Suny, Brockport Partisanship and the Constitution

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 straightforward 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 discussion of the merits of the Constitution. 6 He believed a convention 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 precipitancy." 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 together at one end and thirty-three at the other. All of the men in the first bloc of twenty-eight voted together on twenty-nine of the thirty- three roll calls and differed among themselves in a patterned way on the four most extreme measures at one end of the continuum. The men in the second bloc of the thirty-three voted together on twenty- six of the thirty-three roll calls and differed among themselves in a patterned way on the four most extreme measures at the opposite end of the continuum. Thus, while the members of each bloc generally voted together in opposition to members of the other bloc, patterned or structured differences among the men in each bloc allow them to be precisely ranked within their own bloc with respect to their degree of support for that bloc (see figure 1)." The twenty-eight men in bloc one divided into five subgroups, ranked in order of the degree to which they supported the most extreme positions at their end of the continuum: thirteen in the solid core (scale position 0) at the extreme end of continuum, six in

14. Brunhouse, Counter-Revolution, passim. Independent Gazetteer, 24 September 1787.

FIGURE I

ELEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1786-1787 NUMBER OF LEGISLATORS VOTING EACH OF THIRTY-FOUR SCALE PATTERNS

20 20 19 19

C[ (7 7

<-1,0 14 141a0 (3 13 :12 12 II It 10 to

$4 7 67 W 6

5 : 4 1 , 3 1 3 12 12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19) 20 212 2 23 24 '' VOTING PATTERNS OR SCALE POSITIONS 320 OWEN IRELAND

the first tier beyond the core, two in the second tier, two in the third, and five in the fourth. Thus the thirteen core members of the first bloc voted identical patterns on all thirty-three of the roll calls. They were joined by six who disagreed with them on the first and most extreme roll call but agreed with them on the remaining thirty-two. These nineteen were joined by two more who agreed on all but the two most extreme roll calls, by two others who agreed on all but the three most extreme roll calls, and by five others who agreed on all but four most extreme roll calls (see table 1). The thirty-three men in bloc two divided into eight sub-groups ranked in order of the degree to which they supported the most extreme position at their end of the continuum: seven in the core (scale position 33); nine in the first tier, six in the second, three in the third, two in the fourth, four in the fifth, one in the sixth, and one in the seventh. The seven core members of this second bloc voted together in opposition to the core in the first bloc on all thirty-three roll calls. They were joined by nine who disagreed with them on the most extreme measure at their end of the continuum but agreed on the remaining thirty-two. These sixteen were joined by six who disagreed on the two most extreme roll calls, by three who disagreed on the three most extreme roll calls, by two who disagreed on the four most extreme roll calls, by four who disagreed on the five most extreme, by one who disagreed on the six most extreme votes, and one on the seven most extreme votes (see table 1). The first legislative voting bloc of twenty-eight men includes many traditionally considered members of the Constitutional party (William Findley, Robert Whitehill, and Frederick Antis, for example) and the second legislative voting bloc of thirty-three includes a number of the charter members of the Republican So- ciety (Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas FitzSimons, and George Ross, for example). It thus seems reasonable to label bloc one the Constitutionalists and bloc two the Republicans."1 To summarize: by their voting behavior on thirty three of the forty one motions in the Eleventh General Assembly, sixty-one of 15. Brunhouse, Robert, Counter-Revolution, pp. 143, 207, 291. Pennsylvania Gazette, 24 March 1779. Seven legislators exhibited highly personal, idiosyncratic voting behavior which precludes classification and two others did not vote a sufficient number of times to be classified: Samuel Atlee who was consistently absent; and Thomas Mifflin, the Speaker of the House, who voted only once. Since the majority of the House elected the speaker it seems probable that Mifflin was at least acceptable to the larger of the two blocs, if not, in fact, member of the Republican party. Mifflin's one vote to break a tie in favor of the Republican position is further evidence of his links with that bloc. PARTISANSHIP AND THE CONSTITUTION 321

TABLE 1 ELEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 1786-1787 VOTING BLOCS

Bloc 1: Constitutionalists Bloc 2: Republicans

Scale SCALE Score Natme County SCORE NAME COUNTY 0 Whitehill, Robert Cumberland 26 Canon, John Bedford 0 Beale, Theomas Cumberland 27 Lowrey, Alexander Lancaster 0 Kennedy,' Thomas Cumberland 28 Eichelberger, Adam York 0 Brown, Re obert Northampton 28 McClellan, David York 0 Piper, Johi Bedford 28 Tyson, Henry York 0 Dale, Samiuel Northumberland 28 Brackenridge, Hugh Westmorland 0 Barr, Jamt es Westmorland 29 Lilly, Joseph York 0 McDowell , John Washington 29 Schmyser, Michael York 0 Philips, TI'eophilus Fayette 30 Morris, Robert Philadelphia 0 Gilchreest, John Fayette 30 McConaughy, David York 0 Smith, Ab.raham Franklin 30 Chapman, John Bucks 0 McCalmorit, James Franklin 31 Foulke, Samuel Bucks 0 Clark, Rot lert Dauphin 31 Clemson, James Lancaster I Wright, Allexander Washington 31 Robinson, William Philadelphia I Flenniken, John Washington Jr. Co. I Allison, James Washington 31 Wynkoop, GCerardus Bucks I Mitchell, I)avid Cumberland 31 Evans, Samuel Chester I Findley, " Nilliam Westmorland 31 Thomas, Richard Chester I Miley, Jac ob Dauphin 32 Clymer, George Philadelphia 2 Hiester, GQabriel Berks 32 Hiltzheimer, Jacob Philadelphia 2 Davis, Da%.id Berks 32 FitzSimons, Thomas Philadelphia 3 Burkhalter : Peter Northampton 32 Moore, Charles Montgomery 3 Antis, Fret lerick Northumberland 32 Reiss, Jacob Montgomery 4 Trexler, Pt 'eer, Jr. Northampton 32 Wheeler, Samuel Montgomery 4 Powell, Jotteph Bedford 32 Carpenter, Emanuel Lancaster 4 Mawhorwer, Thomas Northampton 32 Hockley, James Montgomery 4 Hiester, Jooseph Berks 32 Willing, Richard Chester 4 Kreemer, IPhilip Berks 33 Ralston, Robert Chester IDIOSYNCR/ ITIC VOTING PATTERN 33 Whelen, Townsend Chester 33 Salter, John Philadelphia NAME COUNTY Co. Upp, Valentine Bucks 33 Hubley, Adam Lancaster Moore, James Sr. Chester 33 Ross, George Sr. Lancaster Logan, George Philadelphia Co. 33 Work, Joseph Lancaster Gray, Isaac Philadelphia Co. 33 Clymer, Daniel Berks Carson, John Dauphin Will, William Philadelphia .INSUIFFICIENT VOTFS TO CT ASSIFv NAME COUNTY Atlee, Samuel Lancaster MifflirII Thomas Philadelphia Co. 322 OWEN IRELAND the sixty-nine assemblymen grouped themselves into two highly cohesive and well disciplined legislative blocs of twenty-eight and thirty-three members each: the Constitutionalists and the Republi- cans respectively. However, in spite of the strength, breadth and persistence of partisan bloc voting over the previous ten months, there is strong evidence to suggest that the legislators, as well as that segment of the general public whose views found expression in the newspapers did not before 28 September 1787 regard reorganizing the federal government, restructuring the relationship between it and the states, and the convention meeting in Philadelphia to achieve this as partisan issues. In the winter of 1786-1787, the legislature responded favorably and without internal divisions to the call for a convention and elected seven men from a field of twelve nominees to represent the state. Four men received unanimous support: the Speaker of the House, Thomas Mifflin; assemblymen George Clymer and Robert Morris; and Philadelphia lawyer Jared Ingersoll. The other eight candidates competed for the three remaining seats. Thomas Fitz- Simons, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris won with between thirty-three and thirty-five votes each. Charles Pettit, Thomas McKean, and Jonathan Bayard ran well and received twenty-five to twenty-six votes each. Benjamin Franklin received ten votes and William Findley two. Whether this division on candidates for the three contested seats represented partisanship is unclear. Individual legislators did not record their votes but the distribution of the vote on this question approximates that of the two legislative blocs. On the other hand, neither Findley nor Whitehill, two of the most vocal members of the minority bloc, appear to have been serious candidates. Findley received a nominal two votes and Whitehill none. 16 Nothing in the behavior of the legislators in the winter of 1786- 1787 suggests that they perceived the question of an interstate convention to propose alterations in the frame of government as inherently or intrinsically a partisan matter. Both blocs supported Pennsylvania participation in the convention and agreed unanimously on four of the seven delegates. They may have divided along partisan lines on the remaining three. Thus, partisanship played no role in the decision to respond to the call for the Constitutional Con- vention and at most, only a minor role in the choice of the state delegation. Comment in the Philadelphia newspapers also suggests the absence of a partisan perception of the Constitutional Convention or 16. Packel, 8 October 1787. PARTISANSHIP AND THE CONSTITUTION 323 its members. The press in general expressed optimism, expected beneficial results from the deliberations of the wise men of the Convention, and gave no hint of opposition until August, and then only in a minor and somewhat oblique way. Materials published before 28 September in two newspapers which in time became strong Antifederalist organs in Philadelphia, Francis Baily's Freeman's Journal and Eleazor Oswald's Independent Gazetteer, most clearly illus- trate this. After 1 October 1787, the Freeman's Journal viciously and consistently attacked the Federal Constitution and its supporters but during August and September of that year its tone was markedly different. On 1 August the paper reported that the federal convention was adjourning until Monday week and then editorialized: "it is hoped, from the universal confidence reposed in this delegation, that the minds of the people throughout the United States are prepared to receive with respect . . . the plan which will be offered to them by men distinguished for their wisdom and patriotism." A week later the paper complained that unbearable land taxes in Pennsylvania were driving farmers to "Kentucke or the shores of the South Sea" and concluded that "An efficient federal government can alone relieve us from our oppressive state system of taxation and release all our hopes and wishes of national glory and pros- perity." On 29 August, "A Correspondent" argued that the problems facing America came not from the constitutional structure, but rather from the people. The remedy, he believed, lay in a "long course of frugality, disuse of foreign luxuries, encouragements of industry, application to agriculture, attention to home manufacturing, and a spirit of union and national sobriety," but this was a minority voice. On 19 September Baily printed the full text of the "New Federal Constitution of the United States" with its accom- panying letters of transmittal from George Washington to the Con- gress of the United States. One week later, on 26 September, just two days before the question of a state convention convulsed the Assembly, Baily published extracts from an essay promoting federal sentiment which focused on the weaknesses of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, its inability to defend American honor, pay the foreign debt, and subdue the savages on the frontier where "the wail of the babe, who dies under the tomahawk on the mother's breast [and] the shrieks of the mother . . . fill the wilder- ness." 17 One negative essay appeared in the Freeman'sJournal in late August 17. Freeman'sJournal, 1, 8, 29 August; 19, 26 September 1787. 324 OWEN IRELAND under the signature of "Z". It argued that the wealthy and powerful were conspiring to undermine the liberties of the people of the state, that this conspiracy had been directed against the "free and excellent constitution of the state of Pennsylvania," and that the state delegates to the Constitution Convention were all members of the junto behind this conspiracy. However, this discordant note was conspicuous by its presence in a general aura of support and positive expectation in the columns of the Freeman'sJournal before October 1787. Only on 3 October with the republication of a Cato essay from the New York Journal did the Freeman'sJournal assume the strident and consistent Antifederalist stance it was to exhibit throughout the remainder of the debate. 8 The Independent Gazetteer also developed a strong Antifederalist stance after 1 October 1787 and its editor, Eleazer Oswald has generally been classified as an opponent of the Constitution,"9 but in the summer and early fall of 1787 Antifederalist sentiment was conspicuous by its absence from the columns of Mr. Oswald's paper. In May 1787 Oswald published a strong nationalistic essay by "Rustic" which condemned the Articles of Confederation as inade- quate and urged a new plan of government with three independent branches and the authority to appoint state governors with veto power. In June "Sidney" thanked Divine Providence for the timely publication of "Adams' Defense of the American Constitu- tions" and throughout the remainder of the summer and into the fall Oswald remained supportive of the Convention and its expected results. America's manifold problems were detailed in his newspaper: high land taxes, poaching on American fishing rights, disruption of the carrying trade on the high seas, decline of inter- national commerce, decay of shipbuilding and the manufacturing arts, a rise in the national debt, a decline in the national credit, and the emergence of internal disorders in the states. The inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation caused these difficulties, or at least prevented their solution, and America's "future political safety and happiness depended on the work of the honest and virtuous men at the federal convention." "Letters and private accounts from most of the counties of Pennsylvania" led the editor to believe that "the good people of this state, of all parties, are alike prepared and dis- posed to receive the new federal government."" 18. Freeman'sJournal, 22 August, 3 October 1787. 19. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1:6. PARTISANSHIP AND THE CONSTITUTION 325 The publication of the Constitution did nothing to alter the thinking or dispel the optimism of the Independent Gazetteer. In the week between 21 and 28 September Oswald's paper carried nothing but praise for the new frame of government, for its authors, and for the good sense of the people of Pennsylvania who were sure to adopt it, and he predicted that: "the eagerness that so unanimously has been shown to promote a Federal Government and insure the pros- perity and liberty of America, must evince the patriotism of the individuals who compose, both the constitutional and the republican parties in this city, and ought to endear them to each other."12 A hint of trouble had appeared in August. An unsigned article on 8 August condemned a group which it asserted had lately held sundry meetings at the house of George Bryan and Jonathan Bayard Smith, ". . . to excite prejudice against the Federal constitution." A week later "Tar and Feathers" reminded Bryan and Smith of "the fate of Hutchinson, Tyron and Galloway . . . who lost their offices and estates by opposing the general inclination of the people" and implied that a similar fate awaited those who opposed the new Con- stitution. The significance of these two items lies not so much in their assertions of possible party opposition to the Constitution as in the deliberate and vigorous steps taken to discourage it and in the fact that they were isolated voices in a general atmosphere of optimism and support." Oswald, like Bailey and most of the public observers of the time, saw little partisan relevance in the Constitutional Convention or in the Constitution itself. In the same vein, throughout 1787 the correspondence between George Bryan, a commonly recognized leader of the Constitutional party, and Joseph Hart, one of his lieutenants in Bucks County also indicates that no predetermined Constitu- tional party position on the Federal Constitution existed before 1 October. In letters to Bryan in January and March, Hart reviewed the local strategy for generating public opposition to the revival of the charter of the Bank of North America through petitions, remon- strances, and a door to door canvas for signatures in each township in Bucks County, and he discussed the political motives for his decision to continue as justice of the peace and assume the responsi- bilities of recorder and register left vacant by his son's recent death:

20. Independent Gazetteer, 31 May, 6 June, 11, 17, 22, 23 August, 5, 10 September 1787. 21. Independent Gazetteer, 21, 22, 24, 26 September 1787. 22. Independent Gazetteer, 8, 16 August 1787. 326 OWEN IRELAND

".. if I resign the office ... there would be no preventing it,... going into the hands of a Republican and thereby strengthen their party (too powerful already)." In these early letters he made no mention of the calling of the Constitutional Convention or the election of Pennsylvania's delegates. By 3 October 1787 he had read the Con- stitution, heard some local discussion of it ("Mr. Wynkoop recom- mended it -much, and Murray declared he was resolved to adopt it before he knew a thing what it would be;"), and had received Bryan's version of the proceedings in the assembly on 28 and 29 September, but he had not yet made up his mind: "I have indeed seen the production of the Convention but have not had time to digest it and therefore . . . shall not say one word for or against it." Thus, as late as 3 October Hart had no reason to believe that the Constitution, in marked contrast to the Bank of North America, was an important partisan issue.' The behavior of the Assemblymen from December 1786 through most of September 1787, the general thrust of the press commentary, and the private correspondence between Hart and Bryan, all support the conclusion that the question of restructuring the American constitution possessed little if any partisan salience before 1 October 1787. The voting and attendance records of the legislators on 28 and 29 September further indicate that although the initial response to the Constitution in the Assembly did not closely correspond to the previous dominant voting patterns, the dramatic and emotional events on these two days significantly, if temporarily, increased the partisan perception of and response to the new frame of government. On Friday morning, 28 September the Assembly divided 43 to 19 in favor of George Clymer's resolution for a state convention. Six of the seven unaligned Assemblymen voted and all six voted in favor of Clymer's resolution: a very unusual pattern evident on only three of the remaining thirty-two votes in the scalable set of votes. The majority of the members of the Constitutional Party (nineteen of twenty-eight) voted against the resolution but seven of the twenty- eight (twenty-five percent of the total number of Constitutionalists in the Assembly and twenty-seven percent of those present and voting) joined the six unaligned legislators and thirty of the thirty- three members of the Republican party in support of Clymer's call for a convention. Thus while the initial opposition to the Constitu- tion came exclusively from the inner ranks of the Constitutional

23. Joseph Hart to George Bryan, Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, I January, 7 March, 3 October, 1787. George Bryan Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. PARTISANSHIP AND THE CONSTITUTION 327 party, its support came from a broad coalition composed of all the Republicans, the unaligned Assemblymen with highly idiosyncratic voting patterns, and a sizeable portion of the Constitutional Party (see table 2).24 TABLE 2 ELEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1786-1787 VOTING BLOCS AND THE VOTE TO CALL THE STATE CONVENTION

BLOC RANK SCALE VOTE TO CALL THE STATE CONVENTION SCORE No YES ABSENT TOTAL

I Core 0 12 0 1 13 Tier One 1 6 0 0 6 Tier Two 2 0 2 0 2 Tier Three 3 0 2 0 2 Tier Four 4 1 3 1 5

II Tier Seven 26 0 1 0 1 Tier Five 28 0 2 2 4 Tier Four 29 0 2 0 2 Tier Three 30 0 2 1 3 Tier Two 31 0 7 0 7 Tier One 32 0 9 0 9 Core 33 0 7 0 7

Unaligned X 0 6 0 6

Totals 19 43 5 67

The divisions in the Constitutional party on the question of calling a state convention were not random. All the members of the core of the party and the first tier of their supporters voted against the convention (one was absent). With one exception all of the members of the second, third and fourth tiers of the Constitutional party who were present voted in favor of calling the convention. In addition, the division within the Constitutional party followed a clear geographic pattern. Seventeen of the eighteen Constitu- tionalists present from Dauphin County and west voted against the convention while seven of the nine Constitutionalists present from the three counties east and north of Dauphin voted for it (see table 3). Although the division on Friday morning on the question of a state convention did not closely conform to established bloc voting

24. Minutes of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, 28 September 1787. 328 OWEN IRELAND

TABLE 3 ELEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1786-1787 CONSTITUTIONAL PARTY DIVISION ON STATE CONVENTION

VOTES ON DAUPHIN AND EAST AND NORTH OF TOTALS STATE CONVENTION WEST DAUPHIN

Yes 0 7 7 No 17 2 19 Missed I 1 2 Totals 18 10 28 patterns, by Saturday morning a number of deviant Constitu- tionalists shifted position and in time the Constitutionalists in the Assembly achieved a relatively high degree of cohesion. By Friday afternoon Frederick Antis (Northumberland) had reconsidered and joined his fellow Constitutionalists in boycotting the assembly. On Saturday morning both Peter Burkhalter and Peter Trexler Jr. joined the Constitutionalist seceders and by the time the legislature finally adjourned twenty-two of the twenty-eight Constitutionalist party members had united in opposition. In addition three others later acted with the Antifederalists: Joseph Hiester, who had refused to join in the boycott of the legislature, was a successful Antifed- eralist candidate for the state convention; Thomas Beale and Thomas Mawhorter, who had been absent on Friday morning, voted with the Antifederalists in later legislatures. All in all, 25 of the 28 Constitutional party members of the Eleventh General Assembly finally united in opposition to the Constitution. How- ever, one of these, Trexler, voted against his Antifederalist colleagues in the Twelfth General Assembly, suggesting something less than a firm and lasting commitment on his part. The three remaining men, David Davis, Philip Keemer, and Gabriel Hiester, voted for the convention on Friday morning, attended the House on both Fri- day afternoon and Saturday morning, and appear to have remained supporters of the Constitution throughout. The events of 28 and 29 September contributed substantially to this alignment. They produced the first major public division on the Constitution; gave partisan salience to the question of reorganizing the central government and its relations with the states; and united 89.3% of the Constitutionalist Party in the legislature against the new frame of government. In addition, they initiated a newspaper debate on the Constitution which dominated the Philadelphia papers for the next seven months and provided the Antifederalists PARTISANSHIP AND THE CONSTITUTION 329 with one of the central themes of the campaign for the election of delegates to the state convention. Sixteen of the nineteen seceders almost immediately published an "Address . . ." which defended their action, attacked the majority of the Assembly, and charged that the choice of Republican delegates to the Constitutional Convention as well as the precipitous, illegal, and violent behavior of the Republican majority in the legislature cast doubt upon the entire enterprise. In the next two months, Antifederalist writers developed a host of particular and specific objections to the Constitution, but the charges of Republican partisanship and Federalist excess in the closing days of the assembly remained among the most frequent reasons offered for opposition to the Constitution. As Edward Carrington later wrote to Thomas Jefferson: "[It is] doubtful whether it [opposition to the Constitution in Pennsylvania] is founded in objection to the project or the intemperance of its more zealous friends." The nineteen who seceded and broke up the House "afterwards, added to their protest against the intemperance of the majority, some objections against the re- port [i.e., the Constitution], yet it is to be doubted whether they would have set themselves in opposition to it, had more moderation been used."2 6 In spite of the relatively high degree of partisan unity achieved in the last two days of the legislative session, and the partisan charges in the "Address" of the seceders and the early issues of "Centinel," Carrington assured Jefferson that ". . . Gentlemen well acquainted with the Country are of opinion, that their [the seceders] opposition will have no extensive effect, as there is, in general a coalescence of the two parties which have divided that State ever since the birth of her own Constitution, in support of the new Government.""2 Two months later James Madison concurred: he estimated that the Federalists had a two-to-one majority in the Pennsylvania state convention "A considerable number of the Constitutional party as it was called, having joined the other party in esposing the federal Constitution."2 8 The debate in the Philadelphia newspapers between Federalists and Antifederalists confirms this view. Publicists on both 25. "An Address of the Subscribers, Members of the Late House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to their Constituents," McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1:73-79. 26. Edward Carrington to Thomas Jefferson, New York, 23 October 1787. Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Princeton, 1955), 12: 253-254. 27. Ibid. 28. James Madison to ThomasJefferson, New York, 9 December 1787. Ibid., 12:409. 330 OWEN IRELAND sides recognized that the Constitution was not a purely partisan issue in the state as a whole. The Federalists charged that opposition came largely from the leaders of the Constitutional Party. "Candid" claimed that "the establishment of a good and respectable government for the United States was an event which the leading men of a party in Pennsylvania neither wished for, nor expected." "Federal Constitution" identified the party in question as the Constitu- tionalists and "An Independent Citizen" came as close as he dared to identifying the individuals involved by describing "the meeting of the junto at a certain clergyman's house in the neighborhood of the University, ... and the frequent passings of one of the judges ... from that house to the lodging of Mr. W ...... not long since when a Sunday's dinner was given by the clergyman to a chosen few . "29 This was not meant to imply that all members of the Constitu- tional party opposed the Federal Constitution. Individual cor- respondents claimed to be Constitutionalists and urged or pledged support for the new frame of government, and "The Federalists of Pennsylvania" in their lengthy reply to the Antifederalist "Centinel" said: "Far be it from us to assert that the constitutional party are all antifederal. No, many, very many indeed, nobly despising former distinctions, have embraced federalists and their late enemies and now form a virtuous and powerful support to our cause." A "Citizen of Pennsylvania," writing in support of the Constitution, gave a more detailed analysis: "Dr. Franklin and Mr. Ingersoll, who assisted to frame, and afterwards sign the act of the convention, never opposed our state constitution. Messrs. Will Foulke, G. Heister, Kreemer, J. Heister, Davis, Trexler, Burhalter and Antis, . . . who voted for the call of a State Convention, are surely not republicans and among the four thousand petitioners for the adoption of the new federal government, will be found many of the most zealous, active and respectable friends of the constitution of this commonwealth."3 0 The Antifederalists, in turn, charged that support for the Con- stitution came from "the flagitious machinations of an ambitious junto," "the mere echoes and tools of party" who were driven by "the restless spirit of this tyrannical faction" and led by prominent 29. "Candid," Packet, 27 November 178?. "Federal Constitution," Independent Gazetteer, 15 October 1778. "An Independent Citizen," Independent Gazetteer, 9 Octo- ber 1787. 30. "A Federal Citizen," Independent Gazetteer, 3 November 1787. "Candidus," Mercury, 26 January 1788. "The Federalists of Pennsylvania," Independent Gazetteer, I February 1788. "Citizen of Pennsylvania," Packet, 12 October 1787. PARTISANSHIP AND THE CONSTITUTION 331 Republicans such as "James, the Caledonian, lieutenant general of the myrmidons of power, under Robert, the cofferer . . . [and] his aid-de-camp, Gouvero, the cunning man . . ." But even Centinel had to admit, as late as January, that support for the Constitution came from the Republican faction "with the addition of a few de- luded well-meaning men" whose numbers he wistfully asserted, "were daily lessening."'31 The validity of the Federalist contention is further strengthened by the failure of the question of a unicameral legislature and separation of powers to emerge as a major point of disagreement among Federalist and Antifederalist publicists. Both the Constitutionalist Party and the Republican Society originated in and, took much of their public meaning from the dispute over the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1776 with its all powerful unicameral legislature and multiple and subsidiary executive. The Federal Constitution with its bicameral legislature, strong and independent executive and clear separation of powers among three branches contrasted sharply with this state model and thus with the public principles of the Constitutional Party. In the press debate neither Federalists nor Antifederalists focused on this question. "Centinel" in his first number, in early October, praised the state constitution and its defense of liberty, ridiculed the conception of three separate branches of government, and declared that "if, imitating the constitution of Pennsylvania, you vest all the legislative power in one body of men (separating the executive and judi- cial) elected for a short period, and necessarily excluded by rotation from permanency, and guarded from precipitancy and surprises by delays imposed in its proceedings, you will create the most perfect responsibility."3 " In contrast to this initial thrust, Antifederalist publicists in general, while insisting that the Federalists were Re- publicans in disguise and that the Constitution was a Republican conspiracy, seldom attacked the Constitution for its failure to imitate the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1776. On the contrary, Anti- federalist writers were much more apt to criticize the Constitution for its failure to sufficiently separate the powers of the Senate and the President while the Federalists were much more apt to defend 31. "Centinel," No. XII, McMaster and Stone, eds., Pennsylvania and the Federal Con- stitution, 2:638. "Fair Play," Independent Gazetteer, 4 October 1787. "Algernon Sidney," Ibid., 21 November 1787. "Centinel," No. X, McMaster and Stone, 2:631. "Centinel," No. IX, McMaster and Stone, 2:627. 32. "Centinel," No. 1, McMasier and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 2: 569-70. 332 OWEN IRELAND the proposal on the grounds that the three branches were sufficiently separated to prevent abuse of power and the growth of tyranny. Both Federalists and Antifederalists assumed that separation of powers and checks and balances were essential to the preservation of liberty. The essence of their dispute was whether the new Con- stitution provided sufficient separation of powers and sufficient internal checks and balances to achieve this. The Federalists believed that it did; the Antifederalists disagreed.3 3 The central point of the constitutional theory which had separated Constitutionalists and Republicans for a decade or more played no more than a minor role in the public debate on ratification. Thus, both directly and indirectly, the public statements of the Federalists and the Antifederalists gave testimony to the inability of Findley, Whitehill, and the leaders of the Constitutional party to maintain the high degree of partisan cohesion achieved among party members in the closing days of the Eleventh General Assembly, and to successfully translate that cohesion into the broader political world beyond the Assembly. This deviation from traditional patterns may have been temporary and a result of the unique nature of the issue, or it may have marked a major political realignment of long term significance. The fact that in the next three years Constitutional party leader William Findley participated in the rapid and relatively easy restructuring of the state constitution (completed by 1790) would seem to favor the latter interpretation, but only further research can determine this. Be that as it may, it is quite clear from the analysis of the legislative voting behavior in the Eleventh General Assembly and the comments in the Philadelphia newspapers that the dispute over the Constitution in Pennsylvania is best understood not as a simple or direct reflection of pre-existing partisan patterns, but rather as a new alignment in which a broad coalition of Republicans, Constitutionalists and the formerly non-aligned combined to support ratification while a segment of the Constitu- tional party provided the bulk of the opposition-an alignment which approximated that in the General Assembly on the morning of 28 September before the dramatic and emotional interchange over a state convention had temporarily raised the partisan salience of the issue.

33. These generalizations emerge from a reading of Federalist and Antifederalist comment in four Pennsylvania newspapers (from October 1787 through April 1788): The Independent Gazetteer and The Freeman'sJournal, both of which tended to be Anti- federalist, and the Packet and the Mercury which tended to be Federalist.