DEBATE IN RHODES ISLAND IN 1787-1788 0VER RATIFICATION OF THE U.S.

CONSTITUTION

Table of Contents TITLE ..........................................................................................................................1 DEDICATION .............................................................................................................2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................3 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION: RHODES ISLAND ....................................................................5 RHODES ISLAND 1787-1788..................................................................................5 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND TO POLITICS IN RHODE ISLAND DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY AND CONFEDERATION ERAS...................................6 INTRODUCTION TO CONFEDERATION PERIOD (1780S)..................................9 CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................22 CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF THE RATIFICATION DEBATE IN THE TWELVE STATES BESIDES RHODE ISLAND.......................................................25 INTRODUCTION TO THE TWELVE STATES........................................................25 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................43 CHAPTER 3: DEBATE IN RHODE ISLAND ON WHETHER OR NOT TO RATIFY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION, FROM AUGUST 1787 THROUGH MARCH 1788..................................................................................................................44 INTRODUCTION TO RATIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION RHODE ISLAND HOLDS OUT OF THE UNION FOR SO LONG .........................44 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................58 CHAPTER 4: REFERENDUM IN RHODE ISLAND ON WHETHER OR NOT TO RATIFY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION, FROM FEBRUARY 1788 THROUGH MAY 1788.................................................................................................60 INTRODUCTION TO RHODES REFERENDUM....................................................60 CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................80 CHAPTER 5: DEBATE IN RHODE ISLAND ON WHETHER OR NOT TO RATIFY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION, FROM MARCH 1788 THROUGH AUGUST 1788.................................................................................................................81 INTRODUCTION TO RATIFICATION FROM IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE STATE REFERENDUM ..........................................................................................82 CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................97 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................100 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................101 PRIMARY SOURCES ..............................................................................................106 SECONDARY SOURCES ........................................................................................107

ABSTRACT This Dissertation analyzes on the state ratification in Rhodes Island, and utilizes conventions of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Connecticut, Georgia and Massachusetts studies are utilized in assisting in the development of an analytical thesis of why Rhodes Island held out the union and why did it hold it for so long. Chapter one of this dissertation, is a comprehensive study into the background of politics in Rhode Island through the Revolutionary and Subsequent Confederacy eras (1760-1780s). Chapter 2 discusses the course of the proposed Constitution as it was ratified by the first twelve states, starting with Delaware and ending with North Carolina. Chapter Three discusses the debate over the Constitution in Rhode Island from August 1787 to March 1788 when a referendum was held. Chapter 4 focuses on the referendum itself, its legality, validity and result while the last chapter discusses the period immediately after the referendum.

DEBATE IN RHODES ISLAND IN 1787-1788 0VER WHETHER OR NOT TO RATIFY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION Introduction The debate in Rhodes Island in 1787-1788 over whether to not to ratify the United States Constitution is well articulated in this study. Besides, on entailing on Rhodes Island arguments politically the study still focus on ratification debates for Antifederalists and Federalists.1 Currently, the historiography is expanded through criticizing on the politics in Rhodes Island in the Revolutionary and Confederation eras. Other major characters in the Rhodes island politics have been emphasized through convention ownerships in American politics. Nature of their influenced in negotiations among the various groups who were in the competition has been clearly articulated. The study focuses on conventions in the period. Philadelphia convention was the original feature for states in the administering of the articles of confederation2. Philadelphia designed process of ratification (new governance) by which only nine states would be required in the approval of constitutional ratification instead of the requirement by original Articles of confederation in the ratification procedure by states legislature for approval of all the thirteen states. State legislature elected the delegates of Philadelphia convention and Specific assemblies3 were required by the Philadelphia convention.

In reference to, American nationalism for Rhodes Island defines its political practices and procedures within other 12 states that existed during the period. John Kaminski, "Rhode Island: Protecting State Interests," in Michael Allen Gillespie and Michael Lienesch, eds., Ratifying the Constitution (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1989). 2 Used for amendments during revolutionary, and confederation eras. 3 Separate from their sitting state assembly
4

In other hand, Massachusetts had a process4 that was exemplary in constitutional ratification. They employed process of specific drafting assembly and furthermore a specific ratification assembly. The approval of constitution was in 17 September 1787 through thirtynine votes. Rufus king, James Madison and Nathaniel Gorham all were involved in submitting the document to north congress, Madison strategy was to break the power for states through state ratification conventions endure state legislatures resistance under the newly formed constitution. He wanted to appeal to the public to enable achievement of ratification. With the acknowledgement of public as more important to the government rather than the state was the main cause of fuel for ravaging debates along Rhodes Island and the other 12 states constitution. Madison was behind the formation of freedom and voices that formed the basic constitution for United States of America. This study focuses on the role of various states in the state ratification. Firstly, Massachusetts Antifederalists and federalists ensured unconditional ratification compromise. Massachusetts convention was not contingent in constitution amendments in the state ratification. Secondly, Pennsylvania5 was full of illegitimate procedures in ratification Furthermore, New York6, Virginian7 states played key role in unification part. In this study, it analyses how the states ensured that America is governed by the constitution. My research also, indicates the media types that influenced the ratification debates by the Antifederalists and the federalist. The media mostly of personal letters, In this reference, following the year 1780, the Massachusetts process was awarded the right to informing the public, in the deliverance of a political document and in ensuring that the divisions politically were sorted. 5 Pennsylvania was national capital has it had a bigger territory and population, was a middle union making the acceptance of constitution essential in ratification process. 6 New York had influential federalist and necessary for economic stability. Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010). 7 Virginia constituted of revolution figures, many supporters suggested of it being the ninth state in law making for the constitution. Ibid., 2010.
4

speeches, newspapers and Broadsides have been articulated clearly in this study to portray how they influenced the emergence of debates. This gives information of who said what, and the meaning and intentions of the many letters and speeches. In the fall of 1787, Federal constitution was amid reactions all over the nations and sparked various debates. The public politics involvement in American shores politics is of major concern but the ratification debate for Rhodes Island encouraged participatory politics. Major public8 interest into the constitution encouraged competing constituencies into negations that boosted the learners on public opinion in ratification processes. The ratification debate in the 12 states besides Rhodes Island encouraged the growth of political practices that were more accustomed to formal voting acts. In all these aspects, my research will try to expound on reasons that made Rhodes Island hold out of the union and why they hold out of the union for so long.

In this study, Public constitutes the Whites during this era, the others group African American influence politics through cultural activities which brought forth American nationalism.
8

CHAPTER 1: Politics in Rhode Island during the Revolutionary and Confederation Eras Rhode Island was the first state to declare Independence. In this, it stands out as leader of the American Revolution, mainly because of all the different colonies in America at the time. It had the highest degree of self-rule and individual liberties. This means that when England sort to reassert her position over the colonies, Rhode Island had the most to lose. Economically, the colony thrived on bypassing the navigation acts, and a versatile economy driven by smuggled goods that were sold on the black market. Politically the colony had active political parties gathered around powerful clans. Culturally, the colony offered the widest range of religious toleration. Finally, its charter guaranteed procedural rights beyond what Englishmen could claim within the realm. When England tried to ensure the operation of the Sugar Act (1764)9, the colonys protests became increasingly violent and leaders of the protest used covert means to show their defiance. Their acts of defiance included the burning of the Liberty, a British Customs sloop in July 1769, the Gaspee, in 1772, and a Tea Party in Providence10 in March 1775. Within the colony, political differences existed between the Ward and Hopkins families and their retainers, but these wrangles were put aside when the leaders of the two functions merged to foster a combined strategy to ending the injustices of colonialism. This consensus was first exhibited in the Providence Town Meeting on May 17, 177411, when the factions spokespersons agreed to resist the newly enacted Coercive Acts. Stephen Hopkins12 and David Lovejoy, Rhode Island Politics and the American Revolution, 1760- 1776 (Brown University Press, 1958). Xi. 10 Patrick Conley, "First in War, Last in Peace: Rhode Island and the Constitution, 17861790," in Patrick Conley and John Kaminski, eds., the Constitution and the States: The Role of the Original Thirteen in the Framing and Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Madison: Madison House, 1988). 11 Ibid., 1958. 12 Governor Hopkins was behind the writing of the essay [Boston Merchants [state of trade before Rhodes island adopted remonstrance. Merrill Jensen, Tracts of the American Revolution, 1763-1776 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril, 1966), xxv.
9

Samuel Ward13 were both appointed by a vote of the General Assembly to represent the colony at the Continental Congress, one of the initial steps to fostering a combined Revolution. Meanwhile, Rhode Islands residents became even more aggravated with the colonialists reaction to the Concord and Lexington skirmishes14 in April of 1775. A month later, on May 4, the Island formally renounced their allegiance to the British monarch, then King George III and subsequently ratified the much-anticipated Declaration of Independence. When the Revolution begun, Rhode Island played a vital role, by supplying the army and navy with men, weapons and ships15. With the stakes so high on the cause for independence, the politicians encouraged volunteerism and even allowed slaves to form what was later to be known as the Black Regiment. The slave formation existed as detachment of the main regiment, the First Rhode Island regiment, and was a respected unit for the confidence and bravery of its soldiers. Rhode Island also helped create the first Continental navy, headed by Esek Hopkins, the younger brother to the reverend Stephen Hopkins, one of the 55 men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Nathaniel Greene, commander of the Kentish Guards under the British Army, was given the title of Chief of the Southern Continental army, and was George Washingtons second-in command. Indeed, with such vital contribution to revolutionary arms, and the fact that Newport was a key port, it was only a matter of time before the British attacked, and they did in Ward was leader of Newport Faction. Hopkins once lost his annual election to ward. Ibid. 1966. 14 British solders clashed with minute men 19 April 1775; there was escalation of a ten-year political protest at Lexington, Concord, between Boston and Concord.[Editorial note] Lexington and Concord: A Legacy of Conflict, Minute Man National Historical Park National Park Service, 2. 15 David Lovejoy, Rhode Island Politics and the American Revolution, 1760- 1776 (Brown University Press, 1958), ixxi.
13

December of 1776, with a siege that lasted two years before they left voluntarily in October of 1779. Less than a year later, Rochambeaus army made Newport its base and operated from many other parts of the Island. They conducted themselves with such a high level of dignity that it prompted the General Assembly to lift the ban that had existed on Catholicism. The disability against Roman Catholics had been enacted in 1719, but the gesture now, made its followers equal to Protestants in the public sphere. As a result, the year after this religious disability was removed; the Negro Emancipation Act16 was passed, giving freedom to all the children born to slaves after March 1, 1784, it did not grant the slaves the freedom they desired, but it was a step in that direction. Its passage, surprising as it may be to a modern scholar, was a concerted effort by the Quaker community that was anti-slave trade. They also advocated for the banning of the trade, and succeeded when the General Assembly passed an act banning the same in October 1787. Of the major towns in Rhode Island during the conflict, Newport suffered the most. Its population decreased from 9, 209 to 5, 532 within the eight years of revolutionary war and terrorism. Providence, which had became a settlement for its strategic importance and sheltered location, did not suffer such losses during these years. The revolution therefore made Providence the more stable and important of the two towns, and Newport never17 recovered its former glory. Nevertheless, with its quick ratification of the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of the Confederation in 1778, one would expect that Rhode Island would have been at the forefront of the push for a stronger central government. However, the fact that this state had been founded on dissidence, and had matured as an individual state, with a higher level Negro Emancipation Act was passed to Negro apprentices to be awarded with complete emancipation [equality & rights in politics for Negros]. [Editorial Note] Irwin Polishook, Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796 (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969). 17 As a resort Mecca, Newport in 1920s surpassed Providence
16

of democracy and a long tradition of autonomy meant that it would feel threatened by a strengthened central government. The best example of central governance was the fact that the use of paper money in commerce. Paper money later became a bottleneck in its course to ratify the Constitution. It drove the Country Party into power18 in 1786. Jonathan Hazard, a native of South Kingstown, led it. It was highly suspicious of a strong central government that would have mandate over such a vast area of land, and the cost of running it. These were the main reasons why the General Assembly declined to send any delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, in addition, delayed in sending their representatives to Congress. When the Constitution was released to the individual states for approval, Hazards faction used delay tactics, mainly their strong numbers, to ensure that little debate was carried out concerning ratification. The result was perhaps the only state in the original thirteen where the Federalists, as supporters of the Union were called, did not have a clear majority. The Country Party represented largely rural communities while the minority represented the mercantile communities, mainly from the towns of Newport and Providence. Accordingly, the fear of most of Rhode Islands representatives, and the populace as a whole was that the freedom they had spearheaded would be at stake if a unified central government were in place. They were wary of encroachment from London or even Philadelphia. Their main worry was the issue of money (paper) in their economic industry commerce and the effects of the federal government. With a central government in place, the issue of taxes to fund operations would also have to come up, as would concerns about the new Constitutions assertions that no individual state would be allowed to print its own currency. Hazards Country Party had introduced paper money as the most suitable way of paying off public and private debt.
18

Country Party power, which was a historically parochial unit.

10

Additionally, the other issue was slave trade, which the influential Quaker Community vehemently opposed19. The fact that the first three drafts of the Constitution had not expressly banned it, and at times seemed to give assent to its continuance meant that the influential body of believers did not support the document, or the union. Even with all this factors that pushed for a largely Anti-Federalist populace, the commercial benefits of being part of the Union outweighed their concerns. The fact that a central government would have to pay for all war-time reparations, a key concern for towns such as Newport, and that other securities would also be paid made the Union a much more viable option to an independent state. Besides, the residents of Rhode Island, together with those of Massachusetts had been at the forefront of slave trade before the Revolution. The Quakers, Congregationalists and Anglicans pushed for the end of slave trade, a motion of which was presented to the General assembly on the morning of Friday, 31 October, and which was subsequently passed by a majority vote20. It is an interesting point to note that all sides were united in the need to prohibit slave trade, and voted on the matter, but when it came to matters of federalism, each side stuck to its guns. The political differences meant that Rhode Island could not be said to be for or against, because all superficial actions indicated the former, while the majority voted for the latter. The argument had long passed that of the religious considerations. For example, Moses Brown was the Quaker leader at the time and was strongly against slave trade while his brother, John, felt that prohibiting it would amount to interfering with a free enterprise. John Brown was a Providence representative and he voted against the prohibition when the matter came up in February 1784. Nonetheless, the House had chosen

David Lovejoy, Rhode Island Politics and the American Revolution, 1760- 1776 (Brown University Press, 1958). 256. 20 Ibid., 1958
19

11

instead adopt a gradual prohibition, which was to be achieved by decreeing that children of slave mothers would no longer be considered as slaves for life. Therefore, the Bill would grant them freedom when they reached a majority age, determined differently for male and female children. This move did not satisfy the religious forces led by Samuel Hopkins and Moses Brown. Brown brought it up again at the Yearly Quaker Meeting in June of 1787, and he used his extensive influence to get the meeting to petition the House to look into the matter again and out rightly prohibit slave trade. As mentioned earlier, the house sittings went through a tumultuous time during the year, as the Country Party used its majority to deny the Assembly a quorum in order to conduct business. The petition did not come up in the special session in September and Hopkins begun a public campaign to garner support. He wrote an essay to the Constitutional Convention, and tried to get his friend, Peter Edes to print it in the Newport Herald. The latter refused for fear of aggravating those of his readers who engaged in the business. In addition, it is clear that the Press was largely Federalist. The press at the time was a partisan almost to a fault, and had influence on public opinion. Bennet Wheeler Printed the United States Chronicle in Providence, John Carter the Providence Gazette and Paul Ede the Newport Herald. They furthered the cause of the Union, although they got little success because the Country party was a largely formed by rural communities. The party was mercantile in their approach to constitution due to less acknowledgments and insignificance. Local Baptists founded Brown University in 176421, with Reverend James Manning as its first president. The very founding of the college was matter of power politics given that the Baptists had intended it as a center for training ministers, while Providence and Newport viewed it as an opportunity to outdo each other in progressive education. The other churches

21

Ibid., 1958
12

existing at the time also wanted to be part of the project because it would give them a chance to participate in furthering the education system on the Island. It became a divisive factor mainly between the two towns, as had many other things before, and providence, already on an upward trend and eager to keep it, won the charter. On further note to Brown University, it was named after the influential Brown family. They were powerful and wealthy with vast interests in industrial, financial and commercial fields. The most famous were Moses, Nicholas and Joseph, and their uncles Elisha and Obadiah, all of whom formed the most formidable team. These made them very important political allies. Other merchants such as James DWolf of Bristol, Christopher Champlin from Newport, Joseph Wanton, Aaron Lopez and others were also instrumental in keeping the commerce of Rhode Island afloat. Meanwhile, Moses swayed from his family religious beliefs and culture and joined other religious groups. Although he and his brothers were instrumental in the foundation of Brown University, they had their political differences. His rise to power started from the fact that his uncle Obadiah had elected as executor of the latter estate. The Brown sons were descendants of one of the founders of the town of Providence, Chad Brown. Although his family was Baptist, Moses differentiated himself, isolated himself even, by converting to Quakerism. This conversion begun his long abolitionist advocacy and he freed his slaves in 1773. He used his personal status, often writing articles in the press and spreading information on abolition. John (Moses brother), was active in the trade and was arrested for his leadership in the 1772 Gaspee Affair that sparked off the Revolution. He also funded the building of Providence, a warship that defended the island, together with others that were later made. During the Confederation era, John played an active role in advocating for federalism while
13

his brother Moses was anti-federalist. They differed on the nature of abolition, which John saw as free trade and any acts banning it as interference with free enterprise. He was one of the most notable Federalists when the state was asked to ratify the Constitution, and was often at odds with the majority Country party over the Islands continued alienation from the union. Following this further, one of Brown family's greatest allies Jabez Bowen22, was a prominent politician and soldier during the Revolution. He joined the town council in Providence in 1773 and became a representative in the General Assembly in 1777. He later became the deputy Governor of the new state, holding the post on two occasions (1778-1779, 1781-1786)23. In 1776, he was appointed a Superior Court Justice and Chief Justice from 1781. With such influence, Bowen was one of the most influential politicians during the Confederation era. He was an ardent Federalist, which would suggest that he might have been at odds with his friend Moses Brown who loathed the document for seemingly allowing the Continuance of slave trade. In addition, William West was yet another prominent politician. He was infamous for organizing the riots that threatened the town of Providence for celebrating the passing of the Constitution. He was a militia General, a high-ranking soldier during the Revolution. He was instrumental in the signing of the document that sets Rhode Island apart as the first state to declare its independence24. He was elected to the post of Deputy Governor and served within 1780-1781. He later served as a Judge in the Supreme Court in the Confederacy, and distinguished himself as one of the most ardent Anti-Federalists. He is infamous for having led the 1000-strong army he gathered from rural citizens into Providence to thwart attempts Moses business partner and brother-in-law [1778-1779, 1781-1786]. Irwin Polishook, Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796 (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969). 24 Ibid., 1969.
22 23

14

to celebrate and read the Constitution. Were compromises not reached between the two sides, civil war would have erupted, and would have quickly spread to the other towns. There existed isolationist behavior around that time. Isolationist behavior might have disappeared during the Revolution, but it reappeared during the Confederacy era, and the Anti-Federalist arguments during the debate about the Constitution25. The first issue was the Impost of 1781, essentially an amendment to the Articles of the Confederation that would allow the federal government to tax and control commerce. Alexander Hamilton asserted that the primary reason was the increasing federal debt as well as the need to maintain a standing army stationed at Yorktown. The other states were eager to fund a central government because they needed order in trade and commerce. Isolationist policies were always carried out by Rhodes Island. The colonies had long suffered from unfair trade balance with Britain and to mitigate this factor, Rhode Island had started what would later became one of the most divisive issue in its entry into the Union. It introduced paper money, mainly to militate against economic repression and to ensure that their fragile commerce did not collapse. The State therefore benefitted from increased trade and a monopoly over printed money. Perhaps this best explains why most scholars view the State as having been isolationist. The fact that its political leadership had control over the printing of money, and that commerce was at an all time high for the entrepreneurs meant that they would go the extra mile to protect their independence. Undoubtedly, elections in Rhode Island were held once a year for all officials, and of to the Lower House of the General Assembly were elected twice every year26. Perhaps this best explains the reluctance of Rhode Island to appear as a part of the Confederation. These (Confederacy Era). Irwin Polishook, Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796 (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969). 26 Irwin Polishook, Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796 (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969). Lower House of the General Assembly. 245.
25

15

regular elections ensured that all elected officials were responsive and attentive to public opinion. Unlike most states that had signed the Articles of the Confederation merely on the ideas contributed by their leaders, Rhode Island carried out a referendum, as it did later when ratifying the Constitution. The impending war after the Coercive Act was passed in Britain meant that Rhode Island, isolationist as it was, had to be part of a bigger army. The resultant referendum showed this unanimous resolve, with local politicians abandoning resolve to thwart the threat of war. One would think that Britain, with knowledge of Rhode Islands history, thought it would stick it out, where the former would defeat them and use their coastal towns as a base. It would perhaps explain why there had their ships anchored at Newport Harbor and Narragansett Bay27. Rhode Island conducted town meetings where the matter for need for trade and commerce by other states was debated. The politicians, as well as most freemen, insisted that a strengthened central government would ruin their sovereignty. Since the matter was of utmost importance, Rhode Island delayed voting on whether to ratify the amendment and sent David Howell to Philadelphia as the state delegate at Congress. Thereafter, in his defense of the State, Howell insisted that the State of Rhode Island had suffered during the Revolution wars and needed the money for reconstruction. He also mentioned the fact that tariffs would have to be passed on to the consumer, thereby increasing the price of goods and local produce. The fact that Rhode Island had been free for longer and had established its own trade links meant that the importers would have to pay the deficit in the very likely scenario that the market could not handle the high price. Howell suggested the sale of Western lands to raise money and insisted that the Impost would amount to an infringement of state sovereignty by the federal government. Subsequently, the state voted John Kaminski, "Rhode Island: Protecting State Interests," in Michael Allen Gillespie and Michael Lienesch, eds., Ratifying the Constitution (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1989), 406.
27

16

down the Impost and cause of the failure of the amendment because any such change could only be effected by a unanimous vote from all the signatory states. Interestingly, the issue of paper money was raised by farmers. However, since the state had been a very vital part of the war, and had incurred great debts in the course of the Revolution, it needed financing to pay debts and rebuild. The agricultural mainland paid the bigger proportion and the farmers insisted that the lack of hard money was the result of merchants hoarding the currency. They therefore demanded for the printing of paper money as legal tender. Jonathan Hazards Country Party had a clear lead in the majority of the General Assembly. When the merchants refused to accept the bills as legal tender, the legislature penalized them. The result, as had been other issues in the Island, elicited heated debate. It was discussed in the press and in town meetings from 1785 until the next year, and effectively made town meetings the real decision making organs within the state28. However, this only increased the political differences between the rural majority Country party and the mercantile minority. These lines acted up when the Philadelphia Convention asked the state to ratify the Constitution. While other states might have been concerned with the components of the Constitution, the issues in Rhode Island went a notch higher. The main issue was that the merchants knew they had no clear majority and they were suffering under the paper money policy. They used their influence in the urban areas as well as their extensive networks throughout the country to spread the federalist cause because they believed that a strong central government would protect them from the unfair currency laws. The use of the press became a very important matter at this point because the minority of the mercantile [1785] Irwin Polishook, Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796 (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969).
28

17

community went further than the simple lack of numbers in the General Assembly, they also lacked a clear majority within the town meetings and other political gatherings, and their only hope was a strong central government.29 Rhode Islands isolationist policies are perhaps the reason that the other twelve states adopted a carrot-stick method30 through offering rewards and at the same time punishments during the Constitutional debate. Twice in the Confederacy era, the state had adopted policies that went against the spirit of the Union, and seemed oblivious of the mayhem its decisions caused. The first time had been during the Impost of 1781, which the state refused to ratify even after all the other 12 states had ratified, and the other was when the General Assembly passed a law requiring all creditors to accept Rhode Island paper money as payment despite the fact that it was worthless. Admittedly, some scholars suggest that the need to respond to the concerns of the electorate might have been the reason why the Country Party seemed oblivious to the financial elements of such a move. An attempt to pay their national debt as soon as possible ruined the commerce because the payment of debt did not reflect the actual value of the products or initial worth. Interestingly, the Assembly removed the right to trial-by-jury for judicial matters concerning its debt policies. This goes against the idea of civil liberties that its Anti-Federalist majority picked up from other states during the Constitutional debate. Jonathan Hazard and William West led the Country Party from South Kingstown and Scituate respectively. West was behind the protest in Providence on July 4 against the towns

Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010). 30 Carrot and stick method was used by politicians in the urge to enforce laws and still to keep individuals from rebellious attributes. Stick approach-applied force and aggression Carrot approach-applied coaxing and sympathy by offering the opposition t o have a voice in the constitutional debate changes.
29

18

celebrations that the Constitution had come into force with the ratification by the ninth state. He had reason to oppose federalism because he had invested heavily in the paper currency, and when it was subsequently ratified in 1790, he is said to have gone bankrupt. Furthermore, Jonathan Hazard was a Quaker who had first been elected to the General Assembly in 1776, and served in the Continental Army from 1778 until 1786 when he was elected as the delegate representing Rhode Island to the Continental Congress31. His leadership is said to have been one of the reasons why the Constitution was not ratified the first time round, and realizing that the other states would follow through with their threats, he kept quiet during the 1790 vote where the state ratified the document. This is said to have adversely affected his political career and influence as Rhode Islanders remained increasingly paranoid of the Union. John Collins was the Governor during the Confederation era. He was the third Governor of the state after Nicholas Cooke (1775-1778) and William Greene (1778-1786). His political career might have started due to the decision of Cooke to send him to deliver a letter to George Washington in 1776. The letter contained the condition of the colony and a list of requests on s military stratagem on the best way to defend it. He was also one of those sent in 1782 to deliver the letter containing the reasons why Rhode Island would not sign the Impost Act to Congress32. His Governorship, however, was mostly because of his advocacy for the agricultural areas and his support for the paper currency that the citizens so zealously guarded. While he was in office, the issuance of this currency stabilized. He had been the delegate to the Continental Congress in 1778, before William Ellery took over in May of 1781, but he was re-elected the next year. While he was Governor, his [1778-1786]. Irwin Polishook, Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796 (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969).
31

[Impost Act to Congress]. Irwin Polishook, Rhode Island and the Union, 1774-1796 (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969).
32

19

policies boarded on what the majority of the Country Party would view as betrayal. He was sharp enough to realize that it would be futile for Rhode Island to exist as an independent state. The one majority vote for calling a convention in the state in January of 1790 is said to have been his, and it cost his power, influence and position. Assuredly, his predecessor, William Ellery, was revered as one of the 55 men who signed the Declaration of Independence. He was also one of the founders of the predecessor to Brown University, College in the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. His signing of the document had been a matter of accidence as Samuel Ward, the original representative to the Continental Congress, died in 1776, before the Declaration was signed. He served as a judge in Rhode Islands Supreme Court, a supporter of the abolition of slave trade and the Island Paper currency33. In addition, the other Rhode Island signatory of the Declaration, Stephen Hopkins had served as Chief Justice, Delegate to the Colonial Congress, Governor and again as delegate to the Continental Congress (1774-1776). He became the first chancellor of the newly created predecessor to Brown University. His younger brother was the first commander in chief of the newly created Continental Navy, making the family a key unit of the islands politics and security. He holds the record of having been elected as Governor of the colony nine times in 1755-1767. As one of the earliest supporters of abolition, he had led the way be first freeing his own slaves in 1773, and tabling a bill in 1774 to ban slave trade. During the Revolution, his contribution to the naval committee is said to have been priceless due to his extensive knowledge of shipping business. He used this position to secure the commander post for his

Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010).
33

20

brother. Although a supporter of most of Rhode Island policies, he died on July 13, 1785, before the state had chance to study the new document. Hopkins erstwhile rival, Stephen Ward, also served as Governor. He was the son of Richard Governor, a previous holder of the same position. His first political duel with Hopkins was the issuance of paper money as he supported hard money while the latter was as staunch supporter of paper currency34. This rivalry went on until he died, as the two alternated the post of Governor over the course of two decades. His importance is seen in the fact that he was called out of retirement to represent the colony at the Continental Congress. He had distinguished himself as an action leader, especially during the protest about the Stamp Act35 in 1765 when he was the only one among the Governors who refused to sustain it. Sadly, Ward died three months before the signing of the Declaration of Independence that he had struggled so much to bring to life. Even so, his legacy supported the federalist because a decade later although their position was not as popular as the man himself was. Similarly, while the two were bitter rivals on most things, they were patriots who believed in an independent America. They were both against the continued satellite rule by the monarchy and the British Parliament, and were instrumental in obtaining the freedom that all the colonies desired. Realizing that freedom would be worthless without education, they had joined Reverend James Manning and other religious leaders in founding the first college in the state36. Its first president James Manning was an able and visionary leader. The

Merrill Jensen, Tracts of the American Revolution, 1763-1776 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril, 1966).
34

Ibid., 1966. Patrick Conley, "First in War, Last in Peace: Rhode Island and the Constitution, 17861790," in Patrick Conley and John Kaminski, eds., The Constitution and the States: The Role of the Original Thirteen in the Framing and Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Madison: Madison House, 1988). Follow the link below for this book
35 36

21

conglomerate of Baptists, the Philadelphia Baptist Association37, had sent him. He thereafter served as its president for the first twenty-six years and saw the college move from Warren to providence in 1770. Accordingly, his first contribution in the revolutionary era was his argument for religious freedom, a largely unheard of concept at the time. It was also during his tenure that Brown University had been converted into a military base for the French Army fighting for American independence. His influence is the main reason why he was elected by a unanimous vote as the delegate to the Confederation Congress. His appointment, although a step towards unification, did not come without its troubles. The fact that the General Assembly was increasingly wary of the proposed Union made it holds back the funding for its delegates. He served out his term and returned to the College where he served until his death in 1791 within which time the college managed to graduate 165 students. As a Baptist, he was a strong abolitionist, and influential one at that. His main arguments for or against unification, (although all evidence points to the former) was on the matter of personal liberties and the fact that the Constitution did not expressly ban slave trade. It was his extensive influence that had brought the first bill banning the trade, and it had, to the surprise of many, passed without much ado. Nevertheless, his main contribution to Rhode Island, apart from his political and religious works, could very well be in education. He secured funding for the College from the Brown family after the conversion to an encampment for the Revolution had left it in a desolate state. He seems to have been a much-respected man, both within and outside of Rhode Island.

Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 181.
37

22

Admittedly, his stature was enhanced by the fact that he was a Baptist minister of high standing and education (he had schooled at the College of New Jersey, the predecessor to Princeton University). As a representative of the Island to the Confederation Congress, Manning was one of the greatest contributors to a strong union, although the power politics at home denied him the funding he needed to conduct his business38. He was also a strong advocate of civil liberties, unafraid to articulate his position, and one of the first people to suggest that the ban on Catholicism should be lifted after the French had helped the colonies fight for their independence. Indeed, Rhode Island had adopted isolationist policies long before the Revolution. It existed as a unit while other colonies existed merely by name. The fact that it took over three years of sustained pressure to convince the state to ratify the Constitution, and even so with the slimmest majority, is the epitome of this fact. They had led the way with the Gaspee Affair, and had signed their own declaration of Independence, denouncing the British Monarch, a full two months before the famous July 4 document. Founded on the civil liberty, Rhode Island was the only state at the time that allowed freedom of worship, except for Catholicism, which was allowed after the French, helped America ward off their former colonialists. The personalities who straddled the Rhode Island Assembly and political life are many, and the most famous are Ward and Hopkins, whose bitter rivalry might have forged itself as the Islands strength39. The latter signed the Declaration of Independence because the former died weeks before he could do so, making them important parts of Rhode Island history, and the union itself. Hopkins is often touted as Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010). 39 Merrill Jensen, Tracts of the American Revolution, 1763-1776 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril, 1966).
38

23

having the worst signature of the 55 men who signed the document, although it is said that his hands were shaking while he signed it. Conclusion The Country Party was elected to popular office in 1786 because of the rural fear that the issuance of paper money would cease if the state ratified the document. The traders and merchants such as John Brown wanted a stronger Union because it would alleviate the troubles they were having with the paper money whose only worth was in the Island itself, and would allow them to trade freely among the thirteen states. His brother, as were other vocal abolitionists, was more concerned that the document lacked a comprehensive Bill of Rights and little mention of slavery. The Political climate in Rhode Island was always tense because the freemen met frequently in town councils, elected assembly members, and their representatives. With such short mandate, none of the politicians could afford not to stay abreast with the sentiments of his constituents. This would explain why the Country Party held a steady majority throughout the four years of the Constitution debate. The mercantile politicians were outnumbered in the Assembly, and their only power was in the towns where they had allies in the press and other disciplines. They had articles reprinted and tried to foster debate on the advantages of joining the Union, but with little success. Even with this divisions, the most important parts of this society was religion and politics, and with Mannings stable guidance, education.

24

25

CHAPTER 2: Ratification Debate in the Twelve States Other Than Rhode Island

During the Constitutional Convention, it was collectively agreed that the Constitution would be reprinted and distributed to all the thirteen states. Once it was ratified by at least nine states, Congress would then prepare to commence a system under it. The issue of nine states brought with it a lot of controversy, as the Articles of Confederation had already established the Union a few years earlier. The Constitution was therefore a confirmation of the Union, and although the majority point raised a great controversy, the document was received with enthusiasm. The main reason behind the nine-state rule was that the Convention had been shrouded in secrecy for its entire course, leading to the emergence of extensive rumors such as those discussed in the previous chapter in Rhode Island. The Constitution was then distributed to all states, and the general populace, eager for a strong nation, welcomed it and waited for reviews of learned men. Subsequently, newspapers started to publish the articles and reviews of legislators and men of high esteem, and led to a divided country. Admittedly, the differences were those who were for the Constitution, known as the Federalists, and those who were vehemently opposed to it, known as the Anti-Federalists. .For them, the battle was between [Federalists], who supported ratification of the constitution as written (or as it now stands) and the [Anti- federalists] who never supported.40 Among the former were most of the Congress, George Washington, James

Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010): 551.
40

26

Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin41. Among the latter were Patrick Henry, George Clinton and George Mason. The Constitution was openly debated, and the partisans had their own opinion in the press and the state legislatures. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote what was known as the Federalist a series of eighty-five essays in support of the Constitution. Their writings were legend and constantly referred to by other federalists. All the States, including Rhode Island, by May 1790, ratified the Constitution. King, Gorham and Madison were members of the Convention as well as the Congress and they travelled wide to try to garner support for the document. The document could only be ratified in the individual states by conventions held for that purpose. Delaware was the first state to ratify the document (on 7th December 1787) with a unanimous vote, four days later, Pennsylvania followed suit five days later with a 66.67%, New Jersey on December 19th and Georgia on January 2nd with unanimous votes42. Connecticut followed on January 9th, Massachusetts on February 6th, Maryland on April 28th, South Carolina on May 23rd, New Hampshire on June 21st, Virginia on June 25th and new York on July 26th43. The last two states were North Carolina and Rhode Island on November 21, 1789 and May 29, 1790. Apart from Rhode Island, New York proved to be the headache for Federalists, first the fact that it was strategically placed in commerce and political power made it a key state for any side to capture. The same issues that seemed to be plaguing the legislature in Rhode

Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010). 42 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 97-125. 43 The order of ratification by state is as follows: (1) Delaware, (2) Pennsylvania, (3) New Jersey, (4) Georgia, (5) Connecticut, (6) Massachusetts, (7) Maryland, (8) South Carolina, (9) New Hampshire, (10) Virginia, (11) New York, (12) North Carolina, and (13) Rhode Island.
41

27

Island, mainly the conspicuous lack of a Bill of Rights, made it a nightmare for the federalist campaign, led by Alexander Hamilton, to strike any significant gains in at least the first few months. The State, however, finally ratified the document on July 26 1788. George Clinton was then the Governor of New York and he was vehemently opposed to movements. New York was a divided legislature given that two thirds of the delegates who had been at the Convention were opposed to the document. Hamiltons persuasive abilities, as well as his ability to reach a consensus with the anti-federalists, made it possible for the ratification to take place. There were radical and moderate anti-federalists, with George Clinton leading the former and Melncton heading the latter44. The vote to ratify the constitution was the closest at the time, with only a majority of three votes. The radical opposes had actually suggested that New York should seek to secede from the Union if the Bill of Rights was not included and some parts of the document amended. Actually, Hamiltons compromise agreement with the legislators included a clause that a bill of Rights should be added to the document. The only reason why the moderate antifederalists voted for the document was the fact they were promised that this amendments would be effected, and Hamilton wrote to James Madison on the matter. With this compromise, the possibility of a secession of the key state was averted. Although the other states would have existed as a Union without New York, its strategic importance was a key concern, which explains why the cadre of federalists was adamant on getting the written support of the leading politicians and public officials at the time. There was also overwhelming concern, even from members of Congress themselves, that the Philadelphia Convention had exceeded their mandate. The basis of this was that the original purpose of the Convention was to revise the law of the land at the time, known as the Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 94.
44

28

Articles of the Confederation, but it ended up creating a new form of government all together. While Clinton led the Anti-Federalist surge45 in New York, James Monroe and Patrick Henry led the Virginia factions. Admittedly, just three months after the document had been released for state conventions; the president of the Convention, Thomas Collins, led the debate, and the Delaware debate had very little substance. The main reason could be that the state was more interested in securing the capital city status, the seat of government, from Philadelphia, than to meaningful debate on the document. The fact that, Delaware would be an easy score for federalists had been known long before the Constitution was sent to the different states because all its delegates had been vocal in their support. There was virtually no dissent from its [General Assembly]46, and all its press publications indicated strong support for a federal government. The fact that the State delegates ratified the document after only a few hours of debate on the floor of the House is clear indication shows its overwhelming support. Delawares strengths would only be shown in a strong federal government; it was a small state whose primary concerns were trade and the determination of tariffs. This means the business community was largely supportive of the document, and the legislature showed no apparent opposition. Richard Henry Lee, although a Virginian, did actually try to encourage opposition in Delaware, but the unanimous vote shows he did not succeed47. Pennsylvania wanted to be the first state to ratify the document and had Delaware not done it so fast, then they would have succeeded. They were, in actual sense, the first to start Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 334. 46 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 52. 47 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 126.
45

29

the process by calling the first state convention. Unlike Delaware, however, the Pennsylvania legislature went through the document clause by clause. The state had growing support for anti-federalism, and the federalists strategy was to push for early convention and ratification to catch the former flat-footed. By the start of the convention, two-thirds of the delegates had openly supported the document48. Through the three weeks of scrutiny, there was little changed in the numbers among the convention delegates. Noting this strategy, the anti-federalists decided to use their numbers. They called for a postponement of the ratification process and left the Assembly, thereby denying it a quorum. The largely federalist crowds forcibly brought them back to obtain a quorum, a standard strong-arm practice at the time. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas McKean, the Chief Justice at the time, visited the ratification convention and spoke in support of federalism, strengthening the debate for the latter. Assuredly, the newspapers were almost all supportive, and the delegates used this to get pro-federalism materials published. This left Anti-federalists with little in choice of the papers that would print their arguments, and they became largely defensive, their only considerable victory being that the Constitution is scrutinized clause by clause. It resulted to several tactics during the course of those three weeks, first following the anti-federalist standard of attacking the document for the omission of a bill of rights. There was also a signed petition from 750 Cumberland Countys inhabitants, a list of amendments and a botched filibuster49. The result was that the debate in Pennsylvania was never fair. The field was tilted in favor of federalism by a biased press and a majority support in legislature and at the Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 392. 49 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 498.
48

30

Convention. This support meant that opposes had to result to defensive reactions, and in the end, they were humiliated. As a testing ground for federalism support, the aftermath of the debate proved to be a pointer of the need for consensus building instead of strong-arm tactics and bullying to push for an affirmative vote. New Jersey was no different from Delaware. Although very few records of the debate exist, it can be gathered from delegate of the Philadelphia Convention that they expected New Jersey to be an easy victory50. Most of the debate was centered on the same concerns as Delaware, the fact that their state was small and the current document accorded them the same representation as bigger states. They feared that were it to be amended, the state might lose this right. The resultant widespread support for the document can be seen in the petitions sent to the legislature from the people of Gloucester, Middlesex, Burlington and Salem counties. The state ratified the Constitution with a unanimous vote on December 18, after a two-day section-by-section scrutiny of the document. Georgia followed suit on January 2, 1788, becoming the first Southern state to ratify the Constitution51. Its set of problems was unique, which made the idea of federalism attractive. The cultural diversity, with Spaniards in Florida being a security headache for the Cherokee and Creek Indian nations, the state appears to have been more concerned about its security issues that the contents of the Constitution, at least at first. The legislature actually approached the proposed Constitution as an afterthought, given that they had gathered at the time to consider the rising threat of a looming Indian War. The Delegate selection itself had a strong majority of federalists, and by the time they came to a vote on January 2, a unanimous vote was in the offing. Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 129. 51 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 508.
50

31

To militate against any sentiments of Anti-federalism, the General Assembly empowered the Convention to partially ratify the Constitution is there was a part, or parts, that they felt did not represent the interests of Georgia. Despite the fact that leading politicians such as George Washington did not like the idea and termed as either wickedness, or insanity the state was fraught with support for the document52. In addition, the articles by Elbridge Gerry and the famed Centine; were published in Georgia newspapers in the weeks prior to the convention. The main concern in this particular state was that the Philadelphia Convention, and Congress, had both accorded too little time for the states to discuss the Constitution. To Georgians, however, the concern of security was more pressing than any concerns about the document itself. The election of the past governors, Edward Telfair, John Whereat and Nathan Brownson, current Governor George Mathews and Jared Irwin and George Handley, the last two who also became Governors, is perhaps the clearest indication of how important the document was to the People. To them, the dangers of insecurity53 and a powerful central government meant that they had to choose one of the lesser of two evils. Connecticut followed on 9 January 178854. It was the first state where real debate was carried out. Sharp divisions had existed since the ratification process started on 17 October 1787. The Anti-federalist campaign was headed in the Assembly by Benjamin Gale. The divisions were geographical than about the proposed Constitution. The federalist campaign was led by those who hailed from settled areas, while the hinterland representatives were largely against the document. Lampan, Ronald Watts, Reid, Darrel Robert & Herperger, Dwight. Parallel accords: The American Precedent. 1990 (ILGR, Queens University). 28. 53 The final unanimous vote is an indication of the temper at which the discussions were carried out. 54 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 509.
52

32

Undoubtedly, the federalist campaign used the stature of its delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, and other former governors, ministers, lieutenant governors, governors and other distinguished members of the society to promote their cause. As with New Jersey, the short time frame was of major concern to most of the anti-federalists. The federalists used this to flood the Convention with as many of their supporters as possible, leading to a significant majority. Some strong-arm tactics were used, as well as sabotaging methods such as the shuffling of papers to disrupt the Anti-federalist speeches. The federalists a fear tactic organized a charging that the Constitution would protect the smaller state from their stronger, dominant neighbor, the state of New York. Connecticut and New York had long been at odds over the latters bullying tactics. The Constitution was therefore, in their argument, a vote against dominance of New York. The smaller state would be defending itself by agreeing to join the Union as a member state. Still, the anti-federalists argued that a central government went against55 the principles of the state. New York Anti-federalists helped them obtain supportive documents and analysis56. They were shut out of the popular press, which was very biased to federalism, and they tried to use the floor of the Convention to achieve their aims. This never succeeded, as most of the delegates had already made up their minds by the time they went to the Convention. The killer blow was the arrival of information from Georgia that the state had unanimously ratified the Constitution. Even the floor of the Convention now rapidly turned against the Anti-Federalists. In letters, they wrote to their supporters in New York, they acknowledged the defeat and indicated that any hope of the Constitution failing was in the hands of the conventions of New York and Virginia. Connecticuts only issue, and it seemed Although their concerns were never addressed, as they should have, they also included the omission of a bill of rights guaranteeing personal freedom. Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 56 They never got the kind of publication that would have swayed the delegates opinion.
55

33

to work for the federalists, was the fear of domination by New York, which would result in exorbitant tariffs for commercial goods and other forms of commercial oppression. As with the other states, the federalists used this fear that had lasted since the Revolution, and incited the public into supporting the Constitution as a measure to ensure that the state was recognized as an independent state with equal powers to those of bigger states. Up to this point, the states that had ratified the document seemed to be driven by the need to be independent and have equal representation with the bigger states. The arguments did not focus on the document, but on the need to be part of the union. The issue of Bill of Rights was raised repeatedly, but the Federalists rebuttal was that the document restricted the rights of the central government so much, so that it would interfere with personal liberty and press freedom. Massachusetts was considered as the bedrock of anti-federalism. It was the third most populous state, and both sides knew that whichever way it voted would determine the course of the ratification process. The documents was going to be very hard to sell in Massachusetts should have been the hothouse of what the Federalists called [Antifederalism].57 The state was largely Anti-federalists, and it was assumed that the majority of the Convention delegates were against the document. In the first five states, the anti-federalists had resulted to sabotage methods58. The fact that Governor himself was openly anti-federalist made the argument in the Assembly even harder. They adopted a conciliatory strategy, the first of which was introducing amendments that would accompany the document, if it were ratified. Governor John Hancock represented the federalist argument to the convention, the strength being that he had not been part of the proceedings due to a serious case of gout. The Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010): 128. 58 This is through delaying of the ratification process to give their Antifederalism cause time to gain momentum.
57

34

federalists promised him that they would support his bid for the Vice-Presidency of the Union, and the Presidency should Virginia fail to ratify, which would make the revered George Washington ineligible for the position. The strategy won over the fence-sitting delegates such as Charles Turner who now supported the Constitution. Again, the concern of Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts was the apparent lack of a Bill of Rights. They used Thomas Jeffersons opinion on the Constitution to bolster their argument. As suggested by Pauline Maier: Jefferson also had strong reservations about the constitution when he first read it in Paris. He was appalled by the lack of bill of rights and the term limits for the president, thought Federalist fears of imminent anarchy were ridiculously exaggerated, and even suggested, like mason, that a second convention should be held after the people made their will known [Massachusetts].59 Indeed, he had written in support of the constitution, but raised concern on the lack of the Bill of Rights. He was of the opinion that a second convention was needed to handle this matter. Massachusetts was the Decisive test the entire process, the federalist strategy, although ultimately crude but strategically executed, managed to create a division in the antifederalist opposition. Their ratified document was unique in that it included the formal recognition of the concerns of the anti-federalists. After the narrow victory in Massachusetts, the debate moved to Maryland. As the debate had moved through the first five states, a worrying trend begun to emerge, the Constitution was getting more and more opposition as other states put ratifying conventions in place. In Maryland, the federalists scored an early victory by having 64 of the 76 total seats

Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010): 231.
59

35

at the state convention. However, the fact that the Anti-federalists listed William Paca60, a former Governor and an able orator, in their ranks bolstered their prospects. The main concern, as had been that of other opponents in previous conventions in other states, was the apparent lack of a Bill of rights. Realizing that his cause would never prevail in open debate, Paca suggested a deal, where the document would be ratified as long as it was accompanied by a list of proposed amendments. It was an adoption of the Massachusetts strategy, and eager to ratify the Constitution with a unanimous vote, the Federalists agreed. Unquestionably, they withdrew their support for fear that such a move would appear disjointed and disrupt the whole the process. Paca had calculated his move well, because either way he would make a point. When the Federalists withdrew their support, the point had already been made, that the document had some major flaws that needed to be addressed. One wonders why the Federalists in Maryland did not use their numerical advantage to vote for the Constitution without having to stake a deal with Paca and his team. There could be several reasons for this, the most plausible of which is the fact that even with a clear majority; the Federalists did not want to appear as insensitive to the issues raised. If this is true, then neither side lost, since the Anti-Federalists only wanted a promise that once the document was added, then the necessary amendments would be made. South Carolina followed, and as in Maryland some weeks before, the Federalists led a clear majority at the state Convention. While the 149-73 vote was a strong indication of the support the document had, it also showed several geographical splits that make this state particularly interesting. The low country areas were largely Federalist while the backcountry William Paca was a healthy lawyer, who led the opposition of Marylands to Britain and he was the one who signed the declaration of independence, he was the governor and chief justice of its supreme court. Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010): 244.
60

36

delegates were mostly Ant-Federalist. The Anti-Federalist issues, articulated by Rwalin Loundes, were mostly the same as those that had been raised in previous states, except for a few fear tactics that they tried, with little success, to employ. They argued that the document was aimed at forcing the northern states anti-slavery concerns on the Southern states and that if amended; the Articles of the Confederation would make a much better document. The Federalists had first tried the Massachusetts precedent of accompanying proposals on the ratified document, but the Anti-Federalists insisted on having the document thrown out as a whole. Even with prodding from other Anti-Federalists such as General John Lamb from New York to push for specific amendments, the South Carolina group failed to read the signs, resulting in the 2-1 defeat at the ratification ballot. With little organization and pure lack of tact, the opposition debate in South Carolina never became much of anything. The only thing that united these divergent groups was their collective opposition to the document61. In New Hampshire, a unique aspect emerged because the document had to go through two state conventions before it was finally ratified on 21 June 1788.62 The first Convention had a clear Anti-Federalist majority but it adjourned without taking a vote. The reasons for this adjournment were mainly procedural and had little to do with the actual debate itself. The Convention was adjourned in favor of a second convention, which sat a few weeks later at Concord. Nobody denies the ensuing vote was a narrow 57-47 win for the Federalists, making New Hampshire the ninth state to ratify the document. As per the Philadelphia Convention, once nine states had ratified the Constitution, it would then be considered as a valid document

Ibid., 1990, 41. Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010): 125.
61 62

37

for the United States. New Hampshire was the last element in this controversial two thirdsmajority rule. In New Hampshire, as had happened in South Carolina, the organization of the Federalist campaign was far more organized compared to the Anti-Federalists. Most delegates were already at the first convention before their opponents arrived, and they used delay tactics, as well as procedural concerns and bargaining. The Anti-Federalist delegates, unsure of the level of support, only agreed to a second convention when the Federalists agreed to hold it in, what was considered as largely Anti-Federalist land. This move was a very clever political move for the Federalists. With a four month-gap between the conventions, they launched a strong campaign for the Constitution in the newspapers.63 They also included reports of the ratification by Maryland and South Carolina. They used two approaches at the Second Convention; one was to agree to amendments and the other to emphasize the key role of the state in the entire process as the ninth state. The Anti-federalists realized that the majority had slipped from them and they adopted a new strategy, one that required that the towns bind their delegates into voting against the document. They lost because the Federalist tact was superior and included a host of contingency plans, which worked very effectively. The adjournment of the Exeter Convention had given the Anti-Federalists a false sense of confidence, and the federalists had used that time to ensure that they popularized64 the Constitution. The pragmatic approach,

This debate went past simple discourse about the Constitution, sometimes featuring personalized attacks on the leaders of the Anti-Federalist campaign. Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010): 331. 64 The fact that they had a flexible strategy also worked well for the entire process because they showed a high sense of democracy, as opposed to the dictatorial approach they could have adopted if they had a clear majority. Ibid, 2010.
63

38

which includes a concession to attach an amendment requiring the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, stifled the opposition, and brought the Constitution, at least technically, into effect as the Law of the Union. Even with nine states having ratified the document, the strategic importance of the next two states meant that the debate on ratifying the document had only reached its peak. Without Virginia and New York, the Union would not be complete, and the Federalist had to ensure that a decisive battle was won in both states. Therefore, when the Virginia Convention met on June 2, 1788 at Richmond, it was a high stakes event. The convention was composed of respected generals and lawyers, on both sides of the debate. Leading the Anti-federalists were Richard Henry Lee, George Mason and Patrick Henry. Leading the Federalists was the Governor at the time Edmund Rundolph and James Madison. The former had an advantage in the form of George Washington, the President of the Philadelphia Convention and a widely respected war hero. The fact that he had been part of the process itself perhaps added validity to the federalist cause, but neither side was assured of a clear majority. It was in Virginia, and perhaps later in Rhode Island, that the opposition went on an all out offensive to have the document amended before it could be ratified. Their only weakness was that they were an openly divided camp, with Richard H. Lee and George Mason arguing that however, Virginia voted would not really matter because nine states had already ratified the Constitution. Richard H. Lee proposed that the state should therefore adopt a combative approach, and ratify the document with an attachment that if a comprehensive Bill of Rights were not inserted within two years, it would secede from the Union. The concerns here went beyond simple personal liberty, it involved the powers that

39

the Constitution had accorded to Congress to regulate commerce. The strategy here is commendable, even by todays standards because the Union was a foregone conclusion. The other group of Anti-federalists, led by Patrick Henry did not like this approach. They insisted on having the document amended before it could be ratified. These amendments were necessary under, Henrys opinion; the document was into effect and could be amended. He was the better orator of the group insisted on inclusion of a bill of rights, press freedom, jury trial, rights of conscience and other changes he felt were necessary to the document. A trend seems to have emerged since the first two states ratified the document. The Anti-federalists had several objections to rise about the document, but centered on the Bill of Rights. It was no different in Virginia where the Anti-Federalists used the clause-by-clause scrutiny to point out the various aspects of the Constitution that would harm state freedom. The fact that the document lacked a Bill of Rights and the Constitution stated that the document would be the Supreme law of the Union meant that any bill of rights enacted by an individual State could be overridden. They were also worried that the document contained a hegemonic and monstrous federal government. On the other hand, the Federalists lacked tact, at least at first perhaps due to the spirited double prong attacks from the Anti-federalists. Their counter argument was based on James Wilsons theory that Congress could not legislate anything outside that which the Constitution authorized it to. They argued that attaching conditional amendments would weaken the states position and the other states could throw it out of the Union. This difference splayed out in the introduction of two motions, one to ratify the document and the other to do so but with set conditions. The Federalists tried the conciliatory approach that had

40

worked in Massachusetts, South Carolina and New Hampshire but the Anti-Federalists refused to consider it, knowing very well that it was a short-term fix. The conditional ratification motion was defeated with a ten-vote margin and on 25 June, Virginia voted to ratify the Constitution. A list of 20 improvements to the Constitution, and 20 recommendations including the need for a Bill of Rights was included and forwarded with the ratified document. The importance that Virginia was also due to the fact that George Washington, a Virginian, would be locked out of the Presidency if the state did not ratify the document. With ten states already having ratified the Constitution, the battle then shifted to New York. As with Virginia, the strategic position and significance of the State of New York made the debate a very important win for any side, if only for the viability of the Union65. The state was largely divided from the start of the Philadelphia Convention, and it took the two Houses of the assembly three days to agree on a motion to elect delegates to a convention. The only point of consensus was the advantage of holding a late convention to allow the populace to read the document and give their views, and to test how it would do in other states. They also hoped that by the time they held their ratification convention, the minimum required for the document to be put into use would have been reached. They were also worried that in case they rejected the Constitution before it became operational, then they would cause a ripple effect that would lead to the failure of the entire process. They had also hoped that they could influence two or three other smaller states to reject the document first, but this was never the case.

Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010): 120.
65

41

When the first vote by universal suffrage for all able-bodied men elected delegates to the ratifying convention, it was clear that the state was largely Anti-federalist. They had 46 seats against nine that were held by the Federalists. Of all the states that had already ratified the Constitution or did so after, New York stood out in having an organized Anti-Federalist group led by the Governor, George Clinton and a celebrated war hero, General John Lamb. With a clear majority, the Anti-Federalist Campaign at the convention took two main courses, Governor Clinton wanted another convention to deal with the issue of Bill of Rights while John Lansing suggested that they propose one and prefix it to the document. The motion that he suggested was a three-tier plan that included recommendatory, explanatory and conditional clauses for another convention. Even with such organization, however, the anti-federalists lacked a similar approach. For example, Melancton Smith tabled a motion that contained a conditional clause stating that the state of New York would withdraw from the union if Congress did not call another convention within four years. While the Federalists supported this and sought advice from James Madison on whether it was practical, the radical Anti-Federalists used their numbers to shoot down the motion. At this level, the Federalists adopted a waiting strategy to wear the majority AntiFederalists off because their solid majority meant that open debate would be fruitless. They used the news of ratification by New Hampshire and Virginia to foster a sense of fear of loss of prestige and power for the state within the Union. Knowing they could not ignore the AntiFederalist points, they suggested that alit of amendments, all of them non-conditional, be attached to the ratified document. They also proposed that a circular letter be sent to all the other states indicating the need for a second convention. These proposals won over enough moderate Anti-federalists to get a 30-27 vote for ratifying the document on 26 July.

42

The arguments for and against the Constitution might have been centered in New York but it was the strategic, as opposed to the argumentative, reasons that won over the Anti-federalists. Without the smaller states such as Maryland, there was no chance of New York spearheading the formation of a second confederacy or existing as a single state. With such fears in mind and little option, and the fact that Virginia ratified the document when the state was in the middle of its convention meant that there was too much to lose if they stayed out of the Union. North Carolina was a largely Anti-Federalist state, if the numbers of delegates elected to the convention is anything to go by. The main concern was that the Constitution gave the federal government too much power over state affairs66. This explains why the first motion, passed on 28 July 1788, only contained amendments that limited the powers of the federal government and introduced a bill of rights. This motion stuck as the official state of affairs until November 1789. Several changes had taken place, the federal government had been set up under the table hand of George Washington and the Union was a success. North Carolina had so far been viewed as a sovereign state, and the main concerns f the states anti-federalists were already being addressed by the new Congress. With this moves, North Carolina voted to ratify the Constitution and within a month, ratified a Bill of Rights that had been sent to the states by Congress, guaranteeing individual liberties, rights and freedoms. The Ratification debate in the first 12 states depended on more factors than just the simple content or omissions of the Constitution. Some scholars have divided the 12 states into three groups, the first which comprises of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, South Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010).
66

43

Carolyn, Delaware and Georgia where the prevailing conditions ensured that any opposition was stifled and the document passed without much of a fuss. Except for the Pennsylvania, the other states had their own reasons, mostly the fact that they were small states that new they could not be viable independent states. They therefore stifled opposition by emphasizing the fact that all the states, the size notwithstanding, would get equal representation in the new Congress, and no economic hurdles for conducting commerce within the Union.. Georgia and South Carolina had strategic interests and concerns, mainly of security from hostile neighbors and internal insecurity. In the next group were three major states, New York, Massachusetts and Virginia and the smaller New Hampshire where the debate went into the content of the Constitution. It was lively and based on political strength, organization and support for both sides. These particular states new hey could ideally, exist as independent states because they were big. Federalists new the Union would collapse without these major states, and worked hard in ratification the document. Nobody denies the lively debate was carried out in the press to encourage public debate, and support for the Union. Neither side had complete majority because the Antifederalist side, even while organized and having extensive debate, did not enjoy a single approach. The Federalist vote carried the day because they were willing to go the extra mile, giving concessions to gain the support of the Moderate Anti-federalists. With the precedent that had been started in Massachusetts, they all sent their ratified documents with a list of amendments. The last group consists of Rhode Island and North Carolina, where the AntiFederalists forces enjoyed strong support. Both sides had to hold two conventions after they
44

failed to ratify the Constitution the first time. The Anti-federalist argument was mainly the apparent lack of a Bill of Rights, the excess power that had been accorded to the central government and the issues of commerce. These were the major issues, although each state had its own minor concerns. The debate was led by host of respected people such as Elbridge Gerry, George Mason and Edmund Rundolph who articulated the Anti-Federalist cause with comprehensive knowledge of the document. They were concerned about the creation of a central government that would usurp most powers from the state governments and the lack of a bill of rights. They figured that once the new congress was constituted, the likelihood of getting the amendments passed would be low. Their main weakness that they never forged a strong alliance, strong and sensitive as their varying concerns was. Each state used it own resources to further its cause, except for the New York Anti-Federalists who reached out to other states, with no success. These differences existed because each sub-group had a different idea of what should happen to the union. Some wanted the document amended before it could be ratified, others after, and others wanted the Union to break into several constituent confederacies. In fact, the fear that a central government would usurp the powers of the state government and because of its sheer size is insensitive to the many problems of the individual states. Some were concerned that in creating a strong government, they would simply be replacing the monarchial despots they had fought a decade before. Despite the unified reasons, the fact that the Constitution had already been passed by both Congress and the Convention at Philadelphia meant that the Ant-federalist strategies had to be largely reactionary. First, they attempted to get a second convention before ratification, and then tried to get conditional ratifications, before finally settling for non-conditional
45

amendments. Suffice to say that theirs was never a lost cause because they managed to get a Bill of Rights passed through Congress before all the states had ratified the document. Conclusion On the Federalist side, the support of many or the revered personalities of the time added to the validity of their cause. Support for the Constitution was mainly because of the published onions of such leaders as George Washington and James Madison. From Pennsylvania, the Federalists had been unwilling to consider recommendations, at least until they faced a strengthened Anti-Federalist side in Massachusetts, which made them, consider and propose a compromise. They adopted a dynamic approach to the cause, sometimes employing delay tactics to ensure that their media campaigns swayed enough public opinion, and other times accepting amendments as accompanying documents to the ratified document. Their agenda was clear and their strategy was much more organized, they used their strengths where they could and adapted to the situation at hand, more so because they believed in the Union as the only workable alternative to fragmentation. They encouraged public debate, with leaders such as Alexander Hamilton encouraging the electorate to form an opinion about the document. The main reason for this was the fact that the Philadelphia Convention had been held behind closed doors, and the contents of the Constitution were largely unknown to non-politicians. While the course that the Constitution ran throughout the first twelve states can be described as an adventure that was smooth at first and then tumultuous, sometimes on the brink of collapse, Rhode Island held out the longest, and the new government had to use somewhat of commercial threats to bring the state to consider the document. The debate about the document went beyond simple concerns about creation of a strong government, but that the document did not provide for individual liberties and the government, considered
46

superior to the state governments, and could usurp theses perceive liberties. In the end, the states all ratified the document, with New York being the second to last to do so.

47

CHAPTER 3: Debate in Rhode Island on Whether Or Not to Ratify the Proposed Constitution, From August 1787 through March 1788

Rhode Island ratified the US Constitution on May 29, 1790 by a close margin vote of 34 to 32 votes, the closest one in the Union. It also holds the record as the first British colony in America to declare its independence through a formal notice to the British Monarch and the first to pass a law that banned slavery. This was in 1776, exactly two months before the Declaration of Independence was ratified by the thirteen States that formed the original Union. It had started as early as in 1772 when American soldiers from Rhode Island would attack British naval ships, the first being a warship called The Gaspee. It is a generally agreed point among historians that of the thirteen initial states, Rhode Island was the most independent and tried to safeguard it jealously. They only ratified the Constitution after the other states threatened to treat it is an autonomous country, and to apply all policies such as taxation on exports. Even with the threat in mind, the general population in Rhode Island did not see the need to join the Union. For the four years preceding the ratification, the conservative Country Party, which was strongly anti-federalist, controlled the General Assembly. With their support, General William West led a 1000 strong army to stop the celebrations of ratification in Providence. The Country Party used their power and numbers in the General Assembly to shoot down three attempts to elect a delegation to the Constitution Convention. Since the Inhabitants had moved there as a defense against religious persecution, they had adopted very
48

defensive policies against other states. The Constitution debate was no different, although the issues went deeper. The first and most significant issue was the radical policies the state had to govern its paper money system. Additionally, although James Mitchell Barnum, Rhode Islands only delegate to the Confederation Congress advocated for a strong central government for the Union, the Country party remained strongly anti-federalist. Although the votes against sending a delegation were united in the Upper and Lower Houses in the first two votes, the Upper House reversed its decision in June and decided to send delegates but the Lower House shot down the decision with a majority vote. Still, the wealthy merchant families in Providence, led by the Brown family, were apprehensive about the result of ratifying the Constitution. They formed joint committee with tradesmen and petitioned the Constitutional Convention to allow James Mitchell Varnum to set in when matters of commerce and the economy were being discussed. Meanwhile, the rest of the States started an onslaught on the Rhode Island politicians. Led by newspapers that were federalist, the criticism made inferences on the states protectionist policies and defensive decisions. The first had been the rejection of congressional impost in 1781, and the paper money policies that made the island infamous. Even with sustained pressure, the Country party continued to play politics with the matter of sending delegates. While the Upper House had rescinded its decision, only the Lower House attended the next session of the General Assembly in August. Where the federalist parties such as the Mercantiles favored that the Assembly proceed, and that profederalism letters be read so that the Assembly could advise the Governor, the Country party effectively used their majority to deny the House the necessary quorum to conduct any business.
49

Assuredly, the Newspaper articles reporting the matter decried the crudeness of methods used because some of the members of the Upper House actually lived in the proximity of the House67. The fact that the majority of the members did not attend the session shows that they were aware that their resistance to sending delegates had no chance of swaying the argument. Speculation was rampant on why this had happened, with such probable causes as the fact that they did not want to appear weak and the fear that by doing so, any recommendations made by Congress would be binding to them as well. In one letter, Francis Dana68 wrote to Elbridge Gerry69 that Rhode Island was harming the Union and should have all its territories divided among the other states. The power politics continued, with Governor John Collins opting to sidestep the General assembly in the matter by calling for a special session. Even this was done without the support of the majority, and the Governor first travelled to Newport and Providence to try to garner support for the session70. The special session, however, opted to adopt a letter that was later sent to the President of Congress, detailing the reasons why they would not send any delegates. Governor Collins presented this letter, together with the official protest letter by deputies in Providence and Newport to Congress on 24 September. At the special session held on 11 September, Governor Collins had adopted a more conciliatory tone. The Lower House, having demanded that he present the reasons why they should vote to send a delegation, listened as he read a letter from Congress. The letter detailed the need for the state to be represented at the Conventions daily meetings.

Commentary on the General Assembly, 20 August to 18 September 1787: 11. He was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He was from Massachusetts, and was too ill to attend convention. 69 Another delegate from Massachusetts 70 Evans, Acts and Laws of the English Colony of Rhode-Island. (Newport, 1767): 13.
67 68

50

In this situation, even with the clarification letter for representation, the Country Party managed to push the meeting to be moved from Wednesday to Thursday morning. The ensuing debate did not yield any significant result, the minority parties held ground, which was the most logical one, but the majority used its numbers to shoot down the motion. Even after the Speaker had implored upon them to discuss the matter, it had to be put to a vote from whence the majority won by eight votes, succeeding to deny the state the right to send delegates. Unrelenting, the President of Congress sent another letter the next day and the minority group proposed another motion, which was finally discussed on 15 September. The majority legislators again shot down the motion, this time with a margin of three votes. The House also passed another Act that required the executive to repeal all laws that were seen to contravening the treaty the state had signed with Britain. The Acct required that no part of the treaty be to be violated or receded from because it was a valid legislation.71 The other business of the House was a tax o thirty thousand pounds to alleviate State Debt. The letter to Congress remains the most important result of this particular special session. Even with the agreement that there was a need to send at least to Delegates to Congress, the House could not agree on whether they should be represented at Congress. The majority members, being some of the wealthiest, used their monetary influence to curtail the work of the delegates. In the letter that Governor Collins read to Congress, several points became clear. One, the monetary policy of Rhode Island was a primary concern. The first issue was the fact that in March of 1786, the Rhode Island General Assembly had passed a law that allowed Congress to control commerce for a period not exceeding fifteen years. However, the other State Gazette of South Carolina, 15 November, and Georgia State Gazette, 1 December 1787. 16.
71

51

states failed to do the same, and the grant never came to effect. The section also made inferences to the Impost of 1781, which Rhode Island had vehemently rejected72. It never went into effect because New York accepted it with conditions, and eventually rescinded its adoption after Virginia did the same. Additionally, the letter also claimed that the General Assembly could not determine whether to send members to the Convention because they did not have the right to send delegates to Congress itself. This point was based on the right of suffrage for all free men, which the Assembly referred to in order to create a legitimacy concern. Curiously, although unexpected, the letter ended with an express wish to join the union and support the Constitution. In the protest letter from the deputies of Newport and Providence, several points of why the Assemblys reasons were invalid were raised. The fact that Rhode Island had signed other treaties and laws with the other states meant that it could not start behaving like an independent state. The people had elected to be freed from Britain, and had fought for it, and the state had been part of the formation of Congress and had subsequently sent delegates to the Stamp Act Congress (1765), Albany Congress (1754) and the Conventions at Boston and Annapolis in 1780 and 1786 respectively. The other point dwelt on the protest of commerce, and the fact that the legislature had itself passed the laws that granted those powers, and those of the Impost a few years earlier, to Congress when such powers actually belonged to the citizenry. As part of the United States and therefore subject to the Articles of the Confederation, the letter said, any change to the articles could not be effected without the full participation of all the members so that the individual state legislatures would pass corresponding laws.

72

Newport and Providence Protest of Rhode Island General Assemblys Letter to Congress 17 September 1787. 22.
52

The strongest point in the protest letter was the fourth point that made inferences to the move by the Rhode Island legislature to allow the citizenry to vote for their delegates to Congress. The letter that Governor Collins read to Congress declared that this was the same with any delegates to the Convention. However, the protest letter indicated that the General Assembly had retained the powers to send delegates in case of death or recall of any of those serving at the time.73 The point went further to underscore the fact that the General Assembly still had rights to vet the delegates before they proceeded to Congress, which was a permanent body and therefore more important, in a sense, than the convention. The point here was to show that the fears in the letter were largely unfounded because the Convention was a special session, and the Rhode Island legislators could therefore not use Congress as a premise for their refusal to honor the invitation. This point went on to further declare that the assumed powers of the legislature of all member states, and Rhode Island in particular, made this point most absurd.74 The last point was an apology for the continued defiance of the State of Rhode Island, and a spirited dissent from the points raised by the General Assembly. The letter was signed by Henry Marchant, George Champlin, Daniel Mason and Win Tripp from the town of Newport and John Brown, Welcome Arnold, Benjamin Bourne and Joseph Nightngale from Providence. Marchant and Bourne were lawyers while Champlin, Topham, Mason, Brown, Arnold and Nightngale were merchants and Tripp was a renowned tanner. They all undersigned the letter, being part of what the newspapers at the time called the minority because they came from the towns of Providence and Newport, and Bristol, the last of which was not represented at the special session where both letters were drafted. The points they raised were valid, but they lacked the numbers to have a valid motion passed. Ibid., 22. 1787. Ibid., 22. 1787, the last paragraph of the fourth point.
53

73 74

Certainly, the only thing that the Assembly had agreed to was the sending of two delegates to Congress when the New Year started in the first day of November. On this point, they had declared that the only reason they had not done so earlier was that they had pressing concerns in their State, which strained them in time and finances. In 1787, the General Assembly had ordered that the Constitution be reprinted and distributed in the State. This was done through the newspaper channels, with John Carter, editor of the Providence Gazette leading the drive. The media at the time was biased almost to a fault, an example being a 27th September publication of the Providence US Chronicle75, which praised the idea of the union and the basis upon which it was being formed. The correspondent, whose name was never indicated, used example of Europe and the fact that such diversity would never have allowed for the formation of a union. Even with this however, the article also declared that the rights of all freemen were to be respected if the resulting Constitution was to be anything but a pie of paper. On any part that would harm the rights of the citizens, they were to be consulted by their representatives. The greatest fear of all federalists, especially in Providence was that if more influential people such as politicians, merchants and lawyers became anti-federalist, then the convention would crumble and the States would emerge as independent states.76 The apology letter from the legislature elicited very little, if any, support from other states. The Country Party was forthwith considered as villain in the attempts to forge a workable document from the Articles of the Confederation. The fact that the delegates who were to be set to Congreve had not even received the necessary finances to begin their journey was a clear indication that the protest was deeper than the apology let out.

75

Reprinted: Boston Gazette, 1 October; New York Morning Post, 6 October; Hartford American Mercury, 8 October 1787. 27.
54

76

Newport Herald showed this growing discontent in its 4 October issue77 where the author notes the fact that Rhode Island was a state at crossroads, with a falling economy and increasing debt. He (or she) noted the failure of the General Assembly to reach a quorum, and the earlier refusal to reappoint judges to the Superior Court, as indications of how unwilling the legislators were to rescue the State from the imminent collapse. One other reason why this became a tug of war was that the other States noted the strategic influence of Rhode Island with its three major towns; Newport, Bristol and Providence, all of which were influential seaport towns. While some professionals such as William Ellery in his letter78 to Ebenezer Hazard noted that the domino effect of accepting the Constitution would have an uphill task in Rhode Island, they collectively agreed that there was little hope of consensus. Ellery also noted that Rhode Islands reaction was most likely to follow that of New York most likely because most inhabitants of the Island had originally lived in the latter. Meanwhile, debate about the contents of the Constitution continued. To the one major concern that it lacked a bill of rights, James Wilson79 indicated that although one was not provided, it was unnecessary. He defended his point by reiterating that any component that had not been provided for in the document could not be touched. He used the example of the freedom of the press, a pressing concern at the time, where he indicated that it was guarded by the fact that it was not mentioned, and the government could therefore not interfere with something over which it had no powers. The concern about the bill of rights had reached Rhode Island from reprints of essays by Samuel Bryan who was strongly anti-federalist. At the time, the public was outraged about

Reprinted in Page 30 William Ellery to Ebenezer Hazard Newport, 16 October 1787. 32. 79 He had formerly represented the State of Pennsylvania at the Convention, pg 33.
77 78

55

a publication that had reportedly been written as an address by sixteen members of the Majority, but which the newspapers later recalled. Consensus around the matter indicates that Samuel Bryan might have written the address alone, and then gotten the signatures to instill validity and numbers80. Wilsons speech was reprinted in Rhode Island by the Providence Gazette and the Newport Herald81. Wilsons argument stirred the already rocky waters. Responses to his speech Cincinnatus by Arthur Lee; expressed dismay as lack of honesty of the defense by Dr Wilson. Their main concern was the fact that freedom of the press would be endangered if it were not expressly guarded, as would juries in civil cases. Rhode Island, being one of the earliest advocates of the ending of slave trade, was also concerned with rumors that the convention had agreed to let individual states handle their own policy on the matter. However, including the matter in the constitution, there would be less that could be done by Congress. This matter was of special concern to the church, especially to Hopkins (17211803) who was a minister in the First Congregational Church, and Moses Brown, a minister in New England. The lack of a federal government was ruining the commerce in all the states, mainly because no single state had the finances to conduct its own lines of trade. A major concern, and perhaps the reason why the deputies from Newport were supporters of federalism, is the fact that many of the ships that transported their produce were owned by Britain. The Newport Heralds publication on 25 October 178782 predicted that without a federal government, the Northern States would become increasingly depopulated and the Southern ones would only exist as trade centers for European benefit. James Wilsons, The Rhode Island Reprinting: State House Speech. 1827. October 1787. 36. 81 Ibid., James Wilsons, October 1787. 34. 82 Newport Herald, 25 October 1787. 39.
80

56

The publication also opined that the commerce grants that had been bequeathed to Congress had expressly allowed it to enact all related laws, and the Constitution was one of them. It is however important to note that only the fifteen year grant signed in 1784 was still in force, the subsequent attempt in 1785 to grant the powers as permanent had not been sent to the states because of the resistance it elicited83. In the attempt to garner support that is more public for the Constitution, the Newport Herald, as well as the United States Chronicle and the Providence Gazette published a speech that Governor John Hancock made to the Massachusetts General Court in support of the process. Others such as ministers John Manning and Isaac Backus used the church as a platform to educate the public on the components and details of a federal government. This was an effective method mainly because the people of Rhode Island took religion as a key component of their existence. In the religious aspects of Rhodes Island, most of the people there had migrated to the island because of religious reasons, and the churches that were formed such as the First Baptist Church were very influential. The churchs role became increasingly important as the different political factions continued the legislative wars. John Manning, as the moderator of the Association of Baptist Churches, had travelled to New York for the associations meeting where the church endorsed the Constitution84. The argument against the Constitutional convention went beyond Rhode Island. After George Washington, then the President of the Convention, sent the first report to Congress, the latter was supposed to send it to each of the thirteen states for ratification by the public. The critics to the document felt that the convention had violated the Article under which it

[Editorial Note] John Hancocks, The Rhode Island Reprinting of Governor Speech to the Massachusetts General Court. 2527 October 1787. 40. 84 Henry Marchant to Levi Hart Newport, 30 October 1787. 41.
83

57

was created and the subsequent Congressional resolutions. The document was however, sent to each state without the indication of opposition that the critics wanted included. The House of Deputies in Rhode Island met and appointed a sub-committee to report on the letters that Governor Collins had read to Congress in September. Quorum was only reached on Day 3, the House finally starting its sittings on 31 October. The main aim was to determine the next step on the requirement that each state should have its own convention where the public could ratify the Constitution. Henry Marchants proposal that the report from the Convention be sent to individual towns was rejected by an overwhelming majority, most likely pushed by the fact that opposition was still rife. The House had several matters to consider, the first of which was a Bill that prohibited slave trade, which was, much to the surprise of many, passed with an overwhelming majority. Marchants argument and perhaps the most valid of all now was that the General Assembly was only a medium between the Convention and the people. The idea that the letter should be sent to the major towns was (not surprisingly) supported by the deputies from the towns of Newport and Providence. The arguments however did not; convince any of the members of the majority but the House had emitted something that indicated they were still in the idea of federalism. To this end, the House only ordered that the report be sent to several major towns to inform the public. Even when Commodore Whipple85 raised the point that the letter that the House had had Governor Collins read to Congress had indicated that the state would send delegates to Congress, the House did not act on the motion. The point is that anything this particular sitting only gave an appearance of cooperation because they did not want the state to be alienated but shot down anything that Charles Thomson, The requisition to the states (Smith, Letters, XXIV, 48788). 18 October 1787. 45.
85

58

would have appeared as strong support. The delegates, as the letter had indicated, would be sent at the beginning of the new federal year at the start of November. Despite the fact that the House sat the day before the promised date, the fact that it did not act on the promise is indication of abiding reluctance to participate in the federal government. Additionally, it refused to act on motions concerning requisitions to the Congress, most likely because the Country Partys majority considered that as an indication of participation in a process they did not support. The Party had shown concern in March of 1787 when it attempted to curtail the powers of the key towns by bringing a motion to the House to give all the towns equal representation. At the time, Newport had six deputies while the other major towns of Warwick, Portsmouth and Providence each had four. The motion had elicited very heated debate and had not been voted on by the time the House started dealing with the report from the Convention86. However, the House could only hold out for so long, and in February of the next year, sent Jonathan J. Hazard and Peleg Arnold to Congress as delegates. The two were strongly Anti-federalist, which meant that their main aim was to push for the agenda of the Country Party. The thorny issue of slave trade threatened to rear its ugly head again. At the end, the contents and report of the Constitutional Convention reached Newport and Providence; Hopkins noted that the document had secured the right of states to conduct slave trade for at least the next twenty years. Although it gave the power to each individual state to formulate its own policies on slave trade and asylum for freed slaves, the ministers did not trust that the legislature would carry out the desired steps. John Brown had earlier advised Moses87 to join the legislature and fight for his beliefs in slave trade instead of

Polishook, 14748, and Conley, Democracy in Decline, 1035. 45. [Editorial Note], Rhode Island General Assembly Prohibits the Slave Trade, 31 October 1787. 49.
86 87

59

fighting the battle from the sidelines. He published the essays that Hopkins had sent to him in support of an end to slave trade and lobbied the members of the legislature to support the move. The Bill was passed with a majority of Forty-one votes in the Lower House, and a unanimous vote in the Upper House. Even the proponents of the drastic move had not anticipated such an easy victory because Rhode Island was famous (now infamous) for its thriving slave trade. Moses brown later formed the Providence Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery88, which Hopkins later joined, for the sole purpose of ensuring that the Act was not violated. The Church, considered here broadly, had won a battle between morals and commerce, and Moses brother John continued to fight the provisions of the Act and the Society his brother had formed. The Country party could also have been drawing its strength from that fact that even those who had originally supported the Constitution were backtracking after participating in the convention. Elbridge Gerry, for example, represented Massachusetts at the convention but refused to sign 17 September report. He voiced his reasons in a series of letters to the legislature. Among his main concerns were that he felt the document created a national government, away from the idea of a federal government that everyone had hoped for at the convention. He felt that the rights and representation of the people were not adequately addressed, and that too much power was accorded to Congress and the executive. 89 Moreover, the powers that had been accorded to the judiciary would [in his opinion], make that particular arm of government oppressive. When the letter was published throughout the country, the critic grew and counter-arguments were published, one of Massachusetts Centinel, The Publication of the Constitution in Rhode Island, 27 September 17871790, (7 November 1787). 50. 89 [Editorial Note], The Rhode Island Reprinting of Elbridge Gerrys Letter to the Massachusetts Legislature, 810 November 1787. 52.
88

60

particular interest being from a person who only identified himself as the Rhode Island man. The argument among Rhode Island residents, as evidenced in the report in the Newport Herald issue of 15 November 178790, was that the commercial leaders, wary that a federal government would place their paper money system at risk, were the forces behind the spirited opposition. There is substance in this concept, given that Rhode Island had led the way in implementing some of the most controversial policies at the time. Through Ending slave trade and being one of the first states to respect the treaty that the new states had signed with Britain, it is surprising that it was holding back on the move to a federal government. The main concern of the Country Party, although defended with relatively weak points that are most visible and well articulated in the letter that governor Collins read to Congress, could have been the commerce aspects. In the Philadelphia Freemans Journal (21 November 1787)91, the correspondent observed that the state of Rhode Island had never defaulted in paying its taxes to Congress, except of course for the five percent impost which they had so vehemently opposed a few years earlier. The fact that a federal government would require even more money to run could have been one of the reasons why some people felt it would only be a replacement of the British Monarchy. Thai article raises the same concerns that Gerry had raised, such as the continuing of slave trade, the non-inclusion of press freedom and the monstrosity of the Supreme Courts powers. The Publius, a series of essays written by the most vocal members of the Convention at the time, among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, were also published

Newport Herald, 15 November 1787. 56. Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 22 November; New York Daily Advertiser, 24 November; Philadelphia American Museum, December 1787. 60.
90 91

61

throughout the colonies. One issue that brought controversy was the fact that the essays, which were summaries of the benefits of a federal government and the proposed constitution, concluded with paragraphs about the maintenance of a standing army even in time of peace. For states such as Rhode Island, which were frugal with their spending, a standing army would only translate into increased taxes to maintain the army, perhaps a reintroduction of the impost, and other direct taxes by Congress and the federal government. This fear had already spread to New York when the essays were reprinted in Rhode Island, and the politicians, in need of support from other states, quoted from the reports that the former would not ratify the document92. Other issues, as shall be discussed in the next chapter, were those that George Mason, the Virginia delegate raised. He had been one of the Conventions greatest supporters, but he did not vote for the document on 17 September. His reasons were that although he supported the creation of a federal government, the document grace the central government too much power over the states. He was also concerned, as had others such as Gerry, that the document conspicuously lacked a Bill of Rights. He, Randolph and Gerry were threatened and sidelined for their refusal to sign the federal government. Furthermore, the Landholder, widely attributed to have been Oliver Ellsworth, wrote critics to Mason and Gerrys objections, claiming that the formers objections had only begun when he failed to get the two-thirds rule passed for Congress policies on navigation93. He also attested that since the government would be the people themselves, there was no need to have an expressly worded bill of rights. The federalists at the time attacked the character of the

Wheeler, Providence United States Chronicle, 29 November 1787. 64. [Editorial Note], George Masons, The Rhode Island Reprinting of Objections to the New Constitution, 29 November 1787. 67.
92 93

62

three non-signers, one article in the Newport Herald claiming that Mason had attempted to get wealth added as one of the qualifications for office holders. Similarly, letters such as the Centinel attacked the character of the federalists, claiming that Benjamin Franklin was senile and could not be trusted as an authoritative voice in the matter, and that George Washington had been duped into signing the document. As the tug-of war continued throughout the states, both sides of Rhode Islands politics noticed the parts that made their argument stronger. On the Centinels point, there could have been substance to the argument, but only in the context that the inclusion of Franklin and Washington at the Convention was mainly to garner support for the convention. The fact that the earliest arguments for the convention had several mentions the two names; gives this impression, and could have been deliberate because they were both respected public officials.94 Rhode Islands federalists feared that not joining the Union would result in alienation and were Great Britain to attack again, the other States would let their state be repossessed. The alienation would have been the greatest defeat because of the monetary concerns of taxation and trade.95 The idea that Britain would attack again was far-fetched in the fact that the union would never let the monarchial government take over any part of the United States because this would place all of them in danger of repossession. Next, Washingtons letter to the President of Congress was reprinted by all the existing newspapers of Rhode Island. His opinion was highly regarded and respected and his assertion that any state that did not ratify the constitution would do so in blood96. By

Vir., Providence United States Chronicle, 13 December 1787. 73. Hampden, Newport Herald, 3 January 1788. 81. 96 [Editorial Note], George Washington, The Rhode Island Reprinting of a Letter Expressing Support for the Constitution, 1728 January 1788. 88.
94 95

63

1788, the Rhode Island public had grown increasingly wary of the alienation that would follow, the newspapers reported that at least seven states had already ratified the document by February of that year, and the others were increasingly following suit. This placed the Rhode Island legislature in the spotlight, as they would have to rush to appoint a state convention to study the document. Conclusion The politics in Rhode Island made the stat hold out of appointing delegates to the Constitutional Convention for longer than the any other state. The General Assembly, with a majority of the Country Party voted for strongly anti-federalist means. While deputies from the towns of Newport and Providence, and others in the Assembly worked hard to convince the others of the dangers of holding out, the former used their numbers to derail the process. Although the anti-federalists had valid points due to the concerns about commerce and the sentiments on slave trade, they used the arguments that were forwarded from those such as Gerry who had refused to sign the Constitution at the end of the convention. The General Assembly showed indications of being in the federal government but in its actions, showed its lack of desire to participate in the union. It directed Governor Collins to read a letter to Congress indicating the reasons why the State would not send delegates to the convention but promised to send them to Congress at the start of the new federal year in November. They did not do so until the February of 1788. The issues of slave trade, commerce, taxation, power of the central government, treaty with Britain and others were the main reasons why Rhode Island held out of the Union for so long. While the other states dissenters were treated as villains, the legislators of Rhode Island were content with using their majority to deny the assembly quorum and to shoot down motions that could have fuelled the participation in the Constitutional process
64

CHAPTER 4: Referendum in Rhode Island on Whether Or Not to Ratify the Proposed Constitution, from February 1788 through May 1788 Rhode Islands reluctance to join the Union can be traced to several factors, key among them the issue of the paper money, slave trade, the cost of a strong central government and what they felt would be interference with the sovereignty for which they had fought. The state, as with the other twelve states, was divided into Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions, with the latter enjoying a clear majority both at the General Assembly and in the town councils. With such as strong mandate and support from the people, the Assembly employed legislative hurdles to slow down the process, perhaps in the hope that other states would refuse to ratify the document. When the Philadelphia Convention sent the proposed Constitution to Congress in September of 1787, one of the resolutions required Congress to have the document transmitted to all the states. The purpose of this was to allow the states and the citizens by extension, to view the document and express their views through ratifying conventions that would be held to consider it. Rhode Islands reluctance to ratify was first shown by the fact that by February of the next year, all the other states had called ratifying conventions. The Assembly rejected a motion in November of 1787 that would have called for the convention and did so again in February 178897. In a move that is debatable for its validity at the time, the Country Party used its majority to pass a motion that set in motion a referendum, where all freemen who were eligible to vote in elections would vote on whether to ratify the document. The Federalists

97

Newspaper Report, House of Deputies Proceedings. (Thursday, 28 February 1788): 15.

65

proposed an amendment to this motion that would have sneaked in the state conventions before the referendum but it was voted down. This was the same day, which the Assembly voted to send its delegates to Congress, Peleg Arnold and Jonathan Hazard, perhaps to save face. They had resisted the move since the previous year, and had used the treasury to deny any delegates the finances they required to pay bills and meet their travel expenses. Since Rhode Island never sent any delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, it had no prior knowledge of what the document contained, a situation that would perhaps have been avoided by sending delegates. The main reason for doing so could have been that the state had already indicated that it did not support a strong central government with its refusal to ratify the Impost in 1781. With this in mind, the Philadelphia Convention stipulated that only nine states would be required for the Constitution to be operational zed, as opposed to the unanimous vote that the Impost had necessitated. As with New York, the Country party probably hoped that other states would refuse to ratify the Constitution and the process would start again. As state after state reached a compromise and ratified it, Rhode Island became increasingly isolated as the entire Union trained its eyes on it. The Assembly became defensive, supported by the some religious leaders and the citizens of the agricultural segments of the mixed society. The referendum was defended with a number of points, the strongest of which was that the state had not sent any delegates to the Convention, and had therefore not been appointed by the people. This meant that the people had not, assented to the amendments to the Articles of the Confederation that were carried out at the Convention. The Federalists argued that no other state had held a referendum on the matter and any decision made in such a way could not be regarded as legally decisive.
66

The background to this is the fact that a referendum could not be said to represent an assembled collective capacity, such as a state convention, where the document could be scrutinized and discussed in detail such that a vote would be binding on the minority. The Country Party in turn argued that the act of ratifying the document would result in a change of government for the people and they therefore had the right too directly determine whether they wanted such a change.98 They also defended the Bill to conduct a referendum on the bias that none of the documents that had been transmitted from the Philadelphia Convention made any mention of provision for amendments, which meant that even if they decided to call a convention, there was no surety that any amendments would ever be enacted. The federalist argued that the whole idea of representation was built on the basis that not everyone could be part of any central government. The fear that a convention would go against the ideals and concerns of the people, they argued, was farfetched because the delegates would be elected by the Assembly on behalf of the people who had given them the mandate. A referendum would also cause divisive politics because of the differing preferences of the different towns, which would mean that certain towns would vote for while the others would be against the Constitution. The news spread throughout the states, as the Massachusetts Centinel99 reported, that the Act required that a referendum be held on May 24, 1788. The fact that by the time, six states had already ratified the document was reason that perhaps the motion would pass in a referendum. The newspaper also asserts the idea that Governor Collins was inherently a

Newspaper Report, House of Deputies and House of Magistrates Proceedings, (Saturday, 1 March 1788): 18. 99 William Allen to Henry Knox, Providence, (4 March 1788): 23.
98

67

Federalist, but had to play to the tune of the majority, at least for the first few years, to keep the office. The argument went beyond the legality of the referendum because none of the other groupings of Anti-Federalists in the other states had seen anything wrong with the Conventions. In fact, many of them had seen it an s a chance to increase their popularity and the get specific items changed or amended, or given as attachments, something that would not be possible if any of them had opted for a referendum. Unlike states like New Hampshire, Rhode Island was not a small state that required the strength of a unified and strong central government. It did not face many of the security issues that other states like Georgia had, or the strategic importance theta the bigger states had to guard. All that Rhode Island had, due to decades of existing as a single unit, was its own policy, and a weak central government that would not interfere with that. The Country Party knew that the main concern of the citizens was the issue of paper money, which placed economic interests at the center of their holding out. Paper money had come up as the desired solution of the debtors from agricultural lands who had suffered great debt after the Revolution. That hard currency was rare and the privilege of merchants made it even harder for them to settle their debts, and they therefore advocated for paper money to ensure that they could honor their debts. These farmers also advocated for a government elected by popular support, as well as the push for lower taxes that led to the outright rejection of the 1781 Impost. 1786 proved to be an year of somewhat of an Agrarian revolution, with the farmers using their numeric advantage to vote in a Country Party majority, which meant that the General Assembly could now respond to their concerns. The Assembly subsequently passed Acts and smaller policies that forced merchants to accept the paper money, stabilized the
68

printing of paper money and advocated for a fragmented federal government. They knew that if a strong federal government was in place, more taxes would have to be imposed on the people and the state to run it, and it would have control over the money supply chain and policies. These commercial interests are the main reasons why the minority Mercantiles federalists tried, unsuccessfully, eleven times to get the assembly to call a Convention. The debate over paper money had taken a new turn in 1785 and the supporters of a more stable currency policy were all voted out in the town council elections the next year. The farmers argument lay mainly in ignorance of the need for money to have a certain value. To them, a government stamp was enough for a piece of paper to be considered as legal tender despite the fact that it was corrupting their already weakened economy. The merchants, mainly from the towns of Bristol, Newport and Providence, knew of the paper money was valueless, and fought legislative battles to have it replaced with silver, or hard money as it was known at the time. They were however in a terrible minority both in the town councils and in the general Assembly and all they could hope was that the economic downturn would bring the farmers to sense on the matter. The resultant inflation was also blamed on the merchants, supposedly for their refusal to accept the paper despite the fact, which mortgaged at twice the amount of the scrip that was to blame for the situation. The legislatures action of forcing them to accept the money brought the economy to a near standstill in 1786, with both sides trying to starve each other into submission. The refusal of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island to find John Weeden in contravention of the forcing act led to the dismissal of the judges, a move that was an s controversial as the Act itself.

69

The legislature was using its agrarian majority to assert its authority in the paper currency debate and the fact that the judges found the previous act unconstitutional and impractical did not stop them from proposing another one, but it failed because it was too drastic. These economic foolhardy moves made Rhode Island the subject of ridicule in the press in the other states, and explains why some referred to it as Rogues Island. There is little proof that the Country party ever felt vindicated by this given that the state had largely isolated itself from the others even before the Revolution. The main point of ridicule was not the act of printing money itself, but the ridiculous act that had been passed to enforce it. It required that any merchant who was found guilty of having failed to accept a payment would be fined five thousand dollars, and even more so, would be denied his right to vote. Another clause stipulated that a debtor could be discharged from his debt if he deposited his money with a judge if his creditor refused to accept it as payment. The paper money issue could also be one of the reasons why the Country Party felt that a referendum would be better than a convention. The idea that they would lose their seats if they failed to act in the best interests of their voters would have scared them enough to opt for a move that would shift the blame from them. Rightly so, since the referendum chose not to ratify the document, but only because the electorate had been largely misinformed and unlike other states did not do any actual debate on the Constitution itself. Rhode Islanders were more interested in how a new government would affect their lives than how they could benefit from a strong central government. A referendum presented them with such an opportunity and for a people that held elections every year; it would be another chance for them to express their opinion on a matter that would affect them for the rest of their lives.
70

The Federalists were also concerned that the referendum was not legal and even if the vote were affirmative for ratification, it would still not be accepted as a valid vote by Congress. The basis of this was that the mandate of ratifying the Constitution had been accorded only to state conventions convened to handle this particular matter. It would therefore be a futile affair to hold a referendum, most people opined, when the legislature would still have to call a state convention if it was serious on the matter. Moreover, it was practically impossible to engage all the freemen in the state in intellectual dialogue over matter, as would be done at a convention and the votes would be based on sentiments as opposed to informed onion. The fact that a convention would sit for more than a day, for months even, meant that they would get the chance to study the document at length and form more informed opinion.100 On the other hand, the Anti-federalist argument was largely defensive, first attacking the very basis of the Philadelphia Convention and its constitutionality in discharging of the Confederation. The Country Party felt as if the document was cornering them to make a choice in the livelihood of its supporters, fearing that the usurping of currency power to a central government would deny the inhabitants the right to discharge their debts. There was also fear that the lack of a Bill of rights would harm the freedom of worship that Rhode Islanders valued as key component of their society. There were Baptists, Quakers, Catholics (after the Revolution) and other Christian denominations on the state that had been formed from religious rebellion. They pried on the fear that a Convention would be cut off from the realities of the people, and the appointees would not represent their needs as was needed. Knowing very well that it would be

100

A Freeman, Providence Gazette, 15 March 1788. 27.

71

impossible to collect views on amendments, a referendum would offer them the chance to outwit their Federalist rivals. It is clear that the decision to hold a referendum did not go down well with everyone in the state. The Federalists used their extensive influence in the press to show their disdain, as the article in Newport Herald issue of 20 March 1788101 indicates. The fear of propaganda would be mistaken as credible information, especially from the Country Party and other AntiFederalists who wanted to scuttle the process. The Acts that the General Assembly of Rhode Island had passed the years prior to this process had all bordered on legislative dictatorship especially on the matter of paper money. The federalists proffered a Convention so that they could debate for the positive effect that the Constitution would have on the commerce. The real point here is that a central government with a strong treasury would take over the issuing of money and all other money policies, saving them from the draconian and ill-thought issuance of paper money that made Rhode Island infamous. The point that the contributor raised in this particular issue are very candid on the fact that the proposed Constitution would be an amendment of sorts to the Articles, but a completely different document from the British Constitution that they all loathed. The Congress (unlike the British parliament) would not be supreme or absolute but would have to exist within the confines of the Constitution. It would also constitute of two houses, the Senate and the House of representatives and once a Bill had passed through both Houses, the President could negate it but a clear majority would effectively mean that the Bill was now law. The fact that it elections would be held every four years should have been of particular interest to the Rhode islanders because they valued the right to vote for representation.

101

A Freeman, Newport Herald, 20 March 1788. 29.

72

It is clear that the paper money policies had ruined the economy of Rhode Island, leading to massive joblessness and the total collapse of some industries. Inflation was at an all-time high, with little commercial incentives for the merchants. The arguments only increased as the referendum drew nearer, with articles published in the US Chronicle chiding the idea that a referendum was the best solution102. Most of these Federalists felt that the main problem with the Anti-Federalist argument was that none of it included a viable option to the proposed document. It was just an open attack on its contents, with little about what would happen to the Confederation if the Constitution were not adopted. Without a convention, no amendments could be proposed as the Massachusetts had done, which would mean that other than having missing the making of the Constitution, Rhode Island would be seen as insignificant in amending the document. It would be the least significant because smaller states had already given their proposals and several of them had passed them with unanimous votes. With a divided vote that would be built on what many saw as an illegality, the role of Rhode Island would weaken even further, hurting its record as the first colony to declare its independence. The Federalists felt that since the Majority in the General Assembly was against calling a Convention, it was up to the people to demand one. They encouraged a collective voice in demanding that a state convention be held in accordance with the requirement by the Congress to give them an opportunity to hear what the document contained103. They wanted the voters to opt for this step instead of voting in the referendum. The failure of their strategy could be because most of their articles, if not all of them, were published in newspapers whose reach was mostly the towns and urban areas, which were Federalist as opposed to the Anti-Federalist rural regions. A Rhode-Island Landholder, (Providence United States Chronicle, 20 March 1788): 31. Ibid., 20 March 1788. 36.
73

102 103

When the referendum was finally held on March 24, 1788, only two towns voted to ratify the Constitution. Taking into consideration that Rhode Island had thirty towns, and only Little Compton and Bristol voted in support, the idea that towns such as Newport had a merchant majority seem far-fetched. However, one can only assume that since most Federalists did not agree with the idea of a referendum itself and hoped that the voters would instead ask for a Convention, they chose to stay away from the voting. The turnout was also low, which makes it hard to gauge the actual level of support for the document without considering whether a full turnout would have swayed the vote to the affirmative, or buoyed the negation.104 The Federalist campaign became about boycotting the referendum and asking others to do the same. In Newport, they went a step further and demanded that their Assembly call a convention while other towns such as Providence and Bristol. In some towns such as Coventry, the Freemen voted unanimously to reject the document105. The importance of this is that now the Assembly could justify its decision to keep away from the process, using the mandate of the people, and their reaction to the document at this particular referendum as pointers. The result in Newport was a 10-1 vote to reject the document, showing that a large number of Freemen chose to keep away from the vote itself. The Quakers brought in the Newport Assembly a proposed amendment on the same day that the council met to consider whether to vote for the Constitution. This legislation would repeal the Paper Currency policy and the policy that notes and accounts that were not settled within two years became void. In this town, only Thomas Webber voted for the document as other Federalists kept away106.

Ibid., 20 March 1788. 58. Coventry (0180), Town Meeting, (24 March 1788): 59. 106 Newport (110), Town Meeting, (24 March 1788): 60.
104 105

74

The 10 Anti-Federalists who voted in Newport were ridiculed in the papers the next day as miserable insignificant characters107 as they praised the act of the Assembly to keep away from the referendum. The decision to send a petition to the Deputies of the town to respect the will of the people and instead call for a state convention was also praised as an honorable act. The reasons why the Freemen of Newport chose not to vote, expressed in the Newport Herald issue of 27 March 1788108 was that little time had been accorded to read the document. The first vote was an almost unanimous vote to instruct the deputies to vote for and advocate for the repeal of the Tender and Limitation Act, in which the issuance of paper money and the debt discharge issues, were enshrined. The Freemen also openly discussed the mode that the Philadelphia Convention and Congress had instructed and viewed the entire referendum process as a show of obstinacy by the Anti-Federalists. The decision was no surprise given that the town was Federalist because most of its inhabitants were merchants, and their Deputies made up the few members of the legislature who had been pushing for a Convention. It is therefore clear that the outcome of the referendum was a clear message that the people did not support the Constitution and Federalism as a whole, at least for most of the towns. The argument also observed that it was the right of the people to demand a convention if they favored such a move, and that the legislature would have to respect such a decision. In a meeting of about four hundred men, only ten voted and they did so out of their own volition because the Assembly felt it was the right of anyone who wanted to be part of the referendum to do so.

107 108

Samuel Vernon to William Vernon, (Newport, 27 March 1788): 62. Newport Herald, 27 March 1788. 63.
75

The instructions that were drafted by the committee formed for this purpose in Newport109 required that the deputies propose a motion in the Assembly to call a state convention. The instructions also contain the various reasons why the bulk of the Freemen chose not to vote. The reasons are that it was Unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Act of Congress that had formed the entire process. It was also a concern that no other state had done it and lacking precedence, the legality and validity of such a move was questionable110. These instructions also refer to the fact that even the most Anti-Federalist states such as New York had validated the mode of a state convention when the matter had been discussed at the Convention and later at Congress. They also implored upon the fact that the Articles of Confederation lacked essential components to bind the states together and that Rhode Islands actions bordered on disrespecting the process. These four reasons sum up the disdain that the federalists had for the referendum and why most of them chose not to participate. They knew that in the disorder and mayhem that characterized town meetings, no meaningful debate would ever take place and that Freemen would be led more by their sentiments and the guidance of their leaders than by the contents of the matter at hand. A Convention would have provided the necessary order and right-headedness to ensure that any decision that was made was well thought out. Perhaps the Federalists knew that if a Convention were indeed called, they would have the upper hand in that they had a better legal ground in fighting for federalist. The Anti-Federalists seem to have known this fact too, which would explain the haste in which the decision to hold a referendum was made and defended. In open debate about the document itself, their arguments would seem feeble,

March 24. The Rhode Island Reprinting of the Massachusetts Conventions Amendments and Bostons Celebration of Massachusetts Ratification, (Newport Newspaper, 725 February 1788): 74. 110 Instructions to Newports General Assembly Deputies, 28 March 1788. 74.
109

76

which they were because they did not express the actual reasons, and the Federalists would win over more supporters. In Providence, only Samuel Sampson voted in the referendum and his represents the one in the 0-1 vote to reject the document. The town also voted to instruct their deputies to use their position in the Assembly to push for the formation of a Convention. They also formed a committee to write these instructions formally111. In the letter, the committee used the importance of the Constitution as an introduction, perhaps to draw the focus to the fact, which was not a simple act that could be repealed at will. A Constitution for the entire Union would be a strong binding document that would be the basis for the relationship between the states. A matter of such importance, they argued, could not be treated as lightly as an election where sentiments would suffice. It also used the idea of representation as one of the key concepts of the Confederation because not each Freeman could be part of the day-to-day decisions of government. That this point of representation was represented in the Constitution of Rhode Island, and remained a key concept exhibited by the frequent elections also came up in the petition. This particular point was crucial in that in the pursuit to guard civil liberties, Rhode Island had developed one of the most elaborate forms of representation in the thirteen states. Even before the Revolution, the state had set itself apart by always surging ahead in getting representation. Except in matters that affected the Confederation, for which the island showed contempt and disdain, the matters of the town were conducted using a system of representation, with the majority and composition of the Assembly at any time being a reflection of those who best represented the peoples sentiments. The argument that a

111

Daniel Cooke, Town Meeting: Petition to the General Assembly, (26 March 1788): 79.
77

decision could not be made at a convention therefore became invalid, especially when it was considered that, the legislature frequently passed acts that affected the people112. The committee also used the wording that had been part of the attachments to the Constitution when it was transmitted from the convention to Congress. The letter had alluded to the fact that if Congress deemed so necessary, it could pass amendments to the document before transmitting it on to the states. That it had chosen not to do so have not impaired such as action, and the conventions of Massachusetts and Virginia had opted to do this rather than shoot down the document as a whole. They had both accompanied their ratified document with a list of proposals for amendments with the sections they did not feel comfortable with, and the Committee felt that Rhode Island should seek such a solution to address its concerns to the public. The committee in Providence also listed the reasons why they had refrained from participating in the referendum. They included the fact that a referendum was impersonal and would not accord any town the chance to hear why the other town was adopting or rejecting the Constitution. The lack of a combined body would also mean that each town voted in its own self-interests for a matter that would affect the entire state. Their second reason was the fact that dissemination of information would be low and disorganized, and a full hearing would be practically impossible. They also felt that a referendum would deny the opportunity for moderates to indicate the amendments they would want passed. The fact that the referendum was a simple yea or nay meant that there was no middle ground, except the refusal to vote all together. In their eight detailed reasons, the committee implored upon the fact that even the isolation and independence that Rhode Island enjoyed could not be used as a defense for staying way from

112

Ibid., (26 March 1788): 88.

78

a Union they had been instrumental in freeing. The fear that the delay would deny the state the opportunity to participate in the Federal government, and therefore lack representation in what would be the central and most important government was raised as one of the concluding points of the letter. The US Chronicle113 reported that the town council meeting that resolved to form the committee was the most attended in all the history of the town of Providence, which means that the fact that only a single vote was a cast is vindication of the statewide process. As had Newport a day before, the town council meeting in providence acknowledged that it would have no legal basis to call a convention itself, and opted to instead send a petition to the Deputies and representatives it had at the General Assembly. Some towns such as Tiverton114 had a higher number of Federalists (the vote was 2392) who opted to vote in the referendum. The Tiverton assembly also voted to petition their deputies not to support the act that the Quakers had proposed that would have repealed the paper money on the basis that removing the legal tender from the paper would result in bankruptcy, losses, and breach of contract between the government and the loaners. They however allowed their deputies to support the motion that the statute of limitations be repealed, a contradiction of sorts with their other move, but one that shows the diversity in this particular town115. Other towns had a lower turnout of Federalists, and higher for Anti-Federalists who hoped that their show of numeric might would result in a validation of the states non-federal conduct. Not many would attest to the fact that they knew it would be a worthless process

Providence petition to the General Assembly. (Providence United States Chronicle, 10 April 1788): 90. 114 Tiverton (2392), Town Meeting, 24 March 1788. 98. 115 Warren (241), Town Meeting, 24 March 1788. 100.
113

79

unless a convention was called, and they instead opted to take a vote, winning by an overwhelming majority in many of the twenty-eight towns that chose to reject the document. Federalists used the time to propose documents, such as those printed in the Providence Gazette (29 March 1788)116. These amendments were not very different from those that had first been proposed in Massachusetts. They included freedom of the press, the freedom of religion and free conscience and the election of senators. On the last point, the proposed amendment would require that Senators be elected every two years. The other proposals were that no army should be kept if the Union was not at war, perhaps as a measure to lower the cost of maintaining one, and that the individual state militias would only operate within their respective states. The sixth amendment was a proposal that even where a standing arum was necessitated by circumstance, any money appropriated to such ends would be for a period no longer than an year and that any direct taxes would only be implemented if all the states agreed on the need and the amount of such chances. To negative the power that had been accorded to the judicial system, the eight proposals were that the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary would only be in matters where the cause of dispute was more than one thousand dollars. The ninth and tenth points insisted on the need for trial by jury, and that an indictment by a grand jury was important for any person who was to be tried with a heinous crime. The last point was protection of state sovereignty on the basis that any powers that were not expressly given in the Constitution would be deemed as being the powers of the individual States. This matter was widely reported in the other states and all sides agreed that the failure to call a convention was a bad decision. The Massachusetts Centinel117best exemplifies this
116 117

Amendment Providence Gazette, 29 March 1788. 105. Massachusetts Centinel, 2 April 1788. 106.
80

fact in the sense that it reported that the refusal by the Freemen of providence and Newport to take a vote on the matter was that they had not been furnished with sufficient information. The federalist push was to lay authenticity on the Philadelphia Convention as the result of decade long need to amend the Articles of the Confederation that had become outdated. The Convention, most of them argued, had first been constituted with the intention amending the Articles but it had been discovered that the flaws were so many that it would be easier to write a new Constitution. On the other hand, Anti-federalists argued that a referendum would accord the people the right to choose, unlike a convention where others would vote on their behalf. If they chose to accept the document, then it would be valid and a matter of democracy, they often opined. Perhaps one of the reasons for this was that the Constitutional debate in other states had almost turned ugly, and in each of them compromise was being reached at the cost of the things that the citizens held dear. When the reports about the decision in Westerly, Providence and Newport was published in the press, combined with the results of the referendum that included the zero affirmative votes in Greenwich and Warwick and the majority yeas in Little Compton and Bristol, the division in the electorate became clear. The press insisted that in consideration of these facts, the Assembly could not present the results of the referendum as the single voice or decision of the Rhode Islanders118. They all attested to the fact that most, if not all, the Anti-Federalists were also the supporters of the failing paper money system, which meant that the two issues were intertwined. This matter was noticed, as can be adduced by James Madisons letter to George Nicholas119 where he termed the move as confusion. It was estimated that the supporters of
118 119

Newport Herald, 3 April 1788. 107. James Madison to George Nicholas Orange County, Va., 8 April 1788. 115.
81

the paper money system numbered seven in every nine individuals, giving the Anti-Federalist cause a clear majority120. This statistic was reported in the Maryland Journal issue of 15 April, which detailed the majority support that the assembly had, mainly due to the paper money system. It also appreciated that the minority seemed to be made of men well versed in finance, the wealthy lot of merchants who knew the benefits of a strong central government to trade and coerce, and who were suffering under the Tender Acts. Even in the face of such facts, the House of deputies stuck to its guns on the matter, and when the mercantile minority attempted to introduce another motion that would have started the process for a state convention, the majority voted it down. The Assembly then sat and discussed the result of the referendum and formed a committee to draft a letter to Congress, to be read by Governor Collins, detailing the reasons why the state would not be ratifying the proposed Constitution. The numbers of the referendum were 2580 nays and 288 years, in a state that had 7000 Freemen. The 2868 votes was less than fifty percent of the total figure, and could therefore not be used as a pointer for the sentiments of the entire state. The indication of this dictatorial majority can be further seen in that when the minority attempted to have the petitions from the towns of Providence, Westerly and Newport attached. The majority, as had become the norm in the Assembly voted against his measure, perhaps because they saw it as an attempt to weaken their argument on why would not be participating in a federal government. The letter by the Governor to Congress, voted for on April 5, 1788 was addressed to the president of the Congress. It started with a brief introduction of the matter, and the steps that the Assembly had taken to ensure that the Freemen, and the entire state was informed

120

Maryland Journal, 15 April 1788.

82

about the contents of the Constitution. The step mentioned here is the printing and distribution of a thousand copies of the Constitution that had been conveyed from Congress121. In addition, it contained the total tally of the votes for and against the Constitution, and an arguable claim that the state was for the formation of a unified government. This argument lacks matter in the face of the intention of the letter itself, but could be seen as an attempt to save face at least. The issues of commerce and the powers that would be accorded to the Congress if the Constitution was adopted were mentioned in the last two paragraphs, more so detailing the fear of the discharging of public debt in face of the war reparations and other accrued costs. Conclusion In conclusion, the Assemblys attempt to use the referendum to validate the continued refusal to join with the other states was thwarted by the fact that the Federalists had a better and more correct legal basis. Unlike in other states such as Massachusetts where the argument was simply about a Bill of Rights, the main concern was the paper money issue and its role in discharging of public debt. The farmers used their numbers and the fact that the federalists, or at least many of them, chose to keep away from vote so as not to appear as validating what they viewed as an illegality. Providence and two other towns opted to instruct their deputies to call for a convention to discuss the matter but did not hold their Freemen from voting, although only a small number of them chose to. Only two states voted to adopt the document, but the fact that the total tally indicated that only a small proportion of the men eligible to vote had done so,
121

The Governor of Rhode Island to the President of Congress Providence, 5 April 1788.

83

one could argue that the Federalists had won, ironically, a battle they chose not to fight. It would also be safe to assume that perhaps there was an even bigger proportion of moderate Anti-Federalists who chose not to vote in the referendum ,a although no such evidence is readily available, for the reason that they knew it was illegal and any decision made through it would not be valid. All this fact notwithstanding, the fact that the Assembly chose to shield itself from a decision that would potentially cost most of its members their seats shows that indeed, Rhode Island feared a strong federal government would not be ideal to its situation. By May of 1788 when the Constitution had already been ratified by the required majority, Rhode Island was still a state in confusion, and the invasion of Providence by William West and his rogue army is indication that the Anti-Federalists were willing to use force to stifle federalism.

84

CHAPTER 5: Debate in Rhode Island on Whether Or Not to Ratify the Proposed Constitution, from March 1788 through August 1788 After the State Referendum was held on 24 March 1788, the question of validity and representation of the result became the first concern. The general Assembly was unwilling to contend that the entire process was invalidated, if not by its lack of legal basis, but also by the lack of a comprehensive and decisive decision as they had hoped. From March 1788 until August of that year, the political landscape became increasingly paranoid, but each side held to its position. The fierce rivalry within and without the Assembly became aggravated by what the minority saw as an attempt to validate an illegality and deny the state the chance to discuss the Constitution without carrying out meaningful debate. As a result, this divisiveness resulted in several other unsuccessful attempts to carry out a convention, and a transmission of a letter to the Congress detailing why the State had not called a convention yet. The fact that this letter contains little defense of the process of the referendum is perhaps the best indication that the Assembly assumed it could pass with the same legality as statewide convention. The Country Party held this position until March of the next year when, having managed to pay off the entire state debt using the depreciated infamous paper money was the idea of a convention seriously considered. The newspapers in Rhode Island, many of them Federalist inclined continued to print articles and news of the passage of the Constitution in other states. Such articles often included the speeches and letters of respected men. The freedom of the press that was so jealously guarded became an asset, with all papers reporting on the sideline events of the

85

statewide conventions in other states. Such acts included the violence in New Yorks Albany County and North Carolinas Dobbs County. Indeed, the most published opinion and perhaps the most sorts after were those of George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Edmund Randolph. Randolph represented the moderate Anti-Federalists, and was the Governor of the first state to consider attaching amendments to the Constitution. The number of the articles published in the papers increased significantly in the period preceding the referendum, and then dropped sharply after122. This decline is however, not a direct result of the referendum. By the end of summer, eleven states had ratified the Constitution and the materials were no longer in abundance. Only Rhode Island and New York had not yet ratified the document, which meant that the press had fewer articles to publish. The national debate was fizzling, an d all focus was now on the two states , more so on New York because the new state could not survive if such a big state did not ratify the document. Rhode Island, a longterm isolationist, was the insignificant of the two, but to ensure that the union held together, its ratification was as important as that of the other twelve states. However, the focus of the press switched to the proposals for amendments that had been attached to the ratified documents. Of particular interest was the list forwarded by Richard Henry lee and the Massachusetts Convention. The Amendments proposed that in Maryland by William Pace, five of those published in New Hampshire, the South Carolina list and those from New York. The papers did not publish seven of the amendments recommended by New Hampshire state convention because they were similar to the comprehensive list forwarded by the Massachusetts Convention.

122

Public Commentaries on the Constitution, 27 March17 December 1788

86

The Virginia list contained a list of forty amendments, but none of the newspapers in Rhode Island reprinted them. The ratification in Maryland and South Carolina, which brought the total number of states, which had ratified the Constitution to eight, was reported extensively. The Federalist inclined towns of Providence, Newport, Little Compton, Wickford and East Greenwich held festivities to celebrate the ratification by New Hampshire in June, and Virginia four days later. New Yorks ratification in July, for a state that had been viewed as the bedrock of Anti-Federalism, was the climax of these celebrations, and it meant that only Rhode Island had not ratified the Constitution. Indeed, the extensive debate over the politics in Rhode Island went beyond the simplicity of the referendum; to the nature of the paper money policies and the intent of the Country party government o repay state debt using depreciated currency that was worthless outside the state. The writings after the referendum show the fears at the time, from the fear that Rhode Island could be annexed between its neighbors if it failed to join the Union, to what degree of events and force was required to force the state into the Union123. The writers of such letters attested to the idea that the opposition to the Federal government setup notwithstanding, Rhode Island would ratify the document at some point. The Federalists tried to show that Anti-Federalists such as Luther Martin, George Clinton, Elbridge Gerry and Richard Henry Lee who had joined the conventions in their respective states and stood for what they believed in. They had all been instrumental in bringing a consensus between the two factions in their states by providing a detailed argument, and an intellectual one at that, of their opposition to the Constitution.

123

Ibid., 1788
87

Accordingly, the result had been that their states had ratified the new law and appended a list of desired amendments, which showed that meaningful debate had been carried out in the stipulated process124. In some of the Anti-Federalist Articles,125 it is clear that some of the writers had read the document and had more concerns than just the commercial aspect. The fears expressed in the letter, for example, explore the fact that the Constitution would create a strong central government that was not limited in its potential exploitation of the civil liberties of the people. It was also a point of concern that the Constitutions only limitations or eligibility to stand for office were residence and age, which meant that infidels and Jews could be considered as eligible126. These particular intellectual argument mentioned the legality of the Constitution itself because the Convention had been convened with the purpose of amending the Articles of the Confederation, and not in writing a new document altogether. The Constitution had also provided for a standing army, an expensive enterprise to equip and maintain in a time of peace. This was a particular sore point for the Anti-Federalists who saw it as hidden attempt to increase the direct taxes on the people in the name of funding the government and its army. Additionally, the argument contained a mention of the lack of any apparent mention of the religious factions that had refused to be drafted into war mostly to the Quakers especially who felt that war was against the maxims of Christianity. This was closely related with the issue of slave trade that Rhode Islanders detested and had passed laws to ban its continued existence. The Constitution made little mention of its stand on the trade, except for a clause that allowed the states to continue with the trade for at least twenty-one more years.

A real Federalist, Providence United States Chronicle, 27 March 1788. John Avery, Jr., (to Nathan Dane Boston, 27 May 1788). 126 Page 246, the paragraph taunts this right.
124 125

88

The Anti-federalists blamed its rapid depreciation on the refusal of the merchants to acknowledge it as legal tender; were convinced that ratifying the Constitution would soon be flowed by a repeal of the Tender law upon which their paper money policies were built. It was lost to them that Newport was rapidly declining in stature and population as more and more merchants decided to close up shop instead of incurring losses. Whilst the farmers debt could be paid through the money at its valid within the state, the merchants and importers could not get the same value when securing loans or even goods from their dealers. An article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette (8 April 1788) exemplifies the disdain that the other states had for Rhode Island. The author refers to the state as the curse of the union127 for having isolated itself in all but pretentious acts from the success of the union. Most of them did not understand the background of the island, and the reasons behind its controversial paper money policies. As biased as most information was at the time, the state was led by men who hated the idea of the union, more so because it amounted to giving up all the things they had toiled for to a detached and expensive government. Undoubtedly, if William Ellerys letter128 to Benjamin Huntington is anything to go by, then the state was actually on the verge of financial collapse. Tenants were not honoring their rent, and the state debt was affecting the circulation of money, making the levels inflation significantly higher. In addition, it is evident that studying the Constitution, and experience, had managed to convince some legislators on the necessity of a stronger government129. The necessity of a strong Congress to ensure that an efficient government was running was repeatedly used as

Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 8 April 1788. William Ellery to Benjamin Huntington Newport, 22 April 1788. 252 129 Newport Herald, 17 April 1788. 253.
127 128

89

one of the strengths of the Constitution. It would be possible for Congress to abuse its powers, but to this end, the electorate would have the right and responsibility to elect men of good stature, just as they did for their state legislatures. A divided Union would collapse to the menace of the former master who desired to regain the lost territories, and to other powers and militia. Without a standing army and a strong Congress, the Union would be as prone to attack and threats as it had been the Founding Fathers had recognized the need for a Confederation. Indeed, some compromise was reached in May 1788 when the press reported that the Assembly had expressed its willingness to pay the Impost it had voted down a few years earlier and to allow Congress have the power to regulate commerce if the Constitution did not get ratified130. When Maryland ratified the Constitution at the end of April, the resultant chaos that was fostered by the move to elect a committee that was largely Federalist to consider the amendments that William Paca had suggested, the matter was reported throughout the Union. The move by the committee not to table the amendments made Paca furnish the document to the press, and the list of amendments were published in forty-four newspapers, three of which were in Rhode Island131 . Still, the matter elicited little recorded reaction in Rhode Island, but its effect was that it bolstered the Anti-Federalist position. Other articles such as the reprinting of the pamphlet by John Jay under the pseudonym a citizen of New York covered the weaknesses of the articles and why the Constitution was a much better document132. Jay was against the convening of a second convention, because he felt that it would result in a tug of war as the

Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 5 May 1788. 258. [Editorial Note], Rhode Island Receives News of Maryland Ratification, (15 May7 June 1788). 262. 132 [Editorial Note], The Rhode Island Reprinting of A Citizen of New York 22 May26 June 1788 [New York]: 263.
130 131

90

sates tried to outdo each other in getting their particular set of conditions met. Many Federalists concurred with this position because a second convention would give the antifederalists more ammunition with which to consolidate their support. If the process was to be right, then the Philadelphia Convention had done its part over the course of the four months it sat. All states were ably represented, with the exception of Rhode Island, which now threatened to be the voluntary outcast in the union. The fact that it had gone through with the referendum despite the pleas not to do so because of the questionable legality made the case against the states policies stronger. Religious leaders such as Reverend James Manning did not support the referendum on basis of its validity133. In his letter to Hezekiah Smith, Manning expressed hope that the news of South Carolinas ratification would be a wakeup call for Rhode Island residents. Rhode Islands history is the main reason why they still felt the need to exist as a single independent unit. Their struggles with the British government, coupled with a desire to be free and enjoy freedom and liberties that were required of each human being made the state defensive. Whereas other states had always had a connection with each other, in trade, either commerce or government, Rhode Island had long set itself apart as self-sufficient in its political dealings. Nevertheless, the Anti-Federalists therefore viewed the press campaign as an affront to this history and the basis upon which the paper money policies had been built. In the spirit of democracy, the Newport herald134attacked the press for the biased reporting and articles. Under the title of A friend to Paper Money, the author indicated his disdain to this practice, and hoped that the readers would find a way to demand balanced reporting.
133 134

James Manning to Hezekiah Smith Providence, 10 June 1788. [Providence]: 269. 1bid., 1788, 271.
91

However, this particular print could be said to go against the very idea that AntiFederalists in other states were fighting for, that of individual liberty and press freedom. The author suggested the burring of the paper and banishing of the printer and ironically, the piece was published in an openly Federalist paper. There could have been several reasons for this, the most plausible of which is that the printer saw it as an opportunity to give the AntiFederalists a chance to embarrass them by attacking press freedom135. The Newport herald was subsequently discriminated against in the publication of the Assemblys Acts, a move that was necessitated by its Federalist inclinations136. In its defense of the paper money system, testate and its supporters often referred to the act by Congress to print paper money, which was then transmitted to the states as legal tender137. The inclusion of a clause that required two-thirds majority ratification, nine states in total, to make the Constitution operational went against Article XIII of the Articles, which required that any change of such magnitude had to be effected and approved, by all the states. While the wisdom behind the move could have been the fact that Rhode Islands refusal to ratify the Impost had brought down the entire process, and the state had no delegates at the Convention, the requirement remained largely controversial, but was respected nonetheless. Meanwhile, when the news of New Hampshires ratification reached Newport and Providence in late June, the two towns erupted in celebrations in the hope that the condition would now convince their legislature to call a convention. Some accounts reported that moderate Anti-Federalists, realizing the futility of their cause, joined in the celebrations138. The subsequent reports, even after Virginia ratified the Constitution, implored upon the The press distribution at the time was in Federalist-inclined regions and the article would therefore be read by a largely biased audience, increasing the disdain the already existed. 136 Newport Herald, 19 June 1788. 278. 137 Providence United States Chronicle, 12 June 1788. 274. 138 Newport and Providence Celebrate New Hampshires Ratification of the Constitution, 24 June3 July 1788. [New Hampshires]: 282.
135

92

Assembly to allow for a convention so that Rhode Island would be part of these developments. The infamous attack by William West and his rogue army of 1,000 on Providence occurred on July 3 when the town intended to combine the Independence celebrations with those of a new state. The matter had been agreed on June 27 and preparations were made. West and Gorton, the Chief Justice at the time, gathered their army at the outskirts of the town the day before with the intention of stopping the celebrations. Their only issue, which was forwarded as a demand, was that they would allow the celebrations to continue only if they dealt with the Independence and made no mention or salutation to the Constitution139. Civil war was only thwarted when the townspeople agreed to celebrate the anniversary of American independence. The federalists had used the days preceding the celebrations to defend their right to celebrate, using historical references as a pointer on the importance of such an event.140 Nonetheless, even with the deal that the town of Providence made with AntiFederalists, excerpts of Hitchcocks speech show that he alluded to the Constitution and the event of ratification by nine states141. The particular sections that bear these allusions are those that indicate that independence is useless without a central government. He referred to the union as a building with Independence being the foundation. He made little mention of the Constitution but in the last paragraphs quoted from another Federalist142. Therefore, the Anti-Federalist attempt to kill all mention of the Unions current state was circumvented, at least in a speech that would later be reprinted in several newspapers. United States chronicles, Theodore Foster to Dwight Foster Providence, 26 June 1788.286. New York Daily Advertiser, 29 July. Providence United States Chronicle, 3 July 1788. [New York]: 290. 141 Enos Hitchcock Oration Providence, 4 July 1788. 291. 142 Providence Gazette, 5 July 1788. 294.
139 140

93

William West defended his actions as having been in line with the result of the referendum and therefore, the will of the people143. He claimed that the festivities had been made to celebrate an illegality, with the more important occasion of Independence Day celebrations being pushed to the sidelines. In his thirteen concluding points, West made a point of laying out what was essentially the Anti-Federalist agenda, including the preference of militias to a standing army, and wishes for a prosperous future for the Country. Federalists claimed that t West and his allies had played upon the fear of the fellow citizens that such celebrations would result in a spirited campaign to force the state to ratify the Constitution144. Finally, they accepted the demands to stop the Anti-Federalists from ruining the day, and knowing very well that most of the people who were gathering had not carried their guns and the intruders would have the upper hand. West was however, repeatedly ridiculed in the press145 mostly because as a judge of the Superior Court and a respected General, his conduct had been unbecoming. The pressure to call a convention increased after New Hampshire ratified the Constitution. Federalists used it, as a chance to vindicate the state is minute size as a defense, insisting that the first nine states comprised of both big and small states146. Other towns held celebrations in honor of the ratification, although the Anti-Federalists might have chosen to target only Providence because of its stature and size. Little Compton fired the nine cannons in honor of the nine states, while East Greenwich erupted in joyful celebration when the news reached the town147. William West, Providence United States Chronicle, 10 July 1788. 298. Carter, Providence Gazette, 12 July 1788. 304 145 William West, Newport Herald, 17 July 1788. 307. 146 Barber, One of the People, Newport Mercury, 30 June 1788.308 147 Little Compton Celebrates Ratification of the Constitution by Nine States, 4 July 1788. 312.
143 144

94

Certainly, Warwick did the same, toasting to the ten states that had ratified the document and dedicating each toast to the new Union148. Providence celebrated the news that Virginia had ratified the Constitution on July 5, and subsequently discharged ten cannons. Clearly, William Wests effort had only postponed the festivity, and not completely thwarted it. Isolation in the union would mean a risk of annexation and trade tariffs.149 In addition, Federalist prints implored on the need of the state to save face in light of its having fallen from its Independence stature. The fear that the eleventh states and twelfth states would ratify the Constitution in Rhode Island meant that the numbers would be against it. In July of 1788 when only ten states had ratified the Constitution and New York was still one of the three states that had not, there was little chance that the Union would be strong enough to pose a threat to the three states. Furthermore, the Federalist cause stated the benefits that the State would accrue from the Union, with Newports strategic positioning and its deep harbors being the headquarters of trade and commerce. The fact that eighteen of its thirty towns were built on the bay, with access to the Atlantic Ocean meant that the benefits of international commerce would affect the entire state positively150. The Articles of the Confederation had created a federal government of loosely associated states which meant that trade was dependent on the policies of each state. On the other hand, the Constitution created a duty-free zone within the states, such that products could be traded through ought the union without the unnecessary barriers of multiple taxation and stringent laws151. Another positive factor, although based on mere speculation at the time,

Solon, jun. Providence Gazette, 5 July 1788. 313. Phocion Providence United States Chronicle, To the People of the State of RHODEISLAND, Fathers, Brothers, Friends and Fellow-Citizens. 17 July 1788. 320. 150 Ibid., July 1788. 321. 151 Ibid., July 1788. 322.
148 149

95

was that the navy for the new Union would be harbored at Newport because of its deep waters and access to the sea. Such a move would make the town, and by extension the entire state, a very attractive investment, and an important part of the Unions security. In addition, the state would have equal representation as the bigger states, a component of the new Constitution that had been particularly enticing to Georgia, Delaware and New Jersey. By 23 July, sentiments had become rife that the Federalists in the states that had ratified the document had neglected their counterparts in Rhode Island. This neglect led to the continued oppression of the minority both in the House and in the society, except in those towns that were viewed as Federalist. Besides, the pressure went a notch higher when the New York Convention voted to adopt the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists could no longer hold on to the idea that a bigger state would reject the Constitution, giving them the justification they needed to hold on to their position. On 31 July, the press reported that the Assembly would most likely be convened to handle the matter of paying state debt, and that the discharging of this debt would allow the state to call a convention. North Carolina was fast moving to ratify the document and had held two conventions, each ending to call for amendments before vote for ratification could be carried out. The news that North Carolina had rejected the Constitution reached Rhode Island on 21 August, although later publications clarified that it had been a conditional rejection. This essentially meant that the state was still isolated. Edward Carringtons letter to Thomas Jefferson alludes to the use of coercive measures152 as a way of forcing the state to adopt the Constitution. Such measures were not considered in 1788, although they were
152

Edward Carrington to Thomas Jefferson New York, 10 August 1788. 350.

96

applied in late 1789 and 1790, but the mention of them means that the other states were getting impatient with the fact that Rhode Island was still holding out. Indeed, North Carolina was spared of this by the fact that it had held two conventions and the vote had not been an absolute rejection. This meant that the state would change its stand if its conditions were met and indeed, within a few months of sitting, the new Congress passed the necessary amendments. Rhode Island carried out the referendum with the hope that its result would be read as the voice of the people. However, the legality of the process itself, coupled with the fact that only about forty percent of the eligible Freemen voted undermined the referendum. The abstinence of Federalists also achieved its purpose, to show that the voice of the people on this particular matter could not be determined by debate in the riotous town council. While the Assembly discharges Governor Collins to Congreve to express the states reasons and misgivings for not joining the Union, the debate increased with each passing day. By June, the Federalists had launched an all-out press campaign, and succeeded in disseminating information about the positive of the Constitution, if only to the readers who were mostly Federalist. This did not go unnoticed by the Country Party, and they responded by denying the Newport Herald, one of the states key publications, the right to publish its acts, an affront to the Freedom of the Press they all insisted on. The debate included publications of many documents, including letters. Meanwhile, when New Hampshire ratified the Constitution, the debate went a notch higher, and the Federalist towns decided to include a toasting to the new Union with July 4 Independence Day celebrations. This was warranted by the fact that with New Hampshires ratification, the nine states required to make a Federal union had been reached, and the others would now be joining a union, as opposed to forming one. The celebrations did not go as
97

planned, as William West and other Justices organized militia to thwart the festivities in providence. Nevertheless, they only left when the townspeople agreed to celebrate Independence anniversary only. Even with this, smaller towns such as Little Compton and Warwick still carried out the celebrations, and providence did the same two days later. However, with New Yorks ratification, the Anti-Federalist hope of a bigger state rejecting the document lost its only remaining spark. Only North Carolina, another small state, remained and the state had not absolutely rejected the Constitution and was holding conventions at the time. Attempts to bring to the House motions for the fourth, fifth and sixth time were all denied, and the majority remained content in the position of the state. Many reason abide for this , key among them the fact that a strong central government would take control over the currency printing, putting in jeopardy the plan to discharge off state debt using depreciated paper money. Hence, State liberty stands out as another reason why the state chose not to call a convention. The feelings of independence, as long as suspicion that had been fostered from the foundation of the state all played a part. In the minority of the Federalists, the fact that they had not congregated on the issue of the constitution weakened their position. Unlike in other states where the sides had become clear once the document was transmitted to the states, Rhode Island had a historical division on the issue of paper money and the tender Act. The Country party majority represented the country people, who, keen to repay their debt to the state and to merchants, supported the issuance of the currency, unaware of the spiraling inflation it caused. However, with the need to remain independent, the state went the extra mile until the Country Party used its majority to bring all Anti-Federalist sentiments to the forefront. Rhode
98

Island makes up for a dynamic society during both the Confederation and Revolution eras, and had more reasons than any other state to hold out of the Union. On the other hand, the merchants and townspeople had long been against paper money because they could not use it to trade with other states and the depreciated value meant that they could not enjoy the toils of their labor. Their main aim was to get this act repealed, and with the frequent nay votes in the Assembly due to their minority, another avenue opened itself in the Constitution. Not only would a central government save them from the perils of pear money, it would also allow them to trade with the other states, and with other countries across the Atlantic. Conclusion In conclusion, to the religious leaders, the only point of contention was the fact that the Constitution had not expressly outlawed slave trade, which they considered adenoids act and which they had gotten the Assembly to repeal. That Reverend Manning and Hitchcock participated in the July 4 celebrations in Providence, and students of the College were part of the July 5 celebrations of the new Union shows that they had made peace with the fact that slave trade would be illegal in the end. Rhode Island stands out not only because it held out the longest, but because it had deeper grievances and concerns than other states. Where compromise was easy to reach in Massachusetts and other states because the ideological differences were all formed on the content of the Constitution, Rhode Islanders had long been divided on the issue of paper money, and picked the side that would favor their ends. It held on until 790, when the Country Party had achieved its aim of discharging all of the state debt and Congress had resulted to coercive measures. The fact that even the Federalist victory was won by a slim

99

margin of two votes, and could have been a tie or loss if all the Anti-federalists had voted, is proof that the state still did not want to join the Union. It was hardly about the issues in the Constitution because many of them had been amended by the time the convention was called, Rhode Island held out because it saw the Constitution as an affront to its internal policies, and the Federalist minority was more or less the opponents of the paper money. Conclusion I have discussed ratification process in the politically democratized process through state legislature ratification. In other words, I have identified why Rhodes Island was able to hold out from the union for so long. This study has emphasized on the role of the thirteen states in the ratification; extends to their effects to American nationalism. Of particular importance, I have widely discussed on debate in Rhodes Island in 1787-1788 in the ratification of the United States Constitution. The overarching thematic question on why Rhodes Island held out of the union and for so long has been spread out in the first chapter and concrete approaches accorded. My approach in this study is analyzing the convention during the revolutionary and confederations eras. I have found out many questions in this study more than conclusions. Public was involved more to politics from deferential involvement to personal involvement. Thus, I believe the debate national wide over single political documents lead to development and indulgence of participatory politics. Public have involved immensely into politics and influence much of the constitution. Many exemplary books have discussed the growth and development of politics in U.S. and on the American Revolution. In spite, debates continue and more launching points for ratification conventions are still being discussed. I argue that, participatory politics for publics emerged in the era of constitution.
100

State ratification conventions were merely focused due to empowerment of the federal government over the government of individual state. Rhodes island resistance included fourteen conventions and the states were responsible in choosing method for delegates election. In many ways, this study applies that democracy for America is a continual starting point revolving constitutional and bill of rights principles. This contextualizes debates on constitution in American politics. In many ways, understanding of role of Rhodes Island in state ratification sheds light into why Rhodes Island held out for so long. This gives us reason why Americans defend principle of the constitution for rights. This study tells of a nation (Rhodes Island) over whether or not to ratify constitution amid their voices that changed the History of United States as a result.

REFERENCES Primary Sources A Freeman, Providence Gazette, 15 March 1788.

A Freeman, Newport Herald, 20 March 1788.

101

Amendment Providence Gazette, 29 March 1788.

A Real Federalist Providence United States Chronicle, 27 March 1788.

A Rhode-Islander, Newport Herald, 12 June 1788.

A Rhode-Island Landholder, Providence United States Chronicle, 20 March 1788.

Barber, One of the People, Newport Mercury, 30 June 1788.

Charles Thomson, The requisition to the states (Smith, Letters, XXIV, 48788). 18 October 1787. Carter, Providence Gazette, 12 July 1788.

Coventry (0180), Town Meeting, 24 March 1788.

Daniel Cooke, Town Meeting: Petition to the General Assembly, 26 March 1788.

Edward Carrington to Thomas Jefferson New York, 10 August 1788

Elbridge Gerrys, The Rhode Island Reprinting of Letter to the Massachusetts Legislature, 8 10 November 1787. Enos Hitchcock Oration Providence, 4 July 1788.

Evans, Acts and Laws of the English Colony of Rhode-Island. Newport, 1767.

102

George Masons, The Rhode Island Reprinting of Objections to the New Constitution, 29 November 1787.

George Washington, The Rhode Island Reprinting of a Letter Expressing Support for the Constitution, 1728 January 1788

Henry Marchant to Levi Hart Newport, 30 October 1787.

Hampden, Newport Herald, 3 January 1788

--------------- Instructions to Newports General Assembly Deputies, 28 March 1788.

James Wilsons, The Rhode Island Reprinting: State House Speech. 1827, October 1787.

John Hancocks, The Rhode Island Reprinting of Governor Speech to the Massachusetts General Court. 2527 October 1787

James Madison to George Nicholas Orange County, Va., 8 April 1788.

John Avery, Jr., to Nathan Dane Boston, 27 May 1788.

James Manning to Hezekiah Smith Providence, 10 June 1788.

--------------Little Compton Celebrates Ratification of the Constitution by Nine States, 4 July 1788. Maryland Journal, 15 April 1788.

Massachusetts Centinel, 2 April 1788.

103

Massachusetts Centinel, 23 July 1788.

Newport and Providence Protest of Rhode Island General Assemblys Letter to Congress 17 September 1787. Newport and Providence Celebrate New Hampshires Ratification of the Constitution, 24 June3 July 1788. Newport Herald, 25 October 1787.

Newport Herald, 15 November 1787

Newport Herald, 3 April 1788.

Newport Herald, 17 April 1788.

Newport Herald, 27 March 1788.

Newport Herald, 19 June 1788.

Newport (110), Town Meeting, 24 March 1788.

Newport (Rhodes Island) Newspaper, March 24. The Rhode Island Reprinting of the Massachusetts Conventions Amendments and Bostons Celebration of Massachusetts Ratification, 725 February 1788.

New York Daily Advertiser, 29 July. Providence United States Chronicle, 3 July 1788.

Newspaper Report, House of Deputies Proceedings. Thursday, 28 February 1788.

104

Newspaper Report, House of Deputies and House of Magistrates Proceedings, Saturday, 1 March 1788. Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 22 November; New York Daily Advertiser, 24 November; Philadelphia American Museum, December 1787.

Polishook, 14748, and Conley, Democracy in Decline, 1035.

------------------Public Commentaries on the Constitution, 27 March17 December 1788.

Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 8 April 1788.

Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 5 May 1788.

Phocion Providence United States Chronicle, To the People of the State of RHODE-ISLAND, Fathers, Brothers, Friends and Fellow-Citizens. 17 July 1788. Providence United States Chronicle, 12 June 1788.

Providence Gazette, 5 July 1788.

Providence United States Chronicle, 27 September 1787

Providence United States Chronicle, Providence petition to the General Assembly.10 April 1788.

Reprinted: Boston Gazette, 1 October; New York Morning Post, 6 October; Hartford American Mercury, 8 October. 1787.

105

Rhode Island General Assembly Prohibits the Slave Trade, 31 October 1787 Massachusetts Centinel, the Publication of the Constitution in Rhode Island, 27 September 17871790, 7 November 1787.

Rhode Island Receives News of Maryland Ratification, 15 May7 June 1788.

Samuel Vernon to William Vernon Newport, 27 March 1788.

Solon, jun. Providence Gazette, 5 July 1788.

State Gazette of South Carolina, 15 November, and Georgia State Gazette, 1 December. The Governor of Rhode Island to the President of Congress Providence, 5 April 1788.

The Rhode Island Reprinting of A Citizen of New-York 22 May26 June 1788. Tiverton (2392), Town Meeting, 24 March 1788.

United States chronicles, Theodore Foster to Dwight Foster Providence, 26 June 1788.

Vir, Providence United States Chronicle, 13 December 1787.

Warren (241), Town Meeting, 24 March 1788.

Wheeler, Providence United States Chronicle, 29 November 1787.

William Ellery to Ebenezer Hazard Newport, 16 October 1787.

106

William Ellery to Benjamin Huntington Newport, 22 April 1788.

William West, Providence United States Chronicle, 10 July 1788.

William West, Newport Herald, 17 July 1788.

William Allen to Henry Knox, Providence, 4 March 1788.

Secondary Sources David Lovejoy, Rhode Island Politics and the American Revolution, 1760- 1776, Brown University Press, 1958.
107

John Kaminski, "Rhode Island: Protecting State Interests," in Michael Allen Gillespie and Michael Lienesch, eds., Ratifying the Constitution. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1989. Lexington and Concord: A Legacy of Conflict, Minute Man National Historical Park National Park Service, 2. Merrill Jensen, Tracts of the American Revolution, 1763-1776 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril, 1966). Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Patrick Conley, "First in War, Last in Peace: Rhode Island and the Constitution, 1786-1790," in Patrick Conley and John Kaminski, eds., The Constitution and the States: The Role of the Original Thirteen in the Framing and Adoption of the Federal Constitution Madison: Madison House, 1988.

108