrance to the making
of laws with expedition and dispatch. " The age and
residence qualifications for office will sometimes de
prive " men that are endowed with the wisdom that is
from above, from entering into Congress. " The Consti
tution "augments the members of Congress, and makes
the government more expensive. " It deprives the peo
ple of the liberty of choosing their delegates annually
and recalling them at pleasure. It "almost annihilates
the state governments, and deprives their legislation
[sic] of the power of making their own laws." It makes
no provision against keeping up standing armies in time
of peace. It " deprives the people of the power of levy
ing and collecting their own taxes." It vests Congress
with the power to tax all the States, enforcing payment
by means of the army. It " deprives the people in the
several states of the liberty of making their own con
stitution, and vests it in the hands of Congress."
Finally, it " deprives the inhabitants of each state of
the power of choosing their superiour and inferiour
judges. " 1 1 Worcester Magazine, IV. 242-3.

PRIVATE LETTERS. 37
From the foregoing account a sufficient idea may be
gained of the temper, the objections, the arguments,
and the course advocated by the opponents of the Con
stitution, so far as these were expressed in the public
prints. Even under the best circumstances, however,
it is difficult to determine the exact degree of sincerity
which attaches to such utterances. Their prime object
is always to influence the minds of other men; hence
party or personal interest, or the natural desire to make
good one's cause, frequently leads to the enunciation
of views that would not privately be maintained.
Accordingly, it will be well to reinforce the above ex
position by a few extracts from private letters. In Private let-
these we may hope to get at the real opinions of those ters'
who opposed the adoption of the new plan of Federal
government. Among the few letters of this sort which have come
down to us, those from Thomas B. Wait, of Portland, Thomas B.
, . . ..... Wait, of
are noteworthy. A printer, and a citizen though not Portland.
a native of Boston, he had left the Chronicle, on which
he had been employed, and in 1785 had established the
Falmouth Gazette, or, as it was soon called, the Cum
berland Gazette, the first newspaper published in the
province of Maine. He was a man of ardent tem- His character.
perament, outspoken, strong-minded and independ
ent of character. It is significant of him that he was
always more or less unpopular in the community in
which he lived, because of his freedom of speech,
his advocacy of unpopular candidates, and, later, his
warm support of the nascent theatre.1 As the pub-.
lisher of a newspaper, the arguments of both sides in
the Constitutional contest came to his hands. Like
many another, he favored the Constitution when he
first saw it, because, as he said, of his love and venera-
1 Willis, History of Portland, pp. 596-8.

38 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

Influences
affectinghis course.

His objec
tions.

/ Bill of Rights
needed.

tion for Washington and Franklin ; buf the " unprece
dented Conduct of the Pennsylvania Legislature," in the
means used to call its State Convention,1 disposed him
to lend an ear to the arguments of the opposition, in
the belief that they had been ill used. Then came the
address of the seceding members of the legislature of
that State; he found this "like the Thunders of Sinai,
its lightnings were irresistible." Thereupon he began
a careful examination of the subject, reading "every
argument " put forth by either side. As a result, he
was soon " constrained to say " that he was dissatisfied
with the proposed system, and was forced to open hos
tilities upon it in his paper.
His objections he details at some length to George
Thatcher, one of the Massachusetts delegates in Con
gress. As the latter was one of Wait's most intimate
friends, and at the same time an ardent Federalist,
Wait's letters bear all the marks of candor and sincer
ity. He did not condemn the new system "by the
lump," but only in part. A Bill of Rights, he thought,
, yould remedy most of the evils which he saw, or thought
\ jie saw. "I consider the several States," he said, "to
) stand in a similar relation to the Nation, and its Con-
[ stitution — as do individuals to a State and its Consti
tution — the former have certain rights, as well as the
latter that ought to be secured to them — otherwise . . .
the whole will be ' melted down ' into one nation; and

1 The aristocratic party happened to be in power in Pennsylvania
at the time when the Constitution was reported by the Federal
Convention. As their tenure of power was precarious, they not
only used great precipitancy in calling a convention for ratification,
even introducing resolutions for a convention before Congress had
formally transmitted the new plan to the States, but also resorted
to mob violence to compel the attendance of members of the op
posing party, who had bolted in order to break the quorum. See
McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution.

LETTERS OF THOMAS B. WAIT. 39
then, God have mercy on us — our liberties are lost — ¦
The vast Continent of America cannot be long sub
jected to a Democracy, if consolidated into one Gov
ernment — you might as well attempt to rule Hell by
Prayer. " The argument which Thatcher adduced from
the origin of the English Bill of Rights, Wait charac
terized as of no worth; such a declaration, he main
tained, was as good to defend liberties as to gain them.
So, too, he denied the soundness of the argument which
James Wilson, in his famous speech, drew from the dif
ference between the State Constitutions and the one
prepared for the Federal government : if in the former
all power not reserved was given, argued Wait, while
in the latter all power not expressly given was reserved,
why then was it necessary to put limitations on the
power of the Federal government in the matter of sus
pending the writ of habeas corpus, passing bills of at
tainder, conferring titles of nobility, etc. ? The danger
was increased by the nature of the new plan itself.
"There is," he maintained, "a certain darkness, du^\ Studied
plicity and studied ambiguity of expresion nmningl^mb'|."'ty- of
thro' the whole Constitution which renders a Bill of I

Rights peculiarly necessary. - — As it now stands but
very few individuals do or ever will understand it, con
sequently Congress will be its own interpreter. " For
instance, take the article on taxation and representa
tion: this, he maintained, was a "puzling Cap." If by
"all other persons " it meant slaves, "who, in the name
of God, but the mafority of that hon1 body, would ever
have tho't of expressing like ideas in like words ! "
These ideas, too, were worse than their mode of ex
pression; for why should "a Southern negro, in his
present debased condition," be represented more than Representa-
ll a northern Bullock " ? In conclusion, he turned the °
tables upon Thatcher by earnestly exhorting the latter
to reconsider his own opinion with reference to the

40 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

Silas Lee, of
Biddeford.

Lack of Bill of
Rights not an
objection.

Implied
powers.

Constitution, confident that on further consideration
he too must take his stand with the opposition.1
As Thomas B. Wait represented one type of the
intelligent opposition, so -Silas J-vge^ef Biddeford, rep
resented another. The latter was then a young man of
twenty-seven, a native of Concord, and a graduate of
Harvard College. He had studied law with Thatcher
at Biddeford, and now had just begun what was to
prove a notable career as a member of the Maine bar.2
His letters show that he was possessed of an able and
well-balanced mind, open to conviction. His attitude
toward the Constitution, therefore, is significant. He
had not, he wrote to Thatcher, any fixed objections,
but he had some very grave doubts. The lack of a
Bill of Rights, however, which gave his friend Wait
so much anxiety, was " not one of them " : as such a bill
would give up all rights not particularly secured therein,

i

it might make the Constitution more dangerous, un-
less it curtailed some powers already given. His
doubts related to the positive provisions of the Consti-
tution, rather than to its omissions. The three-fifths
representation of slaves, he feared, would give the
southern States an undue influence in legislation.
The Congressional control of elections left unsecured
even what representation had been given to the eastern
States. Sexennial elections for senators, unless guarded
by rotation, — say, two successive terms and then ineli
gibility, — he feared, would be dangerous. The powers
given Congress, he thought, were too general : might
not the general-welfare clause, he asked, " be construed
to extend to every matter of legislation," and Congress
under it be enabled to stop as libellous the publication

1 Letters to Thatcher, Nov. 22, 1787, and Jan. 8, 1788, Thatcher
Papers, Nos. 3 and 11.
2 Willis, Law, Courts, and Lawyers of Maine, pp. 152-4.

LETTERS OF SILAS LEE. 41
of all criticisms on the government ? He was afraid,
too, that there were implied powers in the Constitution;
else why were there any negatives or restrictions put
on Congress ? Under the Constitution, the holders of
State securities, he thought, would have a remedy for;
non-payment thereof, by suit in a Federal court against'
the State issuing the same. Finally, why was the"
Constitution "a compact of Individuals, instead
a Confederacy of States"? He feared that thus the I/Consolidation
Constitution would "finally consolidate the States — ^Icared-
or rather' totally annihilate the State Governments;' )

Wilson's celebrated argument based on the necessity/"
to the Constitution of the State governments being in

his opinion inconclusive, owing to the power of Con
gress to regulate elections. He foresaw, he said, that
he would be told that these fears were founded in dis
trust of the rulers. Experience, however, had taught
mankind that there was danger in giving up too much
power. If there was no need of restraint, if Congress
would have only the greatest interest of the people in
view, why then was there need of a Constitution at
all? Why not "give them the power of governing us
at pleasure " ?
Such was the attitude of Lee in January, beforeV-ee's ob-
reading the arguments used in the Massachusetts Con- /removed.
vention. These, however, "removed almost every
doubt or difficulty from [his] mind," so that on
news of the ratification with the recommendation of
amendments, he was able to "sincerely congratulate"
Thatcher upon the adoption as the safest alternative
presented.1 Another young lawyer whose views on the Constitu- William
tion have come down to us is William Symmes, of Andover.°
1 Letters of Jan. 23, Feb. 7, Feb. 14, Feb. 29, Thatcher Papers,
Nos. 19, 28, 33, 42.

42 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

Declarationof his views.

Equality of
States in the
Senate.

Andover. He graduated from Harvard in 1780. He
then spent some time in Virginia as a private tutor,
studied law with ThCophilus Parsons at Newbury-
port, and finally, about 1783, opened an office in the
north parish of Andover, — the first law-office in
the town.1 On the one hand, his opinions possess
greater importance than those of Lee, because he
was elected delegate to the State Convention ; on the
other, their candor is less certain, as the letter con
taining them, though professedly written for the perusal
of its recipient only, bears the earmarks of a declara
tion of the platform on which he stood for election to
the Convention. Views may have thus been brought
to the fore which he knew would secure him the favor
of his strongly Antifederalist constituents. There is
in the letter a good deal of such rant as we should ex
pect in a town-meeting speech on the subject; but,
because of his course in the Convention, it will be
well to go through the document and pick out the real
objections alleged against the proposed system.
/First, he finds the ratio for the apportionment of
direct taxes unequal and unjust. The equality of
spresentation that lingers in the Senate is a great
grievance : it is "ridiculous" that Delaware should
lave as much weight in that body as Massachusetts.
The power of Congress over the regulation of elec
tions calls forth a great deal of poor rhetoric; so, too,
the exemption from publication of such parts of the
Journals of Congress as in the judgment of that body
require secrecy. Of the taxing power he says : " A more
general . . . surrender of all ye property in the United
States to Congress could not perhaps have been
framed." More temperate objection is made to the
1 Memorial discourse by N. W. Hazen : Essex Institute, His
torical Collections, October, 1862; see also Willis, Law, Courts,
and Lawyers of Maine, pp. 149-51.

1S>

OPINIONS OF WILLIAM SYMMES. 43
power to maintain an army in time of peace. To the
exclusive jurisdiction granted over the proposed Fed
eral district he does not object in itself, as it will ren
der Congress " secure from little mobs, and so it ought
to be; " but he objects to its presence in the Constitu
tion. When he reaches the clause prohibiting to the Bills of credit
States the power to emit bills of credit, or to make laws!"1 "
tender laws, he exclaims, " Here I suppose the princi
pal weight of opposition will hang." For his own
part, he was " directly opposed to paper money " in
almost any case ; but he thought that the States ought
to have the power to issue, though not to make such is
sue legal tender : otherwise, they would " be in a worse
situation than any individual, who, if he has not the
cash in hand, may give his promissory note." As to thej
other tender laws, he thought them "but poor expedi-l
ents," yet "such as a state may possibly need." Con-/
sequently, he wished that "the abolition of these
abuses might be deferred until we are in a more pros-y
perous situation. " The treaty-making power he thought Treaty-mak-
not sufficiently guarded : two-thirds of a quorum of thet appointing
Senate — that is, ten members — might with the Pres-| powers.
ident make any treaty they pleased; while eight sena-|
tors were enough in like circumstances to appoint!
ambassadors, judges, and almost all officers. The
President he rails at as an "elected King," and criti
cises the absence of a provision for a council to share
with him the duties of his office. To the judicial power j
he objects, on the ground that appeals might carry a > *
suitor six hundred miles to the seat of the Federal^;
Court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as to
law and fact, he in common with many others found a
great objection. Finally, the clause guaranteeing a
republican form of government to every State, he
thought, " meddles too much with the independence of
the several States, " while it " answers no valuable ,

44 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

Too much left
to future
Congresses

Advises delib
eration.

ind." In conclusion, it jeemedJ:oJiimJha:Ltao_jnuch
was__J^eft_for_the Juture_ Cr)n£ressps tn supply^ The^
States were strictly confined to their own business,
and even in this their poweTs were not a little^cir-
cumscribed. " In short, " he said, "the system would
make us formidable abroad, and keep us very peaceable
at home, and, with some amendments, might do very
well for us, if we would be contented to become citi
zens of America, and confuse the thirteen stripes, and
change the stars into one glorious sun. ... So great
a revolution was never before proposed to a people for
their consent. . . . Let us equally shun a hasty ac
ceptance or a precipitate rejection of this all-important
scheme." 2

1 Letter of Nov. 15, 1787, to Captain Peter Osgood, Jr. : Essex
Institute, Historical Collections, October, 1862.

CHAPTER III.
CALLING THE CONVENTION.
In the foregoing account of the discussion of the
Constitution, it has been necessary to anticipate some
what the official action of the State upon the subject.
This began on October 1 8, with Governor Hancock's The Gover-
speech opening the session of the^Sfate iegisTaTure. nor s a resSi
Although the opposition was not then~so^ronounced
as it was later to become, the first burst of applause
with which the new system was received had sub
sided, and it had become evident that the new plan of
government was not to be adopted in Massachusetts
without a struggle. Doubtless this fact had its influ
ence in determining the Governor's treatment of the
matter. He had directed the Secretary, he said, to
lay before the legislature the documents received from
Congress; but inasmuch as it was "not . . . within
the duties of [his] office to decide upon this momen
tous affair," he contented himself with calling atten
tion to the "truly respectable" characters of the
gentlemen who had framed the Constitution, and their
remarkable unanimity in accomplishing so complicated
a task; adding that he was persuaded that the dele
gates in the Convention which was to be called "will
be able to discern that, which will tend to the future
happiness and security of all the people in this exten
sive country. " a
1 Worcester Magazine, IV. 43 ; Debates of the Convention
(1856), p. 18.

4.6 CALLING THE CONVENTION.
Parties in the/ The legislature to which the Constitutionjyas thus
legislature^/ referred was distinctly "populistic," to use a term of
[ our own day. It hadr been "elected, at the same~time
\ with Hancock, in the reaction ^ agajnst~th< vigorous
1 administration by which Governor Bowdoin fiad a few
I months before put d'ownthe reyqlt__of_Shays and" his
followers." The strength of the rival forces in the
body may be seen from the fact that, by a vote of one
hundred to seventy-five, steps were soon after taken in
the House for the continuance of the Tender Act.1
It is interesting, therefore, to note with some care
the measures proposed as to the Constitution, for they
afford additional indication of the attitude which was
being taken by the debtor-democratic element through
out the State.
Action of the In the Senate a motion for calling a convention was
mad.e on October 19, the day after the matter was
submitted" to -the legislature by the Governor. This
passed on the 20th, apparently without opposition.
On the 22d the matter came up in the House~where
it was debated at length. Dr. Kilham of Newbury-
port opposed the measure. It was inexpedient to "for
ward " the proposed government, he maintained, as it
might lead to confusion and civil war; it was unjust to
do so, because it destroyed the compact contained in
Opposition in the Articles of Confederation. Some persons had said
that "unless the new government was pressed into
immediate adoption it would not go down." This
was one reason why he was opposed to a premature
transmission of the business to a convention. An
other member, William Widgery of Maine, who was
to play a prominent part in the Convention, favored
its transmission to the people, but objected to the mode
provided for that purpose. Some of the towns, he
J Massachusetts Centinel, Nov. 7, 1787.

CONTEST IN THE LEGISLATURE. 47

maintained, were too poor to support a delegate to thfc Reference to
Convention; accordingly, he favored the method by advocated.
which the State Constitution had been ratified, and\
which Rhode Island was shortly to adopt with refer- j
ence to the Federal Constitution, namely, a s^ujmiissien j
of the matter dirgi^ly—te-the_pe9jle in their town-
meetings. Tfad— this- proposition prevailed, the proposed sys-
f^m_jroujd~ unquestionably have been rejected by an
overwhelming vote. The avowed motive for direct
action by the voters was, however, taken away by an
amendment providing that the delegates should be/Amendments
paid out of the public treasury; and this proposition intie ouse"
was thereupon dropped. An attempt then was made

<jy^

to change the place of meeting from Boston to some
town where the Convention would be less exposed,
to dangerous mercantile and aristocratic influences.
One member moved to hold it at Worcester; another
at York, Maine. This diversity of views saved the
provision as it stood. Two other amendments were
made, however, which were distinctly, though legiti
mately, in the democratic interest. One of these
changed the date of meeting from the "second Wed- / '
nesday of December next," as provided by the Sen
ate, to the "second Wednesday of January," and was
designed to give the people more time to consider
the matter. The other provided for the distribution
of three copies of the Constitution, instead of but
one as provided by the Senate, to each town in the
Commonwealth ; while additional precautions were in
serted to secure prompt and certain delivery. The
tendency of these alterations was distinctly toward a
more intelligent decision. With these amendments
the call then passed the House, October 24; though Call issued
thirty-two out of one hundred and sixty-one mem- 0ct> 2S-
bers still opposed the measure. On the next day the

48 CALLING THE CONVENTION.
Senate concurred in the amendments, and the call
was issued.1
Action of Thus the matter^ was transmitted to the towns for
the towns. their actjon- Kothing could be more helpful in deter-
ra-imrig'trlecauses of the opposition to the Constitution,
than a knowledge of the debates and the votes which
thereupon ensued in the town-meetings throughout the
State. With such information we could be more cer
tain of penetrating the minds of the average voters,
and ascertaining their doubts and fears, their ideals of
government, the secret springs of their action. Such
knowledge, however, is almost totally denied to us.
The records of many of the towns^ contain only the
names of the delegates chosen, without mention of
votes cast orTTTsTructions given. The town histories
usually glide over this subject with at best a few gen
eral remarks. It is only here and there that more can
be learned.
Towns failing In spite of the vital importance of the question at
gates11 6 e { issue, it appears from the Journal of the Convention
'j that out of a total of some three hundred and eighteen
\ towns that were entitled to send delegates, forty-six
[refused, or failed so to do.2 It should be stated, how
ever, that this number is considerably smaller than
the history of the General Court would have led one to
expect. Of the delinquents, thirty-one were from
Maine, and were for the most part the more recently
1 The manuscript resolve in the archives at the State House is
the only source showing the amendments made. The debates were
reported (from memory) in the Massachusetts Centinel of Oct. 27,
1787, and in other papers of the time; the account given by the
Independent Chronicle is reprinted in the Debates of the Conven
tion (1856), pp. 19-21 ; the call itself may be found on pp. 22-4 of
the same.
2 The Journal of the Convention may be found in the edition of
the Debates of the Convention issued by the State in 1856.

ACTION OF THE TOWNS. 49
incorporated districts, where the pressure of debt and
the struggle with the wilderness limited political in
terest chiefly to the election of the sheriff.1 Four of
the remaining fifteen were on the Cape, where the
prevailing interests were almost equally removed from
the general current of politics.
In most of the towns, the majority of the inhabit
ants had already taken their stand either for or against
the proposed system, and delegates were chosen who
were known to be in sympathy with the views of the
majority. At Vassalborough, Maine, when it was Vassalbor-
found that the delegate who had been elected was in xopsham.Me.
favor of the Constitution, another meeting was held,
he was "turned . . . out," and another, who was "de-
sidedly against it," was chosen.2 At Topsham, in the
1 The people of Maine, according to Willis (History of Portland,
p. 601), had taken little interest in the question until the time came to
choose the delegates, for the reason that communication was difficult
and the public mind was not easily brought to bear upon the matter.
The movement for separation, from Massachusetts, which then
occupied the public mind, may also help to account for the apparent
apathy of large portions of the inhabitants of that province.
At Biddeford, the town held a meeting, December 12, to choose
delegates ; but, in the language of a Federalist, " a dumb Devil
seized a Majority & they voted not to send, & when called on
for a Reason they were dumb, mirabile dictu .' " (Jeremiah Hill
to Thatcher, Dec. 12, 1787, Thatcher Papers, No. 6.) A petition
to reconsider the matter was, however, presented to the selectmen,
and at the meeting called in response thereto it was decided by
a vote of 25 to 23 to send a delegate ; then by a vote of 18 to 30
an Antifederalist was chosen. (Hill to Thatcher, Jan. 1, 1788, Ibid.,
No. 9.) No return of the election, however, seems to have been
made, nor did the delegate, "A. Smith," attend the Convention.
The representation from the county as a whole, Hill sums up as
"4 pro's and 10 con's." "However," he adds, "I think we are
better represented in this Convention than we have been at the
G. C. these two years past : if I recollect right we never had more
than three & sometimes no more than one who were for opposing
Shays vi et armis." (Ibid.) 2 Ibid., No. 19.
4

So

CALLING THE CONVENTION.

Contest
at Great
Barrington.

A Federalist
elected.

same province, the delegate stated in the Convention
that his town "considered it seven hours, and after
this there was not one in favor of it. " 1
At Great Barrington, Berkshire, one of the chief
seats of the troubles of the~pWc£djing year, there was a
very animated contest. At a meeting held November
26, an Antifederalist delegate was chosen by a small
majority and a committee of four was appointed to draw
up instructions for him. The report made by this com
mittee recites, (1) that the legislature had gone beyond
its authority in sending delegates to the Philadelphia
Convention; (2) that even had the delegates been
constitutionally appointed, their commission extended
only to amending the Articles of Confederation; and
(3) that the Constitution that had been presented to
them was " by no means Calculated to Secure to us and
our Poserity those Estimable Liberties and Provileges
which God and Nature have given us a Right to
enjoy, Secure and defend:" therefore the delegate was
instructed " Not to give [his] vote for the adopting the
said Constituion," and to call for the yeas and the nays
on the question, "that the world may know who are
friends to the Liberties of this Commonwealth and
who not. " After an animated and protracted session,
an adjournment of one week was secured, without ac
tion on the foregoing report. The attendance at the
next meeting was larger than for many years ; and it
was voted, fifty-five to fifty-one, not to accept the in
structions, and to reconsider all votes passed at the
previous meeting. Then the Federalist candidate, who
had been defeated at the former meeting, was elected
by a narrow majority. 2

1 Debates, p. 197.
2 Taylor, History of Great Barrington, pp. 317-8.

See also
the remonstrance of the defeated party to the Convention, in De
bates of the Convention (1856), pp. 53-5, note 12.

CONTESTED ELECTIONS.

At Sheffield, in the same county, the Antifederal-
ists claimed that the hat in which the ballots were
deposited wasjtujfpd hy their npponfintfly-fmd-tfaat per
sons who were not qualified were voted, to secure the
election of the Federalist .eap^idatp-i At Williams-
town, also in Berkshire, the election was contested on
the ground that the decision in favor of the Antifederal
ist candidate was illegally reconsidered, and snap judg
ment taken at a subsequent meeting.2 At Roxbury,
1 Remonstrance, in Debates, p. 52, note 11. The remonstrants
say : "We wish for nothing more than to have a firm Stable inir-
getick Government both Federal and State . . . ; but when we
see a certain Set of Men among us not only ravenously greedy to
Swallow the new Fedderal Constitution them Selves but making
the greatest exertions to ram it down the Throats of others with
out giving them time to taste it men too who we have reason to
immagin, expect expect [sic] to have a Share in Administering the
new Federal Government when we See Such Men fraudulently
and basely depriving the People of their Right of Election, thret-
ning awing deceiving Cheating & defrauding the Majority in the
manner above mentioned it is to us truly alarming." See Papers
of the Convention of 1788, State House.
2 In a remonstrance to the Convention, the Antifederalists
recite that at a meeting duly held, Mr. William Young was elected
delegate "by a great Majority." "It was then motioned," the
remonstrance continues, " to desolve the meeting, the Moderator
then replied that the meeting was desolved, the people then began
to draw off and in the evening when but few people were present
they proceeded to adjourn the meeting to a future day, and on the
day of the adjournment, precisely at the time a Small Number only
being being [sic] present the meeting was opened, a number of
persons present put in their votes, and the Moderator turned the
Hatt before the people from the remote parts of the Town Could
come in and the moderator declared Col. ThomP J. Skinner to be
Chosen." The remonstrants then recite that " the Town generally
being dissatisfied with the proceedings," it was voted to adjourn the
meeting as " Illegal," and that they then proceeded, "as the Law
directs," to call a new meeting for January 1, at which William
Young was again elected by a majority of 91 votes. The remon
strance is signed by 69 "Freeholders." The committee of the

Sheffield, Wil
li amstown, 1 y
and Roxbury. \/

*

debate.

52 CALLING THE CONVENTION.
Suffolk County, corrupt practices were alleged in the
way of " expensive and "sumptuous ENTERTAINMENTS
made to Electors immediately previous to the Elec
tion " by the candidate favoring the Constitution.1
Stockbridge At Stockbridge, Berkshire, the contest was of a
worthier character. There, Theodore Sedgwick, after
a lengthy argument, convinced the opponents of the
Constitution of the necessity for ratification, and se
cured his own election to the Convention, where he
played a leading part.2 Chief of whom was John
Bacon, a man of considerable reputation in the State
for ability and integrity.
Convention to which it was referred, however, reported that it was
" unsupported," and the Federalist candidate was allowed to take
his seat. See Papers of the Convention of 1788, State House;
the remonstrance may also be found, with errors of spelling and
punctuation corrected, in the Debates, pp. 51-2, note 10.
1 American Herald, Dec. 10, 1787.
2 Worcester Magazine, IV. 139; Life of King, I. 264. Bacon
was a graduate in theology of Princeton Collee-e. and had preached
in Maryland and at Boston. At the latter place difficulties with
his congregation had caused him to give up the ministry. He then
moved to the western counties, and entered politics, holding at
various times the positions of magistrate, representative in the
legislature, judge of the Court of Common Pleas, member and
president of the State Senate, and (1801-1803) representative in
Congress (Lanman, Biographical Annals). While the Constitu
tion was before the people, Bacon changed his views on the subject
several times. In a dignified and manly card in the Massachusetts
Centinel oi Jan. 12, 1788, he says that, soon after the Constitution
appeared, he had come to believe that it "was predicated on princi
ples subversive of some of those rights, of which men in civil society
ought never to be divested," and hence would have an "unequal1
operation, and prove too burdensome to the body of the people;"
that afterwards he was "induced to give up his opinion to that of
his friends, and what he took to be, the sense of the publick."
" On more mature deliberation," he adds, " he has been constrained
to resume his former opinion," and as his sole answer to the attacks
that have been made upon him he claims the right to his own
private judgment.

ELECTION AT BOSTON. 53
At Boston the Antifederalists exerted themselves, Contest at
and there was an animated and protracted contest ; but Boston-
the odds were against them. As has already been
stated, the letters of "John de Witt" were designed
primarily to influence the voters of Boston against the
proposed system ; less pretentious efforts, also, may
be found in the papers of the day in any quantity.
A unique instrumeiit_^o^tfee--saTOT"Trnxd--was^ u- -"'
matory handbill, which was posted and dropped about
the streets '"bT'B6~sfd~n oh TSTovember 13, and which was
"liberally distributed" among the "political fathers"
at the State House. The practical identity of the
objections urged in it with those put forth in the
letters of " Agrippa,"1 points unmistakably to James
Winthrop as its author; and the complicity of James
Warren is obviously hinted at in the Massachusetts
Centinel of November 24. The contents of the bill
were as follows: —
"DISADVANTAGES of FEDERALISM Upon the
y^Elv^PZAN
1. The Trade of Boston transferred to Philadelphia; and the
Boston tradesmen starving.
2. The Discouragement oi Agriculture, by the loss of Trade. Antifederalist
3. People indolent, dissolute, and vicious, by the loss of Liberty.
4. An infinite Multiplication of Offices, to provide for ruined
Fortunes. 5. A Standing Army, and a Navy, at all Times kept up, to
give genteel Employment to the idle and extravagant.
6. Importance of Boston annihilated.
7. The wealthy retiring to Philadelphia to spend their rev
enues, while we are oppressed to pay Rents and Taxes to
Absentees. 1 For an analysis of the letters of " Agrippa," see above, page
21, note.

handbill.

54 CALLING THE CONVENTION.
8. Liberty of the Press restrained.
9. Trial by fury abolished.
10. Habeas Corpus done away.
11. Representatives chosen in such a manner, as to make it a
Business for Life.
12. The Bill of Rights repealed.
And, 13th. Religion Abolished.
All these Reasons, and many more, require the plan to be
amended, and made conformable to the Circumstances of the
People. The same objections are made in every State. —
Rouse then, and regulate the Business so as to be friendly to
Industry, Trade and Arts. Your Ships now go to every Part
of the World, and carry your Produce. Then, they may go to
Philadelphia.
Truth." l
1 American Herald, Nov. 19, 1787. Immediately following the
above in the Herald, with nothing to indicate whether or not it is
part of the original handbill, is the following : —
"Admiralty Office, Philadelphia.
" The following Letter was received last evening, from" Admiral
 , commander of the squadron of his Highness the President
General, gone against the rebels of Massachusetts, dated on board
the Tyrant, in Boston Harbour, August 21st. 1794, and directed
to the Right Honourable Mr. K[in]g, his Highness's principal
Secretary of State.
" ' . . . The strength of the squadron enabled me to pass the
fortress on Nantasket with considerable ease. ... I am informed
by a fish boat, which was taken coming out yesterday, that the
Rebels have every thing in readiness at Castle Wilson (formerly
Castle William) to give us a very warm reception. The two old
Ships that were hauled up in this port are dropt down to assist in de
fending the pass at the Castle, but, I think, we have nothing to fear
from them, as, although they have pressed every seaman in the
port they could not raise but two hundred; the reason of this is,
the poverty and misery of the place consequent on the transfer
of Commercial and Political importance from hence to the center
of Wealth and Empire. Although from all these circumstances,
I have no doubt of giving your Lordship a good account of this
Province in my next ; yet I submit it, whether it will not be policy

ELECTION AT BOSTON. 55
"To insure more entire harmony," it was decided, Factors affect-
apparently, to select the twelve delegates to which the ing result"
town was entitled equally from the Hancock and Bow
doin factions.1 For the first time in the history of
Massachusetts elections, tickets or lists of candidates
were published for the inspection of voters before the
date of the meeting. As finally selected, the list of
delegates "was the effect of a junction of the North
& South caucuses2 — a thing," according to Gore,
"often before attempted, but never, till this hour, with-
success."3 It included the names of Governor Han-
in future to conciliate these fellows by a restoration of some of their
commercial advantages, as for instance, to allow them to send one
or two Ships annually to the Indies, or extend a little the limitation
of their vessels employed in fishery, neither the India Company
nor the other fisheries would be materially injured by it. . . . The
Bostonians, your Lordship knows, were formerly remarkably tena
cious both of their Political and Commercial advantages ; the
instant annihilation of the one, the rapid decline of the other, and
the entire innovation on the habits of the country in consequence
of the establishment of the present Government, may reasonably
be supposed therefore, to cause a temporary commotion.
" ' From some intelligence I received yesterday, I have some
reason to suppose Field Marshal C  r will invest the place by
land in a few days, his army is in excellent order. The instant he
arrives I will dispatch a packet to your Lordship.' "
1 Amory, Life of Sullivan, I. 221.
2 The North-end caucus was composed of mechanics, mainly
ship-builders ; its list was published in the Massachusetts Centinel
of December 5. Among the four other lists that may be found
in the papers of the time, it is difficult to determine which, if either,
is that issued by the South caucus.
8 To King, Dec. 9, 1787, Life of King, I. 262. The list of
persons elected, with the votes, was as follows: Hancock, 751;
Bowdoin, 760; Thomas Dawes, Jr., 749; William Phillips, 740;
Rev. Samuel Stillman, 739; Dr. Charles Jarvis, 714; John Win
throp, 661 ; John Coffin Jones, 635; Samuel Adams, 628 ; Thomas
Russell, 610; Caleb Davis, 603 ; Christopher Gore, 517. (Massachu
setts Centinel, Dec. 8, 1787.) The small vote for Gore is ascribed
by him to the opposition manifested toward him by Jarvis, Adams,

CALLING THE CONVENTION.

y

4

^

Action of
towns as to
instructions.

cock, Ex-Governor Bowdoin, and Samuel Adams.
With four exceptions, the delegates were all Federal
ists; and means were found whereby even these four
were kept silent in the Convention, and their votes
ultimately secured for the Constitution.
Some townsgave their delegates positive instructions
as to the way in which the,y_should-vote. For example,
Brunswick (Maine) voted, twenty-three to seven, to ac
cept the Constitution as it stood.1 The neighboring
town of Harpswell voted to accept it with amendments.2
Harvard (Worcester County) instructed its delegate to
vote in the negative, on the ground that "the proposed
Constitution will, if adopted, effectually destroy the
sovereignty of the States, and establish a National
Government, that, in all probability, will soon bring the
good people of the United States under Despotism."3
and others. Cushing, Oliver Wendell, and Joseph Clarke, whose
names appear on the North-end list, were defeated, apparently, in
the town-meeting. The names that appear in other lists, but not
in the list of elected delegates, are those of James Sullivan, Stephen
Higginson, Samuel Barrett, Perez Morton, Major William Bell, Dr.
John Warren, Robert Treat Paine, Benjamin Austin, John Sweet-
ser, Jonathan Mason, Jr., Larson Belcher, and Ebenezer Storer.
Robert Treat Paine and James Sullivan are said to have been
" extremely mortified " at their defeat. (See Gore's letter, cited
above.) The vote cast at this meeting, in spite of the importance
of the issue, was little more than one-half that cast at the next
gubernatorial elections (See returns in Independent Chronicle,
April 10, 1788.) In the election for delegates, however, the polls
were kept open only from 10 : 00 till 12 : 30 (Boston Gazette, Dec. 10,
1787); possibly this was not the case in the gubernatorial elections.
1 Wheeler, History of Brunswick, Topsham, and Harpswell,
p. 132. 2 Ibid., p. 171.
8 American Herald, Jan. 21, 1788. As "a few of the most
material " objections to the Constitution, this town names : the lack
of a Bill of Rights, the election of senators for six years, the power
of Congress to alter the time and manner of elections, its unlimited
power of taxation, the four-year term of the President and Vice-

INSTRUCTIONS TO DELEGATES. 57
Sandwich (Barnstable County) also instructed abso
lutely against it, whereupon one of the delegates who
had been elected, although he was then " not in favour
of the constitution," exclaimed that under such in
structions " the greatest ideot may answer your purpose
as well as the greatest man," and resigned.1 Other
towns, such as Lancaster (Worcester County) and Sher-
born (Middlesex County), although they voted instruc
tions, yet qualified them in such a manner as really to
, leave their delegates free.2 Others, such as Northamp
ton (Hampshire), Westminster (Worcester), Andover
(Essex), and Wells (Wells County, Maine), voted not
to give instructions.3 Most of the delegates seem not Most
to have been instructed either way; but the choice of unm|tructed
a delegate in sympathy with the views of the majority,
and his knowledge of the cool reception, if not worse,
President and the dangerous powers of the former, the extensive
power of the judiciary, and the lack of a religious qualification for
office. The opinion was also expressed, that amendments might
be made to the Confederation by merely vesting greater powers in
Congress, " without so totally changing and altering the same, as
the proposed Constitution has a tendency to [do]."
1 Salem Mercury, Jan. 15, 1788. In some cases freedom of
decision seems to have been given the delegate later. In a letter
from Boston, Jan. 30, 1788, it is stated that " Some of the dele
gates, who were instructed by the towns they represented to vote
against it [the Constitution] at all events, have returned home and
informed their constituents that so much light had been thrown
upon the subject that they could not, as honest men, hold up their
hands in opposition to the Constitution. The towns have sent
them back and directed them to vote as they thought best." (New
York Advertiser, Feb. 8, 1788; cited by Libby, Bulletin of the
University of Wisconsin, No. I. p. 77.)
2 Marvin, History of Lancaster, p. 322 ; Morse, Genealogical
Register ofSherborn and Holliston, p. 304.
8 Hampshire Gazette, Nov. 28, 1787; Heywood, History of
Westminster, p. 189; Diary of 'William Pynchon, p. 297 ; Bailey,
Historical Sketches of Andover, p. 397 ; Bourne, History of Wells
and Kennebunk, p. 540.

58 CALLING THE CONVENTION.
which he would receive upon his return if he went
counter to the wishes of his constituents, operated in
most, though by no means in all cases, to produce a
harmony between the votes cast in the Convention
and the actual wishes of the people.

CHAPTER IV.
OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.

The Convention that assembled at Boston, January^, Composition
1788, was the largest called-in any -State to pass upon" Convention

the"~*Constitution, the names of three hundred and
sixty-four delegates being returned to it, three hun
dred and fifty-five of whom were present when the
final vote was taken. It was the most complete rep
resentation, according to Jeremy Belknap, "that ever
was made of the State of Massachusetts. Men of all
professions, of all ranks, and of all characters, good,
bad, and indifferent," he said, composed it.1 Ac
cording to one member, eighteen or twenty of those
present had actually been in Shays's army the year
previous.2 1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 1858, p. 296,
note. In the Worcester Magazine, IV. 231, is the following poeti
cal characterization of the Convention, clipped from the Massachu
setts Centinel of Jan. 12, 1788 : —
" Concenter'd HERE th' united wisdom shines
Of learned JUDGES, and of sound DIVINES ;
PATRIOTS, whose virtues, searching times have try'd,
HEROES, who fought, where BROTHER HEROES dy'd
LAWYERS, who speak, as TULLY spoke before,
SAGES, deep read in philosophick lore ;
MERCHANTS, whose plans, are to no realms confin'd,
FARMERS —the noblest title of mankind,
YEOMEN and TRADESMEN — pillars of the State:
On whose decision hangs COLUMBIA'S fate.''
2 Madison Papers, II. 669.

leaders.

60 OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.

Governor Hancock, whose influence with the common
people was great,1 was elected to the chair, in order,
as a Federalist said, "that we might have the advan
tage of [his] name, — whether capable of attending or
Federalist not. " 2 On the Federalist side the leaders were men of
ability and established reputation, such as Nathaniel
Gorham, Caleb Strong, and Rufus King,3 all of whom
1 Partly because of " his wealth and social rank . . . and the
chivalrous patriotism " with which he had gone into the Revolu
tion (Colonel Joseph May, in Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, III.
258) ; partly also because he had catered to them (see, e.g., Pyn-
chon's Diary, p. 54).
2 Gore to Thatcher, Thatcher Papers, No. 12.
8 Although he had been a stanch Federalist ever since the
Constitutional Convention assembled at Philadelphia, King had,
on his first entrance into national politics, been an opponent to
every attempt to increase the Federal power. Massachusetts, it
will be remembered, by her resolves in 1785 requesting Congress
to call a convention to revise the Articles of Confederation, had
taken the first official action toward such an assembly. These
resolves, as is well known, Gerry, Holten, and King, who were
then the Massachusetts delegates in Congress, refused to lay
before that body, on the ground that the Articles of Confederation
were as yet untried, and hence the move was premature ; that
temporary commercial powers might be found to answer the needs
of the general government as well as a permanent provision,
and would be safer for the States ; that the attempt to alter the
Articles through a convention would be discourteous to Congress,
as indicating a lack of confidence in that body ; and, lastly, that
" such a measure would produce thro'out the Union, an exertion
of the friends of an Aristocracy to Send members who would pro
mote a change of Government: & we can form some judgment
of the plan, which Such members would report to Congress."
The next year we find King quoting approvingly the words of
John Adams : " Congress can do all a convention can, & cer
tainly with more safety to original principles." Inside of five
months, however, we find his stand with reference to a Conven
tion changed. "For a number of reasons," he writes, Feb. 11,
1787, " although my sentiments are the same as to the legality of
this measure, I think we ought not to oppose, but to coincide with

FEDERALIST LEADERS. 6l
«
had sat in the Federal Convention; Ex-Governor
Bowdoin; Generals Heath and Lincoln; the rising
statesmen, Theodore Sedgwick, Theophilus Parsons,
and Fisher Ames. Of those openly in opposition there
was scarcely a member who could be compared with
these. Dr. Samuel Holten, of Danvers, who with Principal
Gerry arid King had in 1785 refused to present the re- u^ absent."
solves of the Massachusetts legislature recommending
a Federal Convention, was almost the only exception;
and he was present only a portion of the time, ill
health, in all probability,1 compelling his withdrawal
long before the final vote was taken. The "old
patriot," Samuel Adams, of whose secret opposition
there can now be., no— daubt^-JAias — i»€h±eed~i5y"~various
considerations to refrain from openly proceeding
against the proposed system. Oliver Phelps, who had
served in the commissary department during the war,
and had grown rich as a merchant in Berkshire County,
had been elected to the Convention ; but becoming con
vinced, apparently, that opposition would be unsuccess
ful and unpopular, he had resigned his seat before the
Convention met.2 Nathan Dane, who with Richard
this project." Shays's rebellion was one, but not the only, factor ^-^^
in producing this change in King's opinions. A careful reading
of his letters for this period conveys the impression of growing
dissatisfaction with the workings of the government under the
Articles. With longer service in Congress, and a better knowledge
of the needs of the nation (he had been only thirty, and in his
second year as delegate, in 1785), King had been gradually coming
to a more Federal view of political matters ; and it would seem
that it was this gradual growth, rather than any particular event,
which had led to the change. On these points, see Life of King,
I. passim. 1 See Dane to King, Aug. 12, 1787, Ibid., I. 257. He was pres
ent in the Convention only eleven days. See Papers of the Con
vention of 1788, State House : Pay-Roll of the Convention.
2 Gore to King, Dec. 30, 1787, Ibid., I. 266. The influence
of Osgood of the Treasury Board, by whom he was " much

62 OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.
Henry Lee had taken the lead in Congress in the
attempt to amend the Constitution before submitting
it to the States,1 was mortified on his return to Massa
chusetts to find all whom he respected in favor of the
new system; he had therefore held his peace,2 but
nevertheless had been rejected by the voters of Beverly,
Gerry's rela- in favor of George Cabot. 3 Gerry, apparently, had
Convention. not been a candidate ; Cambridge was so strongly Fed
eralist that an election may have seemed to him hope
less.4 When the Convention assembled, however, on the
motion of the opponents of the Constitution, a motion
which the friends of the new system dared not oppose,6
he was invited to take a place on the floor to answer
such questions as might be put to him ; but within a
few days trouble arose because, unasked, he offered
certain information, a wrangle ensued which for a time
threatened very serious consequences, and thenceforth
/ Gerry stayed away from the Convention.6
written to on the new Constitution," seems to have been the deter
mining factor.
1 Madison to Washington, Sept. 30, 1787, Madison Papers, II.
643- 2 Gore to King, Dec. 23, 1787, Life of King, I. 265.
3 Bancroft, History of the Constitution, II. 260.
4 Gorham to King, Dec. 12, 1787, Life of King, I. 263. Gerry
received only two or three votes at the election. See Gore to
King, Dec. 23, Ibid., p. 265.
6 " Considering the jealousies which prevail with those who
made it," wrote King, Jan. 16, 1788, "... and the doubt of the
issue — had it been made a trial of strength — several friends of
the Constitution united with their opponents and the resolution
was agreed to." Ibid., p. 313.
s The best accounts of this affair are given by Belknap in his
minutes (Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings , 1858, p.
299), and in his letter to Hazard, Jan. 20, 1788 (Massachusetts
Historical Society, Collections, Fifth Series, III. 7-8). See also
King to Madison, Jan. 16 and 20 (Life of King, I. 313-4); Gerry's
letter to the president of the Convention (Debates, p. 65, note 18) ;

ANTIFEDERALIST LEADERS. 63
Who, then, were the Antifederalist leaders in the Antifederalist
debates of the Convention ? A half-dozen obscure men, leaders-
it must be answered, whose names are utterly unknown
even to most students of this period.1 William Wid- William
gery (or Wedgery) of New Gloucester, Maine, was one ^ jjf^7,
of these. A poor, friendless, uneducated boy, he had Gloucester,
emigrated from England before the Revolution, had
served as lieutenant on board a privateer in that con
test, had then settled in Maine, had acquired some
property, and by 1788 had served one term in the Mas
sachusetts legislature. After the Convention he was
to serve a number of years in that body, and one term
in Congress; and with the knowledge gained from
some years' service as Justice of the Peace, he was to
engage in the practice of law against the opposition of
the bar and the bar rules, and finally end his life as
Judge of the Court of Common Pleas.2
Samuel Thompson, of Topsham, Maine, was another Samuel
of the Antifederalist leaders. A self-made man, he xopsham,M°!
had the obstinacy of opinion which such men often
show. In the Revolution he had been appointed briga
dier-general of militia; but he is reported to have seen
no real service, and is supposed to have been somewhat
deficient in courage. He was wealthy, for the times,
and comment on the same by " A Spectator " in the Massachusetts
Centinel oi Feb. 2, 1788 (Debates, p. 71).
1 Other members on the Antifederalist side, however, partici
pated in the debate. In Pennsylvania three men had done prac
tically all the talking for the opposition, while the rest sat silent,
except when called upon to vote. In Massachusetts the debate
was much more general, a result largely due to the town-meeting
training of the members.
3 Willis, Law, Courts, and Lawyers of Maine, pp. 272-4; His
tory of Portland, p. 632, notei. According to another account,
he was born in Philadelphia (Lanman, Biographical Annals). Like
most of the Maine Antifederalists, he was in 1787 an ardent advo
cate of the separation of Maine from Massachusetts.

64 OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.
but inclined to be niggardly. In the Maine movement
for separation in 1787 he had taken a prominent part.
He had served for a number of terms in the General
Court, and had there established a reputation as a furi
ous haranguer, which in the Convention he was fully to
sustain.1
Samuel Nas- Another determined opponent of the proposed Con-
ford,°Mean" stitution /wal~slrrvuel Nasson (or Nason), of Sanford,
Maine.2 Born— ia—New Hampshire, and a saddler by
trade, he became a store-keeper in Maine, served
awhile in the war as quartermaster of a regiment, then
as captain of a matross company, and finally settled
as a trader at Sanford, where he soon became promi
nent in town affairs. In 1787 he served a term in
the General Court, but declined a re-election because
he felt "the want of a proper Education I feel my
Self So Small on many occasions," he wrote to George
Thatcher, "that I all most Scrink into Nothing Besides
I am often obliged to Borrow from Gentleman that
had advantages which I have not." 3 His town had at
first voted not to send a delegate to the Convention,
but, as an inhabitant of the county puts it, Nasson
" come down full charged with Gass and Stirred up a
2nd Meeting and procured himself Elected, and I pre
sume will go up charged like a Baloon. "4 The same
person, writing from Boston shortly after the adjourn
ment of the Convention, asserts that Nasson was one
1 Wheeler, History of Brunswick, Topsham, and Harpswell,
pp. 81 1-6. Pynchon, at Andover, notes in his Diary (p. 298)
that on February 5 nothing of importance was done in the Con
vention, " Boreas' blasts having equalled Gen1 Thompson's."
2 The author of this paper desires to acknowledge his indebted
ness to Mr. Edwin Emery, of New Bedford, Mass., and to Mr.
G. E. Allen, of Sanford, Maine, for much interesting information
concerning Samuel Nasson.
s Thatcher Papers, No. 37.
4 David Sewall to Thatcher, Ibid., No. 10.

ANTIFEDERALIST LEADERS. 65
of several who "had Speaches made out of Doors."1
The letters of " Laco " insinuate that Dr. Charles Jarvis,
one of the delegates from Boston, was the author of one
of these speeches.2
From Massachusetts proper, Dr. John Taylor, of Dr. John
Douglas, Worcester County, was the most prominent paylo,r' o£
opponent of the new Constitution. He, Widgery, and
Nasson are styled by Rufus King " the champions of
our Opponents."3 But the slightest information, it
seems, can now be gathered as to his history and per
sonality. He had been one of the popular majority in
the legislature of 1787, where he had taken an active
part in procuring the extension of the Tender Law.4
This, however, appears to have been his only term of
political service before entering the Convention.5 As
to his character, Jeremy Belknap tells us in his com
ment on the debates in the Convention, that "he is
cunning and loquacious, but more decent " than Wid
gery, Thompson, and Nasson.6 Another delegate from
this part of the State who was prominent in the oppo
sition was Captain Phanuel Bishop, of Rehoboth, Bris- Capt.Phanuel
tol County. In him the Rhode Island virus may be Rehoboth.
seen at work. Of his life we possess fuller details
than we do of Taylor's. He was a native of Massachu
setts, and had received a public school education.
1 Thatcher Papers, No. 41.
2 Letters of Laco (reprinted as Ten Chapters in the Life of John
Hancock, New York, 1857), p. 38.
8 To Thatcher, Jan. 20, 1788, Thatcher Papers, No. 17. This
letter is omitted from the Life and Correspondence of Rufus King,
now being published.
4 Massachusetts Centinel, Nov. 7, 1787.
6 In neither the House nor the Senate Journals has the author
been able to find his name, except for this one year, despite a rather
close examination covering the years 1 775-1 790.
8 Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 1858, p. 296,
note. 5

66

OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.

Course of
CharlesTurner, of
Scituate.

When or why he had been dubbed Captain, is not
now apparent. Belknap styles him "a noted insur
gent ; " 1 and he had evidently ridden into office on
the crest of the Shaysite wave. His first legislative
experience had been in the Senate of 1787, where he
had championed the debtor's cause. After the adjourn
ment of the Convention he was to serve in the Senate
three terms more, in the legislature four terms, and in
Congress four terms.2 From his speeches in the Con
vention, it is evident that he was equally pertinacious
with the Maine leaders, while in native ability and
training he excelled them.
To the foregoing list of Antifederalist leaders
might be added the name of Charles Turner, of Scituate,
Plymouth County, who during the first few days of the
Convention was unquestionably the ablest and most
dignified, as well as one of the most sincere, opponents
of the new government. He had seen much and honor
able service in the civil affairs of his State, serving in
the Senate in 1773-74, and again continuously from
1780 to the sitting of the Convention. Soon after
the opening of the session of that body, however, he
was seized with a sickness which confined him to
his bed for three weeks, removing him from the scene
of action during the most important part of the de
bates. His rSle as leader of the Antifederalists,
consequently, was much less important than it would
otherwise have been. Furthermore, his influence was
ultimately exerted and his vote cast in favor of the
Constitution.3

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 1858, p. 301.
2 Poore, Political Register and Congressional Directory ;
Lanman, Biographical Annals.
3 See his letter of January 21, 1788, in Papers of the Convention
of 1788; Senate Journals, 1780-89, passim; Dearie, History of Scit
uate, p. 106.

FEDERALIST POLICY.

67

f Had a vote been taken on the adoption of the Con- strength of
stitution as soon as the Convention assembled, there £orces-|
can be no question but that it would have been over
whelmingly against the proposed plan.1 In the public
prints mucrr-4ftf'*r-y- had been done to the Federalist
cause by the intemperance of its advocates. In the
Convention the Federalist leaders were wise enough
to adopt a more conciliatory policy. They "avoided
every question, which would have shown the division of
the House."2 It was voted that the Conventions" will
enter into a free conversation on the several parts [of
the Constitution], Ky p"1"^] fiUitj mil il mi ij1 member
shall have had opporturrS^to express his sentiments CautJoAof
on the same ; after which the Convention will consider FederaIlsts»
and debate at large the question . . ., before any vote
is taken expressive of the sense of the Convention upon
the whole or, any part thereof."3 Throughout theses'
sion, the opponents of the Constitution seem in th
main to have been treated with delicacy and considera
tion. Their objections were respectjully_lJstened__toj
their arguments patienTIy-_answered over and ove
again. All antagonisms, of course, were not thereb}
removed; all suspicions were not thereby allayed
Conciliation could not reach all, nor could argumenl
efface all objections. Nevertheless, this conciliator
policyjindoubtedly made possiMe-the-ulti-mate triumplp
of the Federal ist. cause. It led some, at least, to give
a candid hearing to the advocates of the Constitution]

and its good
results.

1 Jan. 22, 1788, Nasson wrote Thatcher that he " guessed " there
would be about 192 votes against 144 for ratification (Thatcher
Papers, No. 18). After the contest was over, Knox wrote to
Washington, Feb. 10, 1788 : "It is now no secret that, on the open
ing of the Convention, a majority were prejudiced against it." (De
bates, p. 410 ; Drake, Life of Knox, p. 151.)
2 King to Madison, Jan. 27, 1788, Life of King, I. 317.
8 Debates, p. 100.

6S

OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.

Nature of
objections
raised

Explanationof emphasis
on Bill of
Rights.

and that hearing once obtained, the superior eloquence
of the Federalists and the superiority of their cause,
coupled with the famous " conciliatory proposition "
introduced by Governor Hancock, ultimately secured
enough converts to change the balance of opinion and
produce a majority in favor of ratification.
In the main, the objections urged in the.ConvenHrm
ere the same that had filled the papers for the past
four months, neither better nor worse. Some were
directed" toward defects in the plan submitted by the
Convention, which are now generally admitted to have
been real and remediable, and which received attention
at the hands of the first Congress under the Constitu
tion. Others were directed toward provisions which in
the light of history seem equally to have been defects,
but which were the results oL-reaJ—Compromises in, ihfi-
Federal Convention, and hence under existing condi
tions were irremediable. Other objections seem to
us now merely trivial, or founded in ignoranceTsocial
jealousy, arid~liarfowness- of mind. We should re-
/member, however, that the past one hundred years have
I been pregnant with changes that have contributed
\enormously to widen the horizon of men's minds, and
/have operated to separate us much more widely from
the men of 1788 than they were from the men of 1688.
This explains, in part, the emphasis that was put on
fthe lack of a Bill of Rights, to secure the persons and
¦property of citizens from the excesses of arbitrary
power. In times which then seemed fairly recent, two
Revolutions costing much blood and treasure had been
needed to procure those by no means empty rights ; and
the men of 1788 could not foresee the great industrial
and political changes which in the next hundred years
were to remove all such dangers among Anglo-Saxons.
The natural attitude of a patriotic citizen of that time
was indicated by a delegate in this Convention: "Re-

REPRESENTATION. 69
linquishing an hair's breadth in a Constitution," he
explained, "is a great deal; for by small degrees has
liberty in all nations been wrested from the hands of
the people. " 1
It will not be necessary to consider at length the Biennial
objections put forward by the opposition. At the very e ectl0ns-
beginning of the discussions, several days were spent
on the subject of the biennial election of representa
tives. " O my country ! " exclaimed General Thomp- ^
son, " never give up your annual elections ; young men,
never give up your jewel! " 2 Another member thought
that nature pointed out the propriety of annual elec
tions by its annual renewal.3 In the end, theadyisa- ,^.
bility of biennial electionsjor--representatives was con
ceded by the majority. — -Then all the arguments against
the power giverfCongress to alter State regulations for
the election of representatives to that body were re
hearsed. Captain Phanuel Bishop, of Rehoboth, as
serted that "the moment we give Congress this power, Powertoregu-
the liberties of the yeomanry of this country are at
an end." * Another exclaimed that he would not trust
"a flock of Moseses;" that by this provision Con
gress could restrict the franchise to those having fifty
or one hundred pounds sterling per annum.5 Still
another argued that it was " a genuine power for Con
gress to perpetuate themselves; a power that cannot
be unexceptionably exercised in any case whatever. " 6
On this point the opposition could not be moved.
Other objections were urged to the provisions con- Representa-
cerning representation. Thompson wished to see a
1 Charles Turner, of Scituate ; see Debates, p. 129.
2 Ibid., p. 113.
8 Charles Turner ; see Ibid., p. 109.
4 Ibid., p. 121.
5 Abraham White, of Norton; see Ibid., p. 126.
6 Charles Turner; see Ibid., p. 128.

tion.

desired.

70 OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.
property qualification, and a disqualification for age.1
Dr. Taylor wanted to know why they should "leave
the good old path " of paying the representatives out
of the several State treasuries.2 Charles Turner, of
Scituate, thought a rotation in the lower House neces
sary, "to guard against the deep arts of popular men. "3
Much objection was made to the length of term for
senators. William Jones, of Bristol, Maine, thought
that they ought to be chosen annually; if they behave
well, he said, they might then be rechosen ; otherwise
they ought not : as it was provided in the Constitu
tion, senators would take their families with them to
the seat of government, and forget their own States.4
Several members, not clergymen, by the way, but old
farmers from the outlying counties, waxed eloquent
Religious test over the lack of a religious test for office: as one put
it, he " shuddered at the idea, that Roman Catholics,
Papists and Pagans might be introduced into office ;
and that Popery and the Inquisition may be established
in America. " 5
1 Debates, pp. 133, 134. Parsons, in his minutes, however, repre
sents Thompson as opposing a property qualification in this con
nection, and ascribes this objection to another delegate. (Ibid.,
p. 298.) 2 Ibid., p. 152.
8 Parsons's minutes, Ibid., p. 295.
4 Ibid., p. 307.
6 Major Thomas Lusk, of West Stockbridge ; see Ibid., p.
251. It is of interest to note in this connection, as another in
stance of lingering Puritanism, that William Jones, the delegate
above cited, objected to the proceedings of the Convention, on the
ground that they had not first "asked advice of God" about the
Constitution by means of a public fast before the Convention met.
To remedy this omission, he moved, January 19, that a fast be
held ; the motion, however, was not seconded (Parsons's minutes,
Ibid., p. 307). The sessions each morning were opened by prayer
from the clergy of Boston, the various denominations serving by
turns.

POWERS OF CONGRESS. 71
To the sections relating to slavery and the slave-trade Slavery
many exceptions were taken. The comparison made slave-trade
was not with the existing status under the Articles of
Confederation, but with the ideal desired. "If the
southern States would not give up the right of slav
ery," exclaimed the irrepressible Thompson, "then we
should not join with them;" adding, "Washington's
character fell fifty per cent, by keeping slaves."1
James Neal, a Maine Quaker,2 informed the Conven
tion that, unless the clause forbidding interference
with the slave-trade for twenty years was removed, he
must vote against ratification, "how much soever he
liked the other parts of the Constitution ; " 3 and vote
against it he did. To the three-fifths representation
of slaves it was justly-o1?]ected that, "in legislation, V  — -
one southern man with" sixty" slaves, will have as much
influence as "~thirty-sev-e-n~-freemen in the eastern
States. " i In its relation to taxation, the new rule of
apportionment was generally felt to be unjust to New
England, but Dr. Holten, from his experience in Con
gress, admitted its necessity, as it was "all the rule
we can get."6
To the powers vested in Congress, and to the^j^pg-^Powers of
diction and procedure of the proposed_Federal Courts, 011gress>
there was also much objection^ madeT Concerning the
former, one member thought that, with the checks of
annual elections, rotation, and recall removed, "our
Federal rulers will be masters, and not servants ; " and
that " bribery may be introduced here, as well as in
Great Britain; and Congress may equally oppress the
people. " 6 Most of the debate centred around the
1 Parsons's minutes, Debates, p. 320.
2 Thatcher Papers, No. 9. 8 Debates, p. 222.
4 Widgery ; see Parsons's minutes, Ibid., p. 303.
6 Parsons's minutes, Ibid. , p. 302.
6 Major Martin Kinsley, of Hardwick ; see Ibid., pp. 161-2.

OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.
clause _go.ncerning__t3xa.tion.1 To the grant of power to
lay duties, imposts, and excises, no,objectiori_wasmade.;
k but the. inclusion of the word " taxes/* i. e. , " dry "
"lf\.or direct taxes,--raised a storm of protest. Instead
\ of being a"n extraordinary source of revenue to be
» used only in case of war or other severe drain on the
resources of the government, it was thought that this
concerning would be the ordinary mode of taxation. Recollecting
taxation. tjje successful effort which the mercantile class in
Massachusetts had made since the war to resist the
imposition of duties on trade, the landed interest in
the Convention maintained that most, if not all, of the
Federal revenue would come from land and poll taxes.
"They won't be able to raise money enough by im
post," exclaimed an old Worcester County farmer, who
had seen much service in the General Court, "and
then they will lay it on the land, and take all we have
The judiciary, got."2 To the provisions concerning the judiciary it
was objected that tribunals " little less inauspicious
than . . . the Inquisition " might be set up ; and that
Congress was not "restrained from inventing the most
cruel and unheard of punishments, and annexing them
1 It is of interest to note, among the arguments used by
Federalists for the clause as it stood, the plea that it would enable
Congress to encourage domestic manufactures by means of a pro
hibitory tariff. " The very face of our country," exclaimed
Thomas Dawes of Boston, "leads to manufactures. Our numerous
falls of water, and places for mills, where paper, snuff, gunpowder,
iron works, and numerous other articles, are prepared — these will
save us immense sums of money, that otherwise would go to
Europe. The question is, have these been encouraged ? Has
Congress been able, by national laws, to prevent the importation of
such foreign commodities as are made from such raw materials
as we ourselves raise. ... If we wish to encourage our own
manufactures — to preserve our own commerce — to raise the value
of our own lands — we must give Congress the powers in ques
tion." (Debates, pp. 158-9.)
2 Amos Singletary; see Ibid., p. 203.

ANALYSIS OF OPPOSITION. 73
to crimes, and there is no constitutional check on
them, but that racks and gibbets may be amongst the
most mild instruments of their discipline. " 1
We have now reached a point in our investigation Analysis of
where we may hazard an analysis of the elements °PP0Sltl0n-
entering into the opposition to the Constitution. The
data from which our conclusions are to be drawn con
sist, in the first place, of the articles, letters, and
speeches in which those who were opposed to the
Constitution gave the reasons for their course, to
gether with the arguments by which they endeav
ored to win adherents to their cause. It has been
one of the purposes of this paper to put before the
reader enough of this literature to enable him inde
pendently to form an estimate of the causes that gave
rise to such widespread and obstinate opposition.
Valuable aid in addition may be obtained from other
sources, especially from the estimates of various con
temporary writers as to the influences at work in the
contest. Of those whose opinions on this subject
have been transmitted to us, we need mention only
King, Gorham,2 Knox, and, most noteworthy of all,
Nathaniel Barrel!, an Antifederalist delegate from
Maine, whose conversion was accomplished in the
Convention. Finally, from many local histories, and
from the gossip contained in intimate personal letters
of the time, bits may be gathered which often are of
great help in throwing light upon special phases of
the question.
At the outset, we may eliminate from our analysis
1 Abraham Holmes, of Rochester; see Debates, pp. 212-3.
2 That the letter of Jan. 27, 1788, quoted by Madison to Wash
ington (Madison Papers, II. 668-9) *s from the pen of Gorham,
may be inferred from the statement of Bancroft. (History of the
Constitution, II. 258, note 2.)

74

OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.

Distrust of
delegatedpower.

Well-founded the opposition that arose from legitimate objections
objections. tQ t^Q Constitution in the form in which it was sent
forth by the Federal Convention. It is enough here
to indicate the fact that such objections existed and
were entertained even by the stanchest of Federalists.
Taken apart from other considerations, however, they
would seem to have been scarcely sufficient of them
selves to induce opposition to ratification on the part
of any sensible man. As for the rest, it seems, from
a careful consideration of the above mafenalTtnaTj^he
prime element in the opposition was the distrust with
which men brought up in the democratic atmosphere
of the New England town-meeting viewed all delegated
power; and their inordinate desire to maintain a con
stant and efficient, check upon all persons to whom it
was found necessary to intrust a portion of their
authority." "For "exam^Te7"a not unfriendly writer, in
speaking of the delegates sent to the Convention from
Worcester County, said : " The most of them entertain
such a dread of arbitrary power, that they are afraid
even of limited authority. Why is it," he continues,
"that modern politicians commonly commence with
such sentiments — I think it a fact, perhaps, because
I used to feel them, till late years have convinced me
that the only way to avoid arbitrary power is to dele
gate proper authority to prevent it — but of upwards of
50 members for this county not more than 7 or 8 dele
gates are of my present sentiments, & yet some of them
are good men — Not all insurgents I asure you. " 1 It
was probably such persons as these that Knox had in
mind when he spoke of the opposition as animated
by "a deadly principle levelled at the existence of all
government whatever."2
1 E. Bangs to Thatcher, Worcester, Jan. 1, 1788, Thatcher
Papers, No. 8.
2 Debates, pp. 409-10; Drake, Life of Knox, p. 150. The

ARISTOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY.

75

A second element in the opposition seems to have Agricultural
been the conflict of interest, partly real and partly fan- jjfec™on£
cied, between the agricultural and the commercial sec-.
tions of the State. Evidences of this antagonism, and
of its influence, are to be seen most pronouncedly in
the letter of "Cornelius." before cited:1 additional
traces of it may be seen in the attempt in the legis
lature to change the place of meeting of the Conven
tion from Boston to some other town; and again in~
various passages cited from the debates of that body
itself. Underlying and reinforcing these two elements was Aristocracy
another, in which, it may be said, lay the whole secret jacv emoc"/
of the opposition. This was the pronounced antag-
onism between the aristocratic and the democratic
elements of society in Massachusetts, which has been.
discussed in the Introduction to this paper. Massachu
setts was not alone in this experience ; in most, if not
all, of the States a similar contest had arisen since the
war. The men who at Philadelphia had put their\
names to the new Constitution were, it seems quite!
safe to affirm, at that time identified with the aristo-^
cratic interest. Thus color was given to the charge of!

?

a Pennsylvania writer, that " the present conspiracy
charge that some of the delegates were animated by a desire for
anarchy was common, but it was probably without real founda
tion. For example, Nathaniel Barrell, who had himself been op
posed to the Constitution in the Convention, though he voted yea,
says, after enumerating various classes among the opposition :
" Aside from all these are not a few of those Insurgents, who
have neither property nor principle, consequently want no Gov
ernment but that Anarchy which may in its confusion give them
a chance of sharing all property amongst them, — this lesson I
have learnt by being in the minority, when I was oblig'd to mix
wth a set of the most unprincipled of men." (To Thatcher, Feb. 20,
1788, Thatcher Papers, No. 35.)
1 See above, pp. 33-35.

Convention.

•]6 OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.
[i. e., the attempt to secure the adoption of the new
Constitution] was "a continental exertion of the well
born of America to obtain that darling domination,
which they have not been able to accomplish in their
respective States." 1
as seen in the There can be no question that this feeling underlay
most of the opposition in the Massachusetts Conven
tion. Quotations in proof of this might be(multiplied
indefinitely, but a few will suffice. Of the support
which the Constitution received, Benjamin Randall,
delegate from Sharon, Suffolk County, said : " An
old saying, Sir, is, that a good thing don't need prais
ing ; but, Sir, it takes the best men in the State to
gloss this Constitution, which they say is the best that
human wisdom can invent. In praise of it, we hear
the reverend clergy,2 the judges of the supreme court,
and the ablest lawyers, exerting their utmost abilities.
Now, Sir, suppose all this artillery turned the other
way, and these great men would speak half as much
against it, we might complete our business, and go
home in forty-eight hours. . . . Every one comes here
to discharge his duty to his constituents, and I hope
none will be biased by the best orators ; because we
are not acting for ourselves." 3 Praise from the "well-
1 " Centinel " ; see McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and
the Federal Constitution, p. 627.
2 Out of 17 clergymen in the Convention, 14 voted -for ratifi
cation. Seven of these were from Suffolk County. On the other
hand, it is curious to note that out of 10 doctors in the Convention,
all but two voted in the negative. The importance of the general
support given the Constitution by the clergy was recognized by the
Federalists at the time. " It is very fortunate for us," wrote Lin
coln to Washington, Feb. 9, 1788, "that the clergy are pretty gen
erally with us. They have in this State a very great influence
over the people, and they will contribute much to the general peace
and happiness." (Debates, p. 409.)
s Ibid., p. 138.

ARISTOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY. yy
born " evidently excited suspicion rather than allayed
it. The reason for this is made apparent in a speech
by Amos Singletary,1 the old Worcester County coun
tryman before referred to. " These lawyers, and-meri Upper classes
of learning, and moneyed men," said he, "that.Jalk.suspect^
so finely, and gloss over mattersjsjajmiQathly,-. to make L^— ~
us,'po"OrlTTiferate~p^'o^Ie","swallow down the pill, expect
to get into Congress themselves ; they expect to be the
managers of this Constitution, and get all the power
and all the money into their own hands, and then they
will swallow up all us little folks, like the great levia
than, Mr. President; yes, just as the whale swallowed
up Jonah. This is what I am afraid of. " 2
1 He was the first white male child born in his town (Sutton);
the date of his birth is 1721. It is said that he "never attended
school a day in his life," but that by home teaching and patient
application he became a " well informed man." He represented
his town in the Provincial Congress during the Revolution, and
then for four years in the House of Representatives. He also
served several terms in the State Senate. See Benedict and Tracy,
History of Sutton, pp. 27, 727.
2 Debates, p. 203. In reply to this, a noteworthy speech was
made by one Jonathan Smith, of Lanesborough. To show his
" brother plough-joggers" " what were the effects of anarchy, that
[they might] see the reasons why [he wished] for good govern
ment," he first, after some protest on the part of a few members,
sketched in graphic manner the state of affairs in the western
counties during the preceding year, while Shays's rebellion was
at its height. "Now, Mr. President," he then continued, "when
I saw this Constitution, I found that it was a cure for these
disorders. It was just such a thing as we wanted. I got a
copy of it and read it over and over. I had been a member of
the Convention to form our own State Constitution, and had learnt
something of the checks and balances of power, and I found them
all here. I did not go to any lawyer, to ask his opinion ; we have
no lawyer in our town, and we do well enough without. I formed
my own opinion, and was pleased with this Constitution. My
honorable old daddy there . . . won't think that I expect to be a
Congressman, and swallow up the liberties of the people. I never

78 OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.
That it was the fear of the aristocracy which gave
rise to-m^rst~~c^~tnTjppbsition was .dearjy_r£CQgmzed
at the time by theTadvocates of the Constitution. Five
Testimony of days before the above avowal was made, Rufus "King had
Rufus King. wrjtten t0 Madison : " An apprehension that the liber
ties of the people are in danger, and a distrust of men
of property. .or- education have a more powerfuTeffect
upon the minds of. our. opponents than any specific ob
jections against the Constitution. -—If the opposition
was grounded on any precise points, I am persuaded
that it might be weakened, if not indirectly overcome.
But every attempt to remove their fixed and violent
. jealousy, seems, hitherto, to operat.e..as_ a confirmation
of that baneful passion. "^""A week later Tie wrote
again, confirming his former diagnosis. The opposi
tion arose, he said, chiefly "from an opinion that_is-
immovable, that some injury is plotted against them
— that the system is the production of the rich and
ambitious, that they discover its operations and that
the consequence will be the establishment of two

had any post, nor do I want one, and before I am done you will
think that I don't deserve one. But I don't think the worse of the
Constitution because lawyers, and men of learning, and moneyed
men, are fond of it. ... I think those gentlemen who are so very
suspicious that as soon as a man gets into power he turns rogue,
had better look at home. ... let us suppose a case now : Sup
pose you had a farm of fifty acres, and your title was disputed,
and there was a farm of five thousand acres joined to you, that
belonged to a man of learning, and his title was involved in fhe
same difficulty ; would not you be glad to have him for your friend,
rather than to stand alone in the dispute ? Well, the case is the
same; these lawyers, these moneyed men, these men of learning,
are all embarked in the same cause with us, and we must all swim
or sink together," etc. (Debates, pp. 203-5.) In Elliot's Debates,
and in the edition of the Debates of the Convention published in
1808, Smith is erroneously recorded as voting against the ratifica
tion of the Constitution.
1 Life of King, I. 314.

PAPER MONEY. yg
orders in the Society, onejcomprehending.-the opulent
andrgreat7"the other. the„poor and illiterate. The ex
traordinary Union in favor of the Constitution in this
State of the Wealthy and sensible part of it," he con
tinued, " is in confirmation of these opinions and every
exertion hitherto made to eradicate it, has been in
vain."1 y^
Under the three foregoing heads are indicated what/ Paper money,
seem to have been the chief elements in the opposition and£r aw '/
to ratification. Aside from these, however, various repudiation/
special causes were assigned at the time by Federalists
to account for the antipathy to the new Constitution,
some of which undoubtedly did exert considerable in
fluence, and should be noticed here. The most impor
tant of these subsidiary causes was probably the desire
for paper money and tender laws, both of which wereC
flatly prohibited by the new system. It was on thisf "
point, it will be remembered, that William Symmesj
had predicted that "the principal weight of opposi-J
tion [would] hang. " 2 With this, may be taken the
desire for a partial repudiation of the State debt, seal- J$7
ing it down to five or six shillings in the pound, a cow< /\/
sideration which, we are told, was the animating cause 4
with some. 3 It was this desire, doubtless, together
with the three preceding reasons, that caused " all the
late insurgents and their abettors " to take a stand
against the Constitution.
Another element of considerable weight was the de-) Separation
| sire to make Maine a separate State, and the fear that! °
| the ad-optiotl of the Constitution would render this step?
more difficult.4 The movement for a separation, which|
i Life of King, I. 317.
2 See above, page 43.
8 Thatcher Papers, No. 30.
4 Gore, writing to King, Jan. 6, 1788, says : " It is said the
Eastern delegates will generally be opposed, because they think,

80 OPPOSITION IN THE CONVENTION.
had begun in 1785, was then at its height. Just before
/the Constitution had been submitted to the States, a
convention in Maine, the last of a series, had issued a
\ call to the people of that district to express their sen
timents on the subject of a separation. A large and
active minority, if not a majority, of the population
in that region, supported the movement.1 In Massa
chusetts proper, it was also not without its supporters :
many persons in Worcester County, we are told, advo
cated separation, in the belief that Worcester's pros
pects of becoming the State capital would thus be
increased.2 Although the matter was but once al
luded to in the debates, this question of the separa-
that it will postpone their separation — woud it not be well for
you & Thacher [sic] to write them on this subject ? " (Life of
King, I. 312.)
Nathaniel Gorham (?), writing to Madison, gives as another
reason for the opposition of the Maine delegates that " many of
them and their constituents are only squatters on other people's
land, and they are afraid of being brought to account." See
Madison to Washington, Feb. 3, 1788, Madison Papers, II. 669.
Possibly there was some truth in this assertion. On Oct. 21, 1786,
an order had passed the General Court, reciting that " it is repre
sented to this Court, that divers persons . . . have illegally entered
upon, and taken possession of some of the unappropriated lands
belonging to this commonwealth in the eastern counties, and that
others are settling in like manner thereon, presuming upon the in
dulgence of government, that they shall be quieted in their posses
sions ; " in view of which fact, the Governor was called upon to
issue a proclamation warning off such persons. (Resolves respect
ing Eastern Lands, p. 59.) It may well have been that these per
sons feared that the adoption of the Federal Constitution would
unfavorably affect their pretensions ; but our only evidence of such
an influence is the letter to Madison cited above.
1 In 1792, whfen the question of separation was officially sub
mitted to the people of that district, the votes were : for sepa
ration, 2074 ; against it, 2525. See Willis, History of Portland,
pp. 709, 712.
2 Thatcher Papers, No. 30.

SEPARATION OF MAINE. 8 1
tion of Maine undoubtedly exerted some influence in
the Convention; for, according to a writer who lived in \
that section "the Persons that have been Sticklers for
tius Seperation Voted in opposition. " 1
Finally, to the list of those who were induced by the Demagogism
foregoing influences to oppose the Constitution, should andlsnorance-
be added demagogues, — whose number, however, was- L^^
sma4L-^=LwJip sought to gain or to retain power, and
who took this means " as the surest channel to obtain
their ends;" and the "honest jgnoranL-minds, " as
one who had himself belonged to the opposition calls
them, the dupes of those "who persuade them that
their libertys are in danger, and they will be made
Slaves of."2
1 David Sewall to Thatcher, March 4, 1788, Thatcher Papers,
No. 41. This is said to have been the reason of William Widgery's
opposition (Gore to King, Jan. 6, 1788, Life of King, I. 312). Out
of six delegates to the Maine Convention of September, 1786, who
were in the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, two (William
Thompson of Scarborough and Dummer Sewall of Bath) voted
for ratification. For this subject, see Williamson, History of
Maine, II. 521-33.
2 Barrell to Thatcher, Feb. 20, 1788, Thatcher Papers, No. 35.
Various Federalist writers of the time assert that the opposition
arose largely from men who had been Tories in the late war, and
thought thereby either to hasten reunion with Great Britain, or to
vent their spite on their fellow-countrymen. Although these as
sertions may at times have been made in good faith, there seems
to have been no ground for them. On the other hand, it is certain
that many men who were regarded as Tories during the war were
now enthusiastically in favor of the new Constitution.

&

CHAPTER V.
RATIFICATION.
Gloomy out- At the time when the Convention assembled, the
Constitution, outlook for the Constitution had been gloomy. The
episode by which Gerry was induced to absent himself
from its sessions after he had been formally invited to
attend, did not tend to improve matters. The leaders
of the opposition thenceforth, Belknap said, "will not
be convinced, they will 'not be silenced." 1 Aside from
these, however, he wrote that there were " a number of
honest, silent men, who wish for information."2
To reach the latter, the Federalist leaders bent all
their energies; patiently answering every objection
raised in the Convention, while outside of it they
exerted themselves, in private conversation and by all
legitimate means within their power, to influence dele
gates individually. Progress, however, was slow. A
section of the opposition, led by old General Thomp-
Movementfor son, clamored for an adjournment, "to see what__our
adjournment. sister statesjriUdo. " What shouTdHEKeTsuffer, they
inquired, if they adjourned the consideration for five
or six months ? 3 The proposition, however, met with
but little favor.
The leaders of the opposition then tried to hurry on
the business of the Convention. When the delegates
1 To Hazard, Jan. 25, 1788, Massachusetts Historical Society,
Collections, Fifth Series, III. 9.
2 To Hazard, Jan. 20, 1788, Ibid., pp. 6, 7.
8 Debates, pp. 161, 180.

ANTIFEDERALIST TACTICS. 83
met for the afternoon session of January 23, though Attempt
the Convention was then occupied with the section t°kurry
defining the powers of Congress, Nasson at once moved
to reconsider the former vote to discuss the Constitu
tion by paragraphs, and to proceed to the general dis
cussion of the subject, preliminary to a vote upon the
final question of ratification. Widgery supported the
motion, on the ground that the necessities of the mem
bers from remote districts compelled them to hurry the
matter. The Federalists warmly opposed it ; and were
successful, first in defeating a proposition to defer the
motion to reconsider until ten o'clock the next day,
and then in defeating a motion to adjourn until that
time. The motion to reconsider was then withdrawn,
by leave of the Convention. The next morning it was opposed
renewed. Immediately Samuel Adams, who hitherto Aydam™Uand
had spoken hardly once in the Convention, arose to defeated.
oppose it. They ought not, he said, to be "stingy of
[their] time, or the public money, when so important
an object demanded them. . . . He was sorry . . . for
gentlemen's necessities ; but he had rather support the
gentlemen who were thus necessitated, or lend them
money to do it, than that they should hurry so great a
subject. " The matter was then debated for some time.
Finally, on a general call for the question, the motion
was put, and was voted down " without a return of the
house." A buzz of congratulation thereupon went the
round of the gallery, which the excited imagination of
the Antifederalist leaders converted into a hiss; and
some little time was required to pacify them.1
By this time, the Federalists had definitely come to*\RecommetK
despair of securing a simple and unqualified ratifica-iflamendmeifts
tion. They began, accordingly, to cast about for ex-«,ProJected-
pedients by which their .main end might be securedU JL
with as little sacrifice of their cause as possible. Thejj
1 Debates, pp. 72-5, 195-7. *

scheme.

84 RATIFICATION.
one which they hit upon was that of introducing such
amendments as they were willing to concede, which,
while not to be made a condition of ratification, as
desired by their opponents, should accompany the
acceptance of the new system as a recommendation
to the future Congress. This device, it was rightly
hoped, would effect conversions among the "honest
doubters," while it would neither countenance the
serious alteration of the system, nor absolutely com
mit the new government even to such amendments as
the Convention should suggest.
Origin of the The first mention of such a scheme with which the
author is acquainted, is to be found in the letter of " a
Republican Federalist " in the Massachusetts Centinel
of January 12, 1788. In this, the members of the Con
vention are warned that they " will in all probability be
warmly urged to accept the system, and at the same time
to propose amendments. " Seven days later, John Avery,
Jr., the Secretary of the Commonwealth, makes mention
of such a project. "I am seriously of Opinion," he
wrote to George Thatcher, on January 19, "that if the
most sanguine among them [sic] who are for adopting
the proposed Constitution as it now stands would dis
cover a conciliatory disposition and give way a little to
those who are for Adopting it with Amendments I dare
say they would be very united. . . . my wishes are that
they may adopt it and propose Amendments which when
agreed upon, to transmit [sic] to the several States for
Jieir-JConcuxreriGer^1 The exact authorship, however,
of this scheme — a scheme so simple, and yet so impor
tant in its results — will probably always be in doubt.2
1 Thatcher Papers, No. 16.
2 Four days after the above date, and on the same day that Nas-
son's proposition was made in the Convention, King mentions that
such a scheme was in contemplation (Life of King, I. 316).
Eight days later the proposition was made.

His ambigu
ous course.

HANCOCK'S COURSE. 85
To give the proposal its full effect, it was necessary^ Hancock's
that it should seem to emanate from some one who, if I relatlon t0 :t
not an opponent of the Constitution, had at least I
taken no steps toward securing its adoption ; from '
some one, too, in whom the popular party had full con
fidence. Such a person the Federalists found in Gov
ernor Hancock, the titular president of the Convention.
In no one had the mass of the people, whether rightly
or wrongly, more confidence. His attitude toward th«^
Constitution was yet in doubt : the ambiguous language
in which he had referred the matter to the legislature :
has already been noticed.1 Up to January 30 his
gout, a convenient disease which, as John Adams hac
remarked some years before, always seized upon hirr
when there was anything unpleasant or unpopular tc
do, had prevented him from taking his seat in the*
Convention. Ten days before, King had ironically!
written : " Hancock is still confined, or rather he has|
not yet taken his Seat; as soon as the majority is ex-j
hibited on either Side I think his Health will suffice'
him to be abroad. " 2 Now inducements were offered -
him to declare himself in favor of ratification, and
to introduce the amendments which the Federalist j
leaders had agreed upon. The price to be paid him "price paid for
for this service was the support of Bowdoin's friends hls suPPort-
1 See above, page 45. Bancroft, in his History of the Constitu
tion (II. 258, note 2), asserts that there is " no ground whatever "
for paying that Hancock was at any time opposed to the Constitu
tion. Strictly, this is probably true ; but at the same time it is
equally true that, up to the moment of the agreement here referred
to, he had not in any way declared for the Constitution. The
assertion of James Sullivan (?), in the Biographical Sketch of
Governor Hancock (1793), that "before the Convention was as
sembled, he prepared his proposals for amendments, and resolved
to give the Constitution his decided support," seems to be a de
liberate attempt to falsify the facts.
2 Thatcher Papers, No. 17.

86

RATIFICATION.

King'stestimony.

in the next gubernatorial election; at the same time
the alluring prospect of the vice-presidency, if not of
the presidency, of the proposed government was held
out to him, though probably no specific promises were
made on this head.1
That some such bargain was made, and that these
were in substance its terms, there is not now the
slightest reason to doubt. On January 30, King
wrote to Madison : " If Mr. Hancock does not disap
point our present expectations, our wishes will be
gratified ; but his character is not entirely free from a
portion of caprice."2 Two days later he wrote more
frankly to Knox, but still in guarded language, which
implied more in its significant underscorings than was
ixpressed in the words themselves. Hancock, he wrote,
had committed himself in favor of the Federalists.
The final question was to be put in the Convention in
a few days. " You will be astonished, when you see
the list of names," he concludes, "that such an union
of men has taken place on this question. Hancock
will hereafter receive the universal support of Bow
doin's friends;3 and we told him, that, if Virginia does
not unite, which is problematical, he is considered as the
only fair candidate for President. " 4
Additional evidence exists to the same effect, which,
though not so unexceptionable, is more explicit. In
1 It is only fair to state, however, that it was reported at Boston,
before the Convention assembled, that Hancock was already talked
of for the vice-presidency by southern politicians. See Massa
chusetts Centinel, Jan. 9, 1788.
2 Life of King, I. 317-8.
8 That this is something more than a mere individual prediction
is shown by the remarkable unanimity which prevailed at Boston
in the election of 1788. Out of 1437 votes cast for governor,
Hancock got all but 10, five votes only going to Bowdoin. See
Independent Chronicle, April 10, 1788.
4 Life of King, I. 319. The italics are in the printed copy.

BARGAIN WITH HANCOCK. 87
an Antifederalist squib published in the Chronicle "LacoV
of March 20, it is insinuated that "the man of the accouut-
people" was gained by "holding out to him the
office of vice-president." In No. VII of Stephen
Higginson's Letters of Laco, the object of which was
to defeat Hancock's re-election in 1789, what pur
ports to be. the whole story of the bargain is given.
Early in the session, it is stated, Hancock " intimated
to the advocates for the adoption, that he would appear^.
in its favour, if they won Id makp it wnrfTLluA. wViilp
This intimation was given through a common friend
who assured the friends of the Constitution, that noth
ing more would be required . . . than a promise to
support him [Hancock] in the chair at the next election..
This promise, though a bitter pill, was agreed to. be
given. " That the account given by " Laco " is substany; Substantiated
tially correct, is rendered probable1 by a letter from by Gore'
Gore to King of March 27, 1789. "I am perfectly in
opinion with you," writes the former, referring to the
above-mentioned letters, "that the disclosure of any
thing relative to Mr. H. 's conduct during the conven
tion is unjust, ungenerous, & highly impolitick ; " no
exception, however, is taken to the disclosure on the
ground that the charges made were not true.2
On January 31, the day after Hancock had taken his "Conciliatory
seat in the Convention, the matter was brought to a Pr°P0Sltl0n-
head. First, General Heath made a speech designed
1 Letter No. VII was omitted from the Centinel at the time,
but was published in the pamphlet edition of the letters which was
issued almost immediately. The whole tenor of Gore's letter
implies that he knew the contents of the suppressed letter, though
he could only guess as to the author.
2 Life of King, I. 360. The misprint, in this letter, of "Saco"
for " Laco" is merely another of the many proofs afforded by this
volume that descent from a statesman is not alone sufficient quali
fication for the task of editing his writings.

88 RATIFICATION.
to pave the way for the proposition. Then Hancock
arose and read the amendments that had been handed
to him by the Federalist leaders, Parsons, King, and
Sedgwick, prefacing the reading thereof with a little
speech, in which, while he did not expressly claim their
authorship, he produced the impression that they were
his own work.1 As slightly amended by a committee
its provisions, to which they were referred,2 these provided: (i) that
id, .js, po wers- not. expressly.. d^le^ated^were_re^erved ; (iJThat
the full representatjgji^llQw.ed_by the Constitution
should be permitted until the total numier^frepresent-
atives reached two hundred ; (3) that Congress should
exercise the power, to .regulate electrons "oniy^wheTTa
State neglected or refused to make adequate provi
sion therefor, or made- regulations ..subversive of the
rights of the people to a free and equal representa-
yr- tion ; (4) that direct taxes should be laid only when
"^ the revenue from imposts and excises was insufficient ;
(5) that no company with exclusive advantages of com
merce should be erected; (6) that indictment by a
grand jury must precede trial for crime, except in the
land and naval forces ; (7) that in suits between citi
zens of different States the jurisdiction of the Federal
Courts should be limited to cases of a certain value;
(8) that in all civil actions between citizens of different
1 The original copy of the amendments was found among Han
cock's papers, after his death, in the handwriting of Theophilus
Parsons. (Memoir of Parsons, pp. 70, 85.)
2 This committee consisted of two members from each of the
larger counties, and one from each of two smaller ones. It was
agreed that the delegates from each county should nominate their
representatives, one from each of the two parties. From the small
county of Dukes, however, only Federalist delegates had been
elected to the Convention ; consequently, the Federalists secured
a majority on the committee, and the alterations made in the
amendments proposed were in the main merely verbal. See Lincoln
to Washington, Feb. 3, 1788, Debates, p. 404.

THE CONCILIATORY PROPOSITION. 89
States issues of fact should be tried by a jury, at the
request of either party; and (9) that the prohibition
against fKe~aeceptance of titles" and offices from foreign
"pruices^tjy-UrritecT States officials be made absolute.1
The foregoing " conciliatory proposition " was the its reception.
beginning of the end. Samuel Adams, whose course
in the_ Convention had liitnerto been "rather that of a ,„
neutral,^now ; advocated at some length the adoption of
the Constitution with the recommendatory amendments
proposed by the Governor.2 The Federalist leaders
accepted the proposition, not, as they said, because
they were convinced of the necessity of the amend
ments, but because such alterations would tend to
remove doubts and objections from the minds of many
persons. The leading Antifederalists, on the other
hand, looked upon the proposition as a snare. They
liked the amendments, but saw no probability that
they would be made a part of the Constitution.3 Some
even affected to question the power of the Convention
in the matter : they must, said Dr. Taylor, either take
or reject the whole of the Constitution ; in proposing
amendments, he thought that they were " treading on
unsafe ground. " i
With the rank and file of the opposition, however, Its influence
the " conciliatory proposition " had from the beginning and file6 ran
considerable influence. With some it was enough to
. 1 Both the original and amended propositions are in the Journal
of the Convention (Debates, pp. 80, 84, respectively).
2 Ibid., pp. 225-7. As Bancroft points out (History of the
Constitution, II. 270, note), Adams's use of the term "conditional
amendments " is of no significance here ; it does not imply, as
asserted by Curtis (Constitutional History , I. 654), an intentional,
or even unintentional, misunderstanding of the force of the pro
posed amendments.
8 So Pierce, Widgery, Lusk, and others (Debates, pp. 242, 240,
250, respectively.)
4 Ibid., p. 227. So, too, argued Widgery and others.

90 RATIFICATION.
turn the scale, and convert them from opponents to
Turner, of advocates of the Constitution. The opinions of Charles
announces his Turner, of Scituate, Plymouth County, have several
conversion. times already been cited in this paper, and always
in opposition to the proposed Constitution. Just be
fore the final vote was taken, he arose, and in a
speech of much ability announced his conversion.
"The propoaedL^meniiTrrent-s^_s.aM_Jie^llare of such a
^  ,.--- liberal, such a generous,. ..such a catholic^aature and
complexienj- tfrey"afe~so congenial to the soul of every
man who is possessed of a patriotic regard to the
preservation of the just rights and immunities of his
country, as well as to the institution of a good and
necessary government, that I think they must, they
will be universally accepted. When, in connection
with this confidence, I consider the deplorable state of
our navigation and commerce, and various branches of
business thereon dependent, the inglorious and pro
voking figure we make in the eyes of our European
* creditors, the degree in which the landed interest is
burdened and depreciated, the tendency of depreciating
paper and tender acts to destroy mutual confidence,
faith and credit, to prevent the circulation of specie,
and to overspread the land with an inundation, a chaos
of multiform injustice, oppression and knavery; when
I consider that want of efficiency there is in our gov
ernment, as to obliging people seasonably to pay their
dues to the public, instead of spending their money in
support of luxury and extravagance, of consequence the
inability of government to satisfy the jiist demands of
its creditors, and to do it in season, so as to prevent
their suffering amazingly by depreciation ; in connec
tion with my anxious desires that my ears may be no
longer perstringed, nor my heart pained with the cries
of the injured, suffering widow and orphan; when I
also consider that state of our finances which daily ex-

CONVERSION OF ANTIFEDERALISTS. 9 1
poses us to become a prey to the despotic humor even
of an impotent invader, I find my myself [sic] con
strained to say, before this Assembly, and before God,
that I think it my duty to give my vote in favor of this
Constitution, with the proposed amendments." J
Scarcely had the Antifederalists recovered from
the shock occasioned by the foregoing declaration,
when another of their following arose to declare his
defection. William Symmes, the young lawyer from s^ffimSs>^f
Andover, has already been mentioned as an opponent „£hdraws his
of the Constitution, and his views as expressed prior N^pposition.
to the meeting of the Convention have been given.2
In the Convention he had, on January 22, made a
temperate though rather rhetorical speech detailing
his own and his constituents' objections. Now, in the
course of a speech of considerable length, he said :
" Upon the whole, Mr. President, approving the amend
ments, and firmly believing that they will be adopted,
I recall my former opposition, such as it was, to this
Constitution, and shall, especially as the amendments
are to be a standing instruction to our delegates until
they are obtained, give it my unreserved assent. In
so doing, I stand acquitted to my own conscience, I
hope and trust I shall to my constituents, and (laying fJ
his hand on his breast) I know I shall before my l ite---' ^
God."3 One more convert demands notice here, largely be- Nathaniel
cause he is the type of a number of delegates whose \ "j£u' of
.change of views was declared only by their votes. This
was Nathaniel Barrell, of York, Maine. His career is
an interesting one.4 He was born in Boston in 1732,
* Debates, pp. 274-5.
2 See above, pages 42-4.
8 Ibid., p. 278. The two other delegates of Andover voted in
the negative.
4 For particulars concerning him the author is indebted to Mr. E.

92 RATIFICATION.
and educated for a mercantile life ; but, for some reason,
in 1755 he had entered the army instead, as a recruit
ing officer, under Governor Shirley. For gallantry
displayed during the Quebec expedition, he had, in
1759, been commissioned captain. In 1760 he had
been in England, and had been presented to George
II., an event which made a deep impression upon his
mind, and which undoubtedly influenced his course in
the Revolution. Settling in New Hampshire, he had
there become a member of Governor Wentworth's
Council. Upon the outbreak of the struggle with the
mother country, he had quitted that colony and his
mercantile life, and had retired to his farm at York,
Maine, where he was residing at the time when the
Constitution was submitted. He had been "branded"
as a Tory in the Revolution, though, as he said, his
"soul rejected the charge." 1 At the time of his elec-
Attitude tion to the Convention, he was "a flaming Antifederal-
toward the ite,"2 and he is reported to have said that he "would
Constitution. ' r
sooner lose his Arm than put his Assent to the new
proposed Constitution. " 3
His objections he had stated at some length in a
letter to George Thatcher,4 who, though detained at
P. Burnham, of Saco, Maine, and to Mr. Charles Colborn Barrell,
of York Corner, Maine, a grandson of the subject of this sketch.
Nathaniel Barrell was a descendant of Abraham Barrell, one of
the judges who tried Charles I., and who dissented from the sen
tence of execution.
1 Barrell to Thatcher, Feb. 20, 1788, Thatcher Papers, No. 35.
2 Sewall to Thatcher, Feb. 11, 1788, Ibid., No. 30.
8 Savage to Thatcher, Jan. 11, 1788, Ibid., No. 14.
4 This letter is worth quoting. "It is much easier," he says,
"to tell the objectors to turn their representative out [if he
prove a rogue], than to do it — I cant but think you know how difi
cult it is to turn out a representatives who behaves ill, even tho
chosen but for one year — think you not 'twould be more dificult
to remove one chosen for two years ? . . . after all the Willsonian

CONVERSION OF ANTIFEDERALISTS. 93
New York by his duties in Congress, was exerting Thatcher's
himself as a Maine Federalist to effect the conversion Barren06 0"
of his Antifederalist friends. That he contributed to
this end in Barrell's case is stated in a letter which he
received from a Federalist townsman of Barrell. " Your
Letter," says this correspondent, "and other matters
made a Proselite of Mr. B." a In the Convention, Bar
rell, having " no pretensions to talents above the simple
language adapted to . . . the plain husbandman," sat
a silent listener until a few days after the introduction
of Hancock's "conciliatory proposition." Convinced
that the amendments contained therein would eventu
ally be made a part of the Constitution,2 his conver-
oratory — after all the learned arguments I have seen written —
after all the labor'd speeches I have heard in the defence — and
after the best investigation I have been able to give it — I see it
pregnant with the fate of our Iibertys and if I should not live to
feel its baneful effects, I see it entails wretchedness on my posterity
— Slavery on my children — for as it now stands congress will be
vested with much more extensive power than ever Great Brittain
exercised over us." After commenting upon the six-year term for
senators, he then takes up the matter of the expense of the new
government. He does not think that they will be " able to sup
port the additional charge of such a Government and . . . when
our State Government is annihilated this will not suit our local
concerns so well as what we now have ... I think," he contin
ues, " 'twill not be so much for our advantage to have our taxes
imposed & levied at the pleasure of Congress as the method now
pursued — and ... I think a Continental Collector at the head of
a Standing army will not be so likely to do us justice in collecting
the taxes, as the mode of colecting now practicd — and to crown
all Sir, ... I think such a Government impracticable among men
with such high notions of liberty as we americans." (Thatcher
Papers, No. 15.)
1 David Sewall, Feb. 11, 1788, Ibid., No. 30.
2 He seems later to have felt some doubt on this point. After
his return from the Convention, he says, in a letter addressed to
Thatcher: "All these worthys [z. e., those Antifederalist leaders
to whom he has just referred as " the most unprincipled of men,"]

94

RATIFICATION.

Barrell
announceshis con
version.

Motion to
adjourn
renewed.

sion was now completed. In the only speech which
he made in the Convention, he enumerated what had
been his and his constituents' objections.1 Some of
these, he said, had been removed "by the ingenious
reasoning of the speakers ; " others would be obviated
by the proposed amendments. This Constitution, with
all its imperfections, he had come to believe was excel
lent as compared with the Articles of Confederation ;
and he was now convinced that it was the best then ob
tainable. " I could wish," he said, " for an adjournment,
that I might have an opportunity, to. lay it before my
constituents with the arguments which have been used
in the debates, which have ease^jny_mind,. and I trust
would have the effect on theirs, so as heartily to join
me in ratifying the same. But, Sir, if I cannot be
indulged on this desirable object, I am almost tempted
to risk their displeasure and adopt it without their
consent. " 2
As has already been stated, propositions to adjourn
had several times been made in the Convention.
Seeing the many converts made by the proposition
for amendments,3 the leaders of the opposition, on
are united in sparing no pains to influence the minds of all, and
persuade me to believe what they themselves do not — that the
proposed amendments will not take place & should this be as they
wish — I dread the consequence perhaps little short of a revolution
may take place — as such deceptions will not be easily swallowed —
I feel for myself — there is a Something which whispers within
that ... I should be one of the first that would sound the alarm,
and call to Arms." (Thatcher Papers, No. 35.)
1 In the main, the objections which he recites are the same
which he had enumerated to Thatcher in his letter of Jan. 15, 1788.
See above, page 92, note 4.
2 Debates, pp. 262-5.
3 Belknap's minutes : Massachusetts Historical Society, Pro
ceedings, 1858, p. 302. According to Widgery, the proposed amend
ments "furnished many with Excuses to their Constituants."
(Thatcher Papers, No. 29.)

/

MOTION TO ADJOURN. 95
February 5, seized upon the occasion presented by the
foregoing speech to move again for an adjournment,
"for the purpose of informing the good people of this
Commonwealth of the principles of the proposed Fed
eral Constitution, and the amendments offered by his
Excellency the President, . . . and of uniting their
opinions respecting the same." For "the best part of
the day," we are informed, the motion was debated.
Unfortunately, no record exists'of the speeches made
on the subject, nor of the persons who advocated the
measure. It_i_s_safe to assume, however, that in ad
dition to those who favored the measure from motives
similar to those of Barrell, there were many who voted ,
for it merely for the delay which an adjournment would *'
give, and- for the resulting advantage to the Antifeder
alist cause ; on the other hand, among those who op-, The motion
posed the motion were doubtless some who afterwards ^?feate •
voted against ratification. Finally, the proposition
was rejected, out of three hundred and twenty-nine
members present only one hundred and fifteen voting
in the affirmative.1
The next day had been set for taking the vote on
the final question of ratification. The prospects for
adoption were bright, and the hopes of the Federalists
ran high. Just before the question was put, however,
Samuel Adams arose to propose additional amend
ments. At once the whole question was again thrown
into doubt.
When Adams had first seen the Constitution, he had
conceived a dislike for it. " I stumble at the thresh- Adams's
old," he had written to Richard Henry Lee, Dec. 3, towarJthe
1787; "I meet with a national government, instead of Constitution.
a federal union of sovereign states."2 At a dinner-
1 Debates, pp. 265-6.
2 Memoir of R. H. Lee, II. 130. After the contest was over

96

RATIFICATION.

Resolutions
of Boston
mechanics.

party given to the Boston delegates by Ex-Governor
Bowdoin a few days before the Convention met, he is
reported by Gore to have been " open & decided "
against the Constitution, supporting his objections "by
such arguments & such only as appear in the pieces
of Brutus & federal farmer."1 To influence him
and Hancock, together with Dr. Jarvis and one other
of the Boston delegates who were understood to be
wavering, the Federalists had stirred up the Boston
and the new government had been inaugurated, he wrote again to
Lee, Aug. 24, 1789: "I have always been apprehensive that . . .
misconstructions would be given to the Federal Constitution, which
would disappoint the views and expectations of the honest among
those who acceded to it, and hazard the liberty, independence, and
happiness of the people. I was particularly afraid that, unless
great care should be taken to prevent it, the Constitution, in the
administration of it, would gradually, but swiftly and imperceptibly,
run into a consolidated government, pervading and legislating
through all the States ; not for Federal purposes only, as it pro
fesses, but in all cases whatsoever. Such a government would
soon totally annihilate the sovereignty of the several States, so
necessary to the support of the confederated commonwealth, and
sink both in despotism. ... I earnestly wish some amendments
may be judiciously and deliberately made." (Wells, Life of Samuel
Adams, III. 273.)
1 Gore to King, Life of King, I. 3 1 1-2. The substance of his
remarks, according to Gore, was : " That such a Govt, coud not
pervade the United States — that internal taxes ought not to be
given to the Union — that the representation was inadequate —
that a Govt, might be formd from this — but this woud never
answer and ought not to be adopted, but on Condition of such
amendments as woud totally destroy it." Unless Adams should
be disaffected by sorae-such measure as the proposed resolves of
the Boston tradesmen, predicts Gore, he " will be indefatigable &
constant in all ways & means " to defeat the Constitution. Adams's
own account of his course was to the effect that he had had " dif
ficulties and doubts respecting some parts of the proposed Consti
tution," but that in the convention " he had chosen rather to be
an auditor, than an objector, and he had particular reasons there
for." (Debates, p. 196.)

ADAMS AND THE CONSTITUTION. 97
mechanics, or "tradesmen," as they were then called,
to hold a meeting two days before the Convention
assembled. At this meeting, resolutions were unani
mously adopted by the four hundred persons present,
declaring that " it was our design, and the opinion of
this body, the design of every good man in town,' to
elect such men, and such only, as would exert their
utmost ability to promote the adoption of the proposed
frame of government in all its parts, without any con
ditions, pretended amendments, or alterations what
ever; " and the delegates of the town were warned that .
those who opposed the Constitution would, in so doing,
act contrary to the "warmest wishes" of the trades
men of Boston.1 The effect of these resolutions had
been eminently salutary.2 Influenced by them, — and Their in-
partly, perhaps, by the death, during the Convention, Adams.
of his son, a rising physician of Boston, — Adams had
not once spoken against a single feature of the pro
posed system of government. On the,contraryJJie--harx^_'
rendered valuabilj^erjd£eJ^)-the-JP€4em:l^t.,cause by his
remarteligarnst -the_attempt to hurry on thejdecision,
and by his speech moving~thewa^o^crrfjTtlie amend- \
ments introduced dDy"'-Hanrockr~~^~
At ..the- lastjaomentTTioatave^ — either, as some of
the Federaliststhought, because he wished to block
the ratification that now seemed imminent; or, as
Jeremy Belknap believed with more show of reason,
1 Massachusetts Centinel, Jan. 9, 1788; Worcester Magazine,
IV. 197.
2 See Thatcher Papers, No. 12. In the letters of " Laco " it is
asserted that these resolves " effectually checked Mr. H. and his
followers in their opposition to the Constitution ; and eventually
occasioned four votes [Hancock's, Adams's, Jarvis's, and one
other] in its favour, which otherwise would have been most cer
tainly against it." (Letters of Laco, reprinted as Ten Chapters in
the Life of fohn Hancock, p. 44.) 7

98 RATIFICATION.
because he desired to increase "his own popularity,
Adams's as Hancock had his,"1 — he proposed the following
amendments. ciause as an addition to the first of the amendments
introduced by the Governor : " And that the said Con-
, stitution be never construed to authorize Congress to
. infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of
\ conscience; or to prevent the people of the United
• States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their
: own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when
'• necessary for the defence of the United States, or of
some one or more of them; or to prevent the people
from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner,
the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or
to subject the people to unreasonable searches and
seizures of their persons, papers or possessions."2
Their effect The substance of the proposition was perfectly in-
an ate' nocuous, and could not have ~beeri~cjbjected to by any
fair-minded Federalist; Adams's sole motiv^ih^ofrer^
ing it, moreover, may very well have been the laudable
desire to secure rights that he conceived were endan
gered. The effect of its introduction, however, was at
once to throw the whole Convention into turmoil and
confusion. Both parties were filled with alarm. The
Antifederalists supposed that "the old patriot" would
never have offered such amendments unless there had
been real danger; the Federalists feared the Toss of
their new converts. On perceiving the mischief that he
had done, Adams withdrew his amendments. Another
member, however, at once renewed them, and the only
recourse left to the veteran deader was to help defeat
his own measure.8
1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, Fifth Series,
III. 17.
2 Journal of the Convention, Debates, p. 86; Wells, Life of
Samuel Adams, III. 267.
8 Belknap's minutes: Massachusetts Historical Society, Pro
ceedings, 1858, p. 303.

THE FINAL VOTE. 99
The motion to ratify was then put, and was carried by Vote on
the close vote of one hundred and eighty-seven to one ratl catlon-
hundred and sixty -eight. The majority in favor of rati
fication, it will be seen, was only nineteen. The nine
delegates whose names were returned to the Conven- }
tion, but who were not present when the vote was
taken, might almost have turned the scale in the other
direction. Bearing in mind that it was mainly the
Antifederalist towns that were unrepresented, it may ,
safely be asserted that out of the forty-six delinquent ,?
corporations there were enough which were Antifed-j .
eralist to have procured the rejection of the Constitu ' \ »Q
tion. This calculation, however, is based on the as IT-!
sumption that a corresponding increase did not take •
place in the Federalist representation. Had all towns
entitled to send representatives done so, and had all
the delegates been present to cast their votes, it is prob
able that the final result would not have been changed,
though the Federalist majority would have been cut
down to scarcely more than a bare half-dozen.1
The geograpJrkal_jii£tributroTr-of^^ Geographical
esting. From the four coas~t counties, Suffcdk^Essex, dlstribu^»1
Plymouth, and Barnstable, heavy majorities in favor
of the Constitution were cast hr_e"acri instance, the
total vote from the four being one hundred yeas to
nineteen nays. Of the five counties. -Middlesex. Bris-
/l/ tol, Worcester, Hampshire, andtterkshire, the reverse

is true: from these counties strong majorities against

Under date of Feb. 13, 1788, John Avery, Jr., wrote to
Thatcher that he was " pleased upon Reflection " that the adoption
was by so slender a majority, because (1) it would prevent much
groundless jealousy " in the Minds of our Southern Brethren : " if
Massachusetts had been more united it might have been said that
her citizens expected greater advantages from the " carrying trade,"
etc. ; and (2) because the slenderness of the majority would con
vince Congress of the necessity of agreeing to the proposed amend
ments. (Thatcher Papers, No. 31.)

100 RATIFICATION.
the Constitution were cast, the total being sixty yeas
to one hundred and twenty-eight nays. The vote
from the three Maine counties, York, Cumberland,
and Lincoln, was more evenly balanced, the yeas num
bering twenty-five, the nays twenty-one. The out
lying county of Dukes cast its two votes in favor of
the Constitution ; so, too, the Cape Cod district (Barn
stable County), so far as it was represented, went
solidly for the Constitution, with the exception of the
one town of Sandwich. The stancJiest-Antifederalist
. dh3tnctjiyas..WerGester-Gea»ty, whose soil was touched
neither by navigable river nor by arm of the sea ; from
it came forty-three votes against ratification, as opposed
to a paltry seven in favor of it. On the Federalist
side, Suffolk and Essex Counties contended for chief
place.1
Charges of It would scarcely be necessary to consider the ques-
lmproper tjon wnether or not improper influences were used in
influences. .
securing the above result, were it not for two circum
stances. The first of these is the publication by a
Boston paper, during the session of the Convention, of
a direct charge that an attempt was being made to bribe
Antifederalist members of that body. The text of this
charge is as follows: —
1 The vote by counties and towns may be found in the editions
of the Debates of 1788 and 1808, and in Elliot, Debates, II. The
lists vary, however, in several particulars, owing to the presence of
errors in each. The most authentic list is that contained in the
official Journal of the Convention (Debates, edition of 1856, pp.
87-92), but this gives neither the town nor the county of the dele
gate ; these, however, may be supplied from the list of delegates
published on pp. 31-43 of this edition. For a map illustrating the
geographical distribution of the vote in the Convention, see Bulle
tin ,of the University of Wisconsin, Economics, Political Science,
and History Series, Vol. I. No. 1. This monograph, the work of
Dr. Orin Grant Libby, takes up the geographical distribution of the
vote on the Constitution in all the States.

CHARGE OF BRIBERY. IOI
"BRIBERY and CORRUPTION! I! /^
" The most diabolical plan is on foot to corrupt the Members
of the Convention who oppose the adoption of the New Consti
tution. — Large sums of money have been brought fron>4neigh-
bouring State for that purpose, contributed by the wealthy ; if
so, is it not probable there may be collections for the same
accursed purpose nearer home ? Centinel." ]
The second circumstance alluded to above is the
sober assertion of a reputable historical writer within
the last thirty years, Henry B. Dawson, editor of the
old Historical Magazine, that "it is very well known
— indeed, the son and biographer of one of the great
leaders of the Constitutionalists in New York hag
frankly admitted to us — that enough members of the
Massachusetts Convention were bought with money from
New York to secure the ratification of the new system by
Massachusetts." 2
In the face of this repeated charge, the matter cannot Theirbaseiess
be passed over in silence. A careful consideration, cuaracter-
however, of such evidence as now exists on this head,
must lead one to the conclusion that both of these
charges are without foundation. It is true that there
was political knavery enough and to spare among
men of the Revolutionary and Constitutional periods.
There was selfish demagogy in abundance, shame
ful office-seeking, .gross personal abuse in the press,
jockeying of^he election laws, intimidation and balL,,
box stuffingj^Tariiiany pardeutargr^he^'Srortpoli-
tician of to-day has merely improved upon processes
already familiar to popular leaders of a century ago.
But, to all appearances, actual bribery of the repre-
1 Boston Gazette and Country Journal, Jan. 21, 1788 ; Debates,
pp. 64, 150.
3 Historical Magazine, November, 1869, p. 268, note.

102

RATIFICATION.

Dawson's
charge con
sidered.

" IJfibery and
Corruption "
article in
vestigated. .

sentatives of4he_people with money was not a sin which
lay at the door of our fathers. That is iTpractice for
the introduction of which in America we of later gen
erations may claim all the dubious credit.
Dawson's reference to "the son and biographer of
one of the great leaders of the Constitutionalists in
New York" seems to point to Alexander Hamilton's
son, J. C. Hamilton. In the latter's " Life " of his
father, however, there seems to be no basis for such
a charge as the one quoted. In all probability, the
substance of Dawson's assertion — unless, indeed, the
reference is to a personal communication — is merely
a repetition of the charge contained in the earlier
newspaper publication (in connection with which it is
made), reinforced by a nebulous remembrance of some
statement made by Hamilton which seemed to him to
give color to the charge. This is made the more
probable by the fact that both charges refer the source
of corruption to "a neighbouring State," though, as
we shall presently see, it is Rhode Island that is
meant thereby in one case, while New York is ex
pressly named in the other. Now, it is scarcely
conceivable that a second and independent stream of
corruption should have existed, and yet have remained
so absolutely unnoticed by persons contemporary with
the occurrences. In disposing of the earlier charge,
therefore, we may consider the later one to be disposed
of as well.
At the operiing of the next session after the publi
cation of the " Bribery and Corruption " article above
Quoted, a demand was made in the Convention by
Bowdoin and other Federalists^forjnJnyestigation of
the charges contained therein. Against the protests
(oi White, Widgery, and Thompson, — protests which
pf themselves raise the presumption of falsity against
/the charge, — a committee was appointed to inquire

CHARGE OF UNFAIR METHODS. 103
into the matter.1 In spite of the refusal of the printers its authorship
to give the name of their informant, the investigations m
of this committee and the pressure of public opinion
had the effect, within less than a week, of bringing to ,  -'
light the author of the article, J,n_jquesiiQn. This
proved to be one Colonel William Donnison, who now,
in a card over his own signature, confessed that the
only grounds that he had for his assertion were : first,
the statement of one citizen to another (which he had
overheard) that a plan was "on foot to silence Mr.
iVTasson];" and secondly, another statement by "a
credible person . . ., that he was told at Providence
about a week [before], by a reputable gentleman there,
That a bag of money had been sent down to Boston to
quiet the members of Convention in opposition to the
new Constitution." 2
On such slender foundaliimj^thejrrieresJ; rumor of a v- ^
rumor, the whole_jtor^-seemsJo rest. After the pub-
licatioiToTthis card, not even the most rabid Antifed
eralist dared to repeat the charge. It was universally
felt to be, on the showing of its author, absolutely
baseless. Before dismissing wholly, however, this matter of Charge of
improper influence, we should notice the statement of methods."
three members of the Convention from the western
part of the State (Consider Arms, Malachi Maynard,
and Samuel Field), that one of their reasons for refus
ing to vote for ratification was their " disgust-at— the
unfair methods which were taken iri^ order to obtain a
vote." This arose, however, as they proceed to ex
plain, merely from the fact that the opponents of the
Constitution were " in sundry instances treated in a
manner utterly inconsistent with that respect which is
due to every free-born citizen of the Commonwealth,
1 Independent Chronicle, Jan. 24, 1788.
2 Massachusetts Centinel, Jan. 30, 1788 ; see also Ibid., Jan. 23.

104 RATIFICATION.
its nature. especially when acting in the capacity of a repre
sentative" of the people.1 Doubtless, as is asserted
in Austin's Life of Gerry, "irreclaimable malignants"
were at times treated with scant courtesy by Federal
ists.2 At the same time, this was far from being the
ordinary treatment accorded to them by their oppo
nents. Even were it the universal rule, however, there
would be little ground for wonderment, in view of the
vast importance of the issue ; nor would there seem to
be much occasion for reprobation, except in so far as
the practice proved impolitic; ancL_.as.has before been
indicated, the Federalist leaders in Massachusetts were
careful to see that matters did not go to this length.
1 Hampshire Gazette, April 16, 1788.
2 Austin, Life of Gerry, II. 71. For example, in the American
Herald oi Jan. 21, 1788, " a plain countryman," who is a member of
the Convention, is represented as saying : " I am pointed at and
abused in the streets, for what ? Because I feel the independence
of a Freeman, and act according to my sentiments."

V

CHAPTER VI.

RECEPTION OF THE RATIFICATION. — ITS INFLUENCE.
In the maim^the—opponents of the Constitution ae;
ceptedTKeir^dfifjeat .with "good grace Aiter~Tb7e~ftna
vote was announced, Nasson, Widgery, Taylor, an
others of the leaders on that side, arose, one after t
other, to inform the Convention of their acquiesce
in the result. As Taylor put it, they had been! " fairl)
beaten," and he for his part would "endeavor to infus<
a spirit of harmony and love among the people, r
Widgery expressed the hope and belief " that no person
would wish for, or suggest, the measure of a protest."
In all, eight speeches of this tenor are referred to in the
published report of the debates.1
1 Debates, pp. 280-82. Besides the persons quoted above, Abra
ham White of Norton (Bristol County), General Josiah Whitney
of Harvard (Worcester County), and Daniel Cooley of Amherst
made noteworthy speeches in favor of acquiescence. General
Whitney, who had been instructed flatly against the proposed
system, announced that he would " support it as much as if he
had voted for it."
Nasson, in addition to his speech in the Convention, expressed
his own sentiments, and his expectation as to the attitude of his
constituents, in a letter to Thatcher, Feb. 26, 1788. " As the
Plan is now Adopted," he says, " I make no doubt but the Eastward
parts who have Ever been uniform in Support of Government will
bes Still and I have not the Least doubt that when Calld upon
will Turn out Even to support this New plan when many who now
appears forward will Scrink back for my Part I Exp't to be like
the Nicher of Bray [the Vicar of Bray, whose change of religion
with each change of sovereign during the English Reformation

Acquiescence
of opponents.

106 RECEPTION OF THE RATIFICATION.
Conciliatory In large part, this happy issue was due to the
Federalists, moderation and tact of the Federalis.t_lea.ders. Every
measure was taken to promote harmony, "by paying
particular Attention to the Antis especially those of
any Influence." 1 After the decision of the great ques
tion on the 6th, the whole Convention was invited to
partake of "a decent repast" in the Senate Chamber of
the State House. There "all party ideas were done
away. . . . The toasts given, were truly conciliatory."
On the 8th a grand procession was held, — an excellent
means to conciliate the populace, as Alexander Gray-
don, of Pennsylvania, had remarked, — and again re
freshments were served, this time in Faneuil Hall;
and although only about one-third of the procession
could get access to them, the Federalists were careful
to see that their " country friends were accommodated
to their wishes." 2
Upon some of the delegates, however, the blandish
ments of roast ox and New England rum proved of no
avail.3 One of these was old General Thompson, the
was notorious] that is Set who will be King I hope to be looked
upon a Good Sugect that is I mean by my Conduct to Declare
it to the World I hope that we Shall Continue Peacable and Try
this New Constitution and allso hope I Shall be Agreeably Sup-
prised by finding it to turn out for the Best." (Thatcher Papers,
No. 37.)
1 Jeremiah Hill to Thatcher, Feb. 28, 1788, Ibid., No. 39.
2 Massachusetts Centinel, Feb. 9, 1788 ; reprinted, with the
order of the procession, etc., in Debates, pp. 323-34. The Antifed
eralists themselves bore testimony to the courtesy extended to
them by their opponents. " Notwithstanding my opposion to the
Constitution, and the anxiety of Boston for its adoption," wrote
Widgery to Thatcher, while the memory of the Faneuil Hall ban
quet was still fresh within him, " I most Tel you I was never
Treated with So much politeness in my Life as I was afterwards
by the Treadesmen of Boston Merchants & every other Gentle
man." (Thatcher Papers, No. 29.)
8 Despite the publication, by Arms, Maynard, and Field, of their

AFTER THE CONVENTION. 107
extent of whose opposition to the Constitution has Thompson?
several times before been noted. In that opposition^ f™Jcts ;i\;
he now continued implacable. While other delegates'"
were making speeches acquiescing in the result, he is
reported to have declared that he would oppose the Con- 1
stitution as long as he had a hand to move, unless the
full thirteen States came into the measure.1 Belknap
fancied that there was "a kind of distraction about
him."2 During the interval between the adjournment His efforts to
of the Convention and the reassembling of the General ;stir up strife'
Court, of which he was a member, he made a tour of the
western counties, instead of returning to his home;
and he is said to have called upon the New Hampshire
Convention, and endeavored " to stir up what Strife he
could there."3 It is said that he exclaimed, as he left
Boston, that he would "throw the State into Confu-
reasons of dissent, and their characterization of the Constitution
as "a curious piece of political mechanism, fabricated in such
manner as may finally despoil the people of all their privileges,"
they are not to be considered as differing in attitude from the
members before mentioned. Indeed, they expressly say, " we
mean not to be disturbers of the peace should the states receive
the Constitution ; but on the contrary declare it our intention,
as we think it our duty, to be subject to ' the powers that be,'
wherever our lot may be cast." (Hampshire Gazette, April 16,
1788.) 1 Widgery to Thatcher, Feb. 8, 1788, Thatcher Papers, No. 29.
2 Belknap to Hazard, Feb. 10, 1788, Massachusetts Historical
Society, Collections, Fifth Series, III. 18. In this letter we are
told that Theophilus Parsons, quite in keeping with the arbitrary
practices which were to make him, while Chief Justice, the terror
of the Massachusetts bar, sought to check Thompson's wild talk
by cautioning him "against indulging his opposition now the matter
was settled," and by reminding him of the danger which he ran
thereby "of being punished for treason." As Belknap tells the
story, Thompson answered that he had no fear of being hanged,
if he could only have him (Parsons) for his lawyer.
8 Jeremiah Hill to Thatcher, Feb. 28, 1788, Thatcher Papers,
No. 39.

T08 RECEPTION OF THE RATIFICATION.
sion." Thomas B. Wait, who reports this utterance,
adds the comment, " It is true, these were great swell
ing words ; but he may do a great deal of mischief;"
accordingly, though an Antifederalist himself, Wait
calls upon Thatcher to exert his influence with Thomp
son to restrain him, adding that he does not think the
latter " a man of a bad heart. " 1
As to the results of Thompson's labors, we hear
nothing. There can be no doubt, however, that they
bore little or no fruit. The people were not in a mood
to countenance a revolutionary appeal from the decision
Treatment of of their own representatives. Where such representa-
dekga^b: tives had acted contrary to the known wishes of their
constituents, they often met, it is true, with but a
"cool reception" on their return. This was the case,
for example, with Messrs. Rice and Sylvester, of Pow-
nalboro', Maine.2 In one case, that of William Symmes,
the young Andover lawyer, the disfavor of his constitu-
1 Wait to Thatcher, Feb. 29, 1788, Thatcher Papers, No. 40.
2 Widgery to Thatcher, March 16, 1788, Ibid., No. 46. Wer
get some information as to the sentiments entertained toward
Nathaniel Barrell by his constituents in a letter from Nasson
to Thatcher, Feb. 26, 1788. "When I Arrived att the County
of York," he writes, '' I Received in General the Thanks of all
I Mett, while our Friend Bar'el (for Such I yet Esteem him)
was much Abused [i. e., to Nasson ; Barrell had not yet returned
to York] how far the Town will Carry their Resentment I Cannot
Say I Strove as much as in me Lay to keep down the Sperite of
the people and I hope that they will not hurt his person or his
property. ... he was Much to Blam I think not for his Voting
butfor Striving to Enflame the Minds of the Town and County
against the then proposed Plan and by that means Got himself
Elected." (Ibid, No. 37.) Nasson's fellow-townsmen made him
and Widgery their candidates for presidential electors, giving them
twenty-three votes, as against only nine cast for the Federalist
candidates, David Sewall and Joseph Noyes. This information is
kindly furnished by Mr. Edwin Emery, of New Bedford, Mass.,
who is preparing a history of the town of Sanford.

GENERAL ACQUIESCENCE. 109
ents was so pronounced that the recreant delegate was
forced to remove to another part of the State.1
As to the Constitution itself, however, the general General ac-"
opinion seems to have been that which is reported ffP tance of ,
by Silas Lee to have prevailed at Biddeford, namely,
that it had "had a fair examination ... & been
carried by a Majority, by whom they [were] ever will
ing to be governed."2 In Worcester County, where
trouble was most to be feared, we are told within two
weeks that a pacific disposition was "considerably
prevalent," and that many persons who had formerly
opposed the Constitution now hoped that it would
"operate for the general good." 3 Within a few weeks,
Captain Dench, who had strenuously opposed the new
system in the Convention, is reported to have declared
publicly at Boston that in his town of Hopkinton,
where the inhabitants had before been "almost to a
man " against the new plan, there were not then ten
men who "would not spend the last drop of their blood
in its support."4 In short, everything confirms the
view which was taken by Rufus King : " I have made a
business of conversing with men from all parts of the
State," he writes to Alexander Hamilton, June I2» &
1788, "and am completely satisfied that the Consti-\ ^
tution is highly popular; that its opponents are now
very few, and those few hourly diminishing." 6
Seffle-~traces---0f Antifederalism, howeyer., are to be lingering
found in the action of the General Court, which re-/,ppos;tjon
1 Bailey, Historical Sketches of Andover, pp. 131, 397.
2 To Thatcher, Feb. 22, 1788, Thatcher Papers, No. 36.
8 "A Gentleman in Worcester County, to his Friend in Suffolk,"
Independent Chronicle, Feb. 21, 1788.
4 Salem Mercury, May 27, 1788.
6 Life of King, I. 333. To the same effect is a letter from
Silas Lee to Thatcher, March 20, 1788. "Many who have been
much opposed to the Constitution," he says, "are become warm
advocates for it." (Thatcher Papers, No. 48.)

,. y^twwij

no

RECEPTION OF THE RATIFICATION.

Hancock's
address to
the General
Court.

Bishop's
opposition.

assembled at Boston toward the close of February, 1788.
The first outbreak was occasioned by the address with
which the Governor opened the session. In this ad
dress Hancock does not hesitate to give that praise
to the new system which in October it had not been
" within the duties of [his] office " to accord ; and of
the Convention itself he says, "I believe there was
never a body of men assembled, with greater purity
of intention, or with higher zeal for the public
interest. " 1
To this praise, both of the measure and of the men
ratifying it, Phanuel Bishop, whose name is wanting
in the list of delegates speaking for acquiescence, took
serious exceptions. There still exists in the archives
of the State, at Boston, the manuscript of a motion
made by him in the House in amendment of the an
swer to the address of the Governor. "While we
suspend our opinion," it runs, "of the purity of Inten
tion and of the great zeal for the Safety and wellfare
with which the late convention assembled we are in
Justice to our constituents constrained to say, that
the result of their deliberations does not seem well
calculated for those valuable purposes " mentioned by
the Governor, namely, to insure the defence of, and pro
mote tranquillity and happiness among, the States. " If
the amendments proposed with the ratification . . .,"
continues the old insurgent, "had...been made a con
dition of ratification they would have gone some way
1 Massachusetts Archives, MS. Journal of the House, VIII.
378-9; also Debates, pp. 18, 283-4. In addition to what is here
quoted, the obvious imbecility of the Confederation, the difficulty
of framing a new system, and the necessity of union, are touched
upon. In conclusion the Governor expresses his assurance of an
early adoption of the amendments proposed, and says : " When
they shall be added to the purposed plan, I shall consider it as
the most perfect system of government, as to the objects it em
braces, that has been known amongst mankind."

OPPOSITION IN THE LEGISLATURE. m
tho not fully to a conciliation of our minds to the
System — but your excellencey will permitt us to say
that as they now stand they neither comport with the
dignity or safety of this Commonwealth."1 In his
1 As this motion was not printed at the time, and as it seems
hitherto to have escaped the notice of historians, the material por
tion of it is appended hereto. As will be observed, it follows
closely the heads of the Governor's address.
" We have long been sensible of the imbecility of the
Confederation of the United States," it reads, " and of the Con
sequences of that Imbecility, and therefore appointed delegates to
the late general Convention for the Sole and express purpose of
revising the articles of Confederation, And reporting to Congress
& the several Legis[la]tures such alterations and provitions
therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirm"1 by the
States render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies
of Government and the preservation of the Union If they had
observed and acted agreeable to their Commission no Difficulty
perhaps would have arisen from the numbers of a people spread
over a vast Extent of territory containing such a great variety of
Soils and under such extreems of climate and with such different
views and habits while they were so well united in that one object,
we are fully persuaded that our national existance might in that
way have been preserved with unanimity tranquility and peace. —
we do not wish to be known to the world under any other Ap
pellation than that of the United States. —
" In Confederation and Union with our Sister States, we have
happily bafled the intrigues and defeated the force of great Brit-
tain, have supported the rights of mankind and secured the Free
dom and Independence of America — while we wish to preserve
the union entire and are fully sensible of the 111 consequences of
an interuption of it — we are sorry to differ from your Excellencey
in the mode of effecting the first and avoiding the last. — Every
good Government should have for its Objects — Defence against
external enemies and the preservation of Internal tranquility and
happiness — while we suspend our opinion of the purity of Inten
tion and of the great zeal for the Safety and wellfare with which
the late convention assembled we are in Justice to our constituents
constrained to say, that the result of their deliberations does not
seem well calculated for those valuable purposes.
" we shall under this head only add, that the rights & liberties

112 RECEPTION OF THE RATIFICATION.
objections to the reply as originally reported, Bishop
had the support of a majority of the members of the
House. A motion to amend his amendment by ex
punging the clause, "while we suspend our opinion,"
and inserting "while we do not doubt" in its place, was
Compromise lost. The whole matter was finally settled by a vote
agree to. ^^t ^e repiV; as reported by the committee of the two
Houses, and as voted by the Senate, be referred to a
committee, which should be instructed to report "such
amendments thereto, as that the said address when
passed may not contain any opinion of the legislature
upon the merits of the constitution." 1
Proposed In one other way the Antifederalist sentiments of a
the people. portion of this House were manifested. To insure a
favorable reception of the ratification, the Convention,
on the day on which it adjourned, had appointed a com
mittee of its members to prepare " an address, to the peo-
\^~plet stating the. principles of the said constitution,- the
various objections whicrI~^re-^Hade~aga4n$rrt7 and the
answers they received; and explaining the absolute
necessity of adopting some energetic system of federal
government for the preservation of the union. " This
address, when prepared, was to be transmitted to the
General Court, with the recommendation that it be
published, and that copies be forwarded to the several
towns of the Commonwealth.2
of a great contry should stand on firmer grounds then that of meer
provability. " If the amendments proposed with the ratification of the late
convention, had been made a condition of ratification they would
have gone some way tho not fully to a conciliation of our minds to
the System — but your excellencey will permitt us to say that as
they now stand they neither comport with the dignity or safety of
this Commonwealth." (Massachusetts Archives, House Docu
ment No. 2689; MS. Journal of the House, VIII. 408.)
1 Ibid., p. 411.
2 See Papers of the Convention of 1788, State House; also

ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE. 113
The committee seems to have soon completed its Action of
labors. A resolve accordingly was passed by the * e enate-
Senate at this session, directing the official printers to
print the address, as required by the foregoing resolu
tion.1 In the House the matter came up on March 29,
when the Senate resolution was brought down for con
currence. The proceedings which thereupon ensued
are quite obscure, as the entries on the Journal are
brief, and no record of the debates has been preserved
in the public prints, or, seemingly, in private letters
of the time. It is certain, however, that the House
showed itself pronouncedly hostile to the publication
of the address in question. In the first place, a motion
to defer the matter to the next session was defeated,
by a vote of one hundred and thirty to forty-seven.
The question of concurring in the Senate resolve was Hostility of
then put, and it too was defeated by the overwhelm- * e ouse-
ing vote of one hundred and eighteen to two.2 This
vote was decisive of the matter, as the Senate took
no further steps to secure concurrence. The address
was never published ; nor, so far as can be ascertained,
has the manuscript of it been preserved^ A letter
from Nathaniel Gorham to King, under date of April Gorham on
6, 1788, throw's some light on the reasons for non- j^e0anOTS
publication. "The Legislature," he writes, "have publication.
ended the session without doing any mischief. The
utmost prudence & moderation was necessary & it
Debates, pp. 92-3. George Cabot, Theophilus Parsons, Ebenezer
Peirce, Caleb Strong, and the Secretary of the Convention (George
Richards Minot, the author of the History of the Insurrections in
Massachusetts), were named as this committee.
1 Massachusetts Archives, MS. Journal of the Senate, VIII.
395; also Debates, p. 322.
2 Massachusetts Archives, MS. Journal of the House, VIII.
517. What seems to be a record of the votes is written in the
margin, but the figures are not perfectly legible.
8

114 RECEPTION OF THE RATIFICATION.
was exerted. Things were so critically situated that
the publication of the papers would have been inju
rious; neither will it now be of service, as the people
so far as applys immediately to the federal Government
are perfectly quiet. " *
importance bl Throughout the Union the decision of Massachusetts
\ of Massa- as to the Constitution had been anxiously awaited. Be-
chusetts. fore he,- determination was reached five States only —
Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Con
necticut — had passed upon the new system. In only
two of these, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, had any
opposition been manifested, and in the former only had
that opposition led to a contest comparable in impor
tance with that which took place in Massachusetts. On
all sides the belief was expressed that the action taken
by the latter State would be decisive of the final result.
Even before the Massachusetts Convention had assem
bled, a New York Federalist hadjKritten_:-L'.All our
hopes are on Massachusetts — should she adopt the new
Constitution — I have no doubt it would be in force by
1 Life of King, I. 324. A further manifestation of Antifeder
alism may be seen in the election held in the spring of 1788.
Toward the close of February, a meeting of Antifederalists was
held at Dudley, Worcester County, at which it was resolved to
send messengers into every town in the counties of Worcester,
Berkshire, Hampshire, Bristol, and Middlesex, " pointing the
inhabitants of these places to Gerry & Warren for Govr. and
Lt. Govr." (Gore to King, March 2, 1788, Ibid., p. 323.) This
looks somewhat like a nominating convention. From the returns
it is apparent that these candidates fell far short of getting the full
vote which had been cast against the Constitution at the time
when delegates to the Convention were elected. Hancock got
four-fifths of the votes cast for Governor, while Gerry got only
one-fifth. The Federalist support given Hancock must, however,
be taken into consideration. Of thirty-one members of the Senate
elected by the people, only six were Antifederalists. (King to
Madison, May 25, 1788, Ibid., p. 329.)

INFLUENCE IN OTHER STATES. 115
May next, at furthest." 1 The decision of Massachusetts
either way, wrote Madison to Washington, January 20,
1788, would involve the result in New York. An ad
verse decision, he mtirnated, would also probably em
bolden the Pennsylvania minority to set at naught the
ratification of that State and make some rash but dan
gerous move against the new system.2 The leaders of
the Federalists in Massachusetts had realized the im
portance of the issue. " Without overrating their own
importance," Knox had written to Washington, Feb
ruary 10, 1788, they "conceived that the decision of
Massachusetts would most probably settle the fate of
the proposition ;" 3 hence the caution and conciliation
which had marked their procedure at every step.
As events proved, these expectations were not greatly struggles in
exaggerated. Lt is true that the contest lingered on other States-
"fur inany~monthsT In two States, Virginia and New
York, struggles fully as intense as those which had
taken place in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were
yet to ensue; while in two others, Rhode Island and
North Carolina, ratification was to be delayed until
after the new system of government had been formally
inaugurated. Nevertheless, the ratification of the pro\^
posed Constitution by Massachusetts was'the~turning- "" -y,.
point in the contest. Not only had that State influence >

eirSugti to decide iuany who before had been wavering,
but she had by her " conciliatory proposition " shown a |
way by which the Constitution might be saved, while at I Klv
the same time the dangers would be obviated which J :s=y
many conceived would result from unconditional accept- _1
ance. To Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, and others
who stood high in the counsel of the Antifederalists,
the idea of proposing amendments, not as a condition
1 Massachusetts Centinel, Dec. 29, 1787.
2 Madison, Letters and other Writings (1865), I. 370.
8 Debates, p. 410 ; Drake, Life of Knox, p. 150.

n6

RECEPTION OF THE RATIFICATION.

Influence
of Massa
chusetts.

of ratification, but as a mere recommendation to Con
gress, was exceedingly distasteful.1 To the rank and
.['{file of the opposition in other States, as in Massachu
setts, the idea proved exceedingly taking. If we may
believe an anonymous letter from a gentleman in " one
of the Southern States," the principal persons in the
opposition there had " expressed themselves in favour
of adopting the plan in the form in which it was
adopted in Massachusetts, carrying the recommended
amendments rather farther than she [had] done: And
many of the ablest supporters of the plan [had] declared
their readiness to meet the opposition on this ground."2
The most striking testimony to the influence of Mas
sachusetts in this particular, however, is to be found in
the action of the Conventions themselves. Prior to
I the inauguration by Massachusetts of the practice of
| '.recommending amendments, the issue presented had
i been the bare one of acceptance or rejection. Of the
1 .five States which had already ratified the Constitution,
I not one had officially proposed a single amendment
j to that instrument. After Massachusetts had once
^pointed out the way, however, all this was changed:
of the seven States which had yet to ratify, only one,
Maryland, omitted to take such action.

1 As is well known, Jefferson soon receded from his antago
nistic position toward the Constitution ; by July, 1788, he had
come to regard the Massachusetts mode of ratification " as the
only rational one." Elliot, Debates, V. 573.
2 Salem Mercury, April 8, 17S8 ; see also, in the issue of April
15, a letter to the same effect as regards Virginia.

APPENDIX.

A.
LETTER OF "CORNELIUS."
[From the Hampshire Chronicle, Springfield, December ii and 18, 1787.]
GREAT, and perhaps, just encomiums are, in the pub- General
lick prints, and in private circles, daily bestowed on the constitution*
Constitution reported by the late Federal Convention.
Not the least objection, that I recollect, has publickly ap
peared against it. Among those in particular, who are
reputed wise and discerning, almost every one seems
eager to embrace it. This being the case, it will un
doubtedly be considered by many, as discovering a want
of modesty in any one, who may presume to express a
doubt of the expediency and happy consequences of
adopting the constitution.
As truth will bear the light ; and by how much the
more close examination it undergoes, by so much the
more ravishing beauty it will shine ; there can be no dan
ger in hinting at some of the objections that arise against
this form of government, in the mind of one, who feels
for his own safety — who has never learned to see with
eyes, other than his own, and who, at the same time,
wishes the happiness of his fellow-men, so far at least,
as that of his own is included.
Power has not commonly been suffered to lie down dor- Power given
mant, and to rust in the hands of its possessors, for want
of use. It may well be presumed that men, whether
individuals, or publick bodies, will generally exercise as
much power as they are legally vested with, and as

n8

APPENDIX A.

Not an
amendmentof the con
federation.

A violation
of that
compact.

C£

much to their own private advantage as they have a
constitutional right to do. — With this general idea in
view, let us attend to the Constitution ; and soberly con
sider some of the consequences that will probably
follow, if it should be adopted by the United States.
It may be observed in the first place, that this Consti
tution is not an amendment of the confederation, in the
manner therein stipulated ; but it is an intire subversion
of that solemn compact. — By the 13th article of that
compact, the faith of the United States is solemnly
plighted to each and every State, that " the articles of
this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every
State, and the union shall be perpetual ; nor shall any
alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them,
unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the
United States and be afterwards confirmed by the legisla
ture of every state."
By the 7th article of the constitution it is ordained,
that " the ratification of the conventions of nine States
shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitu-
tpn between the States so ratifying the same."
\Will not the.,adoption of this constitution in the.man-
ner here prescribed, be justly considered- as a perfidious
violation of that fundamental and solemn, compact, by
which the United States hold an existence, and claim to
be a. people? If a nation may so easily discharge Itself
from obligations to abide by its mosTs^ernJjTTj^] and
fundamental compacts, may it not, with still greater
ease, do the same. in matters of less importance? And
if nations may set the example, may not particular
States, citizens, and subjects follow? What then will
become of publick and private faith? Where is the
ground of allegiance that is due to government ? Are
not the bonds of civil society dissolved? Or is alle
giance founded only in power? Has moral obligation
no place in civil government? j In mutual compacts can

LETTER OF "CORNELIUS." 119
one party be bound while the other is free? Or, can
one party disannul such compact, without the consent of
the other? If so, constitutions and national compacts
are, I conceive, of no avail; and oaths of allegiance
must be preposterous things.
By this constitution, the legislative powers are vested in Length of
a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a te°nfression
Senate and House of Representatives. The latter are
to be chosen for two years, and the former for six. It
has been a generally received maxim, that frequent and
free elections are the greatest security against corruption
in government, and the oppression of the people. Have
the United States, hitherto, suffered any inconvenience
from annual elections? Have their delegates been too
often shifted, or too frequently recalled ? This, I believe,
will not be pretended.
When once the Senators and Representatives are Congress
elected, they are under no constitutional check or constituents/
controul from their constituents, either by instructions,
being liable to be recalled, or otherwise. It is not in
the power of the citizens or the legislature of any par
ticular State, nor of all the citizens and legislatures of
all the States, either to give any legal instructions to a
single member of Congress, or to call him to account
for any part of his conduct relative to the trust reposed
in him. He maybe impeached by the House of Repre
sentatives, provided he conducts himself in a manner
that is offensive to them ; but he cannot be convicted
in any case, without the concurrence of two-thirds of
the Senators present.
The Congress are to have power to levy and collect Congressmen
taxes, duties, imposts and excises, at their discretion ; and own pay_
out of this revenue, to make themselves such compensa
tion for their services as they may think proper.
Is it altogether certain, that a body of men elected for
so long a term, rendered thus independent, and most of

120

APPENDIX A.

Comparisonwith State
legislatures.

J

them placed at the distance of some hundreds of miles
from their constituents, will pa}' a more faithful regard
to their interest, and set an example of economy, more
becoming the circumstances of this country, than they
would do, if they were annually elected, subject to some
kind of instructions, and liable to be recalled, in case of
male administration? Have the several states, in the
estimation of the Compilers of this Constitution, been
hitherto, so parsimonious and unjust in paying their
delegates, that they have rendered themselves unfit to
contract with their Senators and Representatives, re
specting a compensation for their services? If so what
may we suppose will be considered as a just compensa
tion, when this honourable Body shall set their own pay,
and be accountable to none but themselves?
It will probably be urged, " Our State Legislatures
set their own pay; and why should not Congress do
the same."
If the cases are similar, the reasoning may be good;
but there is a wide difference between them. The
members of our State legislature, ace-annuallx elected —
they ^a?eIJirEjSet~to-4fi«^^ chosen
within sm all clrcTeT— f hey"are sent but a small distance
from their respective homes: Their— conduct is con-
staTrtry—known to their— constituents. They frequently
see and are seen, by the men whose servants they are.
While attending the duties of their office, their connex
ions in general, are with men who have been bred
to economy, and whose circumstances require them
to live in a frugal style. They are absent from their
respective homes but a few days, or weeks, at most.
They return, and mix with their neighbours of the lowest
rank, see their poverty, and feel their wants. — On the
contrary: The members of congress are to be chosen
for a number of years. They are to be subject to no
instructions. They are to be chosen within large circles :

LETTER OF "CORNELIUS." 121
They will be unknown to a very considerable part of
their constituents, and their constituents will be not less
unknown to them. They will be far removed and long
detained, from the view of their constituents. Their
general conduct will be unknown. Their chief connec- Congressmen
tions will be with men of the first rank in the United ^vacant'
States, who have been bred in affluence at least, if not
in the excess of luxury. They will have constantly
before them the enchanting example of ambassadors,
other publick Ministers, and Consuls from foreign courts,
who, both from principles of policy and private ambi
tion, will live in the most splendid and costly style.
Men are naturally enough inclined to vie with each
other. Let any body of men whatever be placed, from
year to year, in circumstances like these ; let them have
the unlimitted controul of the property of the United
States ; and let them feel themselves vested, at the same
time, with a constitutional right, out of this property to
make themselves such compensation as they may think
fit : And then, let any one judge, whether they will long
retain the same ideas, and feel themselves under equal
restraints, as to fixing their Own pay, with the members
of our state legislature. This part of the Constitution,
I conceive to be calculated not only to enhance the
expense of the federal government to a degree that will
be truely burdensome ; but also, to increase that luxury
and extravagance, in general, which threatens the ruin
of the United States ; and that, to which the Eastern
States in particular, are wholly unequal.
By this Federal Constitution, each House is to be the Power to
judge, not only of the elections, and returns, but also of quaUfications
the qualifications of its members ; and that, without any of members,
other rule than such as they themselves may prescribe.
This power in Congress, I take to be equal to that of a
negative on elections in general. And the freedom of
elections being taken away, where is the security or

122

APPENDIX A.

and to regu
late elections,

especially as
to places of
elections.

liberty that is reserved to the citizens under this federal
government? But as if this were a light thing, and the
liberties of the people not sufficiently cramped by their
election being thus exposed to a negative, at the pleas
ure of each House ; the Congress are also vested with
the power of prescribing, not only the times and
manner of holding elections for Senators; but, the
times, manner and places of holding elections for Repre
sentatives. There is undoubtedly, some interesting and
important design in the Congress being by the Con
stitution, thus particularly vested with this discre
tionary power of controuling elections. Will it be
urged that, as to such particular times and places for
holding elections as may be most convenient for the
several States, the Congress will be more competent
judges than the citizens themselves, or their respective
legislatures? This surely will not be pretended. The
end then of placing this power in the hands of the Con
gress, cannot have been, the greater convenience of the
citizens who are interested and concerned in those elec
tions. But whatever may have been the design, it is very
easy to see that a very interesting and important use may
be made of this power; and I can conceive of but one
reason why it should be vested in the Congress; par
ticularly as it relates to the places of holding elections
for Representatives. This power being vested in the
Congress may enable them, from time to time, to throw
the elections into such particular parts of the sev
eral States where the dispositions of the people shall
appear to be the most subservient to the wishes and
views of that honourable body; or, where the interests
of the major part of the members may be found to lie.
Should it so happen (as it probably will) that the major
part of the Members of Congress should be elected in,
and near the seaport towns ; there would, in that case,
naturally arise strong inducements for fixing the places

LETTER OF "CORNELIUS." 123
for holding elections in such towns, or within their
vicinity. This would effectually exclude the distant
parts of the several States, and the bulk of the landed
interest, from an equal share in that government, in
which they are deeply interested.
There is nothing in the constitution that determines Elections
what shall be considered as an election of a Represen- piurauty,y
tative. The Representatives are to be chosen by the
people ; and where there are a number to be chosen, it
is, perhaps, not very likely that any one gentleman will
have a majority of all the votes. Those who may
appear to have the greatest number of votes must,
therefore be considered as being elected. — I wish
there never might be any competition between the
landed and mercantile interests, nor between any dif
ferent classes of men whatever. Such competitors will,
however, exist, so long as occasion and opportunity for
it is given, and while human nature remains the same
that it ever has been. The citizens in the seaport^owns which favore
are numerous ; they live cornparrrthelFimeresfsare one ; seaPor 0WnN
- theTeTsTa constant ""connection and intercourse between
them ; fhey„^an, on any occasion, centre their votes
wrlere^hey- -please. This is not the case with those
who are-^n_the_Janded interest ; "they- are :scaTtered far
and wide; they have. but little intercourse_and connec
tion with each other. To concert uniform plans for
carrying elections of this kind is intirely out of their
way. Hence, their votes if given at alLwfll be noless
scattered than are the local situations of the voters
themselves.- Wherever the seaport- towns agree to cen-
"tre their, votes, there -will, of course, be the greatest
number. A gentleman in the country therefore,, who
may aspire after a seat in Congress, or who may wish
foTaTpost of profit under the federal government, must
form his connections, and unite his interest with
those towns. Thus, I conceive, a foundation is laid for

124

APPENDIX A.

The landed
interest will
be unrepre
sented.

Office of
President.

His election
will produce
venality, cor
ruption, etc.

throwing the whole power of the federal government
into the hands of those who are in the mercantile inter
est; and for the landed, which is the great interest of
this country to lie unrepresented, forlorn and without
hope. It grieves me to suggest an idea of this kind :
But I believe it to be important and not the mere
phantom of imagination, or the result of an uneasy and
restless disposition. I am convinced of the candour
and liberal disposition of gentlemen who are now in
the seaport towns, and the mercantile interest; and
I am fully^ persuaded^they-jdesire no such undue ad
vantages over their brethreTrrirr^rhe country, who are
in the landed interest. But, let a man be king over
Syria; and he may do things for which he had, before,
no disposition. The Constitution is designed for time
to come. "~-~-
The executive power is to be vested in a President of
the United States, who is to hold his office during the
term of four years, and who is to be commander in chief
of the army and navy, and of the militia of the several
States, when called into the actual service of the United
States. He is to receive for his services, at stated times, a
compensation which shall not be increased nor diminished
during the term for which he is elected. This compen
sation must, and ought, to be suited to the dignified
station in which that officer is placed, which can
not be considered as far below that of an European
Monarch. Elective Monarchies, wherever they have
obtained, have generally been attended with the most
dreadful consequences. And I am not without fear
that venality and corruption may shortly be found among
some of the least calamities that will attend those elec
tions. At no very distant period, we may expect the
most violent competitions between individual aspiring
men, between particular States, and between the East
ern and Southern States. When this shall take place,

LETTER OF "CORNELIUS." 125
it will be natural to seek, and easy to find, sufficient
pretences for recourse to arms.
The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in Expense of
o?ie Supreme Court, and in such other inferior Courts as Ju iciary-
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The
Judges of both are to hold their offices during good behaviour
and at stated times, to receive for their services a compensa
tion which shall not be diminished during their continuance
in office. — From the great variety of cases to which this
judicial power is to extend, it is apparent these courts
must be numerous. And as the judges are, at stated
times, to receive from the publick, a compensation for
their services, this must add a very considerable sum to
the expense of government. Every trifling controversy of
twenty shillings, or less, between citizens of different
States, must be brought, it seems, before one of these
Federal Courts. The great number of publick men that
must be supported on the plan of this Constitution, in
addition to the governments of the particular States, must
lay a burden on the citizens which there is reason to
fear, will prove insupportable.
The publick mind I fear, is at this critical juncture," 'Reaction
prepared to do the same that almost every people, who despotism.
have enjoyed an excessive degree of liberty have done ,
before; — to plunge headlong into the dreadful abyss ! D^.'
of Despotick Government. — Atjthe.time of forming ';. \xfd
the Confederation, the publick rage was on the side of \ ^y'
liberty. The reigning disposition then was, to secure ; u l
the highest degrees of liberty to the people, and to j
guard against every possible instance of oppression in
their rulers. The consequence is, want of sufficient
energy in government. We have had a surfeit of lib- \
erty; and, to many, the very name has now become ;
nauseous. That the Congress ought to have further powers than
those with which they are vested by the Confederation, j

126

APPENDIX A.

Remedy as
bad as the
disease.

Amendmei
of the Articles
sufficient.

Presidency.

no reasonable man will deny. That this is absolutely
necessary in order that the United States should con
tinue much longer to exist, with any tolerable degree
of reputation, I am fully convinced. But that the Con
gress, or any other body of men, should be vested with
all those independent and unlimitted powers prescribed
in the Constitution, appears to me, by no means neces
sary. Considering the principles by which publick
bodies are generally influenced, I am very apprehen
sive, that if this Constitution is adopted, the remedy
proposed will, in no very distant period of time, prove
at least equally distressing with the disease itself. The
strength and energy of government does not, I conceive,
so much consist in particular men, being vested with
unlimitted powers, as it does in a due regulation of the
necessary powers with which they are vested, and in
effectual provision for the exercise of those powers. It is
possible, I believe, for a government to be weak in the
hands of a Despot, and strong where considerable degrees
of liberty are enjoyed.
We have practiced but a few years on the confed
eration; long enough however, to discover its princi
ple [sic] defects. The great embarassments under
which we have laboured, are found, I imagine, to have
risen from the want of a revenue, and a general regu
lation of trade. If Congress (continuing in all other
respects, to possess the same powers which they do at
present) were vested with the further power of laying
and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and
with the exclusive right of regulating Commerce, I be
lieve our federal government would be as firm and
happy as might reasonably be expected to fall to the
lot of humanity, in this state of imperfection.
If it is indeed necessary that we should have a Presi
dent, vested with the powers prescribed in the Consti
tution, I am fully persuaded that rather than that he

LETTER OF "CORNELIUS." 127
should be elected in the manner therein described, and
for the term limitted, it would be attended with con
sequences less pernicious, at once, to make the office
hereditary and during life. This would, at least, prevent
that rivalship, venality, corruption, and tumult, which
may be expected, sooner or later, to attend those
elections. If it is further necessary that a Judicial Court should Judiciary.
be constituted, whose powers shall extend to certain
cases of national importance ; this, I apprehend, may
be done with equal advantage, and less inconvenience,
without multiplying these Courts in the manner which
the Constitution prescribes.
In the case of direct taxation, the rule of apportion- Direct
ment among the several States, I take to be very un- taxatl0n-
equal, and in its operation will prove exceedingly inju
rious to the Eastern States. These States, compared
with the Southern, have always abounded in people
more than in wealth ; and from the nature of their cli
mate and soil, will forever continue to do the same.
Yet, by this rule of apportionment, a great allowance is
made in favour of the Southern States : Thus three per
sons, including those bound to service for a term of
years, being reckoned equal to five slaves. In the
Eastern States there are but few slaves. In Massachu
setts, there are none. There are in that State, a large
number of negroes ; and in apportioning the taxes, three
of these negroes are to be reckoned equal to five in the
Southern States.
When I consider the independent situation in which A govem-
,1 i_ e 1- 1 j it. • ment of men,
the members of Congress are placed, — the sovereign not of Jaws
right of controuling elections, which that honourable
body are to possess, — the discretionary, and unlimitted
power, vested in each House to judge of the qualifi
cations of its members; and that by such rules only
as they themselves may prescribe, and alter as they

128 APPENDIX A.
please, — the unbridled temptations that will be con
stantly before them to aggrandize themselves, their
connexions, and friends, at the expense of their constit
uents, and the unbounded opportunity they will have
to do this : I am constrained to believe, that the prin
ciples on which the Constitution is predicated, are such
as tend to a government of Men, and not of Laws. And,
notwithstanding the high encomiums that are bestowed
on this form of government, I shall be most disagreeably
[sic] disappointed, if it does not prove, in its operation,
to be one of the most unequal, arbitrary, oppressing,
venal, and corrupt governments that is extant.
Comparison I am sensible that the office of President of the United
Constitution. States is, in some respects, different from that of King
of Great Britain ; and also, that the powers of the Senate
are, in some measure different from those of the House
of Lords : Yet, either the one, or the other, existing in
America, might be pernicious to the people. And it
may be yet uncertain, whether, in every instance
wherein they differ, the difference is in favour of the
Federal Government. — In offices that are elective, where
the elections are liable to embarassments, or exposed
to venal and corrupt influence, it may admit of some
doubt, whether the man of the greatest integrity, or the
man of the greatest intrigue, stands the fairest chance
for preferment!
Thus I have ventured, with freedom, and I hope, with
candour, to express my own ideas on this interesting
and important subject. I have no disposition to kindle
a flame, nor to excite any groundless fears, in the minds
of my fellow citizens. I most ardently wish for an
efficient, firm and permanent system of government ;
and at the same time, that the people at large may
enjoy as much liberty and ease, as may be consistent

with such a government.

CORNELIUS.

B.
\ N LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST."1
No. I.
[Massachusetts Centinel, Boston, December 29, 1787.]
To the Members of the Convention of Massachusetts.
Honourable Friends, and Fellow Citizens,
You are called on, and will soon convene to con- introduction.
duct a matter of the last importance to your country —
the confidence of your constituents in your abilities and
integrity can never be more fully expressed, than by their
1 The author of this series of letters, or at least of a part of them,
was probably James Warren, who was at this time Speaker of the
House of Representatives, but who is perhaps better known now
as the husband of Mercy (Otis) Warren. He was born in 1726, and
was a son of James Warren, sheriff of Plymouth County under the
crown; he graduated at Harvard in 1745, and at the death of his
father came into possession of a profitable mercantile business. He
entered early into the revolutionary movement, serving several
years in the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, and also for
some time on the navy board under the Continental Congress. In
State politics since the Revolution he seems to have identified
himself with the popular party, and to have sympathized to some
extent with the Shays's Rebellion. In the newspapers of the day
his friendship to tender laws, and his enmity to impost duties are
referred to as well known. See, for example, Boston Gazette, Oct.
29, 1787, the dialogue between " Mr. Schism and Mr. Cutbrush."
In the contest over the Constitution he became one of the leaders
of the party opposing ratification. See, for example, in the Massa
chusetts Centinel, Nov. 24, 1787, the so-called " Ship News," where
reference is made to " the ship W  n, which is anchored in M  n
road, laden with inflammables and other stores for the antifederal
9

130

APPENDIX B.

Candid
discussionnecessary.

suffrages on the present occasion — and on your wis
dom and firmness is in a great measure suspended, the
fate of the United States.
In a free State like this, and under such circumstances,
every individual must be anxious at the approach of an
event, which will entail happiness or misery, not only
on himself, his family, and the community, but also on
his and their posterity : — He has therefore a right to
address you, and your patriotism will prompt you to
consider seriously, whatever shall be offered on the sub
ject with reason and candour, and be worthy of your
attention. Seneca I think has established this maxim, that in all
concerns of life, we should enquire, first, what we want,
and secondly, how we are to attain it? — Apply these to
the present case, and the answers are plain : We want
a free, efficient federal government — and can only attain
it, by £~tandid, dispassionate, discussion of the subject.
A system of government has been proposed by the
federal Convention : Some are for adopting, some for
amending, and others for rejecting it : And when it is
considered that a federal government must necessarily
be more complicated in its nature than a simple one, and
that to form the latter, the ingenuity of man has never
yet been able to establish fixed principles which will
apply in all cases, is it a matter of surprize, that in
forming a Federal Constitution, even sensible, disinter
ested men should differ in opinion, and require an
investigation of their principles, in order to convince

fleet ; " Governor Hutchinson's mansion at Milton was at this time
Warren's residence. The evidence that these letters in particular
are to be ascribed to Warren is partly circumstantial ; we have also,
however, the statement of the biographer of James Sullivan that
these writings "are stated, with an air of authority, to have come
from the pen of a gentleman of Plymouth " (Amory, Life of Sulli
van, I. 227). This statement points unmistakably to Warren.

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 131
each other, and to correct their mutual errours? Surely
not, and the more calm and temperate their discussions
are, the greater will be their prospect of success. Some
able writers on both sides have favoured us with their
sentiments on the three great questions respecting the
adoption, amendment, and rejection of the proposed
plan of government, and we are much obliged to them
for their diligent researches and ingenious remarks : —
Others with little ability and less decency, have contin- A persecuting
ually wounded the feelings of the publick, by railing f^^^
against every one who has not subscribed their political writers.
creed ; which if good in itself, would be rendered odious
by the persecuting spirit of such ignorant zealots : But
let them be informed, that their humour and petulance
are not criterions for regulating the judgment of the
publick; and that every individual has an equal right
with themselves, to attend to the greatest of all earthly
concerns, the establishment of good government. — Even
the news-papers of Boston have been thus disgraced.
Boston has been famed for the liberality of its citizens,
and for their attachment to liberty : And the reputation
of so respectable a community should not be tarnished
by illiberal productions.
In investigating the subject of the proposed constitu
tion, let us first inquire, upon what ground it stands :
Because if it has no foMudatu>ti,^^^^rsi^ieture must U-"""
fall. The Federal Convention was first^roposedjby the Attitude of
legislatur-e-ef-^irginia, to whom America is much in- towardthe
debted for having taken the lead on the most important Constitution.
occasions. — She first sounded the alarm respecting the
intended usurpation and tyranny of Great Britain, and
has now proclaimed the necessity of more power and
energy in our federal government : But anxious as that
wise State is for the attainment of these great objects,
we find her not precipitate in adopting the new consti-

132 APPENDIX B.
tution. She has allowed herself time to consider the
subject, and has deferred the meeting of her Convention
until May next — Several other States are of the same
opinion, amongst which are the respectable States of
New- York and Maryland. — Is it not then a matter
worthy of your consideration, whether any disadvan
tages can result, nay, whether the greatest advantages
Adjournment may not accrueJrcon--an--adj«u4^irxierit_of_Ae Convention
sugges_e_.  ^£ Massachusetts, until the sense of yjrg?riia~3arr— be
known ? Too much light cannot be thrown on the subject,
neither can a short delay possibly injure us ; but an hasty
decision may irretrievably ruin us.
Massachu- In consequence of the measures of Virginia respect-
of Feb. 21 V' xnS the calling a federal Convention, the legislature
1787, appoint- 0f this State on the 21st of February last, Resolved,
mg federal
delegates. " That five Commissioners be appointed by the General
Court, who, or any three of whom, are hereby impow-
ered to meet such commissioners as are or may be ap
pointed by the legislatures of the other States in the
union, at Philadelphia, on the 2d day of May next ; and
with them to consider the trade and commerce of the
United States, and how far an uniform system in their
commercial intercourse and regulations may be neces
sary for their common interest and permanent harmony;
and also to consider, how far it may be necessary to
alter any of the articles of the present Confederation,
so as to render the Constitution of the Federal Govern
ment more adequate to the exigencies of the union :
And what further powers may be necessary to be vested
in Congress for the common welfare and security, and
with them to form a report for the purpose — such
alterations and additions as may be made, to be how
ever consistent, with the true republican spirit, and genius
of the present articles of Confederation. Provided that
the said Commissioners on the part of this Common
wealth, are hereby particularly instructed, by no means

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 133
to interfere with the fifth of the articles of the Confeder- Restrictions
ation, which provides for the annual election of delegates M t0 their
in Congress, with a power reserved to each State, to recalits
delegates, or any of them, within the year, and to send others
in their stead for the remainder of the year — and which
also provides that no person shall be capable of being a
delegate for more than three years in any term of six years,
or being a delegate, shall be capable of holding any office
under the United States, for which he or any other, for
his benefit, receives any salary, fees, or emolument of any
kind." " The report of the said Commissioners from the
several legislatures to be laid before the United States
in Congress assembled, to the intent, that if they shall
judge it proper, they may recommend the said report
or any part of it to the legislatures of the several
States for their consideration: And if agreed to by
them, that the same may become a part of the Con
federation of the United States."
This was the resolution of Massachusetts, in conse- Resolve of
quence of the proposition of Virginia, but Congress amendment
having on the 21st of February, the same day on which thereto.
this resolution passed, recommended a Federal Conven
tion, our Legislature on the 7th of March last, repealed
that, and passed the following resolve — " Whereas Con
gress did on the 21st day of February 1787, resolve,
" That in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that
on the second Monday in May next, a Convention
of Delegates, who shall have been appointed by the
several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and
express purpose of revising the articles of Confederation,
and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures
such alterations and provisions therein, as shall when
agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States;
render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigen
cies of government and the preservation of the union
— And whereas, the legislature of this Commonwealth

134

APPENDIX B.

Interpretationof these acts.

No violation
i of Articles of
\Conf ederati on
ntended.

did on the 3d day of the present month, elect the Hon.
Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus
King, and Caleb Strong, Esquires, delegates, or any
three of them, to attend and represent this Common
wealth at the aforesaid Convention for the sole and ex
press purpose mentioned in the afore recited resolve of
Congress, Resolved, That his Excellency the Gov-
ernour be and he hereby is requested to grant to the
said Francis Dana," &c. " a commission agreeably to
the said resolution of Congress."
The first of these resolves will shew that when the
Legislature in February last, agreed to a Convention,
the delegates of the State were to report measures not
for abolishing but for preserving the articles of Con
federation ; for amending them ; and for increasing their
powers consistently with the true republican spirit and
genius thereof — that the report was to have been made
to Congress and that so much of it only as should be
approved by them, and agreed to by the legislatures of
the several States, was to become a part of the Confed
eration — the last of the resolves will shew, that in March
last the legislature altered the powers of their delegates
and conformed them to the resolve of Congress — that
the utmost extent of this resolve, which united the
views of Congress and our legislature, was to call a Con
vention for the sole and express purpose of revising the
articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and
the legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein
as shall render the Federal Constitution adequate to the
exigencies of government, and the preservation of the
union — that neither Congress nor the Legislature had
the most distant idea of conducting the matter in a
mode different from that presented by the Confedera
tion, which provides " that the articles of Confederation
shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the
union shall be perpetual, nor shall any alteration at

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 1 35
any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such
alterations be agreed to in a Congress of the United
States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislature of
every state!' That on the other hand, Congress in their
resolve, and the legislature in both their resolves before
recited, expressly provided, and they would have acted
unconstitutionally to have done otherwise, that the alter
ations and provisions in the articles of Confederation, to
have been reported by the Federal Convention, should
be agreed to in Congress, and be confirmed by the
legislative of the several States before they become part
of the Federal Constitution. A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST.

NO. II.
[Massachusetts Centinel, January 2, 1788.]
Honourable Friends, and Fellow Citizens,
It clearly appeared by the resolutions quoted in my Summary of
last address, that the utmost extent of the views of argument.
Congress, and of the Legislature of this State in calling
a Federal Convention, was, that it should revise the
articles of Confederation, and report such alterations
and provisions therein, as shall render the Federal
Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government
and preservation of the union — that neither Congress
or the Legislature had the most distant idea of con
ducting the matter in a mode different from that pre
scribed by the Confederation — but that on the other
hand, they expressly provided, and would have acted
unconstitutionally to have done otherwise, that the
proceedings of the Convention, before they become a

136

APPENDIX B.

Powers of
Massachu
setts dele
gates com
pared with
those of
other States.

Consolida tion of the
Union in
tended by the
Convention.

part of the Federal Constitution, should be agreed to
by Congress and confirmed by the Legislatures of the
several states.
No one I presume will deny that the powers of the
delegates of this state, were as full and extensive as
either Congress or any of the Legislatures had authority
to give — that the powers of the other delegate [sic]
were in general, more limited — and that had any of
them been more ample than those of Massachusetts,
they must have been founded in usurpation and there
fore have been null and void. And have the Federal
Convention, in pursuance of their powers, reported the
alterations and provisions mentioned in the recited re
solve of Congress? If they have, let us call on Con
gress, to inform us, whether they have agreed to the
report, and to transmit it when approved, to the Legis
lature for their consideration : This would be conduct
ing upon constitutional principles, but the call would be
vain, there is no such report, and the original design of
forming the Convention has not been carried into effect.
The Convention nevertheless have reported a new
system, and the object of it is, a consolidation of the
union. Mr. Wilson denies this fact, and says " if this
was a just objection, it would be strongly against the
system." But unfortunately for that gentleman, his
memory appears to be very defective, for he forgot that
he has said, in the letter to Congress, signed " George
Washington, president, by unanimous order of the Con-
, vention" — " In all our deliberations on this subject, we
kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the
greatestT~frrteiesLjof--every'true American-,-^ consolida-
tion of the union." There the Convention have candidly
avowed their intentions, and how Mr. Wilson can rec
oncile his jarring and contradictory assertions, I am
at a loss to determine. The Convention, having kept
" steadily in view " " a consolidation of the union," it is

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 137
incumbent on every one who is zealous for the infalli
bility of the Convention, and liberal in abusing those
who dare to think for themselves, to admit that the
proposed plan compleatly embraces the object of consoli
dation, for otherwise he will call in question the ability
of the Convention to execute their design — indeed it
must be evident to every one who will attentively read
the new system, that it secures to all intents and pur
poses the consolidation intended. And here permit me The new plan
to remark on an argument, in favour of the new plan, ty its merits
often urged and drawn from the respectable characters not by cnar-
nctcjrs 01 its
of General Washington and Doctor Franklin: Let those framers.
gentlemen have every honour that can be paid them,
they are justly entitled to it — but of what consequence
is it to the publick, whether the members who assented
or dissented to the new plan, were influenced by virtu
ous and disinterested, or by vicious and selfish motives?
If the plan is properly before the States, is good, and
will secure to them " peace, liberty, and safety " should
it not be adopted, were they even sure that every mem
ber who subscribed it was in principle a Caligula or a
Nero? And if the plan is bad and will entail slavery on
the land, ought it not to be rejected should every sub
scriber excel in wisdom and integrity Lycurgus or
Solon. Surely the good or bad effects of the system,
depend not on the characters of the original framers,
but on the system itself, and on those who may admin
ister it; and no man of candour and discernment will
urge characters, as an argument for or against this
system, however respectable the characters of any
particular members, or of the members in general of
the federal convention, may be: They had no other/Delegates Ax-
authority to act in this matter, than what was derived authority. \
from their commissions — when they ceased to act in
conformity thereto, they ceased to be a federal conven
tion, and had no more right to propose to the United

138 APPENDIX B.
States the new form of government, than an equal num
ber of other gentlemen, who might voluntarily have
assembled for this purpose. The members of the Con
vention therefore, admitting they have the merit of a
work of supererogation, have thereby inferred no kind
of obligation on the States to consider, much less to
adopt this plan of consolidation. The consolidation of
the union ! What a question is this, to be taken up and
decided by thirty nine gentlemen, who had no publick
authority whatever for discussing it! — To be submitted
to the people at large, before it has been considered or
even agitated by Congress, or any of the Legislatures,
and to be transmitted with such precipitation to the
States merely " for their assent and ratification " ? True
it is, that neither Congress or the Legislatures could
decide this great question; the first are restrained by
the confederation, and the last by the federal and state
constitutions — but Congress and the Legislatures, if
they thought it necessary, might at any time have
considered the subject, expressed their sentiments on
it, and recommended to the people an election of State
conventions to have taken up the matter. Had this
been done the important question would have been
previously canvassed ; and understood by Congress and
the Legislatures ; and explained to the people ; and the
publick opinion would have been thus united in some
salutary measure — but as the matter has been con
ducted, a system of consolidation has been formed with
the most profound secrecy, and without the least author-
Action of ity : And has been suddenly and without any previous
Congress, the nofice transmitted by the federal convention for ratifi-
legislature, '
and the cation — Congress not disposed to give any opinion on the
judicative plan, have transmitted it to the legislatures — The legis-
of approval, latures have followed the example, and sent it to the
people. The people of this State, unassisted by Congress
or their legislature, have not had time to investigate the

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 139
subject, have referred to the news-papers for informa
tion, have been divided by contending writers, and
under suck circumstances have elected members for
the State Convention — and these members are to con
sider whether they will accept the plan of the federal
convention, with all its imperfections, and bind the
people by a system of government, of the nature and
principles of which they have not at present a clearer
idea, than they have of the Copernican system.
What are we to expect, from such a mode of pro
ceeding? Are not the people already thrown into
great confusion? Are not heats, animosities, and a
party spirit very prevalent and daily increasing? Are
the citizens of this State in a proper temper to receive
information, either of the ratification, or rejection of
the new Constitution? Is there a probability of its 1 .Prior amend-
being supported, if so precipitately adopted4~~Smre[y it ^lyVope
must appear that the plan, although improperly before for safety.
the State^caa&ot-vfiiirssfSiy be rejected — that it cannot
as it stands, be safely ac^epjid^^ that the people will
not be satisfied with a ratification, and the delusive pros
pect of future alterations — and that the only hope that
remains of preserving the peace and-happiness of this
Commonwealth, is from amending the flan in order to
its adoption. ' "  J==*
"THE REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST.

No. III.
[Massachusetts Centinel, January 9, 1788.]
In the preceding numbers it has been shewn, that the Summary of
original design of calling the federal convention has argument.
not been carried into effect — That they nevertheless
reported a system of government with a professed

140

APPENDIX B.

Importance
of the issue.

Resolves
of Federal
Convention.

intention of consolidating the union — That they had
not the least publick authority to discuss, much less to
decide this great question — That neither Congress or
the Legislatures have been disposed to express any
opinion on the new system — That although they were
constitutionally restrained from deciding, yet they had
a right at any time, to have agitated and considered the
question, to have explained it to the people, and to
have recommended their electing State Conventions to
have taken up the matter — That had this been done, the
people would have had every necessary information,
and probably have united in some salutary measure —
That they are now without that information, and by the
mode of conducting this matter, are thrown into great
confusion — That a party spirit prevails, and is daily
increasing — That in the present temper of the people,
it will not restore peace or tranquility to reject the
system, or to ratify it with or without the delusive
prospect of future alterations — That if accepted in its
present form, there is not a probability of supporting it
— and that amendments are indispensibly necessary,
in order to its adoption. — These are facts which if
any one doubts, will I think, clearly appear when we
consider the system itself.
The revolution which separated the United States
from Great-Britain, was not more important to the lib
erties of America, than that which will result from the
adoption of the new system. The former freed us from
a foreign subjugation, and there is too much reason to
apprehend that the latter will reduce us to a federal
domination. Had the Convention thought proper merely
to have formed the plan, and to have sent it to Con
gress, and the legislatures, the consequences would not
have been so serious, as from their accompanying it
with the following resolutions. — " Resolved, That the
preceding Constitution be laid before the United States

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST."

141

in Congress assembled, and that it is the opinion of
this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted
to a Convention of Delegates chosen in each state by
the people thereof, under the recommendation of its
legislature, for their assent and ratification, and that each
Convention, assenting to and ratifying the same, should
give notice thereof to the United States in Congress
assembled." " Resolved, That it is the opinion of the
Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine
States shall have ratified the Constitution, the United
States in Congress assembled shall fix a day on which
electors should be appointed by the States which shall
have ratified the same, and a day on which the electors
should assemble to vote for the President, and the time
and place for commencing proceedings under this Consti
tution : That after such publication, the electors should be
appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected :
That the electors should meet on the day fixed for the
election of the President; and should transmit their
votes, certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the Con
stitution requires, to the secretary of the United States
in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Repre
sentatives should convene at the time and place as
signed — That the Senators should appoint a President
of the Senate, for the sole purpose of receiving, open
ing and counting the votes for President, and that after
he shall be chosen, the Congress together with the
President, should without delay, proceed to execute this
Constitution!' In consequence of these resolutions of Resolve of
the federal convention, Congress "Resolved, That the ^Sormity"
Constitution so reported be transmitted to the several thereto;
legislatures, in order to be submitted to a Convention
of Delegates, chosen in each State by the people there
of, in conformity to the resolves of the said Convention
in that case made and provided" — and in pursuance gnd°f,the
thereof, the legislature of this State resolved, " That it lature.

142

APPENDIX B.

Result of
adoption by
Massachu
setts and
eight other
States.

be, and it is hereby recommended to the people of this
Commonwealth, that a Convention of Delegates be
chosen agreeably to and for the purposes mentioned in
the resolution of Congress aforesaid. — It is evident,
therefore, that the proposed Constitution is, agreeably
to the recommendation of the federal Convention, sub
mitted to the State Convention, that is, to a majority of
its members, for their assent and ratification. Should
the plan be adopted by this and eight other States,
every part_jif--4he~'CoTisTitution of this Commonwealth
which is contrary to the new Constitution, to the laws
that may be made in pursuance thereof, or to treaties of
the United States, will be null .aruTyoid : for the plan
expressly provides, that " this Constitution, and the
laws of the United States, which shall be made in pur
suance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall
be made under the authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitu
tion or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstand
ing" — And will not such a subjection of the Constitu
tion of this Commonwealth, not only to the Constitution,
but to the laws of the union, and to treaties, that are or
may be made under the authority of Congress, be in
effect, a dissolution of the government of Mas
sachusetts? Surely it will. Mr. Locke, in his trea
tise of civil government, chap. 19, in sect. 212, says,
" Governments are dissolved from within, when the
legislative is altered," and in sect. 215, "for it is not
a certain number of men, no, nor their meeting, unless
they have also freedom of debating, and leisure of
perfecting, what is for the good of the society, wherein
the legislative consists : when these are taken away, or
altered, so as to deprive the society of the due exercise
of this "power, the legislative is truly altered; for it is not
names that constitute governments, but the use and exercise

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 1 43
of those powers that were intended to accompany them"
What were the powers originally intended by the people
of this State to be used and exercised by their legislature ;
they are contained in the Constitution of the Common
wealth, part 2, chap. 1, sect. I, under the head of "the
legislative power," qualified nevertheless by certain
reservations in the Bill of Rights. Some of the most
important of those powers will, by the new plan, be
transferred to the federal government, and others be
exercised by their permission. This, I presume, is too
evident to be denied, and will hereafter more fully
appear. Our government will then have the name that
it now has, but not " the use and exercise of those
powers that were intended to accompany it." Indeed,
it is inconceivable, that a plan of consolidation can be
established, without destroying the sovereignty of the
respective States, and thus dissolving their present
governments. But supposing the adoption of the new plan would only Mode of
alter the Constitution of this State, by what mode should prescribed1
that alteration be made f Should it be effected pursuant ty Massa-
chusetts
to the recommendation of a federal Convention, and in Constitution.
direct violation of the Constitution of this State? or
should the alteration be made consistently with the
Constitution itself? This expressly provides, " That, in
order the more effectually to adhere to the principles
of the Constitution, and to correct those violations which
by any means may be made therein, as well as to form
such alterations as from experience shall be found
necessary, the General Court, which shall be in the year
of our Lord 1795, shall issue precepts to the selectmen
of the several towns, and to the assessors of the unin
corporated plantations, directing them to convene the
qualified voters of their respective towns and plantations
for the purpose of collecting their sentiments on the
necessity or expediency of revising the Constitution, in

144 APPENDIX B.
order to amendments: And if it shall appear by the
returns made, that two thirds of the qualified voters
throughout the State, who shall assemble and vote in
consequence of the said precepts, are in favour of such
revision or amendment, the General Court shall issue
precepts, or direct them to be issued, from the sec
retary's office to the several towns to elect delegates to
meet in Convention, for the purpose aforesaid : The
said delegates to be chosen in the same manner and
proportion as their representatives," &c. — Here we see,
that by the Constitution of this State in the year 1795,
the sentiments of the qualified voters on the necessity
or expediency of revising the Constitution, are to be
collected, and if it shall then appear that two thirds of
them are in favour of a revision and amendment, in that
case only, is a Convention to be called for these pur
poses. Should it be a question, whether an alteration
in the Constitution can be made before the year 1795,
there is nothing in the clause recited, that I can con
ceive to prevent it: because although in the year 1795,
precepts must issue for the purposes mentioned, there
is no provision to prevent their issuing, if necessary,
before that period. But surely, if any alteration should
be made in the Constitution, it must be in a mode pro
vided by the Constitution itself, for otherwise the clause
recited must become a nidlity, which is inadmissible, or,
which is the same thing, the Constitution itself must be
violated.
Danger from Of all compacts, a Constitution or frame of Govern-
stitutions. °n' ment» is the most solemn and important, and should be
strictly adhered to. The object of it is the preservation
of that property, which every individual of the com
munity has, in his life, liberty and estate : Every
measure therefore, that only approaches to an infraction
of such a covenant ought to be avoided, because it will
injure that sacred regard to the Constitution which

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 145
should be deeply impressed on the minds of the whole
community — How much more careful then should we
be to avoid an open violation of such a compact? Such
a violation must take place, if a majority, or every
member of the Convention, should vote for an accept
ance of the new Constitution, because a Convention can
not be called for altering, much less dissolving the
government of Massachusetts, before the sentiments of
the qualified voters are collected on the necessity or
expediency of revising the Constitution in order to
amendment, and two thirds of them shall be in favour of
the measure. A ratification, therefore, of the new Con- Ra^ficatien,
stitution by the State Convention, cannot be binding on tKecftizens
the citizens of this State, being directly repugnant to of the State.
an existing covenant. But suppose such a ratification
should be supported by a majority of the Convention
and of the citizens of this State : What must be the
consequence of thus destroying all publick faith and
confidence? Are not these the principles that bind
and cement the community, and that establish them
as a body politick? Are they not the foundation of a
free Government? If every individual by such a meas
ure, should have his faith and confidence in the honour
and integrity of the community effectually destroyed,
(and this must inevitably be the consequence) will he
not decline entering into such a nugatory compact in
future, or entering into it, will he not disregard it as
a mere matter of form, and rather than be at any
pains or expense to support it, suffer it to share the
, fate of the other? Certainly he will, and instead of a
government founded in compact, we must hereafter be
content with one founded in fraud or force.
REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST.

146 APPENDIX B.
NO. IV.
[Massachusetts Centinel, January 12, 1788.]
Mode of Every candid mind will by this time I think be
provWeTby clearl>' convinced, that if the constitution of this Corn-
Articles of monwealth has any validity, the ratification of a plan
that would alter, much less of one that would dissolve
the government, cannot be valid, unless by a mode pro
vided by the Constitution itself. There are but two
modes, to my knowledge, wherein any alterations can
be made: One has been mentioned, and it has been
fully shewn that the ratification of the new Constitution
by the state Convention would be in direct violation of
that mode, and therefore not binding on the citizens of
this State. — Let us now consider the other mode. In
addition to the political compact contained in the Con
stitution of this State, it is bound by another as solemn
and more extensive, the articles of Confederation. By the
first, the " whole people covenants with each citizen,
and each citizen with the whole people : " and by the
last, the whole of the States covenants with each State, and
each State with the whole of the States. And the powers
in the articles of Confederation, expressly delegated to
the United States in Congress assembled, are paramount
to and annul every power of the State Constitution, that
is inconsistent with and opposed to them. A mode is
provided in the Confederation for amending it, in the
words following, " and the articles of this Confederation
shall be inviolably observed by every State of the union,
shall be perpetual nor shall any alteration at any time
hereafter be made in any of them unless such alterations
be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be
afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State!'
A correspondent provision is made in the fourth article
of the Bill of Rights of our State Constitution — (vide

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 147
Constitution of Massachusetts') the exercise then of every
power, jurisdiction and right, which is or may hereafter
be by the people thus expressly delegated, is clearly
relinquished on their part and will be binding on them.
Had the federal Convention reported and Congress
agreed to alterations in the articles of Confederation,
there could I think have been no doubt, that the ratifica
tion of such alterations by the legislatures would have
been as binding on the people as if made by themselves,
because in the article mentioned of the bill of rights the
people have recognized the articles of Confederation,
which on the part of the State were ratified, pursuant to
their authority : And have expressly provided by those
articles, that alterations therein which shall be agreed to
by Congress, and confirmed by the legislatures, shall be
come part thereof : The legislature nevertheless of
this State, would probably have applied to the people
for their sense on such alterations, before a confirmation
thereof, but no one will pretend to say that the federal
Convention have reported alterations, or if they had,
that Congress have agreed to, or the the [sic] legislature
confirmed them. The federal Convention, have, as has
been shewn, reported a system, which destroys the
articles of Confederation, and completely embraces the
consolidation of the union : They have also recom
mended, that this new system should be administered,
when ratified by nine States, and it must clearly appear,
that the ratification of it by the Convention of this State, Ratification of
would not only be a violation of the State Constitution, Constitution
but also of the articles of Confederation — would thus be Ms° a viola- /
,.., - , ,, tion of the /
a double act of political perfidy — and would not be Articles. _--
binding on any State, not even on those which may thus
ratify it. Such a measure, therefore, would not only
tear up by the roots, and annihilate all confidence in the
most sacred and solemn covenants between the whole
people and each citizen of this State, but also between

148

APPENDIX B.

Sir William
Temple on
innovations in
government.

Mode of
adoption
paves the
way for
despotism.

the whole of the States and each State, and the new Con
stitution would not stand on the ground of right, good
faith, or publick confidence. Notwithstanding then the
good intentions of the federal Convention, it is an un
fortunate circumstance that they did not strictly adhere
to their powers, because the mode proposed for ratifica
tion, as well as the system itself, must produce great
convulsions. Sir William Temple, in treating " of popu
lar discontents," says, " The first safety of Princes and
States lies in avoiding all councils or designs of innova
tion in ancient and established forms, and laws, especially
those concerning liberty, property and religion (which are
the possessions men will ever have most at heart) and
thereby leaving the channel of honour and common jus
tice clear and undisturbed." The new system was not
only unauthorised, but altogether unexpected by Con
gress, the legislature, and the people, is not merely an
innovation, but an interchange [entire change?] of the
" established form " of government; and will produce as
great a change in the laws concerning liberty and prop
erty — does not only disturb, and in some instances
alter but in others destroys the channels of honour and
common justice — and so far is the mode of adoption
from being constitutional, as that it violates the Consti
tutions of the States and of the union, and establishes a
precedent, not only for annihilating the new Constitution
itself, but for building on its ruins a compleat system of
despotism — for what will the people have to secure them
against an introduction of the most arbitrary government,
after the banishment of good faith from the United States
of America? Is it not incumbent then on the State Con
vention, to consider seriously and thoroughly, in what a
situation they will place this Commonwealth and the
union, by the proposed ratification? This State, before
it shall have declared in favour of the new system as it
stands, may have great influence in promoting an accom-

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 149
modation of this matter, between contending States, and
the contending citizens of each State, and having the
confidence of all parties, may as a wise mediatrix, pro
mote their common interest : But when the State shall
have manifested such a total disregard to the obliga
tions of the most solemn political compacts, as to ratify
in the mode proposed, the new Constitution, then will
end the confidence of the union, and of our own citizens
in the decision of Massachusetts, and she will embark
in a precarious bottom, with the gloomy prospect of an
approaching tempest, and unnecessarily expose herself
to a political shipwreck. — If then, the new Constitution,
ratified in its present form and in the mode proposed,
will not stand on the ground of right, good faith, or pub
lick confidence, on what ground will it stand? Mr. Lock Locke on'
[sic], in his treatise mentioned, chap. 17, sect. 197, says, andTyranny.
" as conquest may be called a foreign usurpation, so
usurpation is a kind of domestick conquest, with this
difference, that an usurper can never have a right on his
side, it being no usurpation but when one has got into
the possession of what another has a right to." The right
of originating a system for consolidating the union,
belonged only to the people, but the federal Convention
have taken possession of it, when called for a different
purpose, and can any one say their proceedings are not
founded in usurpation? The same author goes on,
" this, so far as it is usurpation, is a change only of per
sons, but not of the forms and rules of the government:
For if the usurper extend his power beyond what of
right belonged to the lawful prince, or governour of the
Commonwealth, it is tyranny added to usurpation."
Had the federal Convention then only exercised the
powers of the people in originating a system of consoli
dation, it would have been nothing more than usur
pation; but having changed the forms and rules of
delegating powers to the federal government, the Con-

ISO

APPENDIX B.

Framers\ of
the Constitu
tion guilts
| of both.

Theirpurpose.

Many objec
tions to the
new system
unanswered.

vention have done what the governours or rulers of the
Commonwealth had no right to do, and by promoting
State Conventions to violate the most solemn compacts,
have also done what the people themselves had no right
to do, and as the principles and reasonings of the above
celebrated writer apply more forcibly to the alteratioti
or formation, than to the administration of government,
are not the proceedings of the Convention, founded not
only in usurpation, but also in tyranny?
To what purpose then is it, to raise this mighty
superstructure, which having no foundation, must soon
fall and involve those in it in inevitable ruin — the
federal Convention were undoubtedly urged to these
measures by conceiving, that their system, if well
adapted to the welfare of the people, would nevertheless
meet with opposition from some of the States, and be
thus defeated : But did not an honest zeal lead the
Convention, as it has often led others if to a remedy
worse than the disease? Should not a proper system
have been sent in a constitutional mode to the States,
with a presumption that every State would do what
was for the good of the whole; and if any of them
had withheld their assent from a measure requisite for
the general welfare, and thus rendered a separation
necessary ; should it not have been preceded by a dec
laration, stating the reasons and necessity of such a
separation? Surely such a dismemberment will re
quire as much solemnity as that which separated us
from Great-Britain, and may produce as important
consequences. Many great objections to the new system have been
unanswered, and I conceive, if we mean to support our
liberties, are unanswerable. Notwithstanding which the
State Convention will in all probability be warmly
urged to accept the system, and at the same time to
propose amendments — this indeed may take in the

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 151
weak and unwary, but not persons of discernment : For
a wise people will never place over themselves an
arbitrary government, in expectation that it will be so
remarkably virtuous as to divest itself of unreasonable
and unlimitted powers. Is not this contrary to human
nature, which is generally grasping at more power, not
knowing oftentimes that it would be abused as soon as
obtained ?
The new Constitution provides " that the Congress Modes of
whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it ^^l^
necessary shall propose amendments to this Constitu
tion, or on the application of the legislatures of two thirds
of the several States, shall call a convention for propos
ing amendments, which in either case shall be valid to
all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths
thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification
may be proposed by the Congress : " — To call a Con
vention then, two thirds of both houses of the new
Congress must deem it necessary, or the legislatures of
two thirds of the several States must make an applica
tion to Congress ; and can it be doubted that there will
not be found such a majority of the new Congress, or
of the State legislatures disposed to call a Convention
for making amendments? When the Constitution is
adopted, will not the friends of it strenuously contend
to give it a trial? Are there not numbers who at this
time openly reprobate republican governments? And
will not such persons raise numberless objections to
the appointment of such a Convention, and endeavour
to prevent it? But supposing a Convention should be
called, what are we to expect from it, after having rat
ified the proceedings of the late federal Convention?
They will be called to make " amendments" an indefinite
term, that may be made to signify any thing. Should

152 APPENDIX B.
Judge M'Kean, be of the new Convention, perhaps he
will think a system of despotism, an amendment to the
present plan, and should the next change be only to a
monarchial government, the people may think them
selves very happy, for bad as the new system is, it is
the best they will ever have should they now adopt it.
If therefore, it is the intention of the Convention of this
State to preserve republican principles in the federal
government, they must accomplish it before, for they
never can expect to effect it after a ratification of the
new system. [REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST]

No. V.
[Massachusetts Centinel, January 19, 1788.]
THE proceedings of the federal Convention, having,
as has been shewn, originated in usurpation, and being
founded in tyranny, cannot be ratified by the State Con
vention, without breaking down the barriers of liberty ;
trampling on the authority of federal and State Constitu-
\ tions, and annihilating in America, governments founded
Two courses in compact. In this predicament, there appears but
"oumme'ntliU two measures which can with safety be adopted by the
action of 1 Convention of this State. One has been hinted at, an
is known;' adjournment, until the sense of Virginia can be known.
/ The great danger in this business is, from precipitation,
/ not from delay. The latter cannot injure whilst the
former may irretrievably ruin us ; an adjournment would
not only ripen the judgment of our own citizens, but
give them an opportunity of benefiting by the opinions
of those States, which are attentive to, but not extrava
gantly zealous in this matter. The other measure is, to
return the proceedings of the federal Convention to the

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 1 53 /
/ |
legislature of this State, to be by them transmitted to (2) return of
Congress, and amended agreeably to the articles of Con- jpian"^6 '
federation: For the system being improperly before { Congress for
the State Convention, and they being incompetent to a \ /
ratification of it, cannot thereby bind the citizens of \  y
Massachusetts. Had the system been in itself unob
jectionable, it is evident from what has been said, that
the sentiments of the qualified voters on the necessity of
a revision, must have been taken, and two thirds of them
must have been in favour of it, before a State Conven
tion could be called for amending the Constitution,
much more for dissolving the government.
Let us once more particularly attend to the system New system
itself. It begins, " We the People of the United States, daevSpotism.
in order to form a more perfect union," &c. " do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America" — In other words, We the people do hereby pub-
lickly declare the violation of the faith which we have
solemnly pledged to each other — do give the most unequiv
ocal evidence, that we cannot ourselves, neither can any
others, place the least confidence in our most solemn cove
nants, do effectually put an end in America, to governments
founded in compact — do relinquish that security for life,
liberty and property, which we had in the Constitutions
of these States, and of the Union — do give up govern
ments which we well understood, for a new system which
we have no idea of — and we do, by this act of ratification
and political suicide, destroy the new system itself, and
prepare the way for a despotism, if agreeable to our rulers.
All this we do, for the honour of having a system of con
solidation formed by us the people. This is not mag
nifying, for such are the facts, and such will be the
consequences. Indeed we find despotism not only in
contemplation of the Pennsylvanians, but openly avowed
in their State Convention, in the words following —
" DESPOTISM, if wisely administered, is the best system

154

APPENDIX B.

Attempts to
discreditmembers
of State
governments.

invented by the ingenuity of man." This was declared
by chief justice M'Kean; and in such an high office,
we must suppose him a man of too much precaution
to have made the declaration, had he not known, that
a majority of the Convention, and of the citizens, who
so highly applauded his speeches, were of his opinion.
M. Montesquieu, in his " Spirit of Laws," 1st vol. book 3,
chap. 9, says, " As virtue is necessary in a republick, and
honour in a monarchy, so fear is necessary in a despotick
government: With regard to virtue, there is no occa
sion for it, and honour would be extremely dangerous."
Thus has a declaration been made in Pennsylvania, in
favour of a government which substitutes fear for vir
tue, and reduces men from rational beings to the level
of brutes ; and if the citizens of Massachusetts are dis
posed to follow the example, and submit their necks to
the yoke, they must expect to be governed by the whip
and goad. But it is remarkable, that the resolution
of the Federal Convention, for transmitting the system
to the people, provided, " that the Constitution should
be laid before the United States in Congress assembled,
and afterwards submitted to a Convention of Delegates,
chosen in each State by the people thereof, under the
recommendation of its legislature ; thus making Con
gress and the legislatures, vehicles of conveyance, but
precluding them from passing their judgments on the
system. Had it been submitted to their consideration,
their members were men of such discernment, that the
defects as well as excellencies of the plan, would have
been clearly explained to the people ; but immediately
on the publication of it, we find measures were taken
to prejudice the people against all persons in the legis
lative, executive and judicial departments of the States
and Confederacy (if opposed to the plan) as being
actuated by motives of private interest. Mr. Wilson,
a member of the federal and Pennsylvanian Conven-

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 155
tion, in his town meeting speech, adopted this practice,
which, to say the least of it, was very illiberal. Indeed,
it is but justice to observe, that many artful advocates
of this plan, to cover their designs of creating a gov
ernment which will afford abundance of legislative
offices for placemen and pensioners, proclaimed suspicions
of others, and diverted the attention of the people from
themselves, on whom the odium should fall.
Let us now proceed to the provision in the system for a Provisions
representation of the people, which is the corner stone of station
a free government. The Constitution provides, art. 1st,
sect. 2, "that representatives and direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States, which may be in
cluded within this union, according to their respective
numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not
taxed, three fifths of all other persons." Representa- Representa
tives " then are to be apportioned among the several tlon ° s aves-
States, according to their respective numbers," and five
slaves, in computing those numbers, are to be classed
with three freemen — By which rule, fifty thousand
slaves, having neither liberty or property, will have a rep
resentative in that branch of the legislature — to which
more especially will be committed, the protection of the
liberties, and disposal of all the property of the freemen
of the Union — for thus stands the new Constitution.
Should it be said, that not the slaves but their masters
are to send a representative, the answer is plain — If the
slaves have a right to be represented, they are on a
footing with freemen, three of whom can then have no
more than an equal right of representation with three
\_sic] slaves, and these when qualified by property, may
elect or be elected representatives, which is not the case :
But if they have not a right to be represented, their
masters can have no right derived from their slaves, for

156 APPENDIX B.
these cannot transfer to others what they have not them
selves. Mr. Locke, in treating of political or civil socie
ties, chap. 7, sect. 85, says, that men " being in the state
of slavery, not capable of any property, cannot in that
state, be considered as any part of civil society, the
chief end whereof, is the preservation of property." If
slaves, then, are no part of civil society, there can be no
more reason in admitting them, than there would be in
admitting the beasts of the field, or trees of the forest,
to be classed with free electors. What covenant are the
Its dangers, freemen of Massachusetts about to ratify? A covenant
that will degrade them to the level of slaves, and give to
the States who have as many blacks as whites, eight rep
resentatives, for the same number of freemen as will en
able this State to elect five — Is this an equal, a safe, or
a righteous plan of government? Indeed it is not. But
if to encrease these objections, it should be urged, " that
representation being regulated by the same rule as
taxation, and taxation being regulated by a rule in
tended to ascertain the relative property of the States,
representation will then be regulated by the principle
of property." This answer would be the only one that
could be made, for representation, according to the
new Constitution is to be regulated, either by numbers
or property.
Property as a Let us now inquire of those who take this ground,
sentat°ion?Pre" what right they have to put a construction on the con
stitution, which is repugnant to the express terms of
the Constitution itself? This provides, " that represen
tatives shall be apportioned among the several States,
according to their respective numbers." Not a word of
property is mentioned, but the word " numbers " is re
peatedly expressed — Admitting however that property
was intended by the Constitution as the rule of repre
sentation, does this mend the matter? it will be but a
short time, after the adoption of the new Constitution,

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 157
before the State legislatures, and establishments in gen
eral will be so burthensome and useless as to make the
people desirous of being rid of them, for they will not
be able to support them. The State appointment of
Representatives will then cease, but the principle of rep
resentation according to property, will undoubtedly be
retained, and before it is established it is necessary to
consider whether it is a just one, for if once it is adopted
it will not be easily altered. — According to this principle,
a man worth .£50,000, is to have as many votes for
representatives in the new Congress, as one thousand
men, worth £50 each : And sixty such nabobs may send
two representatives, while sixty thousand freemen hav
ing ^50 each can only send the same number. Does
not this establish in the representative branch of the
new Congress, a principle of aristocracy with a ven
geance? The Constitution [sic] of the several States,
admit of no such principle, neither can any freeman with
safety thus surrender, not only the intire disposition
of their property, but also, the controul of their liber
ties and lives to a few opulent citizens. Should it
be said that the rule of federal taxation, being advan
tageous to the State, it should be content with the
same rule for representation. The answer is plain, its effect
the rule gives no advantage, but is supposed to be £ku^afssa'
advantageous to Massachusetts, and to be an accom
modation very beneficial to the southern States: But
admiting this State will be benefited by the rule, is
it disposed to sell its birthright, the right of an equal
representation in the federal councils for so small a con
sideration ? Would this State give up that right to any
State that would pay our whole proportion of direct and
indirect taxes ? Shall we relinquish some of the most
essential rights of government, which are our only se
curity for every thing dear to us, to avoid our propor
tion of the publick expense, shall we give up all we

i58

APPENDIX B.

have, for a small part of it? This if agreed to would
be no great evidence of our wisdom or foresight But
it is not probable, in the opinion of some of the ablest
Levy of direct advocates for the new system, that direct taxes will ever
probable! be leviec3 on the States, and if not, the provision for
levying such taxes will be nugatory : We shall receive
no kind of benefit from it, and shall have committed
ourselves to the mercy of the states having slaves,
without any consideration whatever. Indeed, should
direct taxes be necessary, shall we not by increasing
the representation of those States, put it in their power
to prevent the levying such taxes, and thus defeat
our own purposes? Certainly we shall, and having
given up a substantial and essential right, shall in lieu
of it, have a mere visionary advantage. Upon the
whole then, it must be evident, that we might as well
have committed ourselves to the parliament of Great-
Britain, under the idea of a virtual representation as in
this manner resign ourselves to the federal government.
[REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST.]

No. VI.

Party spirit
in the State
Convention

[Massachusetts Centinel, January 30, 1788.]
WHOEVER has attended the debates of the Conven
tion, must already be convinced, that the magnitude
of the object, and the anxiety of the members, whether
for or against the system as it stands, has produced a
party spirit which augurs no good. It has now become
a struggle for conquest ; rather than for conviction : And
great as the characters are which compose the Conven
tion, their talents are more employed to make proselytes
in favour or against than to investigate precisely and

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 1 59
explain clearly the merits and demerits of the proposed
Constitution. It must likewise appear, that so many
able and eloquent speakers as there are in favour of it,
from the supreme executive, judicial and legislative de
partments, as well as from the bar, desk, medical and
military professions, that there is not a prospect of
doing justice to the objections against the plan.
Should it, therefore, in this state of affairs, be carried by
a small majority, what must be the consequences?
They are too apparent, and too ruinous to contemplate,
and every one is left to form his idea of them. The Adjournment
same would probably be the effect of a negative, and agam urge '
the farther we proceed in this business, the more evident
is it, that an adjournment until the sense of Virginia and
other States can be known, is not only proper, but in-
dispensibly necessary for the peace and welfare of this
State. — To persuade the people that this system will
produce advantages which will never flow from it, or to
conceal from them the burthen and coercion that will re
sult from it, will be impolitick in the extreme, for the
deception must appear as soon as the plan is adminis
tered, and the new administration itself will be over
whelmed, and all federal government be prostrated by
an enraged and disappointed people. I am sensible
that many worthy men are for adopting this plan, not
because they approve of it, but from an idea that we shall
never obtain another ; but what reason is there for this
apprehension? The whole Continent are desirous of an
efficient federal government — The first constitution
proposed to the people of Massachusetts was rejected
by them; it originated improperly as this did, and if it
had not, it was not a good one. The people therefore
made a second attempt, and succeeded in it ; and is
there not the same reason to hope for success in the
present case ? Or if we fail, that the attempt will prob
ably make us unanimous in adopting this system? But

i6o

APPENDIX B.

Summary
of argument
as to repre
sentation.

is it not extraordinary, that a Constitution should be
proposed by gentlemen, who had no authority what
ever to form it — that they should dissolve themselves
without knowing the objections of the people, and that
the latter should now be told, they must take this or
have none? This may be language adapted to slaves,
but not to freemen.
By my last, I think it must fully appear, that the ap
portionment of representatives by the new system, is to
be either according to numbers or property — If accord
ing to numbers, that we are to commit ourselves by an
unequal representation to the States who are peo
pled in a great measure with slaves, and if according
to property that we are to adopt in our representa
tive branch the most extraordinary principle for estab
lishing an aristocracy, that ever was imposed on a free
people. The Constitution further provides, that " the
actual enumeration shall be made within three years
after the first meeting of the Congress of the United
States, and within every subsequent term of ten years,
in such manner as they shall by law direct." The
whole number of freemen and slaves at this time,
according to the best information, is about two millions
seven hundred thousand, of which six hundred thou
sand at least are slaves — two millions one hundred
thousand freemen then, and three hundred and sixty
thousand, being three fifths of the slaves, will make the
present enumeration two millions four hundred and
sixty thousand. If we suppose (what considering the
continual emigrations from the old to the new States
cannot be admitted) that in every twenty years we shall
double our numbers, at the end of three years the enu
meration will be two millions eight hundred and twenty-
nine thousand, and what is to be done with this
enumeration? The Constitution in the next paragraph
provides, that " the number of representatives shall not

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 161
exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State
shall have at least one representative, and until such
enumeration shall be made, New-Hampshire shall be
intitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight," &c. &c.
The people then are called upon to ratify a Constitu- Limitation
tion, which provides that they shall, never have above °n r"p^er
one representative for thirty thousand inhabitants, with- sentatives.
out providing that they shall have one for that number :
This clause, whilst it restrains the new government from
allowing more than one representative to the number
mentioned, authorizes it by making the rule of appor
tionment one or two hundred thousand inhabitants for
each representative, to reduce their number to twenty-
eight or even to fourteen. This is so clear, that the
warmest advocate for the new system will risque his
reputation for candour by denying it. If there was
no discretionary power intended to be lodged in the
new Congress, to reduce the number of representatives
lower than one for every thirty thousand inhabitants, it
would have been provided, that " the number of repre
sentatives " shall be at least one for every thirty thou
sand ; and not as it now stands, " that it shall not
exceed one " for that number. It may be said, perhaps,
that the increase of the inhabitants will be such here
after as that it will be necessary for Congress to have
the power to make the rule of apportionment higher
than thirty thousand ; but why then was it not provided,
that the people should be allowed one representative
for every thirty thousand, until the representation
amounted to a certain number? Even two hundred
representatives for a legislature, invested as this is to
be, with almost unlimited powers, over the lives, liber
ties and property of the citizens of these States, is not
too much at this early period : — Why should we then,
having but sixty-five representatives, intrust Congress
with a power to reduce this to a much less number?

1 62

APPENDIX B.

Power to
reduce the
number of
represen tatives.

Representa-
1 tion already

Perhaps it will be said, there is only a possibility of this
evil ; but in the progress of these papers I think it will
appear there is a probability if not a certainty, that
when Congress shall have established their revenue-acts,
and standing army, which will be accomplished in a few
years, they will reduce the number of representatives
so low, and regulate their elections in such a manner, as
effectually to destroy the representation of the people.
Some indeed may say, that if it was greater than at
present, it would be expensive and burthensome; but
this is too trifling an objection to deserve refutation;
for the people of the country know well, that their
greatest security against a tyrannical government con
sists in a full and free representation — full as to the
number of representatives — free as to the right of
election, and they are not thus to be bubbled out of
their liberties. Should it be admitted, that at the end
of three years there will be a representative for every
thirty thousand inhabitants, the whole number in the
federal legislature will then be ninety-four, and this
State's proportion thirteen, and after that time no alter
ation will be made until the year eighteen hundred and
one : And are the citizens of this State disposed to com
mit every thing dear to them, for the space' of thirteen
years, to a government, constituted as the new one is
to be, with only eight representatives for part of the
time, and thirteen for the remainder of it? — Are the
States having slaves, to have according to the number
of freemen a much greater representation than this
State? And if there had been no objection of this kind,
are the State governments to be subject to annihilation,
and when this is accomplished, is the principle of prop
erty, which is now contended for as the rule of apportion
ment, to be then the rule for electing representatives,
whereby sixty or a less number of wealthy men, may
elect as many representatives as sixty thousand yeomen?

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 163
What is the number of freemen in Great-Britain, and Comparison
how many representatives have they? The number, Britain**'
I think, is computed to be about eight millions, and
" the number of English representatives, is five hundred
and thirteen, and of Scots forty-five, in all five hundred
and eighty-eight." In this proportion we should have
a representative for every thirteen thousand six hun
dred inhabitants, and this State would have thirty repre
sentatives in the new Congress. Will the people of
this State intrust themselves to a government which will
have the power, and every motive to reduce the number
of representatives to one half or to one quarter of what
they are now to be, and thus to deprive the citizens of
their best security for liberty? I think they will not,
and that it ought not to be expected of them.
(To be continued.)

No. VII.
[Massachusetts Centinel, "Extraordinary," February 2, 1788.
Marked "Concluded from our last."]
I AM sensible it will be said the Constitution pro- Abolition
vides " that the electors in each State shall have the governments.
qualification requisite for electors of the most numerous
branch of the State legislatures." But the new Consti
tution was evidently intended to, and must in its oper
ation inevitably produce an abolition of the State
governments, and when this is accomplished, the rule
of apportionment of representatives according to prop
erty, must and will apply to electors, and have the
effect mentioned. There would nevertheless be some
consolation, if these were the only objections relative
to representation in the new system, but in the sec
ond sect, of the first art. there is a provision that " no
person shall be a representative who shall not have

1 64

APPENDIX B.

Eligibility of
foreigners for office

will lead to
Europeanintrigue.

attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been
seven years a citizen of the United States," &c. had
this provision extended to the foreigners who under
the government of the United States, had contended
for the establishment of our independence, it would
have met with no objection; but as it now stands,
any foreigner having attained the age of twenty five
years, having been seven years a citizen of the United
States, and being an inhabitant of any State, may
be elected a representative — and the right of being
elected senators, is confirmed to foreigners who shall
have attained " the age of thirty years," and " who shall
have been nine years a citizen of the United States, &c."
Thus are we to have a supreme legislature over us, to
consist as well of foreigners, as of freemen of the United
States. — Citizens of America ! What have you
for a number of years been contending for? To what
purpose have you expended so freely the blood and
treasures of this country? To have a government with
unlimited powers administered by foreigners ? Will
there not be immediately planted in the several States,
men of abilities, who, having the appearance of privates,
will nevertheless be in the pay of foreign powers? Will
not such men ingratiate themselves into your favour, or,
which will be much better for them, into the favour of
the new government? And after seven years residence,
will they not be in your federal house of representa
tives, or after nine years residence in your senate? Will
not the most important secrets of your executive, re
specting treaties and other matters, be by these means
always open to European powers? Will you not be
engaged in their trials? Will not your interest be sacri
ficed to their politicks ? And will you not be the puppets
of foreign Courts ? Perhaps you will be told that this
provision will encourage emigrants, who will bring their
money to America; but will you for such precarious

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 165
and futile prospects consent to part with the right of
governing yourselves? How carefully is this point
guarded by Great-Britain. Judge Blackstone, book first, Naturaliza- ¦
chap, tenth, says, " naturalization cannot be performed Grea^Britain
but by act of parliament, for by this an alien is put in
exactly the same state as if he had been born in the
king's legiance, except only that he is incapable as well
as a denizen of being a member of the privy council, or
of parliament, no bill for naturalization can be received
in either house of parliament without such disqualify
ing clause in it." Other European powers are equally
careful to exclude foreigners from their councils, whilst
we, too wise to be benefited by the experience of govern
ments which have existed for ages, and have attained
the zenith of power, are adopting new principles, and
exposing ourselves to evils which must inevitably lead
us to destruction.
What I before hinted respecting the danger of ratify- The crisis in
ing the new Constitution, as it stands, is now too evident ennsy vama-
to admit of a doubt: The opposition in Pennsylvania
have been so imprudent as to burn in effigy, Judge
M'Kean and Mr. Wilson, two of the leading members
of their State Convention. The offenders are of ob
scure, and perhaps contemptible characters, and there
is danger, that they will be arrested, without considering
the probability of their having been excited to this out
rage by men of influence — that the government will
be opposed — and that a civil war will commence, which
will flame through this continent, the consequences of
which are to be dreaded: Thus will the fairest pros
pects that ever a people had of establishing for them
selves good government, be at once blasted by imprudent
zeal and cursed ambition.
The virulent supporters of the new system, say, as Aristocracy
those did in the parliament of Great-Britain, who mocracy.
pushed the American revenue-acts, that the opposition

1 66

APPENDIX B.

Biennial
elections not
an objection.

Mas'sachu-
settk's repre
sentationtoo small.

consists principally of men of low and vulgar minds, but
the event will be much the same in the one case as in
the other : The yeomenry supported by men of abilities
and integrity in the several States, and standing on the
ground of right, will maintain it; and in case of a war,
will derive [drive?] from this continent, many valuable
men amongst us, who although now deceived by an aristo-
cratick party, will be considered as usurpers and tyrants.
These are not the apprehensions of a timid mind, they
are predictions founded on our own experience, and
God grant, that the wisdom of this Convention, on which
is suspended the fate of America, may avert the im
pending evil. You have now the confidence of your
countrymen, and it is hoped will not be deprived of it,
by the arts of any individuals with interested views : You
are now in possession of an inestimable jewel, which
if lost by a hasty ratification, will never be regained. It
is not my wish to make any objections to the new sys
tem that are not well founded, and such I conceive to
be those against biennial elections : For, considering
the extent of the continent — the complicated business of
the legislature — the experience requisite for its mem
bers — the necessity of their punctual attendance —
and their arrangements for quitting their States, and
familiar biennial elections, are not lengthy or danger
ous ; but can there be any reason, that in the first
Congress, when the most important institutions and
provisions will be made for carrying into effect the new
system, Massachusetts, who according to her numbers
of freemen, is entitled to nearly eleven out of sixty-
five, should have but eight representatives? It must
clearly appear, by my former numbers, that by the clause
for regulating representation, we are to be reduced to
the level of slaves, and that we shall soon be such, if
the planters of the south are to send to the new Con
gress, representatives for three fifths of their negroes.

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 1 67
But if this rule was even admissible, we are entitled to
above nine representatives according to the present
enumeration, and are told, as a consolation for having
but eight members, that New-Hampshire has the de
ficient number, which to us is the same thing. This to
me is unintelligible, for the members of both houses are
to be paid out of the continental treasury, to which we
shall contribute a full proportion according to our prop
erty : Why then should we give up to any State what
ever, the important privilege of sending a representative?
New-Hampshire is a good neighbour, but like other
States, has her separate interests, and in pursuit of it,
our's may and will be sacrificed, by such an unreasonable
concession. It is remarkable, that in the new system Absence of
there is no qualification of property, for members of qualification
either branch of the federal legislature. It is surprizing for office
to some gentlemen in Convention, that others should
wish "to exclude from the federal government a good
man, because he was not a rich one " — No such thing is
in contemplation, but on the other hand, they wish to
send him there, and want to know what security there is,
that a good man, not being wealthy, shall long continue
to be eligible to such an office? If there was provision
in the Constitution, that any citizen having three, six, or
even nine hundred pounds estate, should be eligible, and
that one of those sums should be requisite to qualify
him, the publick would be equally guarded against a
representation of persons having no property at all, and
an exclusion of good men, because not wealthy : But the
objection to the Constitution is, that it has no provision
for securing the eligibility of good men. If good mem- will permit
bers without much property, should oppose the wealthy enactan ob-
but unprincipled ones in Congress, and prevent their noxious one.
passing oppressive acts, such as revenue-acts, calculated
to promote peculation — to protect defaulters — and
to plunder the people, (as this system undoubtedly will

1 68

APPENDIX B.

The " neces
sary and
proper "
clause.

Congres
sional control
of elections

is based on
fear of the
State legis
latures ;

of all their property) will not those unprincipled mem
bers exert themselves to pass an act, requiring for
senators and representatives so high a qualification of
property, as to exclude for ever from Congress, the good
men who have not great estates? Surely they will,
being fully authorized thereto by the omnipotent clause,
enabling Congress " to make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the fore
going powers and all other powers, vested by this Con
stitution, in the government of the United States, or in
any department or office thereof." This I call an om
nipotent clause, for I must believe the man who says, that
he he [sic] can see in its aphelion, a comet which requires
a century for its revolution, as soon as him that says, he
can see the extent to which an artful and arbitrary legis
lature, can by this clause stretch their powers. We shall
next consider the most important clause respecting rep
resentation, in art. 1st. sect. 4th. which provides, " that
the times, places, and manner of holding elections for
senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each
State by the legislature thereof: But the Congress may
at any time by law, make or alter such regulations, ex
cept as to the places of choosing senators." — Great
ingenuity has been manifested in attempts to explain
away the meaning and tendency of this fatal clause — a
clause destructive of the small but best security which
the people by the new system will have for preserving
their liberties : Let us candidly attend to the arguments
urged on this occasion. One is, that the legislatures,
or as they are called the sovereignties of the States, are
to be the constituents of the federal senate, and the
people, the constituents of the house of representatives ;
that in the frequent struggles and contentions between
these two branches to depress and controul each other,
each will be supported by its constituents, and therefore
that the State legislatures, if uncontrouled by the fed-

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 169
eral legislature, would endeavour so to regulate the times,
places, and manner of holding elections, as to deprive
the people of their right of representation — Here,
besure, is the appearance of great tenderness for the
rights of the people, and nothing but the appearance ; for
an imaginary danger of loosing their rights is held up to
them to them [sic] to introduce a remedy which must in
evitably deprive them of those rights. That there will be but such
such struggles and contentions between the two branches, founded!1"
is admitted — but is it natural to suppose, that the
State legislatures, in aid of the federal senate, will wish
to destroy the federal representation? Are not the
members of one branch of the State legislatures in all the
States and of the other branch, in most of them, elected
annually, or for a less time? Are not those members
dependent on the people for re-elections, and equally
With them affected by all federal and state laws? Can
those members have any separate interest from the
people for destroying the balance in the federal legis
lature ? And if they could have such a separate inter
est, and should attempt to impair or destroy the right
of choosing federal representatives, would not the peo
ple instantly feel the injury, and leave out of the legis
lature men so inimical to their rights? Was there no
controuling power in the federal legislature for altering
or regulating the times, places, and manner of holding
elections, would not the people, by annually electing
those who are to make the regulations, have every check
requisite for securing the right of elections ? If, indeed,
the members of the State legislatures held their offices
independent of the people, and had separate interests,
there would be some ground for the argument — but,
dependent as they are, and having the same interests
with the people, they cannot. [REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST.]

170

APPENDIX B.

No. VIII.

In conflicts
between Fed
eral Senate
and House,

State legisla
tures are the
only proper
umpire.

[Massachusetts Centinel, February 6, 1788.]
LET us, however, suppose the federal senate, in such
a mighty squabble calling on their constituents, the
State legislatures, for aid to impair or destroy the dem-
ocratical federal branch. Is it possible that the mem
bers of any State senate or house, would " introduce
such regulations, as would render the right of the peo
ple, insecure," or " make on [sic] unequal and partial
division of the State into districts," or " disqualify one
third of the electors," as has been urged? Would the
members from Worcester, or Hampshire, in either
branch consent to regulations which would deprive their
constituents of their suffrages and increase the privi
leges of the electors of Suffolk, or any other county?
Could the members in either branch of the State legis
lature, ever have a motive to adopt such measures, as
would deprive themselves as well as their constituents
from influencing the elections of federal representa
tives? Will not the members of the State legislatures, as
part of the collective body, be the constituents of the fed
eral repi-esentatives? Will not the State legislatures,
being thus the constituents of both branches, be the only
safe and proper umpire for preserving the harmony and
ballance of the federal legislature? Will not the State
legislatures knowing there can be no security for prop
erty under a rapacious aristocracy, leave out of the fed
eral senate every member that shall aim at an undue
controul of the house, and endeavour to produce by the
people the same change of such federal representatives,
as shall encroach on the rights of the senate? Surely
they would; and it is unnatural to suppose that the
State legislatures can have any interest in aiding the
federal senate to destroy the ballance of the federal

LETTERS OF "A REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST." 171
legislature, or if they had, that the measure would be
attempted ; or if it was, that the people would need any
other assistance, than their rights, under the State Consti
tutions to defeat the attempt. But let us suppose there is
some danger of this evil, is it to be avoided by incuring
one much greater? The federal senators, except two
thirds of the first senate, will be always elected for six
and the house for two years. The members of both the
federal branches from the duration and respectability of
their appointments, and from their lucrative establish
ments, to be made by themselves, will have a great interest
in their offices, and every motive to perpetuate them. This Tendency
will be a common interest, and may, (as I think will evi- baleful a
dently appear) be attained without even altering the aristocracy.
form of the new Constitution, so excellently well adapted
is it, to the establishment of a baleful aristocracy. The
federal legislature may, as has been shewn, and un
doubtedly will, make the qualification of property so
high, as that few in each State can be elected to either
the senate or house : Whilst the revenue laws and other
civil establishments in the executive and judicial depart
ments of the union, will necessarily produce through the
Continent, swarms of officers, who being nominated by
the President, and appointed by and with the advice and
consent of the senate, will be in their interest, and in the
interest of the house likewise, as grants will be made by
their joint concurrence. All the federal military offi
cers will be appointed in the same manner, and be in
the same interest — all the militia officers, through the
continent, where appointments are by the new system,
reserved to the States, will nevertheless, as the military
officers under the present Confederation, be commis
sioned by the President of the United States, and at
tached to the congressional interest. All the late officers
of the army who are a very reputable and influential
body of men, and who are united by an institution, which

172 APPENDIX B.
gives them ten times the influence they would otherwise
have, will have the same attachment to federal govern-
This tendency ment. How easy then, will it be with such support, for a
purity"? rep^ body of such able men as will compose Congress to estab-
resentation. lisn the elections of federal representatives at the metrop
olis as at any other place, in each state, and when this is
effected, to collect the congressional or crown officers
(as they soon will be called) at that place, and carry the
elections for these senators and representatives who shall
be in the aristocratical interest of the federal govern
ment, leaving out all honest republicans, who shall have
been so vulgar as to have paid any regard to the inter
est of their constituents ?
[REPUBLICAN FEDERALIST.]

sources.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ON THE SOURCES.
The sources that have been used in the preparation
of this essay may be grouped chiefly under the "follow
ing heads : (i) manuscripts in the Archives of the State
of Massachusetts; (2) contemporary pamphlets and
newspapers; (3) published correspondence of men of
the time; and (4) the reports of the Rebates of the
ratifying Convention.
(1) Among the materials in the Archives bearing Manuscript
upon the topic of this paper, the most important are
the reports of the votes of the several towns upon vari
ous matters connected with the formation of the State
Constitution and with the ratification of the Articles of
Confederation; the Journals and other papers of the
Senate and the House of Representatives; and the
papers of the ratifying Convention of 1788. A large
amount of interesting matter illustrative of the political
ideas of the people throughout the different sections of
the .State may be gleaned from the first of these sources.
The Journals of the House and the Senate are of con
siderable value in connection with the calling of the
Convention and with the proceedings relating to the
Constitution after its ratification by that body; but
the meagreness of the entries of this period is often
provoking. The fact, however, that most of the motions,
committee reports, and other miscellaneous papers of
the General Court have been preserved, goes some way
toward remedying this defect. The papers of the Con-

174

APPENDIX C.

Pamphletson the
Constitution.

vention of 1788 comprise the Journal of the proceedings
of that body, petitions concerning disputed elections
and the action of the various committees to which each
was referred, the pay-roll of the convention, and various
miscellaneous papers, such as excuses presented by
members for absence, etc. ; of these the pay-roll and
excuses of absent members are about the only ones that
have not yet been printed.
(2) The Constitution itself was issued in pamphlet
form in a number of editions. Of pamphlets against
the Constitution, written by persons from without the
State, R. H. Lee's Letters of the Federal Farmer, and
the Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Pennsylvania
Minority, seem to have been the chief ones circulated in
Massachusetts, the New York Committee of Federal
Republicans apparently taking the initiative in their dis
semination.1 Of pamphlets written by Massachusetts
men, Jackson's Thoughts upon the Political Situation
of the United States of America (1788) is chiefly val
uable for the light it throws upon the political theo
ries that prevailed among the aristocratic class after the
convulsions of 1786-87. Gerry's Observations on the
New Constitution . . . By a Columbian Patriot (1788)
is about the only pamphlet originating in the State
which is in the nature of a discussion of the Constitu
tion ; and, as Mr. Ford indicates, this was " probably
printed for Gerry for limited circulation only," 2 though
a large number of copies were afterward printed by Green-
leaf for the New York Committee of Federal Republi
cans. Its contents have already been indicated in the text.
The Writings of Laco consist of a series of letters written
by Stephen Higginson in 1789 to prevent the re-election
1 For a list of the Antifederalist productions from without the
State which were published in the newspapers, see the note to page
17- 2 Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution, p. 407.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ON THE SOURCES. 1 75
of Governor Hancock in that year. They contain a
severe arraignment of the whole political life of the latter,
and are of value for the disclosures which they make
concerning Hancock's course during the Convention.
All but No. 7 of these were printed at the time in the
Massachusetts Centinel; the whole series was then imme
diately issued in pamphlet form for electioneering pur
poses. In 1857 the letters were reprinted under the
general title Ten Chapters in the Life of John Hancock.
The number of newspapers that were in existence in The newspa-
Massachusetts at the time when the Constitution was per ' era ure'
before the people, however, seems to have discouraged
the use of the pamphlet as a means of discussion. The
newspapers of the day constitute one of the richest
sources for the study of the political opinion of this
period. The most important, of course, are those pub
lished at Boston. Of these the Independent Chronicle
and the Massachusetts Centinel were strongly Federal,
though, in accordance with the custom of the time, com
munications on both sides of the question were freely
published. The Boston Gazette and Country Journal
(published by Benjamin Edes & Son), and the American
Herald (published by Edward-Eveleth Powars), leaned
to the other side of the question. This is especially
true of the latter; in it are to be found not only the
most rabid of the Antifederalist pieces, but also distinctly
editorial utterances against the Constitution. Because
of its Antifederalism, this paper, like the Pennsylvania
Herald during the contest in that State, seems to have
been "boycotted," and in August, 1788, we find it re
moved to Worcester; in October, 1789, it was forced to
discontinue. Of the papers published elsewhere in the State, the
Salem Mercury, the Hampshire Chronicle, the Hampshire
Gazette, and the Worcester Magazine are among the most
important for the purposes of this study. The last is

176 APPENDIX C.
merely another form of Isaiah Thomas's Massachusetts
Spy, which was suspended from March, 1786, to March,
1788, owing to the imposition by the State of a stamp
duty of two-thirds of a penny upon newspapers during
this period. The matter in all of these is in large part
clipped from the Boston or other metropolitan papers,
credit seldom being given. The most complete collec
tion of these newspapers is in the library of the Amer
ican Antiquarian Society at Worcester, Massachusetts;
and fairly complete files of some of them may be
found in the library of the Massachusetts Historical
Society and at the Boston Athenaeum.
Collections (3) Perhaps the most valuable collection of private
letters'3''6 letters bearing upon the contest in Massachusetts is that
drawn from the papers of George Thatcher, of Biddeford,
Maine, and published in the old Historical Magazine for
November and December, 1869. Some three score let
ters are there printed, bearing in whole or in part upon
the Constitution. Thatcher was delegate to Congress
from Massachusetts in 1787-88, and was kept fully in
formed of the state of public opinion on the Constitution,
especially of that in Maine, by his correspondents, among
whom are numbered several of the most active Antifed
eralists in the Convention. In the Life and Correspond
ence of Rufus King there is also much important material
for this study. The letters of Christopher Gore, the
founder of Gore Hall, the library building of Harvard
College, kept King informed of the progress of events
until the latter's return to Boston in time to attend the
Convention; after that we find much valuable matter in
King's own letters to Madison, Knox, and others. In
Jeremy Belknap's correspondence with Ebenezer Hazard
(in the Belknap Papers), we get the impressions of a
trained historian, somewhat tinctured, however, with
aristocratic prejudice ; the letters do not pretend to give
more than the impressions of a spectator. In the printed

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ON THE SOURCES. 1 77
biographies of such men as Gerry, Sullivan, and Samuel
Adams, there is practically nothing of importance, all
letters and other papers that might have shown the
activity of these men against the Constitution having
apparently been suppressed by their respective biogra
phers, or by other persons.
(4) Of the reports of the debates in the Convention, Reports of
four editions are in existence ; they are all, however, e e a es'
founded upon the same notes, and differ from one another,
in the main, only as to the extent of supplementary mat
ter. These notes were taken chiefly by Benjamin Russell,
of the Massachusetts Centinel, and were first published in
that paper ; they were then printed in but slightly altered
form under the title, Debates, Resolutions and other Pro
ceedings, of the Convention . . . Together with the Yeas
and Nays on the decision of the Grand Question (Boston,
1788). In a note to this edition, the editor recognizes
the existence of " some inaccuracies, and many omis
sions," due to the " inexperience " of the reporters ; the
reports of some of the speeches, however, were revised
by their authors, and in some cases, particularly in those
of the less educated members, there seems to have been
considerable correction on the part of the reporter —
indeed, it is asserted that such correction extended, in
some cases, even to the alteration of the sentiments ex
pressed.1 In 1808 this work was republished at Boston,
practically unaltered except in spelling and punctua
tion ; and in 1827-30, and in subsequent editions, it was
again republished in Elliot's Debates in the several State
Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.
In 1856 another, and in every way the best, edition of
the Massachusetts debates was issued, this time under
1 D. Sewall to Thatcher, March 4, 1788 : Thatcher Papers,
No. 41. The speeches of General Thompson are cited as exam
ples of such alteration.

178 APPENDIX C.
the authorization of the Legislature, and under the edi
torship of Messrs. B. K. Peirce and Charles Hale. In
this edition we have not only the debates as reported by
Russell (with the spelling and punctuation of the edition
of 1808), but also brief notes taken by Theophilus Par
sons, which are often of considerable value in supple
menting and correcting the former ; the Journal of the
Convention is also included, together with petitions
from several towns concerning contested elections and
the action of committees thereon, many letters from
Washington, Lincoln, Madison, and others in regard to
the contest, and a number of extracts from contemporary
newspapers. These four editions vary somewhat in their
lists of yeas and nays on the question of the ratification ;
for a discussion of this subject, see Libby, Geographical
Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the
Federal Constitution, Appendix B.
In addition to Russell's reports and Parson's notes,
the minutes of the proceedings kept by Jeremy Belknap
are also in existence, and have been published in the
Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for
1858. They are brief, but often of much value.
Secondary Of the secondary works dealing with this subject,
Barry's History of Massachusetts gives the fullest ac
count ; it is concerned, however, almost entirely with the
action of the Convention, and leaves unworked the mass
of newspaper literature and the letters of less prominent
personages which enable one to go behind the scenes.
Bancroft's History of the Formation of the Constitution
(1882) is briefer than the foregoing, but so far as the
proceedings in the Convention are concerned, it gives
an excellent account; Bancroft does not, however, fully
grasp the causes of the opposition, nor does it seem to
the present writer that he duly appreciates the position
of Governor Hancock. The account in Curtis's Consti-

works

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ON THE SOURCES. 179
tutional History of the United States is satisfactory only
as a brief summary : the discussion both in and out of
the Convention is merely alluded to, and the author's
understanding of Samuel Adams's position with respect
to Hancock's " conciliatory proposition " seems to be a
mistaken one (see Bancroft, History of the Formation of
the Constitution, II. 270, note). McMaster's account, in
his History of the People of the United States, possesses
both the virtues and the faults of that writer : he alone
rightly appreciates the influence of the antagonism be
tween the democracy and the aristocracy in the contest ;
but he seems to ascribe too great an influence to Shays's
Rebellion in producing a Federal reaction in Massachu
setts, and he also puts too much credence in the charges
of bribery brought against members of the Convention.
Fiske, in his Critical Period, does not pretend to make
any original contribution to the subject; he certainly
errs in ascribing to Samuel Adams such great influence
in the Convention

D.
LIST OF AUTHORITIES CITED.
Adams, John. Works. Edited by Charles Francis Adams.
10 vols. Boston, 1856.
Adams, Samuel. Life and Public Services. By William
Vincent Wells. 3 vols. Boston, 1865.
American Antiquarian Society. Proceedings.
Bancroft, George. History of the Formation of the
Constitution of the United States of America. Third edition.
2 vols. New York. 1882-83.
Belknap, Jeremy. Minutes of the Convention of 1788.
In Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society
for 1858. Boston, 1859.
Belknap, Jeremy. Papers. In Collections of the Massa
chusetts Historical Society, 5 th Series. Boston, 1877.
Curtis, George Ticknor. Constitutional History of the
United States. Vol.1. New York, 1889.
Elliot, Jonathan. The Debates in the several State Con
ventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, etc.
Second edition, with considerable additions. 5 vols. Phila
delphia, 1 86 1.
Essex Institute. Historical Collections.
Ford, Paul Leicester (Editor) . Pamphlets on the Con
stitution of the United States, published during its Discussion
by the People: 1 787-1 788. Brooklyn, 1888 and 1892.
Gerry, Elbridge. Life ; with Contemporary Letters. By
James T. Austin. 2 vols. Boston, 1828-1829.
[Gerry, Elbridge.] Observations on the New Constitution,
and on the Federal and State Conventions. By a Columbian
Patriot. [Boston, 1788.]

LIST OF AUTHORITIES CITED. 181
Hancock, John. Biographical Sketch of the Life and
Character of his late Excellency Governor Hancock. [By
James Sullivan.] 16 pp. Boston, £1793].
Haynes, Fred Emory, The Struggle for the Constitution
in Massachusetts: 1 775-1 780. Cambridge, 1891. (MS.
Thesis for Ph.D., Harvard University.)
[Higginson, Stephen.] The Writings of Laco, as pub
lished in the Massachusetts Centinel in the months of
February and March, 1789, with the addition of No. VII,
which was omitted. Boston, 1789. (Reprinted as "Ten
Chapters in the Life of John Hancock." New York, 1857.)
[Jackson, Jonathan.] Thoughts upon the Political Situation
of the United States of America, in which that of Massachusetts
is more particularly considered. With some Observations on
the Constitution for a Federal Government. ... By a Native
of Boston. Worcester, 1788.
King, Rufus. Life and Correspondence. Edited by his
grandson, Charles R. King. 3 vols, issued. New York,
1894-96. Knox, Henry. Life and Correspondence. By Francis S.
Drake. Boston, 1873.
Laco, Writings of. See Higginson, Stephen.
Lanman, Charles. Biographical Annals of the Civil Gov
ernment of the United States. Second edition. New York,
1887. Lee, Richard Henry. Memoir of the Life of Richard
Henry Lee, and his Correspondence. ... By his grandson,
Richard H. Lee. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1825.
Libby, Ortn Grant. The Geographical Distribution of the
Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution.
(Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin.) Madison, 1894.
McMaster, John Bach, and Stone, Frederick Dawson.
Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution: 1 787-1 788.
Philadelphia, 1888.
Madison, James. Letters and other Writings. 4 vols.
Philadelphia, 1865.
Madison, James. Papers . . . ; being his correspondence

1 82 APPENDIX D.
and reports of debates . . . Henry D. Gilpin, editor. 3 vols.
New York, 1841.
Massachusetts. Debates, Resolutions, and other Proceed
ings, of the Convention [of 1788] . . . Boston, 1788.
Massachusetts. Debates, Resolutions and other Proceed
ings of the Convention [of 1788] . . . Boston, 1808.
Massachusetts. Debates and Proceedings in the Conven
tion of . . . 1788. Published by order of the Legislature.
Boston, 1856.
Massachusetts. Journal of the Convention for Framing a
Constitution of Government for the State of Massachusetts Bay ;
1 779-1 780. With an Appendix. Published by order of the
Legislature. Boston, 1832.
Massachusetts. Resolves of the General Court ... re
specting the sale of Eastern Lands. . . . Boston, 1 803.
Massachusetts Archives. MS. in the State House, Boston.
Massachusetts Historical Society. Collections.
Massachusetts Historical Society. Proceedings.
Minot, George Richards. The History of the Insurrec
tions, in Massachusetts, in the year 1786, and the Rebellion
consequent thereon. Worcester, 1788.
Parsons, Theophilus. Memoir; with notices of some of
his contemporaries. By his son, Theophilus Parsons. Boston,
1859. Periodicals —
American Herald, Boston.
Boston Gazette and Country Journal, Boston.
Hampshire Chronicle, Springfield, Mass.
Hampshire Gazette, Northampton, Mass.
Historical Magazine, Morrisania, New York.
Independent Chronicle, Boston.
Massachusetts Centinel, Boston.
Massachusetts Gazette, Boston.
Salem Mercury, Salem, Mass.
Worcester Magazine, 1 786-1 788, Worcester, Mass.
Poore, Benjamin Perley. The Political Register and Con
gressional Directory. Boston, 1878.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES CITED. 183
Pynchon, William. Diary. Edited by F. E. Oliver.
Boston, 1890.
Scott, Erastus Howard (Editor). The FederaUst, and
other Constitutionalist Papers. Chicago, 1894.
Sparks, Jared. Correspondence of the American Revolu
tion ; being Letters of Eminent Men to George Washington.
4 vols. Boston, 1853.
Sullivan, James. Life ; with Selections from his Writings.
By Thomas Coffin Amory. 2 vols. Boston, 1859.
Thatcher, George. Selections from the Papers of; in the
Historical Magazine for November and December, 1869.
Town Histories —
Adams, Charles Francis.' History of Braintree . . . and
Quincy . . . 1639-1889. Cambridge, 1891.
Bailey, Sarah Loring. Historical Sketches of Andover.
Boston, 1880.
Benedict, William A., and Tracey, Hiram A. History
of the Town of Sutton, Massachusetts: 1 704-1876.
Worcester, 1878.
Bourne, Edward Emerson. The History of Wells and
Kennebunk, from the earliest settlement to the year
1820. Portland, 1875.
Dean, Samuel. History of Scituate, Mass., from its first
settlement to 1831. Boston, 1831.
Heywood, William Sweetzer. History of Westminster,
Massachusetts: 1 728-1893. Lowell, 1893.
HuntOon, Daniel T. V. History of the Town of Canton,
Norfolk County, Massachusetts. Cambridge, 1893.
Jameson, John Franklin. Records of the Town of Am
herst: 1 735-1 788. Amherst, 1884.
Marvin, Abijah Perkins. History of the Town of Lan
caster, Massachusetts : 1643-1879. Lancaster, 1879.
Morse, Abner. A Genealogical Register of the Inhabi
tants and History of the Towns of Sherborn and Hollis-
ton. Boston, 1856.
Smith, Joseph E. A. The History of Pittsfield (Berkshire
County), Massachusetts: 1734-1800. Boston, 1869.

184 APPENDIX D.
Taylor, Charles J. History of Great Barrington (Berk
shire County), Massachusetts. Great Barrington, 1882.
Wheeler, George A. and Henry W. History of Bruns
wick, Topsham, and Harpswell, Maine. Boston, 1878.
Willis, William. The History of Portland. 1632-1864.
Second edition. Portland, 1865.
United States. Documentary History of the Constitution.
(Issued by the Department of State, in the Bulletins of the
Bureau of Rolls and Library.) Government Printing-Office,
1893-94. Warren, Mrs. Mercy. History of the Rise, Progress, and
Termination of the American Revolution. 3 vols. Boston,
1805. Williamson, William Durkee. The History of the State of
Maine. 1602-1820. 2 vols. Hallowell, 1832.
Willis, William. History of the Law, the Courts, and the
Lawyers of Maine. Portland, 1863.

INDEX.

Adams, John, on ascendency of inferior men, 10 ; cited, 60 note.
Adams, Samuel, charged with authorship of article signed " Hel-
vidius Priscus," 22 note ; and with one signed " Candidus," 23 ;
elected delegate, 55 note, 56 ; attitude toward the Constitution,
95-6, and note ; effect of Boston mechanics' resolutions on, 96,
97 and note; course in Convention, 61, 96 note, 97; opposes
motion to hasten decision, 83 ; advocates adoption of Constitu
tion with Hancock's amendments, 89; proposes additional amend
ments, 95, 97-8 ; his motives, 97-8.
Agricultural and commercial sections, rivalry of, 9, 34, 75.
Allen, Rev. Thomas, 3.
Amendments to the Constitution, proposed by " Hampden," 32 ; by
Hancock and accepted by the Convention, 88-9; proposed by
Samuel Adams, 98.
American Herald, loses patronage because of Antifederalism, 28
note.
Ames, Fisher, Federalist leader, 61
Amesbury, town of, action on Articles of Confederation, 5.
Anarchy, desire for, a cause of opposition to the Constitution, 74-5
note.
Antifederalist articles, authorship of, 20-1.
Antifederalist leaders, 61-6.
Aristocracy, fear of, in 1 785, 60 note ; in Massachusetts politics,
8-13 ; Constitution the work of,- 75-6; opposition to, in the con
test over the Constitution, 14, 75-9; reception of the Constitu
tion by, in Massachusetts, 14; charged with attempting to force
the adoption of the Constitution, 27 note.
Arms, Consider, delegate, publishes reasons of dissent, 103, 106-7
note.
Articles of Confederation, submitted to the towns, 5 ; amendments
proposed by the towns, 5; mere amendment of, sufficient, 21
note, 23 ; adoption of the Constitution a violation of, 29, 33.
Ashfield, town of, resolves of 1776, 2-3.
"Atticus," article by, 11.

1 86 INDEX.
Austin, Benjamin, 21; author of "Honestus" letters, 21 note;
charged with authorship of letter signed " Candidus," 23 ; de
feated for the Convention, 56 note.
Avery, John, Jr., on recommendatory amendments, 84 ; on ratifica
tion, 99 note.
Bacon, John, sketch of, 52 note.
Bangs, E., on dread of arbitrary power, 74.
Banquet given to the Convention, 106.
Barnstable County, vote in the Convention, 99.
Barrell, Nathaniel, delegate, 73; sketch of, 91-2 ; on the opposition
to the Constitution, 75 note, 81 ; his objections to the Constitu
tion, 92-3 note; his course in the Convention, 93; withdraws his
opposition, 94 ; fears revolution if hopes of amendment are dis
appointed, 93-4 note ; attitude of his constituents toward, 108 note.
Barrett, Samuel, defeated for the Convention, 56 note.
Belcher, Larson, defeated for the Convention, 56 note.
Belknap, Jeremy, cited, 59, 65, 82, 97.
Bell, Major Wm., defeated for the Convention, 56 note.
Berkshire, vote in the Convention, 99.
Berkshire Constitutionalists, 3.
Biddeford, Maine, action on the Constitution, 49 note ; acquiesces
in ratification, 109.
Bill of Rights, lack of, in the Constitution, 19 Thomas B. Wait on
the necessity for, 38-9 ; Silas Lee on, 40 ; town of Harvard de
sires, 56 note ; explanation of emphasis on, 68.
Bishop, Capt. Phanuel, delegate, sketch of, 65-6 ; on Congressional
control of elections, 69 ; moves amendment of reply to Governor's
address in legislature, no; on the adoption of the Constitution,
in note.
Bluehill Bay, town of, action on State Constitution of 1778, 8 note.
Boothbay, town of, resolves of 1778 for national union, 3.
Boston, demand for removal of capital from, 9 and note ; reception
of Constitution at, 16; election of delegates at, 53-6; candidates
and votes, 55 note; mecbanics'Tesolutions, 96-7; celebrates rati
fication, 106; gubernatorial election at, in 1788, 56 note, 86
note.
Bowdoin, James, elected delegate to Convention, 55 note, 56 ; Fed
eralist leader, 61 ; gives dinner to Boston delegates, 96.
Bribery, charges of, 101 ; discussed, 102-3.
Bridgewater, town of, action on Articles of Confederation, 5.
Bristol County, vote in Convention, 99.
Brunswick, Maine, votes to accept the Constitution, 56.
" Brutus " letters of, 17, 96.
Bryan, Samuel, 18 note.

INDEX. 187
Cabot, George, delegate, 62 ; on committee to prepare address to
the people, 113 note.
"Candidus," article by, 23.
Capital, State, demand for removal, 9; reasons for, 9 note; project
for removal to Worcester, 80.
" Centinel," letters of, 17, 18 note, 76.
" Cincinnatus," letters of, 17, 18 note.
Cincinnatus, order of, 27 note.
Clarke, Joseph, candidate for Convention, 56 note.
Clergy, generally in favor of the Constitution, 76 and note j their
vote in ratifying Convention, 76 note.
Clinton, George, 17 note.
"Conciliatory proposition," the, origin of, 84; Hancock's relation
to, 85-7; introduced, 87-8; provisions of, 88-9; influence of, in
other States, 115.
Congress, powers of, dangerous, 25; too general, 40; objections
to, 71-2.
Consolidation, advocated by Knox, 12.
Constitution, Federal, publication of, in Massachusetts, 15; its re
ception, 15-6; return to Congress advised, 31; amendments pro
posed by " Hampden," 32-3 ; by Samuel Adams, 98 ; amendments
recommended by the State Convention, 88-9 ; conditional ratifi
cation advised, 33 and note; ratified with recommendation of
amendments, 99.
Constitution, Federal, objections to, 19,20, 21-2 note, 23-44, 50, 51
note, 53-4, 56 note, 68-73, 92~3 note> 96 note; results of accept
ing, 24-6 ; presents an aristocratical system, 26-7 ; a system of
consolidation, 29 ; ratification will violate State Constitution and
establish a precedent for a despotism, 29-30; makes property
the basis of the suffrage, 30 ; gives Congress control of elections,
30, 34 ; favors mercantile sections at the expense of agricultural,
34-5 ; freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press not secured
by, 36 ; ambiguity of, 39 ; leaves too much to future Congresses,
44 ; impracticable, 93 note. See also Appendices A and B.
Constitution, State, formation of, 5-7.
Convention, Federal, exceeded authority, 50 ; members of, guilty of
usurpation and tyranny, 29 note.
Convention, ratifying, called, 45-8; composition of, 59; leaders in,
60-6 ; strength of parties in, 67 and note ; votes to take up
Constitution by paragraphs, 67 ; objections to Constitution in,
68-73 ! sessions opened with prayer, 70 note ; motions to adjourn
defeated, 82, 94-5 ; motion to reconsider vote to discuss by
paragraphs defeated, 82-3 ; recommendatory amendments intro
duced, 87-9; action of committee on, 88; their influence, 89-94;
Adams's additional amendments defeated, 95, 98; Constitu
tion ratified with the recommendation of amendments, 99; vote

I OS INDEX.
on ratification, 99-100 ; charges of bribery, 100-1 ; their baseless
character, 101-3 ; charge of unfair methods, 103 ; its basis, 103-4;
banquet given to, 106.
Convention, State constitutional, of 1778, 6; of 1779-80, 6.
Cooley, Daniel, delegate, acquiesces in ratification, 105 note.
" Cornelius," letter of, 33-5. See also Appendix A.
Council, Federal executive, 43.
Cumberland County, Maine, vote in Convention, 100.
Cushing, candidate for Convention, 55 note.
Dane, Nathan, attempts to amend Constitution in Congress, 62 ;
left out of ratifying Convention, 62.
Davis, Caleb, elected delegate, 55 note.
Dawes, Thomas, Jr., elected delegate, 55 note; on manufactures
and protective tariff, 72 note.
Dawson, Henry B., 101, 102.
Delegated powers, distrust of, 74.
Demagogism, in opposition to Constitution, 81.
Democracy, Sedgwick on, 12; Jonathan Jackson on, 12 note; in
Massachusetts politics, 8-13 ; in the contest over the Constitu
tion, 14, 27 note, 75-9.
Dench, Capt. Gilbert, delegate, 109.
Donnison, Col. Wm., author of "Bribery and Corruption " article,
103.
Dukes County, vote in Convention, 100.
Elections, biennial, objections to, 69; advisability of, conceded,
69; congressional control of, an objection, 40, 56 note, 69.
Essex County, vote in Convention, 99.
Expenses of the Federal Government, 93 note.
Fast, public, motion to hold, 70 note.
Federal district, objection to, 43.
" Federal Farmer," letters of, 17, 96.
" Federalist, A," article by, 27 note.
Federalists, leaders of, in the Convention, 60-1 ; policy of, 67 ; treat
ment of opponents, 103-4.
Federal Republicans, New York committee of, 17 note.
Field, Samuel, delegate, publishes reasons of dissent, 103, 106-7 note.
Gerry, Elbridge, refuses to lay Massachusetts resolves before
Congress, 1785, 60 note, 61 ; delegate to Federal Convention, 18 ;
letter to General Court giving reasons for his dissent, 19 ; author
of pamphlet against the Constitution, 19; his other writings on
the Constitution, 20 note ; invited to attend the State Conven
tion, but soon withdraws, 62; Antifederalist candidate for Gov
ernor, 1788, 114 note.

INDEX. 189
Gore, Christopher, on reception of Constitution, 16 ; elected dele
gate, 55 note ; on disclosures concerning Hancock's course, 87.
Gorham, Nathaniel, Federalist leader, 60, 73 ; on proceedings in
the legislature, n 3-4.
Great Barrington, contest over the Constitution, 50.
Hamilton, J. C, 102.
" Hampden," letters of, 31-3; authorship of: 31-2 note.
Hampshire, vote in Convention, 99.
Hancock, Gov. John, address to legislature, 1787, 45 ; elected to
Convention, 55 and note ; elected president of the Convention,
60 ; causes of his influence, 60 note; course with reference to the
Constitution, 85 and note ; Federalist bargain with, 85-7 ; intro
duces the " conciliatory proposition," 87-8 ; address to legisla
ture, February, 1788, no; re-elected Governor, 1788, H4note.
Handbill, Antifederalist, 53-4.
Harpswell, Maine, action on Constitution, 56.
Harvard, town of, instructs against the Constitution, 56 and note.
Heath, Gen. William, Federalist leader, 61 ; speaks in Convention,
87-8.
" Helvidius Priscus," article by, 22 note.
Higginson, Stephen, defeated for Convention, 56 note ; author of
" Letters of Laco," 87.
Holmes, Abraham, delegate, on federal judiciary, 72-3.
Holten, Dr. Samuel, delegate in Congress, 1785, 60 note, 61 ; Anti-
federalist leader in Convention, 61 ; early withdrawal of, 61; on
three-fifths rule in taxation, 71.
" Honestus," letters of, 10; authorship of, 21 note.
Hopkinton, town of, sentiments of inhabitants on the Constitution,
109.
Innovation, spirit of, during the Revolution, 4.
Jackson, Jonathan, 12 note.
Jarvis, Dr. Charles, elected delegate, 55 note ; reputed author of
speech for Nasson, 65 ; inclined to oppose the Constitution, 96;
effect of Boston mechanics' resolutions on, 97 note.
" John DeWitt," articles by, 24-7.
Jones, John Coffin, elected delegate, 55 note.
Jones, William, delegate, for annual elections of Senators, 70 ;
moves that a public fast be held, 70 note.
Judiciary, Federal, objections to, 25, 43, 57 note, 72-3.
Kilham, Dr., in legislature opposes calling ratifying Convention,
46.
Kin°-, Rufus, Federalist leader, 60 ; his conversion to Federalism,

190 INDEX.
60 note; on the opposition to the Constitution, 78-9; on Han
cock's course with reference to the Constitution, 86; on the re
ception of the ratification, 109.
Kinsley, Major Martin, delegate, 71.
Knox, Henry, on State governments, 12; on the reception of the
Constitution at Boston, 16 ; on the parties in the Convention,
67 note ; on the opposition to the Constitution, 74; on the effect
of ratification by Massachusetts, 115.
" Laco," letters of, 65, 87.
Lamb, John, 17 note.
Lancaster, town of, instructions of, concerning the Constitution, 57-
Lansing, John, letter of, 18 note.
Lawyers, opposition to, 9-10 ; favor adoption of the Constitution,
27 note, 76, 77 ; should be excluded from the Convention and
from Congress, 28 note.
Lee, Silas, sketch of, 40 ; attitude toward the Constitution, 40-1 ;
his objections removed by the arguments in the Convention, 41 ;
on the reception of ratification at Biddeford, 109.
Lee, Richard Henry, pamphlet by, 17 note; recites his objections
to Samuel Adams, 18; assists Gerry in preparing his letter to
the General Court, 19.
Lexington, town of, action on Articles of Confederation, 5.
Lincoln, Gen. Benjamin, Federalist leader, 61 ; on influence of the ¦
clergy, 76 note. ,
Lincoln County, Maine, vote in the Convention, 100.
Lusk, Major Thomas, delegate, on lack of religious test, 70 ; on the
"conciliatory proposition," 89 note.
Mails, complaints of irregularity in the, 18 note.
Maine, sentiment on the Constitution in, 49 and note ; movement
for separation from Massachusetts, 63 note, 64, 79-80; vote on
separation, 1792, 80 note; desire for separation induces opposi
tion to the Constitution, 81 ; in security of land titles a factor in
the opposition in, 80 note.
Martin, Luther, letter of, 18 note.
Mason, George, letter of, 18 note.
Mason, Jonathan, Jr., defeated for Convention, 56 note.
Massachusetts, ratifies articles of Confederation, 5 ; adopts a State
Constitution, 5-7; political conditions in, 1787-8, 13-4; Federal
Constitution received in, 15; calls Convention to consider it,
45-8 ; ratifies and recommends amendments, 88-9, 99 ; influence
of her decision, 114-6.
Massachusetts, legislature of, frames Constitution of 1778, 6;
calls Convention of 1779-80, 6 ; Federal Constitution laid before,
45; parties in, 1787-88, 46: opposition in, to calling a conven-

INDEX. 191
tion, 46-7 ; Convention called, 47-8 ; reassembles, February,
1788, no; contest in, over the reply to the Governor's speech,
1 10-2; refuses to publish the address prepared by the Conven
tion, 1 1 2-4.
Maynard, Malachi, delegate, publishes reasons of dissent, 103,
106-7 note.
Middlesex County, vote in Convention, 99.
Minot, George Richards, secretary of the Convention, 113 note.
Nasson, Samuel, sketch of, 64-5 ; election to the Convention, 64 ;
has speeches made for him, 65 ; on prospects of ratification, 67
note ; moves to reconsider vote to discuss by paragraphs, 83 ;
professes his readiness to support the Constitution, 105 and note ;
comments on Barrell's course, 108 note ; candidate for presiden
tial elector, 108 note.
Neal, James, on slave-trade, 71 ; votes against Constitution, 71.
Northampton, town of, 57.
Noyes, Joseph, 108 note.
Objections to the Constitution, in ratifying Convention, 68-73;
nature of, 68. See also under Constitution, Federal.
Opposition to the Constitution, analysis of, 73-81.
Paine, Robert Treat, defeated for Convention, 56 note.
Palmer, town of, action on Articles of Confederation, 5.
Pamphlets, Antifederalist, circulated in Massachusetts, 17 and
note.
Paper money, 43 ; desire for, an element in the opposition to the
Constitution, 79.
Parsons, Theophilus, Federalist leader, 61 ; on committee to pre
pare address to the people, 113 note.
Pennsylvania, course with reference to the Constitution, 16 ; com
plaints about the mails in, 18 note ; reasons of dissent of minor
ity of the Convention of, circulated in Massachusetts, 18 note;
means used to obtain a Convention in, 38 note; their effect in
Massachusetts, 17, 38 ; opposition in Convention compared with
that in Massachusetts, 63 note.
Phelps, Oliver, declines seat in the Convention, 61.
Phillips, Wm., elected delegate, 55 note.
Pierce, Ebenezer, delegate, on the " conciliatory proposition," 89
note ; on committee to prepare address to the people, 1 13 note.
Pittsfield, town of, address to General Court, 1776, 3.
Plymouth County, vote in the Convention, 99.
Presidency, an elective kingship, 43; violent competitions for,
feared, 35; term of, 56 note; powers of, 56 note.
" Publius," letters of, republished in Massachusetts, 18 note.

192 INDEX.
Randall, Benjamin, delegate, on praise of the Constitution by
the upper classes, 76.
Randolph, Edmund, letter of, 18 note.
Ratification of the Constitution by Massachusetts, 99 ; celebrated
at Boston, 106; acquiesced in by Antifederalist delegates, 105;
general acceptance of the result, 109 ; effect in other States,
1 14-6.
Religion, freedom of, not provided for, 36.
Repudiation, desire for, 79.
Rice, Thomas, delegate, 108.
Roxbury, election at, 52.
Russell, Thomas, elected delegate, 55 note.
Sanford, Maine, action on the Constitution, 64.
Sandwich, town of, instructs against the Constitution, 57.
Sedgwick, Theodore, on democratic government, 12 ; elected to the
Convention, 52; Federalist leader, 61.
Senate, equality of the States in, 42; term for, 40, 56 note.
Sewall, David, 81 ; candidate for presidential elector, 1788, 108
note.
Sewall, Dummer, delegate, 81 note.
Shays's rebellion, 10-1, 21 note, 77 note; classes participating in,
10 note; effect on party division, 11-2; charged to aristocratic
faction, 13; relation of, to the constitutional struggle, 59, 74, 75
note, 79.
Sheffield, town of, fraudulent election at, 51 and note.
Sherborn, town of, instructions concerning Constitution, 57.
Singletary, Amos, delegate, sketch of, 77 note ; on federal taxation,
72 ; on aristocratic support of the Constitution, 77 ; reply to, 77-
8 note.
Skinner, Col. Thompson J., delegate, 51 note.
Slavery and the slave-trade, 71.
Slaves, representation of, 39, 71.
Smith, Jonathan, delegate, on aristocratic support of the Constitu
tion, 77-8 note ; his vote in the Convention, 78 note.
Speech, freedom of, not provided for, 36.
States, abolition of governments of, favored by Knox, 12; effect of
adoption of Constitution on, 36, 41 ; suability of, 32, 41.
Stillman, Rev. Samuel, elected delegate, 55 note.
Stockbridge, election at, 52.
Storer, Ebenezer, defeated for Convention, 56 note.
Strong, Caleb, Federalist leader, 60.
Suffolk County, vote in the Convention, 99.
Sullivan, James, on, the reception of the Constitution, 16; possibly
author of articles signed "Hampden," 31-2 note; defeated for
the Convention, 56 note.

INDEX. 193
Sweetser, John, defeated for the Convention, 56 note.
Sylvester, David, delegate, 108.
Symmes, William, sketch of, 41-2 ; his objections to the Consti
tution, 42-4, 79; withdraws his opposition, 91; resentment of
his constituents toward, 108-9.
Tariff, protective, anticipation of, an argument for the Constitu
tion, 72.
Taxation, Federal, oppressive, 35, 42, 56 note, 93 note; unjust to
New England, 71 ; chief reliance will be on direct taxes, 72.
Taylor, Dr. John, Antifederalist leader in the Convention, 65 ; char
acter of, 65 ; on State payment of representatives, 70 ; on the
" conciliatory proposition," 89 ; announces his acquiescence in
the ratification, 105.
Tender laws, 43, 46; desire for, a factor in the opposition, 79.
Test, religious, lack of an objection, 57 note, 70.
Thatcher, George, delegate in Congress, 38 ; aids in conversion of
Antifederalist delegates in Massachusetts, 92-3; urged to re
strain Samuel Thompson, 108.
Thompson, Samuel, delegate, sketch of, 63-4 ; on annual elections,
69 ; on a property qualification and disqualification for age, 70
and note; on slavery, 71; moves adjournment of Convention,
82; opposes investigation of charge of bribery, 102; refuses to
acquiesce in the ratification, 106-7 ; endeavors to stir up strife,
107-8.
Thompson, William, delegate, 81 note.
Tillinghast, Charles, 17 note.
Topsham, Maine, town of, action on Constitution, 49-50.
Tories and the Constitution, 81 note.
Towns, propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, 5;
action with reference to a State Constitution, 6-7 ; choose dele
gates to the ratifying Convention, 48-58 ; those failing to send
delegates, 48-9 ; instruct delegates, 56-8.
Tradesmen, Boston, resolutions of, 96-7.
Treadwell, Thomas, 18 note.
Treaties, power to make, 43.
"Truth," handbill by, 53-4.
Turner, Charles, sketch of, 66; on constitution-making, 69; on an
nual elections, 69 ; on congressional control of elections, 69 ;
advocates rotation in office, 70 ; withdraws his opposition,
90-1.
Vassalborough, Maine, town of, choice of delegate, 49.
Vice-presidency, 56 note.
Virginia, adjournment of Massachusetts Convention advised till
action of, 31- 13

194 INDEX.
Wait, Thomas B., sketch of, 37-8; attitude toward the Consti
tution, 38-40 ; on Samuel Thompson's efforts to stir up strife,
107-8.
Warren, James, 21, 53; sketch of, 117-8 note; probable au
thor of articles signed "Republican Federalist," 28, n 7-8
note; Antifederalist candidate for Lieutenant-Governor, 1788,
114 note.
Warren, Dr. John, defeated for Convention, 56 note.
Warren, Mrs. Mercy, on Shays's revolt, 13.
Washington, George, 38 ; character affected by keeping slaves, 71.
" Watchman, A," article by, 35-6.
Well-born, the, 76.
Wells, Maine, town of, 57.
Wendell, Oliver, candidate for Convention, 55 note.
Westminster, town of, 57.
Whitney, Gen. Josiah, delegate, acquiesces in the ratification, 105
note.
White, Abraham, delegate, on congressional control of elections,
69; opposes investigation of charge of bribery, 102; acquiesces
in the ratification, 105 note.
Widgery, William, in legislature, favors submitting Federal Con
stitution to direct vote of the people, 46-7; sketch of, 63; objects
to representation of slaves, 71 ; supports motion to reconsider
vote to discuss by paragraphs, 83 ; on the " conciliatory proposi
tion," 89 note, 94 note ; opposes investigation of charge of
bribery, 102; announces his acceptance of the ratification, 105;
candidate for presidential elector, 1788, 108 note.
Williamstown, contested election at, 51 and note.
Wilson, James, 22 note, 39.
Winthrop, James, 21 ; sketch of, 21 note; author of articles signed
" Agrippa," 21-2 note ; conjectured author of Antifederalist hand-
bill, 53-
Winthrop, John, 4 ; elected delegate, 55 note.
Worcester County, delegates from, 74 ; vote in the Convention, 99,
100; reception of ratification in, 109.
Yates, Robert, letter of, 18 note.
York County, Maine, vote in the Convention, 100.
Young, William, contesting delegate to the Convention, 51 note.