Owen Ireland S.U.N.Y., BROCKPORT PARTISANSHIP AND THE CONSTITUTION: PENNSYLVANIA 1787 H ISTORIANS HAVE long emphasized the close relationship between the division over the Federal Constitution and the pre- existing political alignments in the state of Pennsylvania.' As one of the most recent treatments explains it: "During the debate over the Constitution in 1787 and 1788 [in Pennsylvania], with a few excep- tions, Constitutionalists were Antifederalists and Republicans were Federalists."2 However, a review of the voting behavior of the members of the Eleventh Pennsylvania General Assembly (1786- 1787) and a survey of the newspaper comment suggests that the division on the Constitution in Pennsylvania was not a straight- forward reflection of established partisan alignments, and that the partisanship which was present resulted at least in part from the sequence of events surrounding the calling of the state convention by the legislature on Friday and Saturday, 28 and 29 September 1787. The division in Pennsylvania over the Federal Constitution began in the state legislature during the last hectic days of its third and final session. Adjournment was set for 29 September and the assemblymen were due home to stand for reelection on 9 October. On Monday, 17 September, two working weeks before the scheduled adjournment, the Constitutional Convention completed its work and forwarded the results to Congress for referral to the states. The next day, 18 September, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania delegation to the Convention reported to the assembly, and on Wednesday the Philadelphia newspapers published the full text of the proposed Constitution. The Assembly 1. Robert Brunhouse, The Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 1776-1790 (Harrisburg, 1942), pp. 198-207. Jackson Turner Main, PoliticalParties before the Constitution (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1973), pp. 202-203. 2. Merrill Jensen, ed., The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Con- stitution; Volume II, Ratification of the Constitution by the States: Pennsylvania (Madison, Wisconsin, 1976), p. 35. 315 316 OWEN IRELAND ordered 1,000 English and 500 German copies printed and then waited for official word from Congress in New York.3 By Tuesday, 25 September, Congress had not yet acted and some speculated that the assembly would adjourn without considering the question of the state convention. 4 However, when no word had been received by Friday, 28 September, the second last day of the legislative year, some of the supporters of the Constitution pressed for immediate action without prior congressional approval. George Clymer, a representative from the city of Philadelphia and a former member of the state delegation to the Constitutional Con- vention, introduced a resolution calling for a state convention to be elected on 9 October in the counties east of the mountains and on 25 October in five counties west of the mountains. Robert Whitehill from Cumberland County urged postponement of the resolution on the grounds that the Assembly was "by no means prepared" for a discussion of the question. William Findley from Westmoreland agreed. No one in the Assembly, he argued, had expected this to be raised until after Congress had acted. The question was much too important to be voted on precipitately and action by Pennsylvania now would be irregular as well as disrespectful to Congress. Furthermore, he said, to call for an election at such an early date would preclude adequate dis- cussion of the merits of the Constitution. 6 He believed a con- vention should be called and that there was strong support in Pennsylvania for a more vigorous and energetic government but he saw "no reason for hurrying on the measure in such a preci- pitancy." Such a proposal must raise doubts about the motives of those who support it. "I have supposed the gentlemen . have some object in view which is not understood." 7 In the face of this vociferous opposition Clymer accepted com- promise and divided his motion into two parts: the first, to call a convention, was to be voted upon immediately; the second, to set the date of the election, was to be detrmined after the mid-day break. The assembly then voted 43 to 19 to call a 3. Brunhouse, Counter-Revolution, pp. 200-202. Jensen, Documentary History, 2:64, 66, 68. John B. McMaster and Frederick D. Stone, ed., Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788 (Philadelphia, 1888) 1: 1-5. Pennsylvania Packet, 19, 21, 26 September 1787. 4. Packet, 25, 27 September 1787. 5. Jensen, Documentary History, 2:68. 6. Packet, 5 October 1787. 7. Jensen, Documentay History, 2:81, 92, 71, 84. PARTISANSHIP AND THE CONSTITUTION 317 convention and adjourned until 4 P.M. 8 In the afternoon, Whitehill, Findley, and seventeen other members refused to attend the House thus preventing a quorum. The sergeant of arms, sent by the speaker to summon the absent members, reported that he had found Whitehill, Findley, Frederick Antis, and several other members of the assembly as well as William Smiley and James McLaine of the Supreme Executive Council at the house of Major [Alexander] Boyd but Mr. Whitehill told him that "they could not attend this afternoon." Meanwhile, on the same day, Congress officially forwarded the Constitution to the states for their consideration. By the morning of 29 September this news reached the assembly leaders and the speaker sent the sergeant of arms to inform the absent minority and to urge their attendance. At Whitehill's dwelling the maid first said Whitehill was in and then denied it. Out in the street the sergeant came upon Findley and some others but then lost track of Findley when he "mended his pace, and turned the corner of Seventh down Market Street . ."lo While the sergeant of arms futilely chased Findley up and down the streets of the city, a crowd of Philadelphia citizens discovered two of the missing members, Jacob Miley and James McCalmont, forcibly carried them to the assembly chamber, and physically prevented their departure. The speaker then called the role and declared a quorum present." McCalmont, greatly agitated, informed the House that "he had been forcibly brought in to the assembly room contrary to his wishes" and "begged he might be dismissed . ." Mr. Lowrey, one of the majority, responded that he hoped the gentleman would "give some reason why force was necessary to make him do his duty;" but Hugh Henry Brackenridge, also one of the majority, argued that that was beside the point. "How he came here," Brackenridge said, "can form no part of our enquiry. Whether his friends brought him (and I should think it could not be his enemies, 8. Packet, 5 October 1787. Brunhouse, Counter-Revolution, p. 201. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1:60. Jensen, Documentary History, 2:94. 9. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1:61. Packet, I October 1787. 10. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1:63 64. Parket, 5 October 1787. Jensen, Documnentary History, 2:99-100. 11. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1:65 Brun- house, Counter-Revolution, p. 201. 318 OWEN IRELAND who would compel him to do his duty, and avoid wrong) . .. or by whatever ways or means he introduced himself among us, all we are to know, is, that he is here, and it only remains for us to decide whether he shall have leave of absence." The Speaker put the question "shall McCalmont have leave of absence?" which, as Lloyd reported, "was determined almost, if not quite unanimously in the negative." With the needed quorum the House proceeded to set the election for 6 November 1787 and adjourned, sine die.'2 Thus, the first skirmish over the proposed Federal Constitution came to an end. The majority succeeded in calling a convention at an early date but at a substantial cost. Emotions ran high, assemblymen exchanged harsh words, employed extraordinary tactics, and formed clear and hostile sides. In short order this division was extended beyond the bounds of the assembly where its emotional content continued to intensify until some feared, and others threatened, civil war.13 However, in spite of its intensity and its duration, this division of Pennsylvanians into Federalists and Antifederalists was not a simple, straightforward continuation of the patterns of partisanship which had dominated the legislature in the preceding year. The Eleventh General Assembly, elected in October 1786, and first organized in November of that year, held three working sessions before its final adjournment on 29 September 1787. In that ten month period sixty-seven of its sixty-nine members recorded their votes on all or most of forty-one motions. Scale analysis of these divisions reveals that thirty-three of the forty-one motions dealing with forteen different and distinct policy areas can be ranked along a common continuum from least to most extreme, thus forming a near perfect scale with a coefficient of reproducibility greater than .97. The voting pattern of each of sixty-one of the sixty-seven voting members of the Assembly approximated one of the thirty-four possible perfect scale patterns (four deviations or less). Thus, by his votes each of these sixty-one legislators located himself relative to the other sixty along a common continuum. Six additional legislators voted personal and idiosyncratic patterns (five or more deviations from a perfect scale pattern.). The sixty-one whose voting patterns formed the scale divided 12. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1:65, 66, 71. 13. "Philadephiensis" No. 9 and No. 10, Freeman's Journal, 6, 20 February 1788. "Algernon Sidney" in ibid., 20 February 1788. "Z" in ibid., 27 February 1788. PARTISANSHIP AND THE CONSTITUTION 319 themselves into two close knit and highly cohesive voting blocs at or near opposite ends of the continuum: twenty-eight clustered to- gether at one end and thirty-three at the other.