ED 345 999 SO 022 150

AUTHOR Schechter, Stephen L., Ed. TITLE The Reluctant Pillars and the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. INSTITUTION Russell Sage Coll., Troy, NY. SPONS AGENCY National Endowment for the Humanities (NFAH). Washington, D.C. REPORT NO ISBN-0-930309-00-6 PUB DATE 85 NOTE 272p. AVAILABLE FROMCouncil for Citizenship Education, Russell Sage College, Troy, NY 12180 ($8). PUB TYPE Books (010) -- Collected Works - General (020)

EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS *Constitutional History; *Constitutional Law; Educational Resources; Political Science; Politics; *State History; History IDENTIFIERS *New York; *United States Constitution

ABSTRACT This collection of essays is intended for both the general reader and the specialist and is designed to provide the basic elements needed for an introductory survey and a reference aid to the role of New York State in the adoption of the federal Constitution. The collection is organized into five sections: theory, history, materials, people and places, and chronologies. The essays includes "The U.S. Constitution and the American Tradition of Constitution-Naking" (Daniel J. Elazar); "The Ends of Federalism" (Martin Diamond). "The Constitution of the United States: The End of the Revolution" (Richard Leffler); "New York: The Reluctant Pillar" (John P. Kaminski); "A Guide to Sources for Studying the Ratification of the Constitution by New York State" (Gaspare J. Saladino); "Fiction--Another Source" (Jack VanDerhoof); "A Biographical Gazetteer of New York Federalists and Antifederalists" (Stephen L. Schechter); "A Preliminary Inventory of the Homes of New York Federalists and Antifederaliste (Stephen L. Schechter); and "A Guide to Historic Sites of the Ratification Debate in New 'fork" (Stephen L. Schechter). The volume concludes with two chronologies, entitled respectively: "A Chronology of Constitutional Events during the American Revolutionary Era, 1774-1792"; and "A Chronology of New York Events, 1777-1788." (DB)

*********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** **PERMISSION TO REPRODUCETHIS ONSIRRTNINT OP MOM= MATERIAL IN MICROFICHEONLY OMNI 1:4 Educational Nonalet and Imenwenwolt HAS BEEN GRANTEDBY EDUCATKINAS. Rgsffit.ffitcos INFORVAVON CENTER (ERIC) doctiment two been reproduged as ej-tS41 YI:Peved boo the person at amazon:* anoinsbne ft c tvri. Maw cnongeor hem beim made to "Wore roproductio quaNy TO THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCES Points& wawa *Demons NOW In ohm ace- (ERIC)." mom clo oat necussity Mammal ofTmIN INFORMATION CENTER CIERT median or policy

COPY AY 2 New York State, 1788 Courten of the University of North Carolina Press and KTO THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

New York and the Adoptionof the Federal Constitution

,Im STEPHEN L. SCHECHTER Editor

Russell Sage College Troy, New York

4 11 The Reluctant Pillar: NMI York and the Adoptionof the Federal Constitution

This publication was madepossible, in part, by grants from the National Endowmentfor the Humanities and the Center for the Studyof Federalism, Russell Sage College, Troy, NY12180

Copyright 49 1985 by RussellSage College All rights reserved. Publishedin 1985 Printed in the United Statesof America

Map of New York State,1788, adapted from Boyd,Stephen R., the Constitution. The Politics of Opposition:Antifederalists and the Acceptance of Millwood, New York: KTO Press,1979. Reproduced with permission ofthe publisher. and courtesy University ofNorth Carolina Press.

Library of Congress Catalogingin Publication Data Main entry under title: The reluctant pillar. Includes index. 1. New York (State)Politicsand government 1775-1865 Addresses, essays. lectures. 2.United StatesConstitutionalhistory Addresses, essays, lectures. I. Schechter, Stephen L.,1945- JK161.N7R45 1985 974.1'03 84-22266 ISBN 0-950309-00-6 Contents

Editor's Introduction vii

THEORY

The U.S. Constitutionand the American Tradition 3 of Constitution-Making by Daniel I Elazar

The Ends of Federalism 16 by Martin Diamond

HISTORY

The Constitution of theUnited States: 24 The End of the Revolution by Richard Leffler 48 New York: The ReluctantPillar by John P. Kaminski

MATERIALS

A Guide to Sources forStudying the Ratification 118 of the Constitution by NewYork State by Gaspare J. Saladino FictionAnother Source 148 fry Jack VanDerhoof

i) PEOPLE AND PLACES

A Biographical Gazetteer of New York Federalists 157 and Antifederalists by Stephen L. Schechter

A Preliminary Inventory of the Homes of 207 New York Federalists and Antifederalists by Stephen L. Schechter

A Guide to Historic Sites of the Ratification Debate 216 in New York by Stephen L. Schechter

CHRONOLOGIES

A Chronology of Constitutional Events during the 232 American Revolutionary Era, 1774-1792

A Chronology of New York Events, 240 1777-1788

Index 245

Contributors 257

Map: New York in 1788 Frontispiece Introduction

New York wasthe eleventh state to ratify the federalConstitution; hardly a memorabledistinaion bring the new Con- in a process thatrequired only nine states to stitution into effect. Whatdistinguishes the role of NewYork in ratified but the debate over theConstitution is not when the state why it waited so long. The most straightforwardexplanation of New York's re- luctance is that both sideshad an interest in the strategyof delay. As the state's minority party,Federalists were in favor oflate elections and a lateconvention in the hopes ofswaying the elec- torate or thedelegates to their side; and,if those efforts failed, there would be no earlynegative vote by New York toembarrass or thwart theirefforts elsewhere. Antifederalistshad their own reasons fordelay, as John P. Kaminskiexplains in his essay. Though astute observers wereplacing their bets on anAntifederalist ma- jority, no good politician(and Governor GeorgeClinton was among the best) feels sanguineabout a sure bet in theworld of politics. Clinton's forces needed time to assesstheir statewide strengthand to organize thediversity of interestsrequired to form a majority in a state like NewYork. There was also thehope that, with time, Antifederalists could build aninterstate movement for asecond to be- constitutional conventionand wait for another large state come the first to say no. ln its barest form,then, New York was areluctant pillar risk an early because its leaders onboth sides were unwilling to decision. Delay was apurely political yet perfectlyhonorable choice and so too were the tacticsof vocal debate and quietorganization. wasneither moralizing norimprovising when have he wrote: "It has beenfrequently remarked, that it seems to been reserved to the peopleof this country, by theirconduct and viii THE RELUCTANT PILLAR example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force." This was the opening salvo of The Federalist No. I, published on 27 October 1787, and its message to the voters of New York was an appeal for time, cast in the language of republican enlighten- ment.

About this Publication This collection of essays is intended for both the general reader and the specialist. The collection is organized into five sections: theory; history; materials; people and places; and events. Each section is designed to pave the way for the one that follows, with the overall aim of providing the reader with the basic elements needed for an introductory survey and reference aid to the role of New York in the adoption of the federal Constitution. With the exception of Martin Diamond's essay, all of the contributions were prepared for this collection. In his introductory essay in the first section, Daniel J. Elazar sets out the traditions of American constitution-making and ex- plains how those traditions helped shape the federal Constitution and the process of ratification. Elazar begins with a discussion of constitution-making as an eminently political act and proceeds to unravel the dimensions of modern constitutions, the features of American constitution-making, arts the contributions of the fed- eral Constitution to the modern principle of representation. Draw- ing on The Federalist No. 1, he then identifies three models of f-:onstitution-making and distinguishes the American model and its compact-covenant traditions of choice and consent. Martin Diamond's contribution, reprinted from one of his earlier works, offers a perspective of political thought often m;ss- ing from standard histories of the ratification debate. He believes that the most important difference between Federalists and Anti- federalists concerns their expectations of what ends a republic should serve and how those ends could best be achieved. In the elegant prose of a philosopher, Diamond argues that Antifeder- alists operated on the basis of a classic "small republic" conception of society, in which citizen virtue and freedom from despotic rule were maintained by the very smallness of the country and pro- Introduction ix tected by a federal alliancemuch like that envisioned in the Ar- ticles of Confederation. By contrast,Federalists sought an ex- tended and compound republic asthe best safeguard of republican freedom and virtue, and, in breakingwith the past, they forever changed the meaning of federalism(then understood as an alli- ance) by directing it toward theends of modern nation-building. The contributions by politicalscientists on the theory of the Constitution are followed in thesecond section by two essays on the adoption of the Constitutionand the role of New York in it. In his background essay,Richard Leffler succinctly surveysthe period 1775 to 1788 as an ageof constitution-making, initiated in the opening months of theAmerican Revolution and concluded with the adoption of the federalConstitution over a decade later. He begins with a review ofearly state constitutions and proceeds to examine the adoptionof the Articles of Confederation(Amer- ica's first Constitution), the efforts tost7engthen the Articles, the movement for a newConstitution, the proceedings of theCon- stitutional Convention in ,and the struggle for the ratification of the new federalConstitution. With this background in mind, we turnto the involvement of New York and its leaders inthe struggle for a new Constitution. John P. Kaminski presents a mostsensible and carefully researched interpretation of New York as areluctant pillar. Drawing on the extensive files of The DocumentaryHistory of the Ratification of the Constitution Project,Kaminski provides an unbroken account of constitutional politics in NewYork from the adoption of the state's first constitution in 1777through the years of consolidation by Governor George Clinton tothe debate over the new federal Constitution and its final ratificationin 1788. Of particular interest is the analysis of Clinton's role in statepolitics, the extensive treat- ment of countypolitics in the election campaignsfor the state ratifying convention, the interpretationof convention politics, and the reasons for MelanctonSmith's "conversion" at the convention. The third section brings togetherthe basic reference aids needed for the independent study ofthe ratification debate in New York in 1787-88. No one isbetter equipped to lead this task than Gaspare J. Saladino, co-editor withJohn Kaminski of The Docu- mentary History of the Ratificationof the Constitution. The first partof Saladino's essay is a guide toprimary sources, including: sources for the Constitutional Convention;legislative and executive rec- ords for New York; personal papers;newspapers; pamphlets and X THE RELUCTANT PILLAR broadsides; printed primary sources; editions of The Federalist;and sources for the state ratifyingconvention. The second part of his essay is a thoroughgoingbibliographic review of the published studies and dissertations on the ratification of theConstitution by New York. He also offers an evaluation oflocal histories and ge- nealogies and concludes with suggestions for furtherstudy. Another source is fiction in novel form, and this is thesubject of Jack VanDerhoors essay. As VanDerhoof explains, anynovel is a historical novel either because it deals with some aspectof past or imagined reality orbecause it is itself of the past. VanDerhoof distinguislrs the novel's two functionsof insight and perspec- tivefor the historian. He reviews HowardBreslin's Shad Run, a novel set in Poughkeepsie, New York, during the springof 1788 when the shad were running, the politicians werepoliticking, and Lancey and Dirck (the novel's principal characters) werecourting. VanDerhoof concludes with a reading list of nineteennovels set at the time of the ratificationdebate, supplemented by works on history and fiction. The fourth section contains reference aids that can beused to locate the people and places of thedebate in New York in 1787 88. The first aid is a biographical gazeueer, compiledby this writer, presenting entries for 255 New Yorkers involved inthe debate. Organized by county, each entry contains the participant's name, party affiliation, offices held andsought, town or ward of residence, and its pment-day place name designation. Thesecond aid is an inventory of the surviving homes of New YorkFederalists and Antifederalists. Compiltd by this writer, the inventoryidentifies seventy-five homes still standing. The next contributionof this writer is a regional guide to the historic sites of the debatein New York. Included in this guide are inventoried homes nowmain- tained as historic sites, supplemented by a review ofrelated historic sites, districts, and museum collections. The last section consists of two chronologies. The firstchro- nology, compiled by Richard Lerner, lists the key eventsin the constitutional history of the United States from themeeting of the First in 1774 to the adoptionof the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1792. The second, compiledby John Kaminski, is concerned with the principal events in NewYork State from the adoption of the state constitution in 1777 tothe ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.

11 Introduction xi

Acknowledgments This project is a labor oflove, owing in no small part tothe profes- sionalism and good cheer ofall those involved. First andforemost, this publication is a productof its contributors; and aspecial note of appreciation goes to eachof them. I am particularlygrateful to John P.Kaminski and Gaspare J. Saladinofor their additional assistance and advice onvarious aspects of the publication;and to Jack VanDerhoof for hiscollegial support throughoutthis two- year undertaking. This publication was madepossible, in part, by grants from the National Endowmentfor the Humanities and theCenter for the Study of Federalism. Aspecial note of thanks goes tothese institutions for their support. Ialso take this opportunity tothank Dean Robert F. Pennock ofRussell Sage College whoshepherded this project through itsvarious expansions. However,the views expressed in this publication arethose of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the grantors. Particular notes of appreciationhave been accumulated by this writer in preparingthe biographical gazetteer,inventory of homes, and guide to sites. I amespecially grateful for themetic- ulous care and extra effort of my tworesearch assistants, Bethann Gordon and Gail Filippini,who assisted at every step. I amalso particularly grateful for thecontinuing advice and researchassis- tance of JamesCorsaro of the New York StateLibrary who served as a projectconsultant; Kathleen Roe of theNew York State Ar- chives for her advice onhow to organize the entries tothe gaz- etteer andaccompanying inventory; and KristinGibbons and Paul Huey. Bureau of HistoricSites, New York State Officeof Parks, Recreation and HistoricPreservation, for reviewingthe final manuscript. As a compiler, I amindebted to the scores of local experts, including librarians, site specialists,municipal historians, and other local historians, whohelped identify and confirm thevarious pieces of information that werefinally put together to form the gazetteer, inventory, and guide. For their countywide assistance,I am especially grateful to Michele Figliomeni, Presidentof the Orange CountyHistorical Society; Ruth Piwonka of theColumbia County HistoricalSociety; Barbara Van Liew and Carol Traynorof the Society for the Pres- ervation of Antiquities;Kenneth Hasbrouck, Ulster

4.0 Xii THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

Coenty historian; and Norman Riceand the staff of the Albany Institute of History and Art. And for theirboroughwide assistance, I express my thanks to Steven Bartoof the Historical Society; Professor Arthur Konop,Director of the Kelly Institute for Local Historical Studies, St.Francis College, ; and Laura Tosi, Associate Librarian, BronxCounty Historical Society. For their assistance in completing variouspieces of the puzzle in , I wish to thankJoseph Bresnan, Director of Historic Parks of the City of New York;Kenneth Cobb of the Municipal Archives, New York City Departmentof Records and Information Services; Anne Gordon, Directorof the Municipal Reference Library, also in the city departmentof records; Marjorie Pearson of the Landmarks PreservationCommission of the City of New York; William Butler of theMuseum of the City of New York; the reference staff of the New-YorkHistorical Society; the reference staff of the New York PublicLibrary; and, on Staten Island, Loring McMillen, RichmondCounty historian. For Long Island entries, a specialappreciation to Nicholas Fako of the Borough PublicLibrary; Richard Foster, Southhampton town historian; George H.Furman of the Manor of St. George; Peggy Gerry, RoslynHistoric District Board; Jay Graybeal of the East Hampton HistoricalSociety; Louise Green, Shelter Island town historian; LouiseHall of the Smithtown His- torical Society; Margaret Joyce of theShetter Island Historical Society; Dorothy King of the EastHampton Free Library; Rufus Langhans, Huntington town historian;David Overton, Brookha- ven town historian;Vincent Seyfried, Newtown historian;Edward Smits, Director, and Richard Winsche,Nassau County Museum; Donald Wyckoff of the Wyckoff FamilyFoundation; the.staff of the Queens County Historical Society; andthe staff of the Suffolk County Historical Society. For Westchester County entries, I amindebted to that coun- ty's town historians, particularly toDoris Auser of Yorktown; Edythe Quinn Caro of Harrison;Edmund Halsey Cox of Mount Pleasant; Alvin Jordan (retired) of Salem;Donald Marshall of Bed- ford; Ethel Scofield of Poundriclge; andSusan Swanson of Pelham. I also wish to thank Linda McLeanConnelly of the Home- stead and Kathleen Johnson of SleepyHollow Restorations, Inc. Across the , assistancein locating Rockland County entries was provided by Ralph Bradenand Peter Talman of Spring Introduction xiii River, New Jersey, Valley and by WilfredTalman of Upper Saddle Trustee Emeritus ofthe Holland Society. Elizabeth Carter, For Dutchess Countyentries, I wish to thank Poughkeepsie city historian;Rosemary Coons, RedHook village DeWitt Gurnell, historian; Joyce Ghee,Dutchess County historian; Rhinebeck town historian;Melodye Kakz, Directorof the Dutch- Preservation ess CountyHistorical Society; NeilLarson, Historic York State Office ofParks, Recreation and Field Services, New historian. Historic Preservation; andWilla Skinner, Fishkill town Additional assistance inUlster County wasProvided by Herbert Cutler, President of theUlster County HistoricalSociety, and by Clare McDonald of theSenate House Museum. For Upper Hudsonentries, additionalassistance was pro- Stefan Bielin.ski, vided by Elizabeth Abel,Stillwater town historian; Services, New York Division of Historicaland Anthropological Historical Socif.fty; State Museum; ShirleyDunn of the Esquatak Charles Gehring of theNew York StateLibrary; Mary Hart of historian; the Knickerbocker Society;Mable Hewitt, Hoosick town Paul Huey, Bureauof Ruth Houghtaling,Catskill town historian; Historic Sites, New YorkState Office of Parks,Recreation and historian; Historic Preservation;Doris McEachron, Argyle town Washington Countyhistorian. Finally, a and Mildred Southard, entries goes to Mary special word of thanksfor Mohawk Valley Antoine de Julio, Directorof the MontgomeryCounty Historical Genealogical So- Society; Mildred Rathburnof the Heritage and Fonda village his- ciety of MontgomeryCounty; Volkert Veeder, torian; and the staff of theSchenectady CountyHistorical Society. REDEUN F SATURNIAt REGNA. tiOn the eretlion 6.1 the Eleventh PILLAR of the great Na- livid DOME, we beg leave meg fusterdy te filitttate "OUR ORAL COUNTRY." Rife it will.

The FEDiRAL EDIFICE. The metaphor of the federal structure supported by the state pillars was used elsewhere, but the Centinel was the first newspaper to print an illustration bringing the metaphor to life. On 16 January 1788 a cartoon was printed under the heading "THE FEDERAL PILLARS," showing five pillars erected with asixth pillar labelled "Mass." in the process of being raised. The cartoon was updated as each state ratified the Constitution. This version, showing New York raised, appeared on 2 August 1788. The Reluctant Pillar THEORY

The U.S. Constitution and the American Tradition of Constitution-Making

DANIEL J. ELAZAR Temple University

It may appear to be a truism to state that constitution-making is an eminentlypolitical act. Never- theless, after a generation of withdrawal on the part of manyschol- ars from considerations of all thatis labelled "constitutional" in the world of government and politics, on the grounds thatsuch matters are merely "formal" and hence not"real," it is a truism that needs restating. The essays in this collectionfully demonstrate its validity. Constitution-making, properly considered, brings us back to the essence of the political. However muchextra-political forces may influence particular constitution-makingsituations or consti- tutional acts, ultimately both involve directly political expressions, involvements, and choices. In that sense, the dynamics of consti- tution-making have to do with questions of constitutional choice. A proper study of the subject, then, involves not onlywhat is chosen but who does the choosing, and how. Constitutional choice is more art than science. There are scientific principles involved in the making of constitutions, asthe framers of the United States Constitution of 1787demonstrated in their reliance on the "new science of politics,"which had dis- covered such vital principles of republican regimes as separation 4 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR of powers, federalism, and the institutionof the presidency. But the combination of those elementsand their adaptation to the constituency to be served is an art. Thus aconstitution is a political artifact; making one combines science, artand craft, including the identification of basic scientific principles ofconstitutional design and the technologies which arederived from them by a consti- tutional artisan or group of artisans. It is an even greater art to bring theconstituency to endow the constitution with legitimacy.Constitutional legitimacy involves consent. It is not a commitmentwhich can be coercedhowever much people can be coerced intoobedience to a particular regime. Consensual legitimacy is utterly necessaryfor a constitution to have real meaning and to last. The veryfact that, while rule can be imposed by force, constitutions canonly exist as meaningful instruments by consent, is anotherdemonstration that constitu- tion-making is the preeminent political act.

Dimensions of Modern Constitutions While the idea of constitutionalism isquite ancient in the Western world and actual constitutions can befound as many as 3,000 years ago, constitution-making as weknow it is a modt en invention. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, itis an American invention. The essence of modern constitution-makinginvolves the making of positive law by popular act. Thatis, modern constitution.s are not handed downfrom Heaven nor simply inheritedfrom the traditions of the past. Rather, theyinvolve positive legislative acts on the part of theconstitution-makers, according to a designwhich they develop as representatives of those uponwhom the consti- tution is to be binding, and with thelatter's consent to the final product. It is true that constitutions representspecial or extraor- dinary legislation and presumably serve asbridges between eternal principles of natural justice and rightand the immediate needs and circumstances of thepopulation to be served. It can evenbe said that each of the elementsin modern constitution-making can be found even in ancient times,but their coming together into a single comprehensive packagebased upon modern premisesof government is what makesthe difference. There are various constitutionalmodels in the modern world. AmPrican constitutions follow theframe of government model, delineating the basic governing structure,institutions, and pro- Traditions of Constitution-Making 5 cedures of the polity (i.e., the organized political system or political society). Hence they are not designed to be highly specific and are only explicit in connection with those elements which must be made explicit in order for the constitution to frame a government. American constitutions frame governments and not the state be- cause what is characteristic of the American systemis the absence of any sense of "the State" as a pre-existing phenomenon, a reified entity like the French Etat or German Staat which continues to exist regardless of how it is constitutionalized (or not constitu- tionalized) at any particular moment. Frame-of-government constitutions establish polities as often as they establish governments. Indeed, in many casesthe two are inseparable. In fact, written constitutions of this model often are designed to be devices for organizing new societies founded in new territories, such as the United States,Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. But constitutions are not only frames of government. They are also "power maps"; that is to say, theyreflect the socio-eco- nomic realities of the distribution of political power in the polity served. They also reflect the moral principles underlying polities as regimes, explicitly or implicitly. These are,in fact, the three dimensions of constitutionalism, recognized as such by Aristotle and by students of the subject ever since. They can be visualized as being in a triangular relationship, asportrayed in Figure I. Every modern constitution must directly provide for a frame of government. Different constitutions more or less reflect the other two dimensions as well, sometimes directly and sometimes by implication. A constitution which does not sufficiently reflect and accommodate socio-economic power realities remains a dead letter. Revoluthmary constitutions actually specify the new power arrangements being instituted by the revolutionary regime. While the moral underpinnings of most constitutions may be confined to codewords or phrases, in zhe preamble or declarationof rights, and are virtually unenforceable, they have a reality and power of their own, nonetheless. The moral dimension of the constitution serves to limit, undergird, and direct ordinarypolitical behavior within constitutional systems. At the very least, it embraces the rules of the game; often it expresses far more. In every case, the moral basis of a constitution is an expression of the political culture of the political society it serves.

a 6 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR

FIGURE 1 Three Dimensions of theCons6tution

Moral Basis

Features of American Constitution-Making A major feature of modernconstitution-making is that modern constitutions generally serve polities solarge in population and extensive in territory as to requirethe institutions of represen- tative government. This means thatdirect public involvement in the constitution-making process, asin the other processes of gov- ernment, is limited tovoting and various group processes.Yet at the same time, it must be realenough to be deemed consentby those who must live according tothe constitution which binds them. As Martin Diamond explainsin his essay, experiments in democracy prior to the AmericanRevolution were based on the assumption that in order to allowall the citizens to participate, democratic polities had to be smallenough to allow face-to-face contact among thecitizenry. Unfortunately, suchsmall polities were open to variouspolitical problems, particularly the exacer- bation of the division between therich and the poor, which gen- erated the instability of bipolarconflict. The American founders sawrepresentative government as a positive good on democraticgrounds. They argued that repre- sentative government is a democraticgood in that it allows every citizen to participate in the choosingof his representatives, thereby Traditions of Constitution-Making giving an a meaningful role in the political process,while trans- ferring the routine exercise of power to electedrepresentatives. If the public was large enough, thecitizenry would reflect a mul- tiplicity of interests and so would theirrepresentatives. Bipolar instability would be avoided while thepossibilities for deliberation would be maintained among the representatives,who, as a smaller group, working on aface-to-face basis, would be less prone to demagoguery. In this respect, not only did theAmerican founders provide for the drafting of the federalConstitution by delegates from the several states but they also madeprovisions for a rep- resentative decision-making process in the states toachieve adop- tion of the constitutional instrument itself. It is this feature which is of particularsignificance in the development of modern democratic republics.Constitution-mak- ing American style was taken from the handsof a single lawgiver or an ordinary legislatureand given first to a special convention whose representatives were chosen expressly towrite a constitu- tion, then to the people themselves tochoose other representatives who would deliberate on the work of the first set.This American invention of a constitutional convention,followed by popular rat- ification, revolutionized constitutionalismand the constitution- making process by making the constitution-makersrepresentatives of popularly elected bodies, whose work wasthen submitted to another set of popularly electedrepresentatives. In each case, the representatives' task was to deliberate first overthe writing of the constitution, then over its appropriateness.In both cases, the peo- ple took a direct hand in the processthrough the election of their representatives and indirectly participated inthe public discussions surrounding their deliberations during theratification process. By the time of the writing of thefederal Constitution in 1787, Americans had more than 150 years ofexperience with represen- tative government, going back to 1619, sothat the principle of representation only had to be adapted to agreatly extended re- public by the founders to make it workfor the new United States of America. As Richard Leffler suggestsin his essay, the great constitutional invention of the Americanrevolutionary generation did not spring full-grown from thebrows of the founders. The first state constitutions were adopted bythe state legislatures; and the Articles of Confederation, thefirst constitution of the United States, was written by the ContinentalCongress. 8 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

The Massachusetts Constitution adoptedin 1780 was the first to involve the two-step processof a convention chosen expressly to write a constitution that wasthen submitted to the people for ratification. In this instance, ratificationoccurred not by special convention but by town vote, leading to anextraordinarily vital and important set of deliberations. In1784 New Hampshire be- came the first state torequire both steps in its constitution. The federal Constitution brought the process to a newplane. The del- egates to the ConstitutionalConvention were chosen by their re- spective state legislatures, all popularlyelected. The Convention submitted its product to the Congresswhich then sent it to the states so that the voters ofeach state could elect delegates to a state convention to deliberate onthe product of the Constitutional Convention and decide whether or not toratify it. In this way, the constitution-making processinvolved not only the work of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia butalso the campaigns for and deliberations by stateratifying conventions which signif- icantly widened the debate to include some1.720 delegates rep- resenting nearly 670 local constituencies. The role of the states in this processleads to another feature of American constitution-making.The United States is a demo- cratic republic based on representative government,but it is also a federal republic, orfederal democracy. In strictly governmental terms, federalism is aform of political organization that unites separate polities within anoverarching political system so that all maintain their fundamental politicalintegrity. It distributes power among general (e.g.,national) and constituent (e.g., state) govern- ments so that they all sharein the system's decision making and executing processes. In a larger sense,federalism represents the linking of a free people and theircommunities through lasting but limited political arrangements to protectcertain rights and achieve specific common ends while preservingthe respective integrities of the participants. Federal democracy is an authenticAmerican contribution to democratic thought and republican government.It represents a synthesis of the Puritan idea of the covenantrelationship as the foundation of all proper human societyand the constitutional ideas of the English "natural rights"schools of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The covenant idea(foedus, the Latin root of the word "federal." means covenant orcompact), which the Pu- ritans took from the Bible, demands adifferent kind of political

4:4 Traditions of Constitution-Making 9 relationship (and perhaps, in the long run, adifferent kind of human relationship) than theories of massdemocracy that have attracted many adherents since the FrenchRevolution. It empha- sizes partnership between individuals, groups,and governments in the pursuit of justice; cooperativerelationships that Make the partnership real; and negotiation amongthe partners as the basis for sharing power. The Lockeanunderstanding of the social com- pact as the basis for civilsociety represents a secularized version of the covenant principle. The synthesisof the two undergirds the original American political vision. Contractual noncentralizationthe structureddispersion of power among many centerswhose legitimate authority is consti- tutionally guaranteedis the key to thewidespread and en- trenched diffusion of power that remains theprinciple character- istic of federal democracy. Noncentralizationis not the same as decentralization, though the latter term isfrequentlyand erro- neouslyused in its place to describe theAmerican system. De- centralization implies the existence of a centralauthority, a central government. The governmentthat can decentralize can recen- tralize if it so desires. Hence, in decentralized systemsthe diffusion of power is actually a matter of grace, notright, and as history reveals, in the long run it is usually treated assuch. In a noncentralized political system, poweris so diffused that it cannot legitimately be centralized orconcentrated without breaking the structure and spirit of theconstitution. The United States has such a noncentralized system.We have a nationalor generalgovernment that functions powerfullyin many areas for many general ornationwide purposes, but it is not a central gov- ernment controlling allthe lines of political communicationand decision making. Our states are not creaturesof the federal gov- ernment but, like the latter,derive their authority directly from the people. Structurally, they aresubstantially immune from fed- eral interference. Functionally, theyshare many activities with the federal government but without necessarilyforfeiting their policy- making roles and decision-making powers. Inshort, they are con- stituent yet complete polities in their ownright, not administrative subdivisions or agents of the national government. The founders of our federal republic,taking due cognizance of what they understood to be a "newscience of politics," created a political systemthat was unique in its time and remains a source of marvel to this day. That system was not a powerpyramid, with

t- r) 4 %10 10 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR channels for giving orders fromthe top to the bottom, but amatrix of authoritativegovernmental units located within aframework provided by the Constitution.This matrix, termed a"compound republic" by the framers,combined a national or general govern- mentwhich could makeauthoritative decisions, especially on so- called "boundary" questionswithstate governmentsequally au- thoritative within their areasof constitutional competence.The whole system was based uponthe federal ("fail-safe")principle of redundancy, of more than oneauthoritative body responsiblefor the conduct of the governmentand capable of exercising its re- sponsibilities; a principle, by the way, uponwhich much of today's cybernetic and communications systemsare based. The matrix of American governmentwas writteninto the Constitution and reflected in the two-stepconvention method by which the Constitution wasmade. It was so much a partof Amer- ican political culture thatWashington, D.C., was consciouslylaid out in its image,with the executive, legislative,and judicial branches of government atdifferent points in the matrixand the admin- istrative offices originally placedbetween the first two. Despite later efforts to replace orreshape it, the matrixsurvives as the fundamental reality of American government,albeit in an increas- ingly battered (and embattled) way. While the American matrix orcompound republic is com- posed of multiple centers,these centers are notseparated unto themselves. They are boundtogether within a networkof distrib- uted powers with lines ofcommunication and decisionmaking that force them to interact. Itis not the need for interaction or common action that is special here,but the form and characterof that interactionsharing through bargaining, ornegotiated coopera- tion rather than directive. The noncentralizedcommunications network itselfhas two rigidly rooted anchors, as it mustif the matrix is to exist.The general government (that termof the eighteenth andnineteenth cenkuries still has great meritfor the precision and clarityit brings to the subject) setsthe framework for thematrix as a whole by defining and delineating thelargest arena. The states,whose boundaries are constitutionallyfixed, provide the basicdecision- making arenas within thematrix. Both together providethe con- stitutional basis for the diffusionof powers necessary to prevent hierarchical domination. Traditions of Constitution-Making 11

The American Model of Constitution-Maidng Alexander Hamilton had three models of constitution-making in mind when he wrote: "It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to thepeople of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice[republican consent), or whether they are forever destined to depend, for theirpolitical constitutions, on accident [organic development) and force [con- quest)." (The Federalist No. I.) The basic processes for constitutional change are shaped by the fundamental form or character of the polity. Let usrefer for a moment to the questionof how polities are founded. Throughout the ages, from ancient times to the present, politicalscientists have identified three basic models of political founding a, J organiza- tion: (1) polities founded by conquest which generate power pyr- amids in which political organization is hierarchical; (2)polities which evolved organically out of more limitee forms of human organization and which over time concretize power centers which govern their peripheries; and (3)polities founded by design through covenant or compact in which power isshared through a matrix of centers framed by the government of the whole, on thebasis of federal principles broadly understood. These three models are portrayed in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2 Forms of Polity and Constitutional Design

Form Profess Mechanism Means of Consenting

HierarchkalHanded down Charter Fealty from top Organic Ordinary acts Legislative acts Informal agreement through existing institutions Covenantal Convention of Comprehensive Formal consent partners or theirconstitution representatives 12 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR

In hierarchical polities,constitution-making is essentially a process of handingdown a constitution from the top,the way medieval kings granted charters.Indeed, the principal constitu- tional mechanism in hierarchical systemsis the charter. The basic means of consenting tosuch a constitution is throughpledges of fealty up and down the hierarchy.Constitutions are hanged only when there is a necessity to do so torestore fealty ties or to alter the lines of fealty. Consfitutionsestablished by contemporary au- thoritarian and dictatorial regimes areof this kind, whatever trap- pings the regime's rulers orruler may give them to makethem seem as if they weresomething else. In organic polities,constitution-making occurs throughthe regular process of lawmaking,consisting of a series of acts nego- tiated among the establishedbodies that share in the governance of the polity, whether medieval estates,territorially-based group- ings, or other mediating socialand political institutions.These bodies speak for the various segmentsof society represented in the center, reflect their interests,and can negotiate amongthem- selves to resolve constitutionalquestions as they arise. Constitu- tional change in such politiesis relatively infrequentsince it only occurs when customand tacit understandings are nolonger suf- ficient to determine the rules ofthe game. Ordinary processesof lawmaking often serve as themechanisms for establishing such constitutional acts but those processes areinvolved only after con- sensus has beenreached through negotiation. The means of consenting tosuch constitutions is informal or at best quasi-formal.In organic polities, wholeconstitutions are rarely written and are even morerarely replaced. Rather, consti- tution-making and constitutionalchange come in bits and pieces. The United Kingdom is perhapsthe prime example of an organic polity with an organicconstitution. Each step in theconstitution- making process from MagnaCarta to the present followsthis pattern. In polities founded by covenant orcompact, the processof constitution-making involves aconvention of the partners to the pact, or theirrepresentatives. Constitutionalchange is instituted through similar conventions Orthrough referral of the issue toall partners to the polity,that is to say, all citizens,in a referendum. The reasons for this areclear. As a pact amongequals, or the political expression of such a pact,the constitution can only be changed through the consentof either all of the partners or a Traditions of Constitution-Making 13 majority thereof if it has been so agreed. Th;-:result produced by such polities is what we commonly refer to as awritten constitu- tion, that is to say, a comprehensivedocument deliberately given the status of fundamental law, written,adopted, and preserved through extraordinary rather than ordinarylegislative procedures. The means of consenting to suchconstitutions, the way in which consent is given, and the kind of consentinvolved, are all formal. Constitutions as covenants, compacts, orextensions thereof can either be changedin their entirety or can involve frequent amendment, because issues of constitutionalchoice become part of the coin of the realm, as it were,and publics constituted as partnerships see themselves as empowered toparticipate in con- stitutional design in a relatively direct way. This constitutional model is characteristicof the federal Con- stitution and, in varying degrees, of thefirst state constitutions. In fact, the Massachusetts Constitutionof 1780 and the U.S. Con- stitution of 1787 are the first modernconstitutions to have em- ployed this constitutional model and its elementsof covenant, cr_..m- prehensive constitution, convention, consent,and federalism. The federal Constitution does notinclude a covenant within its text but implicitly refers in itsPreamble to the fact that such a covenant was madeearlier. The beginning of that Preamble "We the People of the United States, inOrder to form a more perfect Union ..."refers back to the covenant contained inthe Declaration of Independence whichestablished that "people of the United States" and their perfectableunion. In fact, the linkage between the two documents is oftenrecognizia so much that the two are often confused. The Constitution, then, does notinclude a covenant, but it does extend the covenant struck by theDeclaration of Independ- ence. As a frame of government,the Constitution delineates the basic governing structure, institutions, andprocedures of the pol- ity; and as a protector of citizens, itdeclares certain rights to be basic (even before the Bill of Rights)and provides the means for their protection in civil society. Inthese respects, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence areconnected in a telic (or means-ends) relationship in which theConstitution establishes and frames the institutions and proceduresneeded to actualize and protect the first principles set outin its Preamble and in the Dec- laration of Independence.

r A. 14 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR laws of Some constitutions aretreated as basic, fundamental the land while others are morelike extraordinary statutorycodes. and hence a com- The federal Constitutionis of the former type prehensive constitution, not acode. It is not designed tobe highly specific (in fact, it is notedfor its purposefulambiguity) and is only the two tasks explicit in connection withthose elements essential to institutions and protectingcitizens. The fed- of framing governing that it can eral Constitution is notcomprehensive in the sense com- replace state constitutions.Rather, it is comprehensive as a plete statement of allthose fundamentalsessential to its two tasks actualizing the and the larger purposebehind them; namely, of firtz principles set outin its Preamble and inthe Declaration of Independence. Both in its writing andadoption, the Constitutionutilized of bringing to- the covenantal deviceof conventions as a means gether the partners tothe pact in a settingthat was both formal and extraordinary. Asnoted earlier, the useof conventions to write and ratify theConstitution revolutionizedthe constitution- making process bymaking the draftersof the Constitution rep- resentatives of popularlyelected bodies, whosework was then sub- mitted to another set ofpopularly electedrepresentatives. The Constitution even providedfor the possibility ofamendment by convention, though recourse toit has been used only onceto ratify Prohibition), but never as yet to an amendment(the repeal of propose anamendment. One other point deserves tobe made in this connection.The Constitution was writtenand ratified by committees.Despite the committee, these were adage that a camelis a horse designed by a committees that worked.Today we have theoriesabout team be- havior which can help usexplain why those particularcommittees worked and not others.For those who livewithin a world of com- of the com- mittees that might beworth exploring further as part memoration of theConstitution and itsratification. provided a basis In all these respects,the federal Constitution that was both republicanin nature and fed- for formal consent important eralist in form. Theconstitutional process provided an and hence citizenparticipation in de- way of building consensus and in termining the basic aimsand procedures of government, providing a popular check onrepresentative institutions.In the the case of NewYork, for example, theelection of delegates to ratifying convention wasthe first election inthe history of the

Komairlir q " Traditions of Constitution-Making 15 colony and state to bebased on universal manhoodsuffrage. At the same time, the process wasfederalist in form by virtueof the multiplicity of arenas in whichit occurred and the consequent opportunities it provided forformal participation and represen- tation on both state andnational planes.

Conclusion The theory that governmentis instituted by covenant or compact leads us to the principlethat governments are onlylegitimate if they have been institutedby the consent of thegoverned. Such consent must beboth informed and freelygiven. Consent cannot legitimately be extracted byforce. Consent is a continuing process.It is not a one-time act of the founders to be simplyaccepted by their descendants,but in- volves a continuing processof participation by whichcitizens con- stantly give or withholdtheir consent. This idea of consent,that "the people shall judge,"is the heart of democracy.Although it is based, in part, on theidea that "the opinionsof mankind" de- serve "decentrespect," a continuingproblem for democracy is that the people be able tojudge well rather than poorly.Hence, the idea of covenant alsoimplies a certain responsibility onthe part of the citizen tobe informed, and of the governmentto be informative rather than secretive.One of the great achievements and of the federal Constitutionhas been to harness political power direct it toward those ends. THEORY

The Ends of Federalism

MARTIN DIAMOND

The specific questions regarding the future of American federalism,which have come to concern contemporary Americanspoint us to two related underlying ques- tions. Namely: What is federalism?What do we want from federalism? To preserve federalism or tomodify it or to make it effective and equitable are considerations thatobviously raise the question of what precisely federalism is.But to ask what federalism isshould raise instantly also the questionof what human purposes orends we seek to have it serve.Indeed it is only in the light of theends of federalism that the nature offederalism becomes visible. An political institutions and processes areintelligible only in the light of the purposes or ends forwhich men devise them or which, unintentionally, they come to serve.They have no nature or mean- ingful pattern, nothing worth humanattention, save with regard to such purposes orends. So to speak, political things arethe way they serve or fail to serve the endssought from them. Serve or fail to servethere's therub. Institutions are subtle and recalcitrant things. They are notneutral with respect to hu- man purposes;rather each institution and processhas its peculiar propensity to produce certain outcomesand not others. But it is

From Martin Diamond, "The Ends ofFederalism,"Publitcs: The Joursal of Copyright 0 1973 Center for the Study Federalism3, no. 2 (Fall 1973): 129-152. of Federalism, Philadelphia. Excerptreprinted by permission. Acknowledgement is hereby gratefully made by theauthor to the Atlanta Foundation and, especially, to its leading spirit,Mr. Oscar van Leer, for early, generous, and understanding support.The present ankle is but a partial and belated recompense for the kindness. The Ends of Federalism 17 not easy to know these propensities, to know which institutions and processes are best suited for what ends. Accordingly, human beings often do not do their political work well. They seek more than a given institution can supply, or they seek from it contra- dictory ends, or they blend processes which work at cross-purposes, etc. Thus deliberate purposes often give way to or become blended with unintended purposes, which institutions generate from their natures. What men want and, as it were, what their institutions want, blend and blur in the practical unfolding of affairs. From this mixture of human intention and institutional nature arises much of the frustration of political life, its confusions, tensions, failures, and partial successes. This is the perspective within which federalism must be understoodas a political arrangement made intelligible only by the ends men seek to make it serve, and by the amenability or recalcitrance of federalism to those ends. At various times, men have sought varying ends from federalism, and the variety of fed- eral systems has resulted from that variety of ends; each actual federal system differs from all others, as we shall see, by the pe- culiar blend of ends sought from the particular federal system. But the nature of federalism as such reveals itself in the ways federalism has served and failed to serve those varying ends.

1 The distinguishing characteristic of federalism is the peculiar am- bivalence of the ends men seek to make it serve. Quite literally an ambivalence: Federalism is always an arrangement pointed in two contrary directions or aimed at securing two contrary ends. One end is always found in the reason why the member units do not simply consolidate themselves into one large unitary country; the other end is always found in the reason why the member units do not choose to remain simply small wholly autonomous coun- tries, The natural tendency of any political community, whether large or small, is to completeness, to the perfection of its auton- omy. Federalism is the effort deliberately to modify that tendency. Hence any given federal structure is always the institutional expression of the contradiction or tension between the particular reasons the member units have for remaining small and autono- mous but not wholly, and large and consolidated but not quite. 18 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR

The differences among federal systemsresult from the differences of these pairs of reasonsfor wanting federalism. This view of federalism isfully borne out in the firstfeder- alism of which we have anyknowledge. Unfortunately, a proper understanding of ancient Greekfederalism, and hence offeder- alism as such, has beenhindered by the parochialtendency of contemporary observerswho take American federalism asthe very model of federalism as such.From this parochialperspective, they regard Greek federalism as sopeculiarly the inept and datedprod- uct of Greek politicalincapacity as hardly to beworthy of notice. The classic and profoundexpression of this condemnatoryview is to be found in the firstparagraph of Hamilton'sFederalist 9. The "petty republics" ofGreece, glorious as they werein other respects, were politicallycontemptible. They were wrackedby "domestic faction and insurrection"and perpetually vibrated "be- tween the extremesof tyranny and anarchy."The reason for this political imbecility, according toHamilton, was their failure to achieve "a firm Union," thatis, their failure to develop asatis- factory form of federalism. But this seems unjust tothe Greeks and does not seethe problem of federalism with sufficientregard for their perspective. The ancient reasoning regardingfederalism gave rise to what 1 have termed polis-federalism.'This term conveys of itself every- thing necessary to explainwhy the Greeks did not moveforward to "a firm Union."Their approach to federalismrested upon the Greek view that theworthwhile life could be livedonly in very small political communities.The term for thesecommunities polisis usually translated ascity-state; but, as Professor LeoStrauss has made clear in otherconnections, this translationblurs an es- sential point. These were notcities in our modern sense,that is, subdivisions of some largerwhole, and hence readilycapable of absorption or partial absorptioninto that whole. Rather,they were autonomous (literally:self-lawgiving) small countries.The Greeks believed that only in such anautonomous polisnolarger, say.

'The first two parts of this paperdraw heavily on some work I havepreviously Federalism and Decentralization."in D. J. published. See -On the Relationship of 1969); with Elazar et at , eds., Cooperation andConflict (F. F. Peacock Publishers, The Democratic Retniblk (RandMcNally, 1970). pp. W. M. Fisk and H. Garfinkel. at., Essays on 139f; "The Federalist's View ofFederalism," in G. C. S. Benson et in Federalism, 19(1). (In thelast named essay Federahno (institute for Studies above, is con- Hamilton's contemptuous treatmentof Greek federalism, mentioned sidered more thoroughly.) The Ends of Federalism 19 than Athenscould men come toknow each other, truly govern themselves, share a vision of a good life,and create the conditions in which the highest human potentialcould be actualized. This was their deepestpolitical "value." Thus the Greekshad a pro- foundly important reason to preserve the autonomyof each small country; that preservation wasthe precondition of the good life. It followed then that any effort truly toenlarge the political communityto create government on alarger scalenecessarily made life less worthwhile. Nonetheless,they recognized the utility of union and invented federalism as a wayof achieving some of the advantages of consolidation. Butthey could not agree with the familiar modern federal idea that thegoverning power of a people should be divided between a central governmentand a group of local governments. Because of theprofound importance they at- tached to the polls as the completepolitical community, the Greeks could not agree that any of the governing powerof the polls should be shared with a larger federal government.Typically, then, they saw in federalismonly a way to have certain minimal common functions performed among a group ofotherwise quite autono- mous smallcountries, especially functions related toproblems of war and commondefense. That is, they saw federalismchiefly as an aspect of toeforeign policy of the polis, an exerciseof what Locke and Burke two thousand yearslater could still call the "fed- erative power" or the foreign policyfunction of government. This minimal view of federalismexplains why federalism fig- ures so little inGreek political writing (e.g., thereis no serious reference to it in all of Aristotle's Politics)and, for that matter, in all political writing until quitemodern times. Classical or pre-mod- em federalism was notconceived as an essential aspectof govern- ment; it had nothing todo with the nature of the polis orpolity, but was only something thatpolities did to protect themselves or to participate in certainreligious observances. The very word federalism"Federal ...from foedus [faith) its essential char- .Relating to a league or contract"2suggests acteristics as they were understood byperhaps all writers up until the modern era. Instead of themodern federal principle of divid- ing power over the same populationbetween member states and a national government,the pre-modern theory offederalism de- veloped three operating principlesfor federal systems:

'Samuel Johnson. Dirtionary of theEnglish Language. 20 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR I. The central federal body does not governindividual cit- izens; it deals only with the member governments.Indeed, it does not govern anyone, citizens ormember states, but operates rather by the voluntary consent of the member states tocentral decision. 2. The central federal body does not deal withthe funda- mental political problems of the population; these areconsidered internal matters and remain with the member governments.The central authority (if authority is not indeed too strong aterm) is confined narrowly to certain external tasks of mutualinterest to the member states. 3. Each member government has an equal votein the central federal body. This equality of suffrage derives fromthe equality of sovereignty possessed by the individual governments.With re- spect to their individualcitizenries, each was equally an autono- mous polis or, in later times, asovereign government. Hence, no matter what their differing sizes orstrengths, the individual gov- ernments are the equal citizensof the federal system, the equal parties to its federal compact. The voluntary association of equal political communitiesfor minimal central purposesthis is what federalismtypically meant for more than two thousand years, from the Greekexperience to the framing of the Constitution in 1787.3 Indeed,federalism had this traditional meaning in the framing period aswell. As can be seen, this list of threecharacteristics is precisely what the Anti- federalists contended was required for a system to befederal. Now, interestingly, most of the leading Federalistsheld the identical view of the characteristics requisite to federalism.But what, then, of the fact that the Constitution manifestly wentbeyond or violated these operating principles of federalism? TheConstitution created a government whichgoverned citizens directly, dealt with impor- tant "internal" domesticproblems, and which did not rest wholly or even primarily onthe equal suffrage of the states. Is this not proof that the meaning of federalism was undergoing achange at the time and that a new, a modern, form offederalism was being created? Not at all. The simple fact is that no oneduring the framing period seriously held that the Constitutioncreated a purely federal form of government, or that the proposed government

'But see Patrick Riley, Hictoriral Development of the Theory ofFerlenthsm. 16th. 19th Centuries (unpublished doctoral dissertation,Harvard University, 1968) for a serious examination of important federal developments in theperiod preceding the American Founding.

C'e t.P'S The Ends of Federalism 21 would be merely a new variety offederalism. The most accurate, and at the same time mostwidely held, view was that expressed by James Madison at the end ofFederalist 39: "The proposed Con- stitution ... is, in strictness, neither anational nor a federal Con- stitution, but a composition ofboth." This is, of course, also pre- cisely the view of Tocqueville."Evidently this is no longer a federal government, but an incompletenational government, which is nei- ther exactly national nor exactlyfederal."4 Now this "composition," orcompoundly federal and national government, emergedfrom the compromises of the Convention. But to understand thosecompromises and the kind of"federal- ism" that was created, it is necessary toconsider briefly an im- portant development in thehistory of federalism that anteceded the American Constitution.The great formulator of this new stage in federalism wasMontesquieu and the federalism hediscussed may be termedsmall republic-federalism. This newsmall republic- federalism is similar in many respects topolis-federalism, but a vital change occurs in the end or purposeof federalism. The small- ness of the country is nolonger conceived as the precondition to living the good life, but only as theprecondition of republicanism and republican liberty; the small andintimate character of a coun- try is no longer theprecondition of all the virtues, but nowonly of republican citizenliness. The reasonfor preserving the auton- omy of the small countryis thus somewhat diminished,and hence the argument against enlargingthe federal authority or evenagainst complete consolidation withothers into a single large country is somewhat less formidable. To acquiesce to substantialconsolidation, the Greeks would have had to revise their thinking onthe entire question of politics and human existence. But now to acceptsuch consolidation, the small republic-federalist, as taughtby Montesquieu, would have to be convincedonly that the republican formof government could somehow be made securein a large country. And thatis precisely what came to pass inAmerica in 1787. Madison devel- oped a theory in which republicangovernment was shown to be not only compatiblewith a large extent of territoryand quantity of population but indeed to requirethem. Persuaded by Madison's argument that hisrepublicanism was safe, the smallrepublic-fed- eralist was now prepared toabandon or at least qualify hisfed-

*Dernorrary in Anzerira (Vintage Books,n.d.). 1, 164. 22 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR eralism. Thus the shift in reasoningregarding the ends of fed- eralismfrom an emphasis on the goodlife to an emphasis on republicanismwas a decisive step in thedevelopment of what is called modern or American federalism. Now Montesquieu's argumentreducing the end of federalism to the preservationof republicanism influenced Americanthink- ing on federalism; but in the Americanunderstanding the argu- ment for federalism wasreduced further and made even less strin- gent. Montesquieu's reasonwhy republics had to be small, and hence could unite only federallyand not nationally, had two strandsso to speak, a positive and a negative argument.On the positive side, republics had to be smallbecause only in a small country (which was alsoegalitarian and frugal) could patriotic vir- tue, the "spring" or"principle" of republicanism, be engendered in the citizenry. The negative argument wasbased on the convic- tion that "a large empire supposesdespotic authority in the person who governs." that is, a degree of authorityincompatible with the preservation of republican liberty. Thislatter became the Amer- ican truncated version of Montesquieu.The concern with citizenly virtue, although it obviously entered Americanthought and mores, received far less attention than thefear of inevitable "despotic authority" in the central governmentof a large country. In this truncated or attenuated small republic-federalism argument,then, the reasons for preserving the autonomyof the small member republics became still less profound thanthose Montesquieu gave, and far less profound than thepolis-federalism reasons for pre- serving the autonomy of the polis.Consequently, the reasons be- came much lessprofound for limiting the functions of thecentral authority or for not forming aconsolidated large republic under an authentic government.Antifederalists and others who main- tained this attenuated small republic argumentstill thought in terms of federalism, butit was now a devitalized federalism, a transformed federalism, no longerfully insistent on the priority of the member republics, but one nowcapable of treating them merely as parts of a larger political whole. This transformation in the reason forfederalism merely to a defense againstdespotism in a large republic madepossible the compromises from which the Constitutionresulted; it explains both the great victory of the nationalists atPhiladelphia in 1787 and also their partial defeat. The continuedbelief in federalism, al- though thus attenuated, obliged theleading Framers, all nation- The Ends of Federalism 23 gists, to consent to the grafting on tothe Constitution of some authentically federal features. And their opponents,seeing in fed- eralism, no longer the full-blowntraditional reasons for autono- mous republics, butonly one among many possible meansfor se- curing liberty, were contentedwith the modest degree offederalism they achieved. The compromise overfederalism created "an in- complete national government, whichis neither exactly national nor exactly federal."

et-...4 4 .i HISTORY

The Constitution of the United States: The End of theRevolution

RICHARD LEFFLER University of Wisconsin-Madison

The period 1775 to 1789 was an age of constitution-making,but the United States Constitution was hardly an innovating force for that period.It came at the end of the era, borrowed heavily from the stateconstitutions that came before it. and was actually a reaction tothe tumult of the post- revolutionary period, an attempt to restoreorder and national discipline. The United States declareditself independent in 1776, but it was not until 1789 that theConstitution became the supreme law of the land. Prior to the adoption of theConstitution. all of the states had adopted their ownconstitutional forms, and there were two earlier formsof federal government: from 1776until 1781 the powers of the general government werelodged in the Continental Congress, which operatedunder no formal consti- tuticm; from 1781 until 1789 theconstitution of the United States was the Articles ofConfederation. The United States Constitution was derivative in itsreliance on republican and federal principles, as those terms werethen understood. Where it innovated wasin the joining of national and federalelements to establish an ex- tended and compound republic. 25 The Constitution andThe Revolution

The State Constitutions Congress for ad- The colonies had beenpushing the Continental least since June 1775. vice on how to reformtheir governments at Finally, in May 1776Congress respondedby recommending to the exigencies of the colonies "where nogovernment sufficient to hitherto establishedi,j toadopt such Gov- their affairs have been of the ernment asshall, in the opinion ofthe Representatives People, best conduce tothe Happiness andSafety of their Con- stituents in particular andAmerica in general."Congress shortly after added a preamblethat instructed thecolonies to suppress all authority derived from theBritish Crown. Congressmade no sug- should be gestions as to what featuresof republican government adopted, nor the proceduresfor consulting thepeople. Each state within was free tochoose its own path tolegitimate government republicanism. the bounds of decided to retain Two states. Connecticutand , Assembly declared their colonial charters.'s General that the Charter of1662 was still in effect.Rhode Island's legis- the name of the kingin all official docu- lature simply removed of the ments andreplaced it with "TheGovernour and Company English colony of RhodeIsland and ProvidencePlantations." The otherwise still valid. Charter of 1663 was forming a new New Hampshire hadbegun the process of government evenbefore Congress' actionsin May. Its "charter" royal commission. Acting on arecommendation of was simply a write Congress, NewHampshire elected aprovincial congress to constitution and tolegislate for the colony aswell. This a new ceform on congressadopted its own proposalsfor constitutional declared itself the houseof representatives,and 5 January 1776, Hampshire had its new chose the second house(the council). New that would standuntil 1784. form of government, one the con- This pattern, in whichthe provincial congress wrote with no stitution and transformeditself into the new government, consultation with thepeople, was followedin most of the states. public consent Some of the congressesbowed in the direction of with the specific un- by proposing electionsfor a new congress, derstanding that this new congresswould write a constitution. and Pennsylvaniawent a littlefurther: they provided for the election ofconventions that wouldwrite constitutions: but

A 26 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR even here, the products ofthe conventions were not submitted to the people for their consent. Massachusetts was different. On 1 May 1776 theGeneral Court (the state's legislature) renounced the Charter of1691 and consulted with the towns about the procedure tofollow for adopt- ing a constitution. Although a minority of townscalled for the election of a special constitutional convention,the General Court recommended that the towns give newly electedlegislators the power to write a constitution;the towns would then vote on the constitution. A constitution was proposed by theGeneral Court in February 1778, but was defeated 9,972 to 2,083(the individual votes were recorded because atwo-thirds majority of votes cast was needed for adoption). TheGeneral Court then agreed to a constitutional convention, which met in Cambridge on 1Septem- ber 1779. On 2 March 1780 the conventionadopted a final text (largely the work of ), which wassubmitted to the towns. The towns offered manyamendments and voted down many provisions, creating havoc in deciding whether theproposed con- stitution had been adopted by a two-thirds majority.The conven- tion reconvened and declared that the drafthad been adopted by the required majority. The constitution went intoeffect on 25 October 1780. Massachusetts, then, had created a newprocedure for assuring the legitimacy of government: aconvention was cho- sen with the single purposeof writing a constitution that was then ratified by the people. These state constitutions were widely different inform. Penn- sylvania and Georgia had unicameral legislatures,the rest had bicameral legislatures; in New Hampshire and SouthCarolina the lower house of the legislature elected the upper house;in Mary- land the upper house was elected by an electoralcollege, and in the other states the upper house was directly electedby the people. Some of the state executives were elected by the people,others were chosen by thelegislatures; most of the governors were vir- tually powerless, but in Massachusetts and New Yorkthe governor had strong veto powers (in New York he sharedthis power). The terms of officeholders varied: in some states governorscould not succeed themselves, nor could legislators serve morethan a few years consecutively;in other states there were no such restrictions. There were, therefore, many models of governmentin this period, though all were firmly rooted in the stillnovel republican prin- ciples of consent by the governed and popularrepresentation. The Constitution and 71wRevolution 27

Congress Adopts aConstitution proposed on 7 June When Richard HenryLee of first Colonies are, and of rightought to be, 1776 that "these United that "a plan of free and independentStates," he also proposed confederation be preparedand transmitted tothe respective Col- 12 June Con- onies for their considerationand approbation." On committee to draft theplan of confederation. gress appointed a July Congress Lee's first resolution wasadopted on 2 july. On 4 adopted the Declarationof Independence,and eight days later Congress was presentedwith a draft of "Articlesof Confederation The plan was debatedsporadically from 22 and perpetual union." draft proposed the cre- July 1776 until 15November 1777. The ation of a stronggeneral government inwhich Congress would tax. The states wereguaranteed con- be denied only the power to it did not in- trol over their internalaffairs, but only insofar as terfere with the powersof Congress. This proposal to create apowerful Congress arousedthe op- position of those whobelieved power shouldreside principally in the states and who,like Thomas Burke ofNorth Carolina, feared "that unlimited Power can notbe safely Trusted to any man or Earth." Burke warnedthat the unrestrained power set of men on Congress to "ex- the draft Articles gave toCongress would enable and to make their plain away every rightbelonging to the States unlimited as they please."Burke thereforeproposed own power as became Article II of an amendment tothe draft that eventually Confederation: "Each stateretains its sovereignty, the Articles of jurisdiction and freedom and independence,and every Power, right, which is not bythis confederationexpressly delegated to the United States, inCongress assembled."t Article II profoundlyaltered the nature ofthe Articles. The with relatively few states retainedtheir equal and sovereign status Congress, on the otherhand, had restrictions on their powers. it. The Ar- only those powers that werespecifically delegated to

The Articles of Confederation:An Interpretation of 'Quoted in Merrill Jensen, 1774-1781 (1940; reprint the Social-Constitutional Historyof the Americo; Revolution 174. Citations are providedfor quotations from letters ed.. Madison. Wis., 1976). cited, but citations to these and speeches. Quotationsfrom official sources are not Merrill Jensen, ed., ConstitutionalDocuments and Records, 1776- can be found in Gaspare J. Saladino, eds.. 1787 (Madison. Wis., 1976)and John P. Kaminski and Public and Private, 5 vols.(Madison. Wis.. 1981-), Commentaries on the Constitution: The Documentary History 1:3-43: both volumes are partof Merrill Jensen et. aL, eds., 1976-). of the Ratification of theConstitution (Madison, Wis., 28 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR tides, however, gave Congressconsiderable power in domestic, fc-ign, and military affairs. Congresscould declare war and peace, enter into treatiesand alliances, receive and sendambassadors, and resolve interstate disputes.Congress could borrow money and emit bills of credit; it had power tomaintain an army and navy. But Congress was denied someessential powers: Congress could not (1) regulateforeign and domestic commerce;(2) raise a rev- enue independentlyof the states; (3) exercise coercive poweragainst the states to enforce its laws orcollect its revenues; (4) control the western lands; or (5) actdirectly on the people without theinter- position of the states. Other important issues weredecided during the debates in Congress on the draft Articles.The draft Articles providedthat each state had one vote inCongress. The small states wantedthis equality to prevent dominationby the large states. The large states wanted voting to be in proportion topopulation. This argument took on larger ramifications:Was Congress a representativebody of the states or of the people?The small states won this argument. The draft proposed that the expensesof the general gov- ernment be apportioned amongthe states according to population. But a serious argumentdeveloped over whether slavesshould be included in the apportionment. Thenorthern states thought they should be; the southern statesdisagreed. The Articles provided that expenses were to beapportioned according to the valueof land granted or surveyed. Several of the states had largeland claims (some extending west to the MississippiRiver and beyond) dating back totheir colonial charters. The draftArticles sought to limit theseclaims by giving the land to the UnitedStates. The landed states naturally objected. The Articles providedthat "no state shall be deprived of territory for the benefit ofthe United States." Congress formally adopted the Articles on15 November 1777 and sent them to the states forratification. Unanimous ratification by the thirteen states wasrequired. By 22 February 1779twelve states had ratified. OnlyMaryland remained. Marylanddemanded that Congress be given the power tolimit the western boundaries of the states with large landclaims. Virginia, which hadhuge claims, opposed this, but on 2January 1781 it ceded itslands northwest of the Ohio River toCongress. Virginia's cession,the threat of British invasion, andthe financial distress of the country convinced to adoptthe Articles on 2 February1781. The Constitution and The Revolution 29

The state's delegates signed the Articlesin Congress on 1 March 1781. The Articles were in effect. The yearsof the Confederation had begun.

The Efforts to Strengthen the Articles Even before the Articles wereadopted, a movement had arisen to increase the revenue going to the general government.The steady depreciation of the Continental currencyduring the war had ren- dered it useless and Congress becameheavily dependent upon the requisitions it levied on the states. This wasconsidered an inad- equate method to finance the governmentand the war effort. In August 1780 delegates from NewHampshire, Massachusetts, Con- necticut, and New York met in toconsider war-related problems. Among other actions, the meetingissued invitations to the New England states and New York toattend a convention in Hartford in November. New York GovernorGeorge Chnton sent the proceedings of the Boston meeting tothe legislature which, in September, appointed threedelegates to go to Hartford. A month later the legislature urged thatCongress be given sufficient power to conduct the wareffectually, including the power to use military force to require recalcitrant states tocomply with congres- sional requisitions. The New Yorkdelegates were instructed to put such a proposalbefore the Hartford Convention. In November 1780 the HartfordConvention adopted reso- lutions that recommended giving thecommander in chief broad powers to require the states tocomply with requisitions and that urged the states to give Congress power tolevy import duties to provide enough revenue to pay the interest onthe public debt. The convention also declared thatthe "implied contract" among the states certainly gave Congress "every poweressential to the common defense and whichhad the prosecution of the war, and the establishment of our GeneralLiberties for its immediate object ." On 1 February 1781 Thomas Burkemade a motion in Con- gress that would havegiven Congress the power to levyduties, but the proposal failed on a tie vote. of New Jersey then mover! to give Congressthe right to regulate the com- mercial regulations of the states so as to assurethat none was contrary to the common interest,and to give Congress the power 30 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR to lay import duties. Burkeseconded this motion, but it too failed. Burke then renewed his own impost proposal andthis time it passed. The proposed impost measure of 1781 declaredthat it was "indispensibly necessary" that the states give Congressthe power to levy a 5 percent duty onimports. The impost was to be used to pay the principal and interest onthe war debts of the United States and was to remain in force until thedebts were paid. The impost was not intended to make Congresscompletely indepen- dent of the states, but it was hoped that thisindependent source of revenue, together with revenue from the sale ofthe land ceded to Congress, from the postoffice, and from the loan office would give Congress additional stature and, asThomas McKean of Del- aware said, "give newconfidence and importance [to] the United States."2 The president of Congress, when he sentthe impost pro- posal to the states, described it as "a permanentFund to support the national Credit and cement moreeffectually the common In- terest of the United States." The proposed impost of 1781 was the firstof several attempts to increase the power ofCongress. None of these proposals was adopted. The impost was not adopted despite the factthat every state in the Union accepteditexcept one. Just as the Articles had to be adopted by every state beforethey could go into effect, so too amendments had to beadopted by every state. By late summer of 1782 every state but Rhode Islandhad adopted the impost, Rhode Island's delegates to Congressexpressed the fear that if Congress had an independent and perpetual revenueit could coerce the states economically and militarily,and they foresaw a future of unwanted and innumerable customsofficials and financial of- ficers. In November 1782 the Rhode Islandlegislature rejected the impost as unfair to the commercial states uponwhom the greatest burden would fall and as aviolation of the state's consti- tution, because it would allow Congress to appointofficers in the state who were not accountable tothe state. The impost, by pro- viding a permanent revenue, would make Congress"independent of their constituents; and so the proposedimpost is repugnant to the liberty of the United States." Congress defended the impost against thecharges made by Rhode Island and appointed a deputation to go toRhode island

*Thomas McKean to the Speaker of the Delaware Council.3 February 1781, Edmund C. Burnett. ed., LMers of Members of the ContinentalCongreis, 8 vols. (Wash- ington, D.C., 1921-1936). V:557. The Constitution and TheRevolution $1

change its vote. But thedeputation returned when it to try to ratification of the heard the news thatVirginia had repealed its impost on 6 December1782. Virginia's act of repealdeclared that the levying of taxes andduties on the people ofVirginia wounded destructive of the the "Sovereignty"of the state and "may prove rights and liberty of thepeople." On 6 March 1781, fivedays after the Articleshad been rat- plan ified, Congress appointed acommittee of three "to prepare a assembled with full and to invest theUnited States in Congress explicit powers" to allowthe general government toexecute the laws. The committee report,in the handwritingof James Madison, was presented toCongress on 16 March.The report said that enforce its Congress under theArticles had an implied power to laws against recalcitrant states.Therefore, the report recom- mended that the Articlesbe amended to allowCongress to use force to compel states toabide by their obligations.Congress did not consider theamendment until 2 Mayand then referred it to a grandcommittee of all the states.On 20 July the grand com- mittee rejected theamendment and submitted it toanother com- mittee. This latter committeerecommended a long list ofreforms this to make theConfederation effective.There is no record that report was everconsidered by Congress. In July 1782 the NewYork legislature met in aspecial session to tax and adopted resolutionscalling for a congressional power and a general convention torevise the Articles. Theseresolutions, the situation of in the handwriting ofAlexander Hamilton, called America "critical," andplaced most of the blame onthe inability raise a revenue. of Congress to imposediscipline on the states or to The legislature askedCongress to propose aconstitutional con- vention of the states torevise the Articles,"reserving a Right to The the respective Legislatures, toratify their Determinations." resolutions were sent to Congressand considered byseveral com- mittees until September1783, when it wasrecommended that action be postponedindefinitely. On 21 February 1783 aspecial committee of five was ap- pointed by Congress toconsider the means of providingCongress This committee, two ofwhose mem- with a revenue-raising power. made two bers were James Madisonand Alexander Hamilton, reports to Congresswhich were debated andled to the next pro- posal to amend theArticlesthe impost of 1783. 32 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR Congress submitted the impost of1783 to the states on 18 April 1783. The impost was a part of athorough economic pro- gram. The states wereasked to give Congress the power tolay duties on imports for twenty-five years inorder to pay the principal and interest on the federal debt; the stateswould appoint the collectors, but Congress could remove them.In addition, the states were asked to providesupplemental funds of $1,500,000 (ap- proximately $30,000,000 in 1984 dollars)annually for twenty-five years, also to paythe debt, the state quotas to beapportioned "according to the rule which is or maybe prescribed by the articles of confederation." Both revenueproposals had to be adopted by all the states before they could takeeffect, and once adopted could not be revoked exceptby the unanimous consent of the states or by a majority of the states in Congress.Finally, the states were urged to make cessions of western landsthey claimed, the revenue from the sale of which also would beused to pay the debt. This package was intended to convincedifferent interests to work to- gether to achieve adoption. The land cessions weredescribed by Stephen Higginson, a Massachusettsdelegate to Congress, as "sweeteners to those who oppose theimpost; the impost is in- tended to make the quotas more palatable to someStates; and the receiving it in whole is made necessary to satirethe adoption of the whole, by working on thefears of those States who wish to reject a part of it only." Anotheramendment was agreed to on the same day. This amendment wouldhave changed the way the quotas were to be apportioned.Article VIII of the Articles pro- vided that quotas were to be based onland valuation; the amend- ment proposed that thebasis be changed to population, counting slaves as three-fifths of a person and notincluding Indians not paying taxes. A census was to betaken every three years. Congress in 1783 was also confrontedwith a hostile British commercial policy. In May. June, andJuly the British adopted orders-in-council that placed restrictions on'finerican trade with Great Britain and closed the BritishWest Indies to American ship- ping, though allowing enumeratedgoods to be shipped in British vessels. John Adams, minister to Britain,viewed British commer- cial policy as a challenge, based onBritish confidence that America was too disunited torespond. Adams feared that "if thereis not an authoritysufficiently decisive to draw togetherthe minds, af- 'Stephen Higginson to Theophilus Parsons,[7?) April 1783, ibid., VIH23.

P The Constitution and TheRevolution $3 fections, and forces of the States, intheir common, foreign con- cerns, it appears to me, weshall be the sport of transatlanticpol- itidans of all denominations, whohate liberty in every shape, and every man wholoves it, and every country thatenjoys it."' A committee of Congress reported thatBritish policy was "highly injurious to the welfare and Commerceof these United States. . In December 1783 Virginia andPennsylvania urged that Congress be given the power to respond tothe orders-in-council. Congress had to have the power to regulate commerceto respond to foreign actions. On 30 April 1784 Congressproposed that the states grant it the power to regulate commercefor fifteen years. With this power, Congress couldretaliate against any nation thatdid not have commercial treaties withthe United States by banningim- ports and exports inthe ships of that nation. A yearlater Congress considered another plan that wouldhave vested it with power to regulate interstate and foreign commerceand to levy duties on imports and exports under certainrestrictions. But Congress could not ban any imports or exportsoutright. This proposal badly di- vided Congress. james Monroe, amember of the committee that prepared the amendment, wrote toJames Madison that opposition arose from thosewho believed that it was dangerous toconcentrate too much power; thatthe interests of the differentregions of the Union were in conflict; that anysingle policy would hurt one sec- tion while helping another;and that these attacks on theConfed- eration were intended to weakenit. The proposal was considered on 28 March,and again on 13 and 14 july,but the opposition to it was so intense that it never was sentto the states. By 1785 the United States wasdeep in postwar economic depression. Groups from manysections of the country called upon Congress to do something. TheNew York Chamber of Commerce and a group of New Yorkartisans both urged that Congressbe given the power necessary to meetthe crisis. A Philadelphia town meeting in _June 1785 arguedthat a grant of "full constitutional powers" to regulate commercehad to be given to Congress.In Boston a boycott of Britishgoods was organized and themerchants petitioned Congress to do whateverit could. Massachusetts Gov-

sjohn Adams to Robert R. Livingston,18 July 1785. Charles Francis Adams. V111:108. ed.. The Worki of John Adams .. 10 vols. (Boston. 1850-186), 5Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journalsof the Continental Congress, 1774- 1789 , 34vols. (Washington, D.C.. 1904-1937).XXV:628-50. 34 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR ernor James Bowdoin urged that Congressbe given greater powers over commerce. The legislature respondedby declaring that the powers of Congress were inadequate andurging Congress to call a convention to revise the Articles. In November 1785 the Virginia House of Delegatesconsid- ered the commercial situation of the Union. Resolutions were of- fered supporting a permanent grant of power to Congress to reg- ulate foreign and domestic commerce if approved by two-thirds of the states in Congress and a power to levy a 5 percent impost. These resolutions, however, were tabled by the House. As asub- stitute, both houses of the Virginia legislature passed a resolution on 21 January 1786 calling for theappointment of eight delegates to meet with delegates from the other statesin a commercial con- vention "to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their common interest and their permanent harmony; and to report to theseveral States such an act relative to this great object, as, whenunanimously ratified by them, will enable the United States in Congress effectually to pro- vide for the same." The convention was to meet inAnnapolis, Maryland, on the first Monday in September 1786. In early 1786 Congress took an inventory of how things stood. Nine states had agreed to the impost of 1783, but only threehad agreed to the supplemental funds. The grant of commercial power of 1784 had been adopted by ten states. Nine stateshad adopted the 1783 amendment on population. The states were sofar in arrears paying the requisitionsthat the general government was unable to pay even the interest on the public debt. There waslittle confidence that the Annapolis Convention would do muchgood either. Though Madison expected it to fail, he thoughtit was "better than nothing."8 also expectedlittle from Annapolis, but he believed "something must be done, orthe fabrick must fall, for it certainly is tottering." John jayof New York, Confederation Secretary for Foreign Affairs, thought there was some chance the conventionmight achieve something worth- while: he was not convinced, however, that "the people are yet

lames Madison to James Monroe, 22 January 1786, William T. Hutchinson and Robert A. Rutland et ai., eds.. The Papers oflaines Madison (Chicago andChar- lottesvilk, 1962,-). V111:483. 'George Washington to John Jay, 18 May 1786, _John C. Fitzpatrick,ed., The Writings of George Washington . .. 39 vols.(Washington. D.C., 1931-1944), XXVII1:431. The Constitution and The Revolution 35 ripe for such a measure." He muchpreferred a general consti- tutional convention that would considerfar more than commercial matters. Before the Annapolis Convention met, onefinal attempt was made to amend the Articles. On 7 August1786 a grand committee of Congress proposed seven amendments tothe Articles. These amendments would have given Congress power toregulate foreign and domestic trade, establish duties,and force the payment of requisitions; they would have requiredonly eleven state legisla- tures to approve new revenueproposals; and they would have created a court that could hear appealsfrom state courts in cases involving treaties, congressional regulations ontrade and com- merce, federal revenue,and important questions to whichthe United States was a party. The adoptionof these amendments would have gone a long way towardthe needed reform of the Articles. There is no record thatCongress ever considered the amendments.

The Movement for a New Constitution The Annapolis Convention met on 11September 1786. Nine states had appointed delegates, but only twelvedelegates from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,and Virginia attended. The convention adopted a report that was sent toCongress and the states, and it adjourned on14 September. The report, in the handwriting ofAlexander Hamilton, noted that the convention had been intended toconsider only commer- cial matters. New jersey, however,had authorized its delegates to consider not only commercial mattersbut also "other important matters." New Jersey had instructed itsdelegates to report an act that, when ratified by the states, "wouldenable the United States in Congress-Assembled, effectually toprovide for the exigencies of the Union." The convention statedthat this mandate "was an improvement on the original plan, andwill deserve to be incor- porated into that of a future Convention."The report recom- mended the calling of such ageneral convention of the states, to consider not merely commercial affairsbut all the defects of the Union. The delegates recommendedunanimously that a conven-

°John jay to George Washington, 16 May 1786,Henry P. Johnston, ed.,The Correspondence and Public Papm of John jay. ..., 4vols. (New York, 1890-1893), 111:186-187. 36 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR tion meet in Philadelphia on thesecond Monday in May 1787 "to take into consideration thesituation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear tothem necessary to render the constitution of theFoederal Government adequate to the ex- igencies of the Union; and to reportsuch an Act for that purpose to the United Statesin Congress Assembled, as whenagreed to, by them, and afterwardsconfirmed by the Legislatures of every State will effectually providefor the same." The report was sent to the states and toCongress. Congress received the report on20 September 1786 and on 11 Octoberappointed a grand committee to consider it. This was not the first proposal tocall a constitutional con- vention to enlarge the powers ofCongress. The New York leg- islature had made such a proposalin July 1782, and the Massa- chusetts legislature did so inJuly 1785. Thomas Paine had called for such a convention as early as1776 in and again in 1780. In 1779 Henry Laurensof South Carolina advocated a "grand council" to consider "the stateof the nation." In 1780 of the ContinentalArmy reported efforts in Congress to call a convention in aneffort to give Congress "powers of general jurisdiction andcontroul over the individual states, to bind them in all cases, where the generalinterest is concerned."10 , a New Hampshiredelegate to Congress, advocated such a convention. Alexander Hamilton,in a letter to , dated 3 September 1780, urgedthe calling of a convention. In 1781 , while Congress wasconsidering the 16 March com- mittee report to give Congresscoercive power, James M. Varnum of Rhode Island suggested aconvention to revise the Articles of Confederation. This convention would notbe composed of mem- bers of Congress, who, according toVarnum, were so afraid of the abuse of power by governmentthat they hesitated to grant even necessary power.In 1783 the idea of a convention was es- poused by General Henry Knoxand Stephen Higginson of Mas- sachusetts, Alexander Hamilton(in pursuance of the NewYork legislature's call), and GeorgeWashington. James Madison, how- ever, preferredincreasing the power of Congressby amendments such as the impost. In 1784 JohnFrancis Mercer of Virginia saw

9Henry Laurens to ,5 July 1779, Burnett, Lettrrs, IV:298 99. "Nathanad Greene to Jeremiah Wadsworth. 8May I 780. Knollenberg Col- lection, Archives and Manuscripts. YakUniversity. The Constitution and The Revolution 37 no other way to increasethe powers of Congress but by "a con- vocation of the states." askedMadison's opin- ion of a convention to revise the Articles in the same year.Madison still was unenthusiastic. In March 1786 Congress sent a delegation to Newjersey to ask its legislature to reconsider its refusal to payits quota of the requisition until New York ratified the impost. CharlesPinckney of South Carolina told the legislature that this was notthe way to achieve reform. Instead he suggested that New Jersey askCongress to call a convention of the states torevise the Articles, "the only true and radical remedy for ourpublic defects." Pinckney re- peated this proposal in Congress in May. All of these prior attempts at calling a generalconvention had failed to achieve results, and even nowthere was substantial opposition to the Annapolis Convention proposalbecause it was feared that such a convention was designed toreplace the Con- federation with another system of government.But the political and economic conditions in the country and theinability to reform the Articles by amendment or grants of power were strongin- ducements to calling a general convention, whateverthe dangers. Nine days after Congress appointed a grandcommittee to consider the Annapolis Convention report, it voted to raise1,300 troops in response to the agrarian revolt in Massachusettsknown as Shays's Rebellion. Shays's Rebellion is only the best known of many episodesin the agrarian reaction to the depression of the1780s. This depres- sion, a common postwar occurrence, causedwidespread hardship for farmers and other debtors. Because of fallingcommodity and land prices, a shortage of specie, and high taxes,debtors could not obtain money sufficient to paytheir creditors. Seven states emitted paper money which often depreciatedseverely in value. Stay laws were passed to give debtors protectionfrom their cred- itors. A nationally distributed report alleged thatthe "radical" Rhode Island legislature was planning to require theredistribution of property every thirteen years. In NewHampshire, farmers sur- rounded the legislature and demanded the abolitionof debts and taxes, and called for the equaldistribution of property. The at-

"JohnFrancis Mercer to James Madison, 26 November 1784. Rutland, Mad- non Paton. V111:151. '2Speech of 19 March 1786 before New Jersey legislature, Burnett.Letter%. V111:321-30. 38 THERELUCTANT PILLAR tempts to force the collection of debts or toforeclose mortgages led to violent incidents in most of the states. In the spring of 1786 many Massachusetts townspetitioned the legislature for relief from taxes and debts. The legislature made only minor reforms. County conventions met inJuly and August and called for additional reforms and constitutional re- visions. In August and September farmers closed the courts in five counties. In January 1787 the state moved to crush therebellion by mobilizing the militia. A confrontation took place nearSpring- field and the rebels were routed. On 23 November Virginia and New Jersey became the first states to pass acts authorizing the election ofdelegates to a general convention. Virginia declared that "the Crisis is arrived" and, par- aphrasing the Annapolis Convention report, proposed that its del- egates meet with delegates from theother states to devise "all such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the Federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union." These alterations were to be submitted to Congressand, once agreed to by Congress, were to be sent to the statesfor their approval. This eloquent political statement was sent toeach of the states. On 4 December the Virginialegislature appointed seven delegates, including George Mason, Governor EdmundRandolph, James Madison, and George Washington. By 10 February 1787 seven states had chosendelegates to a general convention. But Congress had not yet acted onthe An- napolis Convention report, which created a constitutionalprob- lem: could the states act revise the Articles without authority from Congress? John Jay, who had played an importantrole in writing New York's constitution and who had served as thestate's first chief justice, thought that "the policy of surh aconvention appears questionable: theirauthority is to be derived from acts of State legislatures. Are the State legislaturesauthorized, either by themselves or others, to alter constitutions? I thinknot."13 New Hampshire, in its act appointing delegates, provided thatthey could attend only if Congress sanctioned the convention. Congress convened for the new federal year on 12February. On the same day it renewed the grand committeeappointed to report on the Annapolis Convention.On 19 February the com- mittee voted to approve the Annapolis Convention reportand

"John Jay to George Washington, Johnston, Jay Papers, III228-29. The Constitution and TheRevolution 39 recommended that the states senddelegates to a general conven- tion to devise suchproposals as would make thegeneral govern. ment "adequate tothe exigencies of theUnion." This vote in he committee passed by one vote.It was by no meansclear that the convention proposal would passCongress. At the same time Congress wasconsidering the Annapolis Convention report, New York wastaking decisive action onthe impost of 1783. In May 1786New York passed theimpost, but attached conditions that Congressrejected. Congress asked New York to reconsider. On 9February 1787 a bill camebefore the legislature that would havesatisfied the objections ofCongress. Alexander Hamilton spoke forthe bill at length on 15February, urging the necessity of increasingthe powers of Congressfor the benefit of the Union. AfterHamilton spoke, the bill wasdefeated. Madison called it "a definitiveveto." On 21 February Congresstook up the report of thegrand committee. New York'sdelegates moved to considerinstead a mo- tion based on instructionsfrom the New Yorklegislature. These instructions, adopted the daybefore, ignored the reportof the Annapolis Convention and the actsof the seven states thathad already appointed delegates.New York's proposal, byessentially disallowing the appointmentsalready made, might havedelayed proposal or frustratedthe effort to call aconvention. New York's was defeatedfour states to three. Congress next considered amotion from the Massachusetts delegation. The preamble ofthe Massachusetts motionmade ref- erence to theprovisions in the Articles foramendments with the assent of Congressand the states, and ittacitly recognized the delegates that had alreadybeen appointed. The motionplaced definite restrictions on the powersof the convention when it rec- ommended that a convention becalled to meet in Philadelphia on the second Monday in May"for the sole and express purposeof revising the Articles ofConfederation and reporting toCongress therein and the several legislaturessuch alterations and provisions and confirmed by the states as shall whenagreed to in Congress render the federal constitutionadequate to the exigenciesof gov- ernment and thepreservation of the Union."This motion was adopted eight states to one(Connecticut). This vote should not obscurethe fact that Congress was, as Madison put it, "muchdivided and embarrassed" onthe question of the convention. Theproposal had passed the grandcommitttee 40 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR by one vote. The New York substitutemotion had been defeated four states to three. Serious doubts existedabout the constitu- tionality of the convention and Madison reportedthat suspicions existed that the convention was "adeadly blow to the existing Confederation. . .Others viewed it in the same light, but were pleased with it as the harbinger of a betterConfederation.""

The Constitutional Convention Seventy-four delegates were appointed bytwelve states to sit in the Constitutional Convention andfifty-five attended. Rhode Is- land was the lone state to refuse to berepresented in the Con- vention. On 15 September 1787 the General Assemblyof Rhode Island wrote to the president of Congress toexplain the state's refusal to send a delegation. The Assemblypointed out that their delegates to Congress were elected directlyby the people, "and for the Legislative body to have appointedDelegates to represent them in Convention, when they cannotappoint Delegates in Con- gress .. . must be absurd; asthat Delegation in Convention is for the express purpose of altering aConstitution, which the people at large are only capableof appointing the Members." The leg- islature also cited Article XIII of theConfederation, which pro- vided that the Articles were to be perpetualand that any altera- tions were to be made only after havingbeen agreed to in Congress and ratified by the legislatures of allthe states. The legislature did not feel, therefore, thatit could "appoint Delegates in a Conven- tion, which might be the means ofdissolving the Congress of the Union and having a Congress without aConfederation." The Convention was scheduled to convene on14 May, but no quorum wasachieved until 25 May. In the meantime,the del- egates from Virginia, whohad arrived early, were meeting to- gether daily for several hours. Whenfinally a quorum was present, the Convention chose GeorgeWashington to be its president and appointed a committee to prepare the rules.The committee re- ported on Monday, 28 May. Therules adopted for voting were similar to those that governed Congress:each state had one vote. One other rule was notable and was tobe controversialthe del- egates were to discuss theproceedings of the Convention with no one outside. Onthe next day, Governor Randolph ofVirginia,

"Notes on Debates, 21 February 1787,Rutland. Madison Papert. 1X:291. The Constitution and The Revolution 41 speaking for the state's delegation, presented fifteen resolutions to the Convention. These resolutions, known as the Virginia Plan, amounted to a revolution of government. The first resolution provided "that the articles of Confed- eration ought to be so corrected & enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, 'common defence, security of liberty and general welfare.' " This first resolution was somewhat disingenuous, for the subsequent resolutions provided not for an amendment of the Articles but their total replacement. The Virginia Plan proposed a two-house legislature, with repre- sentation in both houses based on the size of the states' "Quotas of contribution" or population. This legislature was to have power to "legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incom- petent"; to veto "all laws passed by the several States contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union; and to call forth the force of the Union agst. any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof." An executive was proposed to carry out the laws and, together with the judiciary, to veto any act of the national legislature, subject to being overridden. A national judiciary was proposed with broad jurisdiction in national issues, the judges to hold their offices dur- ing good behavior. Resolution 14 provided that the "Legislative Executive & Judiciary powers within the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of Union." Resolution 15 provided that the new form of government was to be approved by Congress and then "submitted to an assembly or assemblies of Representatives, recommended by the several Legislatures to be expressly chosen by the people, to consider & decide thereon." When Randolph presented these resolutions, he admitted that they "were not intended for a federal governmenthe meant a strong ron.solidated union in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated."15 And when, on the following day, it was pointed out that the first resolution was an inadequate description of the plan, Randolph withdrew the resolution and proposed three new ones, including one that was adopted: that "anational gov- ernment ought to be established consisting of a supreme legislative, executive and judiciary." The Convention was formally voting to abandon the Confederation in favor of something dramatically

"Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention, 3vols. (New Haven. 1911). 1:24. 42 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR differenta national government defined by a constitutionthat was to be adopted not by the statelegislatures, but by state con- ventions chosen by the people directly. Later, theConvention de- cided that only nine states would be needed forratification. The major opposition to the Virginia Plan camefrom a group of small-states delegates who were afraid ofdomination by the larger, and frorn other delegates who opposed thenational gov- ernment envisioned in the Virginia Plan.This latter group wanted to retain the Confederation. Theiralternative was presented to the Convention on 15 June by William Patersonof New Jersey. Known as the New Jersey Plan, it was submitted in theform of amendments to the Articles. The first resolutionprovided that "the articles of Confederation ought to be so revised,corrected & enlarged, as to render the federal Constitutionadequate to the exigencies of Government, & the preservation of the Union."This essentially was the 21 February resolution of Congress. Theeight following resolutions would have granted Congress power toraise revenue by impost andtaxation, regulate trade, apportion re- quisitions according to population (including three-fifthsof the slaves), and enforce collectionf the requisition. The New Jersey Plan also provided for an executive branchconsisting of several persons chosen and removableby Congress on application by the governors of a majority ofthe states. A judiciary was proposed with jurisdiction to hear on appeal from the state courts cases affecting national matters. Laws of Congress andtreaties were madele supreme law,enforceable by the executive. Many of these provisions had been sought for years byadvocates of a stronger central government. But now amajority of the Conven- tion felt they were inadequate, and on 19 June,after three days' debate, the Convention rejected the New JerseyPlan and accepted the amended Virginia resolutions as the basis forfurther debate. The vote was seven states to threc. The remainder of the Convention consisted of aneffort to complete the form of the new general government: todecide pre- cisely how much power was to be given to itand how much was to be retained by the states; todistribute power among the branches of the new government; and to resolverepresentational and other issues between the large and the small states,the North and the South. The amended Virginia resolutions were debatedand revised until 24 July, when they were given to a Committeeof Detail which The Constitution and The Revolution 43 was charged withpreparing a draft constitution. The committee reported on 6 August, and the draft constitution wasdebated until 8 September, when a Committee of Style wasappointed "to revise the style of and arrange the articles agreed to bythe house." Some additional resolutions were submitted to the Committeeof Style on 10 September, and onthe same day the Convention instructed the committee "to prepare an address to thepeople to accompany the present constitution, and to be laid withthe same before the United States in Congress." The workof the committee was es- sentially to reduce the work of the Convention toorder. It trans- formed twenty-three articles and forty sections into sevenarticles and twenty-one sections. Its most important act was tochange the words of the preamble from "We the People ofthe States of New- Hampshire, Massachusetts," etc., to "We, the Peopleof the United States...." The Committee of Style reported on 12September. The report was read to the Convention and afour-page broadside was printed and presented to each of the delegates the nextday. The Convention made some alterations and itrejected others, includ- ing proposals to require a two-thirds majority to passcommercial regulations and to give Congress the power to grantcharters of incorporation or to establish a nonsectarianuniversity. The Con- vention also refused, on a unanimous vote ofthe states, to appoint a committee to prepare abill of rights. On 15 September the Convention votedunanimously "to agree to the Constitution asamended." The Constitution was then ordered engrossed and printed. The engrossedConstitution was signed on 17 September by all of the delegates present, exceptfor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts (who had proposedthe committee to prepare a bill of rights),George Mason of Virginia (who had seconded Gerry's motion), and, ironically,Edmund Randolph, who, on 15 September,"animadverting on the indefinite and dangerous power given by the Constitution toCongress, expressing the pain he felt at differing from the body of theConvention," proposed unsuccessfully "that amendments to the plan mightbe offered by the State Conventions, which should besubmitted to and finally decided on by another general Convention."16 ,)roposal fail- ing, he declined to sign the Constitutionderived from the pro- posals he had introduced on 29 May.

15117id.. 11:651.

t.1r I 44 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

The Constitutional Conventionadjourned on 17 September at 4:00 P.M. On thefollowing morning, the secretary ofthe Con- vention left for New York to presentthe Constitution to Congress along with a letter from GeorgeWashington to the president of Congress and the resolutions of theConvention concerning pro- cedures for the ratification andimplementation of the Constitu- tion. The Constitution was read inCongress on 20 September and was assigned for itsconsideration on 26 September. On 26 and 27 September acritical debate took place in Con- gress. The opponentsof the Constitution wanted Congress tosend the Constitution to the states,but they also wanted it notedthat the Constitutional Conventionhad exceeded the authority given to it by Congress.Supporters of the Constitution wantedCongress to express its approvalof the Convention's work. RichardHenry Lee, who in 1776 had first movedin Congress for independence and the preparation of a plan of government, nowopposed having Congress approve the Constitution.He proposed a motion that would have taken notice of thefact that the Articles gave Congress power only to amendthe Articles, not to create anentirely new system of governmentwith the assent of only nine states.He would have sent the Constitution to the statesonly out of respect for the Convention. James Madison objected toLee's motion as disre- spectful to the Convention, and bedeclared that if Congress failed to approve the workof the Convention, it wouldimply a disap- proval. The supporters of the Constitution,who took the name Fed- eralists, then proposed a resolutionapproving the Constitution. Lee responded with a set ofamendments to the Constitution, some structural and some forming a bill ofrights, including protections for freedom of religion, a free press,trial by jury, and most of the other rights now to be found inthe Bill of Rights. On the next day, 28 September,Congress reached a com- promise. Federalists agreed to sendthe Constitution to the states without approval, only suggestingthat the states submit the Con- stitution to conventions asrecommended by the Convention. In turn, Lee's proposedamendments were removed from the man- uscript Journals of Congress. The secretaryof Congress sent copies of the Constitution and theresolution of Congress to each ofthe states. The Constitution and The Revolution 45

The Struggle for Ratification The Federalist-controlled PennsylvaniaAssembly (the state's uni- cameral legislature) was nearing the end ofits session, while Con- gress was debating theConstitution. Even before Congress could send the Constitution to the states,Federalists in the Assembly began the process of calling a state convention.The minority tried to prevent this byremaining away from the session, thus depriving the Assembly of the required two-thirds quorum.A mob brought in two of the minority assemblymen,who were forced to remain until the business of calling a convention wascompleted. The Pennsylvania Convention met on20 November and was the first to consider the Constitution,though Delaware was the first state to ratify on 7 December.Pennsylvania, the state with the largest city in theUnionPhiladelphiaand with probably the most widely distributed newspapers,took up the debate with fe- rocity: partisans on both sides wrotecountless newspaper items attacking and defending the Constitution.The state convention provided a forum in which JamesWilson, a member of the Con- stitutional Convention and a prominentlawyer, and Thomas McKean, chief justice of the state stkpreme court,could defend and analyze the Constitution. Wilson'sdefenses of the Constitu- tion, before and during the stateconvention, became a standard Federalist interpretation throughout the country.The minority of the Pennsylvania Conventionpresented a vigorous attack on the Constitution, but most of theirspeeches went unreported. The convention voted to ratify the Constitution on12 December, 46 to 23. Federalists refused toallow the minority's dissent to be placed on the journals, but the dissent waspublished indepen- dently. This "Dissent of the Minorityof the Pennsylvania Con- vention" offered criticisms of theConstitution that were to be repeated by Antifederalists throughoutthe country. By 9 January 1788 Delaware,Pennsylvania, New jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut had ratifiedthe Constitution. In all but Connecticut and Pennsylvania theconventions were unanimous. But in Massachusetts, the next state,the sides were more nearly even; in fact,Antifederalists were thought to have a majority.The Massachusetts Convention contained someof the rebels of the prior winter. , who hadconsiderable sympathy for them, had been elected governor and was nowchosen president 46 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR of the state's convention. ,the great patriot of the Revolution, was known to harbor seriousdoubts about the Con- stitution. Elbridge Gerry, who had refused tosign the Constitu- tion, and whose objections to it in theform of a letter to the legislature had been widely published in the newspapers, wasnot a member of theconvention, but he was invited to attend and to answer any questions that mightbe put to him. The tense divisions in the convention were revealed whenthis arrangement led to bitter objections and nearly resulted in afist fight between Gerry and Francis Dana, a delegate from Gerry'shome district. After three weeks of debate, it was still notclear which side would predominate. A defeat in Massachusettswould have had devastating effects in the other undecided states.Federalists, there- fore, presented a set of amendments thatwould be recommended by the convention for adoption by the firstU.S. Congress once the Constitution went into effect. Hancock waspersuaded to pre- sent these amendments tothe convention as his own. On 6Feb- ruary the Constitution wasratified, 187 to 168. This technique of proposing recommendatory amendments was tobe crucial in achieving ratification in other states. The New Hampshire Convention assembled on13 February. It was generally believed thatratification was assured. But Fed- eralists were shocked to discover that manyof the delegates had been instructed by their constituents not to votefor ratification. Rather than risk defeat, Federalists maneuvered anadjournment. On 24 March Rhode Island held areferendum on the Constitu- tion. Federalists in Providence andNewport boycotted the ref- erendum, but the results were still dramatic:2,711 to 239 against t he Constitution. When Maryland ratified on 26 April andSouth Carolina fol- lowed on 23 May, eight states had ratified, oneless than needed to put the Constitutioninto effect. Virginia had chosen itsdele- gates in March and the returnsindicated that ratification would not be achieved easily. InNew York, elections for convention delegates were held from 29 April to 3 May,and here too it seemed that there was an overwhelming majorityagainst ratification. The Virginia Convention convened on2 jum and was marked by the brilliant opposition of the great oratorand patriot . His major adversary in defenseof the Constitution WaS James Madison, who received important support,in yet another twist, from Edmund Randolph. Henry wantedamendments to be

C ) The Constitution and The Revolution 47 adopted before he would agree to ratification. Madison and Ran- dolph argued that ratification should come first. On 25 June the Virginia Convention ratified the Constitution by a vote of 89 to 79 and proposed a bill of rights and other, substantive, amendments. The New York Convention convened on 17 June. Alexander Hamilton asked Madison to send riders immediately with news of Virginia's ratification to help his effort in Poughkeepsie, and made similar arrangements for news of New Hampshire's ratification. On 21 June the second session of the New Hampshire Convention ratified the Constitution and New Hampshire became the ninth and decisive state. News of New Hampshire's ratification reached New York on 24 June and news of Virginia's ratification arrived on 2 July. The issue in New York then became whether New York would refuse to join the Union with those states who had ratified the new government. Melancton Smith, an Antifederalist, was a major architect of a compromise that allowed unconditional rat- ification, but called for a second constitutional convention to amend +.he Constitution. On 26 July New York ratified the Constitution 3G to 27, proposed amendment.s, and adopted a circular letter to be sent to the other states that called for a second constitutional convention. Federalists elsewhere would almost have preferred no ratification by New York to this, but it was the price that had to be paid. On 2 August North Carolina became the last state to act in 1788 when it declined to ratify the Constitution until a bill of rights had been adopted along with substantive amendments. But it was too late for the opposition. The ratificItion by New Hamp- shire had been read to Congress in July and Congress appointed a committee to prepare an act for putting the new Constitution into effect. On 13 September Congress adopted an ordinance for the election of electors for president of the United States and the meeting of the new government under the new Constitution. The long struggle initiated at the beginning of the Revolution to create a system of effective governance was over. HISTORY

New York: The Reluctant Pillar

JOHN P. KAMINSKI University of WisconsinMadison

On 20 April 1777 the stateof New York adopted its first constitution. It was,beyond a doubt, one of the most conservativeWhig statements of government es- tablished by any of the thirteen rebelliouscolonies. The governor was elected by the peoplefor a three-year term, while state sen- ators were elected by thepeople for four-year terms. Property and residence requirements were established to votefor these officials, as well as forassemblymen, who were elected annually by the people. The state chancellor, judges of the state supreme court, and county judges were appointed for life termsduring good be- havior by a consisting ofthe governor and four senators elected by the Assembly. A councilof revision com- posed of the governor, the chancellor, and thejudges of the su- preme court had the power torevise or veto all bills passed by the legislature. The veto or changes remained ineffect unless over- ridden by two-thirds of both houses of thelegislature. Aristocratic politicians were pleased with theirnewly created government, and they lookedforward to electing one of their own as governor in June1777. Much to their chagrin, however, the aristocratic of Albany wasdefeated by George Clinton. In a letter dated 14 July to John Jay,Schuyler lamented his loss to Clinton, a man who was by "familyand connections" not entitled to "sodistinguished a predominance." The election New York 49 of Clinton heralded the onset of a newduality in New York politics that must be recognized to comprehendNew York's history during the Confederation Period in general,and to understand how the state reacted to the proposedfederal Constitution of 1787 in particular. Prior to the Revolution, politics in NewYork was usually a battleground for the Livingstone '.,idthe DeLanceys. These aris- tocratic, manorial families each had itsadherents and they strove to curry the favor of thecolony's freemen. With the Revolution, the Loyalist DeLancey family wasremoved from political conten- tion. The field, however, was notleft solely to the Livingstons. The election of George Clintonepitomized the Revolution, and, just as the Revolution repudiatedthe Loyalist DeLanceys, so too the election of Chnton was arepudiation of aristocratic dominance in state government. George Clinton of Ulster County was amodest, Loyalist-hat- ing, lawyer-general-farmer. The idol ofthe country yeomen, Clin- ton exemplified the new eraof opportunity. As such, a host of rising young lawyers, merchants,militia officers, and men from the lesser branches of aristocraticmanorial families flocked to his side. But Clinton's primary electoral support camefrom yeoman and tenant farmers in thenorthern counties of Orange, Ulster, Albany, Washington, and Montgomery. Clinton's opponents were concentratedin New York City, the cities of Albany and Hudson(the latter established in 1785). other commercial settlements alongthe Hudson River, and the lower counties of Kings, Queens,Richmond, and Westchester. Anti-Clintonian leaders were generally thewealthiest manor lords, lawyers, bankers, and merchants. When George Clinton was firstelected governor, the aris- tocracy thought himunqualified for the position. Theybelieved that he would be unseated at the nextelection Li 1780. Military exigencies, however, worked inClinton's favor and he was re- elected for a second term. In 1783 peacebrought added prestige for the chief executive and he waseasily reelected. Three years later, the governor maintained the supportof most New York farmers and state public creditorswith his endorsement of an anti- depression paper money program.Aristocrats, merchants, and lawyers in New York and other statesfeared the "radical" de- mands of debtor-farmers and the relief programsinitiated by pop- ularly elected state legislatures. Anti-Clintoniansrealized that the

C ; 50 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR governor was unbeatablewithin the state, and consequently did not run a candidate againstClinton in 1786. Instead, they worked with like-minded men in other states tostrengthen the general government, in part at least tolimit the radical policies of the state legislatures. Thus, the original aristocratic-middle classdivision of 1777 bro -dened into a continual politicalconfrontation within New York between the northern and southerncounties, the rural and commercial interests, and finallybetween the supporters of a confederation of sovereign states and advocatesfor a strengthened general government with coercive powers overthe states and their citizens. Political skirmishes were foughtthroughout the Confed- eration years; the battle over the Constitutionin 1787-88 was the most intense, but notthe final, engagement.

The Revolution and the Necessity of Union New York probably suffered more than anyother state during the war. Throughout these years,New York was often the theater for military activity, and for much of this time NewYork City and the six lower counties were occupiedby British forces. Because of its military situation, New York constantlysought assistance from Congress; but because of its lack of power overthe states, Congress was unable tooffer New York much aid. New Yorkers realized the weakness ofCongress and sought to correct the problem.On this point, Clintonians and Anti-Clin- tonians agreed. In early September of 1780Alexander Hamilton called for a national convention to meetand grant Congress ad- ditional powers. On 7 September Governor Clintonaddressed the state legislature and echoedHamilton's appeal for a stronger Con- gress. The governorproposed "that in all Matters which relate to the war, their Requisitions may be peremptory."Toward this end, the New York legislature on 25-26 Septemberappointed three delegates to a convention scheduled to meet inNovember in Hart- ford, Connecticut. The convention was "to proposeand agree to

...all such Measures as shall appearcalculated to give a Vigor to the governing powers,equal to the present Crisis." On 10 Oc- tober the legislature instructed its congressionaldelegates and its commissioners to the Hartford Convention thatCongress should "exercise every Power which they maydeem necessary for an effectual Prosecution of the war." If any statefailed to pay its New York 51 share of the expenses apportioned by Congress, the armyshould be marched into that state and by "a Military Force,compel it to furnish its deficiency." The Hartford Convention, composed of delegatesfrom New England and New York ( and EgbertBenson), met from 8 to 22 November1780 and proposed that the army be empowered to collect revenue and that Congress begiven the power to levy import duties.Within three months Congress itself asked the states to grant it the power to levy a 5 percentimport duty, the revenue of which was earmarked to pay theprincipal and interest of the federal debt. New York actedswiftly and on 19 March approved this impost of 1781. Elevenother states fol- lowed New York's example. Only Rhode Island refusedits assent; but, because unanimous approval of the states wasrequired to amend the Articles of Confederation, the impost waslost. As 1781 drew to a close, the military prospectshad bright- ened for the United States as a whole. But New YorkCity was still occupied by British troops, and financially the entire country was in desperate straits. The army had not beenpaid, public creditors were not being paid the interestdue on their securities, and the public debt had skyrocketed. In this atmosphere1 a specialsession of the New York legislature met in early July 1782and on 21 July resolved that Congress be given the power to tax andthat a general convention be called to amend the Articles ofConfederation ac- cordingly. These resolutions were forwarded toCongress, but no action was ever taken.

Peace and the New Policy On 30 November 1782 the preliminary articlesof peace were signed in Europe and hostilities ceased in America inmid-March 1783. With the cessation of hostilities, the militaryjustification for a strong Union came to anend, and the Clintonians reassessed their state's position within the Union. Most New Yorkers agreed with the bleakpicture painted by James Duane, who in rrid-February 1783 wroteAlexander Ham- ilton that "There is such Confusion in the presentAdministration of our State Finances, and the Weight of ourDebts is so bur- thensome, that a Remedy muo be provided." But, atthe same time, Congress faced a natioklal financial disaster,which it ap- peared incapable of avertilg unless it was given greater power to 52 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR collect revenue. There was, therefore,both a state and a national financial crisis, and it seemedimpossible that both emergencies could be addressed simultaneously.Moreover, wrote Alexander Hamilton, "There are two classes of men ... oneattached to state the other to Continental politics,"and in his view "the seeds of disunion [were] much more numerous thanthose of union."' The Clintonians believed thatthroughout the war New York had contributed more than its rightful shareof men and money, while other states had not done their fairshare. Since it was not possible to solve both the state and thefederal financial crises, and since the other states were not likely toassist Congress, the Clin- tonians decided that all their efforts wouldbe directed at making New York as strong as possiblewithin the loose federal alliance of the Articles of Confederation. Towardthis end, the Clintonians devised a new system of revenuecomposed of three parts: (1) a state impost, (2) thesale of Loyalist estates and unsettled state lands, and (3) a moderate real estate andpersonal property tax. This new system exacerbated the dualism ofNew York by pittbg the Clintonians against those individualswho wanted to solve the country's economic morass bystrengthening Congress. The first and most revealing step inthis new policy was taken on 15 March 1783when the Clintonians repealed NewYork's earlier approval of the federal impostof 1781. The state impost was to be the cornerstoneof the Clintonian financial system,and as such, it could notbe given up for federal use. Annualincome from the state impost during theConfederation years ranged be- tween $100,000 and $225,000,and represented one-third to over one-half of the state's annual income.2 The importance of the impost to theClintonians was accen- tuated because much of it was paid bynon-New Yorkers. About half of all foreign goods imported byConnecticut and New Jersey came through the portof New York. These two states,along with Vermont. Massachusetts and thesouthern states to a lesser degree, contributed to New York's impost revenues.Thus, out-of-staters helped reduce New York's economic woes.The impost was also

.ToGeorge Washington, Philadelphia, 9 April 1783,Edmund C. Burnett. ed., Letter% of Members of the CannnentalCongre.i4[LMCC).8vols. (Washington.D.C.. 1921-36). V11:129. 2A11 monetary figures are given in 1787dollars. In 1787, $2.50 was equiv- alent to LI New York currency. A 1787 dollar wasapproximately twenty times the value of a 1984 dollar.

CP ) New York 53 a hidden tax on consumerscollected by merchantsa group not well represented in the ranks of the aintonians. Byforcing mer- chants to pay the impost, albeit through increasing the pricesof imported goods, the Clintonians reduced the levies onreal and personal property. In this way, the aintonians championed yeo- man farmers who supportedthe governor in his efforts to keep land taxes low. Besides the impost, the Clintonians hoped to raise significant revenue from land sales. Almost$4,000,000 was raised from the sale of the confiscated Loyalist estates. Whig manorlords did not like to see these once glorious estates broken up andsold in small parcels. Nationalists also opposed the Clintonians' confiscationof Loyalist property in those territories recently evacuated byBritish troops in 1783. It was believedthat Congress would suffer if the state violated the treaty of peace byconfiscating Loyalist property. The state's unsettled land was even more importantthan Loyalist property to the Clintonian program. This vast territory would guarantee huge revenues to the state for years to come,but the Clintonians saw a danger to this resource. NewYork's claim to the area known as Vermont wasdisputed by New Hampshire and Massachusetts. New York pursued its claims inCongress with little success. The state's congressional delegation reported toGov- ernor Clinton on 9 April 1784that Congress is determined "not to do any thing about that matter,expecting that in Time we shall be obliged to consent that [Vermont should] . .become a seperate State." In the same letter, the delegates warned GovernorClinton about possible attempts to seize New York'snorthwestern terri- tory. "Upon the whole Sir it is ouropinion that the utmost Vig- ilence ought to be exercised to prevent any encroachment on our Territory as we are to expect no protection otherwisethan from our own arms." Threeweek later, congressional delegate Ephraim Paine wrote that "it appears to be the general Sense" ofCongress "that the western Country ought to be Considered asbelonging to the united States inCommon." Therefore, Paine concluded, "it is high time for our State to tak[e] the Same measures asthough it was Sorounded with open and avowed Enemies."On 4 June 1784 Paine's fellow delegate Charles DeWitt repeated the warn- ing: "1 hope the Legislature have taken every precaution respect- ing the W. Territory. I believe Sir a Plan is formed andperhaps wrought into System to take that Country from us."5

'LMCC. V11:487-88. 504-5. 545.

f; 7 54 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR The Clintonians thusclearly saw that any attempt to strengthen Congress probablywould result in the lossof the state impost and future sales oflands from confiscatedLoyalist estates, from Vermont, and fromnorthwestern New York. Ifthese sources of revenue were lost, real estateand personal property taxeswould have to be raised significantly to paythe state debt and to meet the regular expenses of government.New York had alreadypaid more than itsrightful portion for the Union'sindependence from Great Britain. The Clintonianswould not now allow Congress to wrest away the state's mostproductive sources of revenue.

The Depression of1785-86 The end of the Revolutionin New York wasaccompanied by a short period of prosperityfollowed by a seriousdepression, the "bad times" of 1785-86.These depression years weremarked by public and private indebtedness,disorganization of trade1 con- traction of the circulating currency,and drastically reducedfarm prices. I n an effort torelieve the hardships of thedepression, and to stimulate the economy,a demand arosefor the state to create a land bankthat would loan paper money onreal estate collateral. By spring of 1786 GovernorClinton supported theemisskm of paper money. Heand his supporters saw thedemand for paper money as anopportunity to aid distresseddebtors and to improve their own political position.A provision was added tothe paper for a fund money bill thatappropriated $125,000 of paper money entire state debt and on to pay theinterest and principal on the two kinds of federalsecurities owned by NewYorkers. The federal securities funded by thebill amounted to $1,400,000and were owned by over 25 percentof all New York freemen.The re- maining $3,00,000 infederal securities, owned byseveral hundred wealthy, anti-Clinton NewYorkers, was untouched bythe bill. Clinton was, therefore, able to getthe paper money billenacted, cement his strength amongstate public creditors,and gain new support from themajority of federal publiccreditors, while not unduly benefiting his opponents.It was now in theinterest of New York public creditors to supportthe state's financialinterests over those of the Union. The paper money act,passed on 18 April 1786,authorized for mort- $500,000 of papercurrencythree-fourths earmarked gages on real estate at5 percent annual interestfor fourteen years New York 55 and the remainder to bepaid to New York's publiccreditors. The paper moneycould be used to pay taxesand was legal tender in payment of privatedebts in case of suits. The papermoney did not depreciate andit helped many hard-pressed yeomandebtors money, avoid bankruptcy andforeclosure proceedings. The paper along with revenue fromland sales and the stateimpost, allowed New York to purchaselarge quantities of federalsecurities with interest-bearing and interest-paying statesecuritie.. By 1790 the state of New Yorkowned federal securitiesworth over $2,880,000 in specie. The interest dueNew York on thesesecurities more than equalled the annualrequisitions on the state byCongress. New York had beentransformed from a debtor stateinto one of the wealthiest creditor statesin the Union. Theinterest of most New Yorkers had becomeconnected with the state andits gov- ernor ratherthan with the general government.

Commerce Although Governor Clintonmade a concerted effort toattach yeomen to hispolicies, he also wholeheartedlyencouraged mer- chants involved in foreign commerce.The more trade that came through the port of NewYork, the greater the revenuefor the state treasuryfrom the impost. Therefore,when commerce de- teriorated in 1785-86, theClintonians joined their politicalad- versaries in seeking ways tostimulate trade..This Clintonian po- sition explains why NewYork on 4 April 1785adopted the authorization giving Congresscommercial power to restraintrade with countries withoutcommercial treaties with theUnited States. responded so quickly lt also explains whythe New York legislature and positively to Virginia'scall for a commercialconvention. On 21 January 1786 theVirginia legislature appointedfive commissioners to meet withcommissioners from other states to comider trade problems.Governor Clinton submittedVirginia's proposal to the legislature on14 March. The nextday the Assem- bly resolved, and theSenate concurred on 17March, that five commissioners be appointed toattend this commercialconvention. Over a month later, on20 April, the Assemblyappointed Alex- ander Hamilton, Robert C.Livingston (of the upper manorfamily), and tothe convention. On 5 May,the last day of the legislativesession, the Senate acceptedthe Assembly's resolution with the additionof three morecommissionersRobert 56 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

IL Livingston, James Duane, andEgbert Benson. All six men had consistently supported greater powerfor Congress. At least three commissioners wererequired to attend the convention and a report had to bemade to the legislature. These commissioners were authorized "to takeinto consideration the trade and commerce of the UnitedStatesto consider how far an uniform system in their commercialintercourse and regulations, may be necessary totheir common interest and permanenthar- mony." Before it could take effect,however, the report of the convention had to be approved by allof the states. Thus, the New York legislature was willing to consider anational commercial plan, but it reserved the right toreject any plan that might be detrimental to the state. Only Alexander Hamilton and EgbertBenson attended the Annapolis Convention in September1786, where they met with commissioners from New Jersey,Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Vir- ginia. The commissioners agreed to a reportdrafted by Hamilton which acknowledged the sparseness ofattendance, and therefore called for a general convention ofall the states to meet in Phila- delphia the following May to revise theArticles of Confederation.

The Impost of 1783 By the beginning of 1783 Congress'financial condition was des- perate. During the first fou.-months of the year, Congress debated measures to alleviatethe economic morass. In April aunified pro- gram was adoptedthat included another requestfor a federal impost. The two New Yorkdelegates to CongressAlexander Hamilton and William Floyddividedthe state's vote over the financial package. Ironically, nationalistHamilton voted against the plan, while future AntifederalistFloyd supported it. Although Hamilton believed that the congressionalproposal was too weak and that a stronger alternativeshould be presented to the states, he urged Governor Clinton to supportthe impost of 1783. The Clintonians had hoped someother state would reject Congress' new attempt to seize NewYork's most lucrative revenue producer. But by spring 1786 all ofthe states except New York had adopted the impost in oneform or another. New York could not remain aloofithad to face the issue. In order to sway public opinionin their favor, the Clintonians mounted a masterful newspapercampaign. With Abraham Yates,

p. New York 57

Jr., in the lead, writing as"Sydney," "Rough Hewer,"and "Rough Hewer, Jr.," the Clintoniansemphasized the dangers inherentin giving Congress an independent sourceof revenue. With its own income guaranteed, Congresswould soon "swallow up" the state legislatures: and with thedisappearance of the states asviable po- litical entities, freemen wouldlose many of their hard wonrights. Thus, at least in thepublic debate, the issue was notprimarily economic. New York, byrejecting the impost, could savethe entire country frombecoming a centralized despotism. All attention was focused onthe New York legislature asit debated the impost in May1786. Clintonians werekeenly aware that their motives would bequestioned if the impost wererejected unequivocally. Consequently, theClintonian legislature chose a middle ground. New Yorkadopted the impost but refused togive up the right tosupervise and remove thecollectors of the impost. The state also reserved theright to pay the impost revenueto Congress in the recentlyissued state paper money. On 4 May New York'sconditional approval of theimpost was submitted toCongress, which appointed acommittee to ex- amine the various stateactions on the impost.The committee reported that New York'sand Pennsylvania'sratifications were unacceptable, and on 11 AugustCongress requested Governor Clinton to call a special sessionof the legislature toreconsider the matter. Five dayslater the governorrejected thisquest, citing to the state's constitutionalprovision that allowed the governor call special sessions only on"extraordinary occasions."Congres- sional delegates condemnedNew York for endangeringthe entire country and sent asecond appeal to GovernorClinton for a special legislative session. The governoragain refused. When the legislature convenedin January 1787, the Ham- iltonian forces tried to censurethe governor for notcalling an early session of the legislature.The Assembly, however,approved the governor's inaction by a voteof 39 to 9. Stephen MixMitchell, a Connecticutdelegate to Congress, wrotethat the Assembly's approbation of Clinton's action wastantamount to giving"Con- gress a Slap inthe face." The Assembly submittedthe impost to a three-man com- mittee made up of twoHamiltonians and one Clintonian.On 9 February this committeereported a bill grantingCongress the Vi1l:531. 4To Jeremiah Wadsworth. NewYork. 24 January 1787. LMCC. 58 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR impost with the power to supervise and remove collectors. Within a week the Assembly voted 38 to 19 to removethe clause giving Congress authority over the collectors. Despite the efforts of Ham- ilton and his allies, New York had not changed its positionrev- enue from duties collected on importedgoods coming through the port of New York would still flow into the state treasury. The Assembly's action had, according to James Madison, "put a defin- itive veto on the Impost." Madison described the politics of New York as "directed by individual interests and plans, whkh might be incommoded by the controul of an efficient federal Govern- ment."5

Congress Calls the Constitutional Convention By 20 September 1786 Congress had received the reportof the Annapolis Convention calling for a general convention. In order to remove any doubt about theconstitutionality of the general convention, Congress had to sanction such a meeting. Conse- quently, the Annapolis Convention report was turned over to a committee of Congress on 11 October. Because of the end of the federal year, however, no further action was taken in 1786. The new federal year began when Congress attained a quo- rum on 12 February 1787. By this timeseveral states had already appointed delegates to the general convention. On 19 February the congressional committee appointed four monthsearlier en- dorsed the Annapolis Convention report by a one-vote majority. When Congress took up the committee report on 21 February, New York delegates Melancton Smith and made a motion to postponeconsideration of the report in order to con- sider another resolution. On 20 February they had been instructed by their legislature to move in Congress for the appointmentof a general conventionempowered to consider "alterations and amendments" to the Articles of Confederation that would "render them adequate to the preservation and support of the Union." Some delegates to Congress viewed New York's proposalwith skepticism, especially in light of the Assembly's recent defeatof the impost. Since New York's proposal ignored the Annapolis Con-

*To George Washington, New York, 21 February 1787, William T. Hutch- inson and Robert A. Rutland et al., eds.. The Papers of fames Madison (Chicago,Ill., and Charlottesville, Va., I962), IX:285. New York 59 vention report and the actions ofthose states that hadalready appointed delegates to a generalconvention, it was believed by some that NewYork was attempting to sabotagethe entire con- vention movement by dividingCongress between two different proposals. Other delegates saw thevalue in the convention pro- posal originating from a staterather than from an extra-legalbody such as the Annapolis Convention. New York's motion wasrejected by Congress four states to three with two states divided. NathanDane of Massachusetts then moved to postpone the committee reportin order to consider another motion calling aconvention. Dane's motionimplicitly ac- knowledged the Annapolis Convention reportand sanctioned the elections of the delegates that hadalready taken place. But the resolution limited the power ofthe proposed conventionwhich was called "for thesole and express purpose ofrevising the Articles of Confederation." Any proposalsfrom the convention would have to be approved byCongress and by the states beforetaking effect.. This motion was adopted byCongress on 21 February 1787by a vote of eight states to one.

New York Elects Delegates to the ConstitutionalConvention On 13 January 1787 GovernorClinton addressed the legislature and delivered a copy of theAnnapolis Convention report.Ten days later the report and a copyof Virginia's act appointingdel- egates to a constitutionalconvention were submitted to afive-man Assembly committee. No record of acommittee report exists. On 23 February 1787 GovernorClinton sent the legislaturethe congressional resolution calling ageneral convention. Three days later the Assembly resolved thatfive delegates be appointed tothe convention by joint ballot of bothhouses. The Senate, objecting to its inferior status in ajoint ballot, disagreed; and on28 February proposed that three delegatesbe appointed by the twohouses voting separatelythe mannerspecified in the state constitution for the election of delegnes toCongress. On 28 FebruarySenator Abraham Yates, Jr., attempted tolimit the power of the conven- tion by proposing that thealterations and amendmentssuggested by the convention be "not repugnantto or inconsistentwith the constitution of this state." Yates'sresolution was strenuously de- bated and was finally rejectedby the casting vote of PierreVan 60 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR Cortlandt, the president of the Senate, afterthe senators had di- vided evenly nine to nine. The Assembly agreed to theSenate's resolution and on 6 March the open balloting for conventiondelegates was held. Each assemblyman voted for three candidates.State Supreme Court Justice Robert Yates and AlexanderHamilton appear to have been previously agreed upon as two of thethree delegates, because Yates received the unanimous supportof all fifty-two assembly- men, and Hamiltonreceived all but three votes. The realfight came over the thirddelegate. Albany Mayor John Lansing,Jr., was nominated withtwenty-six votes, only three votes morethan New York Mayor James Duane.Chancellor Robert R. Livingston received four votes, John Taylor two,and Melancton Smith one. The Senate also nominated Yates,Hamilton, and Lansing. The two houses mettogether in the Assembly chambers,compared lists, and adjourned to their separatechambers where they passed resolutions officially appointing the three men.On 16 April Alex- ander Hamilton moved in the Assemblyand it was agreed that two more delegates beappointed to the convention. Twodays later, however, the Senate rejectedthis attempt to enlarge the delegat ion.

New York in the Constitutional Convention New York's three delegates to theConstitutional Convention were respectable, but, unlike some other states,New York's most pres- tigious men either did not choose tobe candidates or were over- looked by the legislature. Unlike his counterpartsin New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, GovernorClinton did not opt to be- come a delegate.Robert R. Livingston, PhilipSchuyler, , James Duane, and the other great manorlords were not delegates to the Convention. EgbertBenson, , John Jay. and Samuel Jones. the state's mostprominent attorneys, also avoided the Convention as didthe merchant captains of New York City. Albany lawyer Robert Yates was thesenior New York del- egate. He wasforty-nine years old and had served onthe state Supreme Court since its establishmentin 1777. Thirty-three-year- old John Lansing, Jr., was mayor ofAlbany and was perhaps the wealthiest member of the Clintonian party.He had studied law New York 61 with Robert Yates, and had been adelegate to Congress in 1785 and a state assemblyman from1780 to 1784 and again in 1786 when he served as speaker.Alexander Hamilton, a thirty-year-old New York City lawyer and PhilipSchuyler's son-in-law, had dis- tinguished himself in the army duringthe Revolution, and after- wards as a member of Congress in1782-83, a commissioner to the Annapolis Convention in1786, and as a state assemblyman in 1787. Hamilton's reputation as a strongnationalist was well known. Yates and Lansing, on the other hand, werethought to be op- ponents of any serious attempt tostrengthen the general govern- ment, especially if thatentailed the loss of the state's impost.James Madison, in New York City as aVirginia delegate to Congress, described New York's two Clintoniandelegates as leaning "too much towards State considerations tobe good members of an Assembly which will only be usefulin proportion to its superiority to partial views &interests." In a letter to GeorgeWashington, Madison wrote that Yates and Lansing werethought "to be pretty much linked to the antifederal partyhere, and are likely of course to be a clog on theirColleague." Yates and Hamilton first attendedthe Convention on 25 May. Lansing first attended a week later on2 June. The early days of the Convention were ominous forYates. On 30 May he voted with the minority against his fellow NewYorker in opposing a mot that called for the Convention to create a"national Government. On 1 June the New York justice wrote tohis uncle Abraham Yates, Jr., that he had grave doubts aboutthe Convention. During the Convention, both Yates andLansing aligned with a minority ofdelegates who favored a revision ofthe Articles of Confederation that would strengthenCongress without relinquish- ing the sovereignty of theindividual states. The two Albanyites usually voted in tandem againstHamilton, and it was said that Lansing usually followed the leadand was deferential to hisformer legal mentor. On 16 June Lansing expressedhis own position.7 He believed that the mere consideration of anational government violated the resolution of Congress and thedelegates' commissions from their states. New York, he said,"would never have concurred insending

°To Edmund Randolph, NewYork, 11 March 1787, and to GeorgeWash- ington, New York, 18 March 1787.Rutland, Madman, IX:307, 315. 'Max Farrand. ed.. The Records of theFederal C 5nvention. 3 vols. (New Haven, Conn., 1911), 1:249-50, 257-58,263-64, 267. 62 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR deputies to the convention, if she had supposed thedeliberations were to turn on a consolidationof the States, and a National Gov- ernment." Furthermore, the states would never"adopt & ratify a scheme which they had never authorized us to proposeand which so far exceeded whatthey regarded as sufficient." The people looked for, hoped for, and would "readily approve"only "an aug- mentation of the powers of [the Confederation]Congress." Hamilton's stance was diametrically opposed tohis fellow New Yorkers. On 18 June he delivered animpassioned, five-hour oration in which he "sketched" his outline of aplan of govern- ment.9 His presentation was notsubmitted to the Convention as a formal proposal but "was meantonly to give a more correct view of his ideas and to suggest the amendments whichhe would prob- ably propose" later. Hamilton's plan called for abicameral Con- gress. The lower housewould be elected by the people and have a three-year term. The upperhouse or Senate would be elected by electors chosen by the people and would servefor life. The single chief executive was also to be elected byelectors and would have life tenure. This president of the UnitedStates would be commander in chief and would have an absolute veto over actsof Congress. The supreme judicial authority was tobe lodged in a court of twelve justices with life tenure.Congress could also create inferior courts. All state laws contrary to theUnited States con- stitution or federal laws would be considered nulland void. All state governors would be appointedby the president and would have veto power over their state legislatures. No state wasto have an army or navy and themilitias were to be under the sole and exclusive direction of the United States. Hamilton knew that his plan was too extremefor the Con- vention or for the public. But he believedthat there were "evils operating in the States which must soon curethe people of their fondness for democracies." Once the populacetired of democracy, they would endorse his beliefs. Because of hissincerity and his eloquence, Hamilton was "praised by every body"in the Conven- tion, but he was "supported by none."9He left the Convention frustrated at the end of June after beingcontinually outvoted by his two companions. As the Convention inexorably movedtoward a more national government, Yates and Lansingbecame increasingly more disen-

282-93. ' Speech, 21June. ibid.,563. New York 63 chanted. They finally left theConvention on 10 July and did not return. Various reasons have been given toexplain Yates and Lan- sing's departure from theConvention and their refusal to return. Early in the Convention,Lansing told his brotherAbraham that he and Yates "had no prospectof succeeding in the measures proposed, and that he was at astand whether it would notbe proper for him toLeave." Spanish MinisterDon Diego de Gar- doqui and French ConsulAntoine de la Forest bothmentioned the absence of the NewYork delegates from theConvention "in order not to ratify" theConstitution." A short item inthe Mas- sarhusetb Gazette, 20 November,implied that eight Convention delegates, including Yates andLansing, had left early becausethey had opposed the proceedings.A response in theMassachusetts Ceti- probably were find,21 November, said thatYates and Lansing "obliged by domestick concerns to returnhome prior to its [the Constitutionj being signed.", a Marylanddelegate to the Convention,said that Yates and Lansing"had uniformly opposed the system, and Ibelieve, despairing of getting a proper one broughtforward, or of rendering anyreal service, they re- turned no more."" Martin'sassertion that the NewYorkers had not intended to return wascontradicted by Daniel of St.Thomas jenifer, another Marylanddelegate." According toGeorge Mason of Virginia, Justice Yatesand lawyer Lansingwithdrew early be- cause "the seasonfor courts came on.""Both men did indeed participate in judicial businessafter they left the Convention.(The Supreme Court met from 31July to 8 August and thecircuit courts through the end of September.)On 26 August 1787Lansing's brother reported that hefound "but Little Inclinationin either of them to repair again toPhiladelphia, and from theGeneral Observations I believe theywill not go."" Also, Yatesand Lansing

'°Abraham G. Lansing to AbrahamYates, Jr., Albany, 26 August1787. Library [NM. Yates Papers, New York Public Forest "Gardoqui to Conde de Floridablanca,New York, 23 September. and Montmorin, New York, 28 September,John P. Kaminski and Gaspare to Comte de (Comnu.ntaries], J. Saladino, eds., Commentaries onthe Constitution: Public and Private 1981-), 1:223, 259. 5 vols. (Madison. Wis Gazette, 4 Jan- "Luther Martin, "GenuineInformation,- Baltimore Maryland uary 1788, Commentaries,3:255. "Pennsylvania Packet, 14 February 1788. Farrand, Rec- "Ex relatione G. Mason,Gunston Hall, 30 September 1792, ords, 111;367. "To Abraham Yates, Jr.,Albany, Yates Papers, NN. 64 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR may have had heard the rumorthat the Convention was far from agreement and that it would continue to meetfor several more months. This in all likelihood convinced them not to returnwhile the circuit courts were still in session. After Yates and Lansing left the Convention on 10 July,New York was unrepresented. Hamilton returned to the Convention after the Committee of Detail reported on 6 August, butunder the rules of the Convention, New York's vote was notcounted because only one delegate was present. Hamilton was absentagain from 20 August to 2 September. He was appointed to the Com- mittee of Style on 8 September and signed the Constitutionnine days later as the only delegate from New York. For some reason, Yates and Lansing waited awhile before publicly declaring their objections to the proposedConstitution. As the regular session of the New York legislatureapproached, they decided to make an "official" report. It was said thatGov- ernor Clinton "had a hand" inconvincing Yates and Lansing to write their report.° Finally, on 21 December 1787, ten daysbefore the scheduled legislative session, Yates and Lansing wroteGov- ernor Clinton, giving their reasonsfor opposing the proposed Con- stitution and for not returning to the Convention.When a quorum assembled on 11 January, Clinton gave the legislature theletter, the report of the Constitutional Convention, andother public documents. In their letter, Yates and Lansing said that they opposedthe proposed Constitution because it created "a system of consolidated Government" which was not "in the remotest degree . in con- templation of the Legislature of this State." "If it hadbeen the intention of the Legislature to abrogate the existing Confedera- tion, they would, in such pointed terms, have directed the attention of their delegates to the revision and amendment of it,in total exclusion of every other idea." Furthermore, "a generalGovern- ment," such as the one proposed hy the Convention, "must un- avoidably, in a short time, be productive of the destruction ofthe civil liberty of such citizens who could be effectuallycoerced by it." They were convinced that the newConstitution could not "afford that security to equal and permanent liberty,which we wished to make an invariable object of our pursuit."Although

°Walter Rutherford to John Rutherford, 15 January 1788, RutherfordCol- lection, New-York Historical Society INHij. New York 65 they were not present when the Convention signed theConsti- tution, they were convinced before they left that the Constitution's "principles were so well established ..that no alteration was to be expected, to conform it to our ideas of expediency andsafety. A persuasion that our further attendance would befruitless and unavailing, rendered us less solicitous to return." The Yates-Lansing letter was printed in the New York Daily Advertiser and New-York Journal on 14 January. The Journalalso printed the letter in its Thursday issue (17 January) whichhad a more general country circulation. By theend of the month it was reprinted in six other New York newspapers, and by 10March it was reprinted in thePhiladelphia American Museum, a nationally circulated magazine, and in eleven other newspapers fromNew Hampshire to Georgia. Yates and Lansing's letter, though widelycirculated, gen- erated relatively little response either inside oroutside of New York. of Virginia wrote that theletter was "in perfect uniformity with the purpose of their Mission ..." which was to represent the interests ofonly New York"a state whose measures have for a Number of Yearsbeen uniformly against the federal interests.""

The Constitution before Congress Three New York delegatesMelancton Smith, JohnHaring, and Abraham Yates, Jr.were present when Congressdebated the Constitution from 26 to 28 September. They supportedefforts to attach a bill of rights to the Constitution, but theseefforts failed. A compromise was reached and the demand for anaccompanying bill of rights was dropped in exchange for a baretransmittal of the Constitution to the states without a statementof approbation by Congress.

The Public Debate over the Constitution The public debate over the Constitution in NewYork was an extension of the debate over strengthening theArticles of Con- federation that had been going on sinc_ the Revolution.From

"To James Madison. Manchester, 10 February 1788, Rutland,Madison. X:493-95. 66 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR 1783 to 1787 the debate had in large measure centered on the question of the federal impost. Beginning in February 1787, how- ever, the debate enlarged and focused onthe type of government best suited for the fledgling country. In February, March, and April 1787, three New York City newspaper items advocated di- viding the country into three or four separate confederacies united by a loose federal alliance.'8 They maintained that the United States was a mixture of different climates, customs, and interests that would never be able to accommodate each other. Further- more, the writers accepted the principle ofMontesquieu and other eighteenth-century political theorists that republics could not exist over vast territories without eventually degeneratinginto despo- tisms. A "West Chester Farmer" totally disagreed." He believed that the states should be reduced to the status of "civil corpora- tions" and their laws should be null and void if they were contrary to the laws of the central government,which should consist of a parliament and a president assisted by a council of twenty-six. The president should be appointed by the state governors for five and two councillors should be chosen by each state legislature for four years each, The president and council would have an absolute veto over the parliament. Another centralistproposed that Con- gress should be sovereign and should makeall laws for the states. If this was impossible, this "Well Wisher to the United States of America" recommended that no state law ought to go into effect "without the Assent of Congress first."" During the four months while the Constitutional Convention met, Federalists used the state's newspapers to preparethe public to receive whatever the Conventionproposed. No opposition to the Convention or warnings about what might be proposed ap- peared in the press during these months. Even the future Anti- federalist New-York Journal announced on 12 July that it was "in- cumbent on every public printer" "to blow the trumpet, and sound the alarm" about "the necessity of an immediate EfficientFoederal Government!" The Albany Gazette, 21 June, hoped that something would be done to stem "the prevailing rage of excessivedemoc- racythis fashionable contempt of governmentof public and pri- vate faith," while a writer in the New-YorkJournal, 16 August, announced that America would experience "a newbirth to glory

'8Commentarzes.1:54-59. '°New YorkDaily Advertiser,8 June 1787.Commentaries, 1:128-30. "Observations on the Articles of Confederation.27 July,Commentaiies,1:180-81. New York 67 and empire" if the "delegated wisdom" of "the chaste body" would be accepted. The trigger that apparently set off the New York public de- *bate over the Constitution was the departure of the state's dele- gates from the Convention. Yates and Lansing, while on their way back home to Albany, probably stopped in New York City and discussed the Convention with Governor Clinton. The news from Philadelphia seems to have evoked some unguarded comments from the governor. Alexander Hamilton, also on leave from the Convention, charged, in a widely circulated article in the Daily Advertiser, 21 July, that Clinton had "in public company, without reserve, reprobated the appointment of the Convention, and pre- dicted a mischievous issue of that measure." Clinton's attitude was "That the present confederation is, in itself, equal to the purposes of the union." Hamilton, however, maintained "that the general government is fundamentally defective; that the very existence of the union is in imminent danger." He believed that "industrious and wicked pains have been taken by parties unfriendly to the measures of the union, to discredit and debase the authorityand influence of Congress." The derogatory remarks by Clinton against the Convention before its results were known proved that the governor was more attached "to his own power than to thepublic good, and furnishes strong reason to suspect a dangerous prede- termination to oppose whatever may tend to diminish the former, however it may promote the latter." "A Republican," New-York Journal, 6 September, without admitting that Clinton had been disrespectful of the Convention, defended the governor's right to speak out. Any attempt to limit free speech was said to be "high treason against the majesty of the people." This newspaper ex- change set the tone for the debate that followed and indicated the intractability on both sides. In the months of public debate that followed, Antifederalists condemned the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for violating the Articles of Confederation, the instructions from their state legislatures, and the 21 February 1787 resolution ofCon- gress. They believed that the Constitution would create anational government that would end in either aristocracy or monarchy. In time, this new government would destroy the state governments. They reprobated the lack of a bill of rights, especially since the new Constitution and laws and treaties made in pursuancethereof were declared to be the supreme law of the land with statejudges 68 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR bound thereby, notwithstanding statelaws or constitutions to the contrary. The presidentand Senate were toopowerful, and the Senate held legislative, executiveand judicial powers. TheHouse of Representatives was toosmall and Congress haddangerous pow- ers, some ofwhich were undefined.Officeholders would surely multiply under the new governmentand taxes would consequently rise. Jury trials in civil cases were notguaranteed and the appellate jurisdiction as to law and factfavored the wealthy. Various pro- visions in the Constitutionrecognized, condoned, protected,and even encouragedslavery. Antifederalists believedthat the state conventions should not ratifythe Constitution but should rec- ommend amendments to anothergeneral convention. In this way, the people would obtainthe best form of governmentwith the least danger to their liberties. Federalists responded that the newConstitution would create a confederatedrepublic with powers divided amonglegislative, executive, and judiciary branches.Since the new governmentwould have only delegated powers,it was unnecessary to have anational bill of rights. Federalistsstressed the unanimity of theConvention in creating a constitutionthat was an accommodation amongthir- teen jarring interests.No new convention couldhope to produce a more acceptablecompromise. The illustriousWashington, the sage Franklin, andother prominent Americans werecontinually cited as strong supportersof the new government.Opponents were labeledselfish state officeholders,demagogues, debtors, Shayites, and tories. If theConstitution were to be rejected, an- archy would ensue, and,following the commonly acceptedcircular theory of government, a tyrantwould eventually seize power, re- store order, andestablish a despotism. On theother hand, if the Constitution were adopted, commercewould revive, the economy would flourish, public creditorswould be paid, land valueswould rise, paper money would beabolished, government expenseswould decline, taxes would be reduced,and the prestige of Americawould rise. Once the new government wasfunctioning, defects in the Constitution could be correctedthrough the system's own process of amendment. The proposed Constitution wasfirst printed in New York in the Daily Advertiser on 21September. Three days laterthe first New York commentary onthe Constitution in the statealso ap- peared in the Daily Advertiser.The Constitution, it said,would "render us safe and happy athome, and respected abroad."Adop- New York 69 tion of the new form of governmentwould "snati:n us from im- pending ruin" and provide "thesubstantial basis of liberty, honor and virtue." It was "the duty ofall honest, well-disposed men, friends to peace and good government . to cultivate and diffuse . aspirit of submission" to theConstitution; which, although not perfect, was "much more sothan the most friendly and san- guine expected." Three days later the Antifederalistbarrage began. "Cato" I, the first of seven essays said to bewritten by Governor Clinton, appeared in the New-York Journal, 27September. "Cato" called on freemen to be prudent and cautiousin considering the Constitu- tion"if you are negligent or inattentive,the ambitious and des- potic will entrap you in their toils,and bind you with the cord of power from which you,and your posterity, may never befreed." "Beware how you determinedo not,because you admit that something must be done, adoptanythingteach the members of that convention, that you arecapable of a supervision of their conduct." If the Constitution werefound defective, another con- vention could consider amendments.The Constitution should be adopted if it were found acceptable,but if it were judged to be dangerous, freemen were urged to"reject it with indignation better to be where you are, for the present,than insecure forever afterwards." On I Octo5er, "Caesarallegedly Alexander Hamilton, at- tacked "Cato" as a demagojue."Caesar" asked "shall we now wrangle and find fault with that excellentwhole, because, perhaps, some of itparts might have beri, moreperfect?" Then he warned "Cato" and other Antifederaliststhat it would be wiser to accept George Washington willingly as Ciefirst president under the Con- sti Lt.:non than tti have the formercommander in chief lead another L.rtrto est..blif-h the Constitutionby force. Or. 3 Ott aber the PouOkeepsieCountp, Journal printed the first original upstate commentary onthe Constitution. It praised the rew Constitution that wouldprovide the vigorous administra- tion ')e.:sary to protect American commerce,guard against civil dissension, and re-establish respectabroad. The article was prob- ahiy iiritten by James Kept, 1twenty-four-year-old Poughkeepsie law, f-r who "was determined tospeak my Mind & not to be silenced by mere authority or Party." Hevowed that "if any person attacks the new Government here in print.I intend to attack hinz."21 "To , Poughkeepsie.6 October 1787,Commentanes, 1:309n. 70 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR By mid-October 1787 New York newspapersteemed "with vehement & virulent calumniations," mostof which were reprinted from Philadelphia." Serialized essaysabounded such as the Fed- eralist "An American Citizen" (TenchCoxe), "A Countryman" (Roger Sherman), and "Landholder"(Oliver Ellsworth); and the Antifederalist "Centinel" (Samuel Bryan)and "An Old Whig." Individual pieces were also common such asthe Federalist "Social Compact," "Grand Constitution," and"Foederal Constitution," or the Antifederalist"Address of the Seceding PennsylvaniaAs- semblymen" and "A Democratic Federalist."Speeches by Fed- eralists James Wilson and John Sullivan werewidely reprinted in New York, as were the publishedobjections to the Constitution by Elbridge Gerry, George Mason,Richard Henry Lee, and the minority of the Pennsylvania Convention. By 18 October the New York presshad come of age. No longer did it rely primarily onout-of-state items. Antifederalist and Federalist propagandists weretireless in producing material for the state's newspapers. For the most part,New York news- papers were Federalistoriented, especially the upstate newspapers in Albany, Lansingburgh, Hudson,and Poughkeepsie. The New York City newspapers includedthree staunchly Federalists sheets the Daily Advertiser, IndependentJournal, and New-York Packet. The New-York Morning Post was fairlyneutral, while the New-York Journal was rabidly Antifederalist.Printer Thomas Greenleaf of theweekly New-York Journal was inundated witharticles which he had no room to publish. Consequently,with the patronage of a numberof friends, Greenleaf increased publication to adaily. To assist in disseminating this Antifederalist material,both domestic produc- tions and importations primarilyfrom Philadelphia, a committee of gentlemen was formed in NewYork City. Led by Collector of Customs and his merchantson-in-law Charles Tilling- hast, this committee vigorouslysolicited, edited, published, and disseminated Antifederalist literaturethroughout New York and Connecticut, and to a lesser extent,throughout the entire country. Antifederalist essayists took the initiativein New York as the first of sixteen essays by "Brutus" appearedin the New-York Journal on 18 October. OtherAntifederalist series followed"Cincinna- tus" (Arthur Lee of Virginia), "ACountryman" and "Expositor"

"James Madison to George Washington,New York, 18 October, commen- tones, 1:408-9. New York 71

(Hugh Hughes), "A Countryman" (DeWittClinton), and "Sidney" (Abraham Yates, Jr.). Federalists respondedwith "Philo-Publiiis" (William Duer), "Americanus" (John Stevens,Jr., of New Jersey), "A Country Federalist" (),"Examiner" (Charles McKnight), and "Fabius." The single most important Antifederalistpublication in New York, and probably in the entire country, wasthe pamphlet Cb- sermtions Leading to a Fair Examinationof the System of Government Proposed by the Late Convention .. In a Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican.Published during the first week in November 1787, this forty-pagepamphlet was reprinted in pam- phlet editions in "different states, andseveral thousands of them" were sold. The PoughkeepsieCountry Journal was the only news- paper in the country toreprint the entire pamphlet. Federalist James Kent admitted that "Federal Farmer"illustrated the defects of the Constitution "in a candid &rational manner." Virginia Federalist Edward Carrington said that"These letters are reputed the best of any thing that hasbeen written" against the Constitution.23 By far the most admired New York essays wereThe Federalist written by "Publius" (AlexanderHamilton, James Madison, and John Jay). A total of eighty-five numbers werepublished between 27 October 1787 and 28 May 1788.The first essays had a fairly extensive nationwide circulation, but asthe numbers kept pouring from the New York City press, theircirculation diminished. News- paper republication wasalso reduced after it was announcedthat the entire series would be published in atwo-volume edition. The first volume containing thirty-six essays waspublished on 22 March 1788. The second volume containingforty-nine numbers ap- peared on 28 May. Federalists throughoutthe United States gen- erally considered "Publius" as the bestanalysis of the Constitution. Some Federalists, however, thought thatthe essays were too "elab- orate" and not "well calculated forthe common people": while Antifederalists like "Federal Farmer" believedthat The Federalist had "but little relation to the greatquestion, whether the consti- tution is fitted to the condition andcharacter of the people or not."24 Despite the significant place TheFederalist has assumed in

"Kent to Nathaniel Lawrence, Poughkeepsie,9 November 1787, and Car- rington to , New York. 9 June1788, Commentaries, 2:75. 18n. "Archibald MaclaMe to James Iredell. Wilmington,N.C., 4 March 1788, and "Federal Farmer," Commentaries. 1:493-94. 72 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR American political thought,its impact on NewYork's reception of the Constitution wasnegligible. Far more important inthe political battle to getthe Consti- tution ratified in NewYork was John Jay's AnAddress to the People New-York," In this of the State of New Yorksigned by "A Citizen of nineteen-page pamphlet published on15 April 1788, Jaymethod- ically demonstrated theweaknesses of the Articles ofConfeder- ation and the necessityof "a national government et-mpetent to every national object." He askedNew Yorkers to unitewith the other and Aates "as a Bandcf Brothers; to haveconfidence in themselves in one another ...land) at least to give theproposed Constitution a fair trial,and to mend it as time,occasion and experience may dictate." Jay's pamphletreportedly had a "mostastonishing influ- ence in convertingAntifederalists, to a knowledgeand belief that the New Constitution wastheir only politicalSalvation."" George Washington, greatly impressedwith the pamphlet, wroteJay that "The good sense, forceableobservations, temper andmoderation with which it is written cannotfail...of making a serious impres- sion even upon the antifoederal Mind where it is notunder the influence of such local views aswill yield to no argumentsno proofs."26 "A Citizen of New-York" wasably answered by Melancton the People Smith in a twenty-six pagepamphlet entitled An Address to Smith's pam- of the State of New-York ...signed by "A Plebeian." phlet, published en 17 April1788, maintained that"the indefinite powers granted tothe general government"endangered the state governments andthe liberties of the people"not by express words, Smith ob- but by fair and legitimateconstruction and inference." jected to the idea thatthe Constitution shouldbe adopted first asked, "why not amend,and then adopt and then amended. He ideas of it? Most certainly" this was"more consistent with our prudence in the ordinary concernsof life." From mid-October 1787through July 1788 anever-ending stream of essays, extractsof letters, poems, newsitems, filler pieces, and convention debatesfilled the state's gazettes.Nowhere else Constitution as in New were the people aswell informed about the York. 1788, Webb Family "Samuel B. Webb to JosephBarrel!, New York, 27 April Collection, [CtY). "Mount Vernon, 15 May 1788,John Jay Papers, ColumbiaUniversity Li- braries (N NC). New York 73

Warm Work in Poughkeepsie The Legislature Calls a Convention The New York legislature convened in Poughkeepsie on1 January 1788 but did not attain a quorum until 11 January.According to theNew-York journal,3 January, this session was "conceived by every class of people tobe the most important one" since the Revolution because "the momentous subject of the newfederal constitution is to be discussed." No one, however,knew exactly what to expect from the legislature. Thomas Greenleaf,the printer, believed that the Constitution's "merits will be fullyand impar- tially investigated." New York City FederalistWalter Rutherfurd expected "warm work" in Poughkeepsie. JamesMadison wrote that the legislature was "much divided" onsubmitting the Con- stitution to a Conventionthe Assembly was reportedlyin favor of calling a convention: the Senate opposed.Albany lawyer Rich- ard Sill was less optimistic"tis doubted by thebest friends to the New Government whether we shall have aConvention called by a Legislative Act, theopposition are determined to make their first stand here."" On 11 January Governor Clinton addressed thelegislature and turned over the proposed Constitution, theresolutions of the Constitut ntion and the Confederation Congress re- questing the stases tf) call conventions to consider theConstitution, and the 21 December letter from Robert Yatesand John Lansing, Jr., to the governor explaining their opposition tothe Constitu- - tion. Clinton told the legislature that it would be"improper" for him "to have any other agency in the business." The Assembly thanked the governor for the communications that "are highly important and interesting"and said that they would "claim our most serious and deliberateconsideration." The Senate similarly told the governor that the documentswould "claim the attention due to their importance." On29 January Antifed- eralist Senator John Williams of WashingtonCounty expressed the hope that the Constitution would besubmitted "to the people without either recommending or disapprobation; letthe people

"Nrw-York Journal, 3 January:Walter Rutherfurd to John Rutherfurd. 8.15 January, Rutherfurd Collection, NIli: James Madison toEdmund Randolph and to George Washington. New York,20 January. Rutland,Maduon .X:398-99; Rich- ard Sill to Jeremiah Wadsworth, Albany. 12 January,Wadsworth CorrespondencP, Connecticut Historical Society.

"- 74 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR judge for themselves in Onthe same day the As,semblyexamined the several documents andordered that the caning of aconvention be the order of the day forThursday, 31 January. On fh1 January AssemblymanEgbert Benson of Dutchess County, who was also state attorneygeneral, proposed a resolution calling a state convention."Assemblyman Cornelius C.Schoon- maker of Ulster Countyproposed that the preamble tothe res- olution be changed to indicatethat the ConstitutionalConvention had e ;ceeded its powers byreporting "a new Constitution"which, if adopted, would "materiallyalter" New York's constitutionand government "and greatlyaffect the rights andprivileges" of all New Yorkers. Bensonattacked Schoonmaker'schange as "a fla- grant violation of commonsense." Schoonmaker repliedthat his proposal was merely "a state facts" that the people shouldbe made aware of. AssemblymanSamuel Jones of QueensCounty seconded Schoonmaker'samendment. Benson, however,said that there "was no good couldarise fron " the amendmentthat would throw "an odium on themembers of the Convention."Assem- blyman Richard Harison, a NewYork City lawyer, agreedwith Benson that the Constitutionshould go to the people without"the disapproved of the measures of inference ...that the Legislature the Convention." Thelegislature ought not to considerthe merits of the Constitutionitself"the only question" waswhether the Constitution should "besubmitted to the people." Thedebate continued when Bensoninterrupted Schoonmaker and,holding up the writtenamendment, charged that thecrossed-out section at the bottombetrayed Schoonmaker's real purpose.The stricken portion of the amendment hadcalled for the New Yorklegislature to express itsdisapprobation of the proposedConstitution. Jones. one of thestate's most astute lawyers, roseand said that it was "very unfair to infer anything from what had beenscratched out." Benson "contended that it wasperfectly fair. . People. ..did not suddenly changetheir minds on a subject ofsuch magnitude." After more debate, someof which got personal, the vote on Schoonmaker's amendment wascalled for and the proposal was defeated 27 to 25. Jones thenproposed that the C )nstitutionbe

"-An Extract of a Letter fromJohn Williams. Esq. at Poughkeepsie, tohis Fectrral Herald, Friends in Washington County, dated29th January 1788.- Albany 25 February 1788. 29For the Assembly's debates overthe calling of the state ratifying conven- tion, we the New York Daily.4dverliser. 12 February. New York 75 submitted to the convention "for their free investigation, discus- sion, and decision"an obvious attempt "to introduce the Idea of Amendment." Jones's motion was defeated 29 to 23, and Benson's original resolution was approved 27 to 25. The Assembly resolution of 31 January called for the mat convention to meet at the courthouse in Poughkeepsie on 17 June 1788. The election of delegates was to begin on 29 April and continue until completed, but not to exceed five days. For the first time in state history, all free male citizens twenty-one years old or older were eligible to vote by secret ballot for convention dele- gates, even though the state constitution required a propertyqual- ification for voting in state elections. Polling places were to be located in every town and precinctnot just in county seats as was previously the case. Convention delegates, assemblymen, and one- third of the state senators were to be elected at the same time and place. Apportionment of convention delegates coincided with As- sembly apportionment, and convention delegates were to be paid by the state at the same rate as assemblymen. On 1 February the Assembly's resolution was delivered to the Senate." Antifederalist Senator Abraham Yates, Jr., of Albany proposed that the resolution be considered by a committee of the wbole, but Federalist Senator James Duane, , saw no need for such a delaythe Senate should vote on the resolution without any alterations. If the resolution was rejected, the Senate could draft its own resolution. There was no need for further discussion. "He imagined that every man's mind was made up on this great question." Yates saidthat the people should be told that the Constitutional Convention delegates "went beyond their powers.. ..they have not amended, but made a new system." As far as he was concerned, he had opposed every step taken toward this new Constitution, "nor is there a sentence in it that ever will agree to ...I would be for rejecting it altogether." The Senate then, by a vote of 12 to 7, defeated Yates's motion to commit the resolution. Senators John Williams, John Haring of Orange County, and Yates then tried to delay consideration of the resolution to another day, but the Senate agreed to examine the resolution immediately by paragraphs. Williams objected to the resolution allowing all adult males to vote when the state con-

"For the Senate debates over the calling of the state ratifying convention. see the New York Daily Advertiser, 8 February. 76 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR stitution required propertyqualifications for voters. Healso ob- jected to the election ofconvention delegates beingheld on the same day as theelection of state assemblymenand senators. Sen- ator LewisMorris of New York Citymoved that the Assembly's resolution be approved,but Senators Yates andCornelius Hum- frey of Dutchess Countymoved for a postponement sothat they could propose an amendmentsimilar to the one proposedby Schoonmaker in the Assembly.Humfrey "did not wish it to ap- pear, as if theLegislature had sanctioned"the Constitution. Wil- liams agreed that the mattershould be postponed toconsider whether the state conventionshould be empowered to propose amendments to the Constitution.The Senate then voted10 to 9 against postponementand 11 to 8 to approvethe Assembly's res- olution. James Duanecarried the Senate's concurrence tothe As- sembly, which on 2 Februaryordered 500 copies of theresolution printed and distributedthroughout the state. Both parties seem tohave favored delaying themeeting of thinking that a the convention untilmid-June 1788. Federalists, majority of the opposed the Constitution,wanted time to convince the populacethat the Constitution had tobe adopted. They hoped that ratificationby nine states would occurbefore the benefits: New York Conventionwould meet. This would have two (1) no state would beadversely influenced by anearly New York rejection of the Constitution,and (2) New Yorkmight be more amenable to ratify theConstitution if nine stateshad already adopted it. On the otherhand, Antifederalists hadtheir own rea- sons for a lateconvention. Clintoniansadopted the same strategy they had used on theimpost of 1783theyhoped that another ould reject the state, especially alarge state such as Virginia, Constitution thus takingthe onus off New York.Furthermore. although opposition to theConstitution looked substantial,Anti- federalists still were uncertainabout their statewidestrength. Clin- tonians also hoped tocoordinate interstate activitiesin an effort the Constitution through asecond con- to seek amendments to would be stitutional convention.Proposals for such a convention would take time made at the New Yorkratifying convention, but it to communicatewith Antifederalists inother states. A perplexing provisionof the resolution wasthe universal supported this pro- adult male suffrage.Federalists proposed and and small vision in the hope thatusually ineligible males in towns tenants on the manorscould be convinced to votein favor of the New York 77

Constitution. Antifederalists in the Assembly did not comment on the suffrage provision, while Senate Antifederalistsexpressed baf- flement. Senator David Hopkins of Washington Countysaid that the provision "was a point that requiredtime for consideration," while John Williams, his fellow north country senator,"thought it was a matter that ought to be explained." Evenif Antifederalists opposed this part of the resolution, they had to treadsoftly be- cause, as Williams said, they "did notwish it to be understood" that they "would deprive any man of his rightof voting." When the ballots were counted, the universal adultmale suffrage had increased the number of voters by perhaps 25 to 30 percent,but it appears that neither Federalists nor Antifederalists were appre- ciably affected by the larger turnout.

The Elections Throughout the last four months of 1787 a greatdeal of uncer- tainty prevailed over New York's attitude toward theConstitution. The general consensus was that New YorkCity warmly supported the new government, Governor Clinton andhis party opposed it, and the state as a whole was either hostile or evenlydivided. Con- federation Secretary at War , in New YorkCity, wrote George Washington on 11 December 1787 that"The warm friends of the new constitution say that the majority ofthe people are in its favor while its adversaries assert roundly thatthe majority is with them." The ambiguity in New York stemmedfrom the lack of open political activity in all arenas exceptthe newspapers. Else- where in the country, state legislatures, towns,counties, associa- tions, and individuals took strong public stances onthe Consti- tutiqn. This, for the most part, was not the casein New York. On 21 October James Madison wroteThomas Jefferson that "There seems to be less agitationin this State than any where. The dis- cussion of the subject seems confined to the newspapers.The prin- cipal characters are known to be friendly. TheGovernour's party which has hitherto been the popular & most numerous one,is supposed to be on the opposite side: butconsiderable reserve is practised, of which he sets the example." Once the New York legislature set the datefor the election of convention delegates, electioneeringbegan with a fury un- matched in any other state. County committees wereestablished to supervise the nominationof candidates. Town and county meet- 78 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR ings of local political leadersabounded. County committees of correspondence were created tocommunicate within a particular county and withpolitical leaders in New York City,Albany, and in other states. Nomination lists wereformulated and published in unprecedented numbers.And writers in newspapers,broad- sides, and pamphlets continued theirdaily onslaught on the elec- torate. "The NewConstitution," it was said, was "theSole Object of all our attention."" But,because most of the politicking was done on a local and county basis,and much of it was conducted secretly, the general mood onthe eve of the elections was not much different from what it hadbeen during 1787. Two days before the elections, New YorkCity merchant-factor Samuel B. Webb wrote that "there is not adoubt we twill) carry the Federal ticket in this City four to one, andI am happy to add that in the other Counties we have flattering prospects; someare unanimous against us, but we think we have agood chance of geting at least an equal numberof Federalists for the Convention. .. .in short equal bets are now taken thatthis State [will] adopt theNew Constitution."" Federalist hopes had been buoyedby the recent ratification of the Constitution byMassachusetts. Before he had heardthe news, FederalistPhilip Schuyler had written thatif Massachusetts ratified, "I believe we shall havelittle contest here."" Antifed- eralist Melaneton Smith wrotethat "The decision of that State will certainly have great influence onthe final issue of the busi- ness."" Webb, himself, noted thatMassachusetts' ratification would "give a most powerful impression. no Antifederalistsshow their heads, many indeed havechanged their sentiments."" Fed- eralist Brockholst Livingston wrotehis father, Governor William Livingston of New Jersey,telling him that since the newsabout Massachusetts, "Converts to the newConstitution are daily making among us."" The uncertainty about theeventual composition of New York's convention persisted wellafter the elections. The state's

"William Constable to the Marquis deLafayette, New York, 4 January, Constable-Pierrepont Collection, NN. "To Joseph Barrel!, New York,27 April, Webb Family Collection, CtY. "To Stephen ,Poughkeepsie, 8 February, Schuyler Papers, IDLC). wro Abraham Yates, Jr., New York,23 January, Yates Papers, NN. "To Joseph Barrel!, New York, 7February, Webb Family Collection, OY. "15 February, Livingston Papers,Massachusetts Historical Society (MHif, New York 79 election law of 1787 provided that ballots had to be sealed in county ballot boxes for four weeks after the election had begun. Therefore not until 27 May were county supervisors authorized to count the votes and report the results, after which they were supposed to destroy the ballots and election records. In most coun- ties, poll watchers estimated the turn out of Federalist and Anti- federalist voters, but only in a handful of counties was the margin of victory so one-sided that reliable predictions could be made of the results before 27 May, When the returns were counted, nine of the state's thirteen voting counties (Clinton County was not yet represented separately from Washington County) were solidly in the Antifederalist camp. Of the sixty-five delegates chosen, Fed- eralists elected but nineteen to their opponent's forty-six. Anti- federalists had swept to an amazingly one-sided victory much be- yond anyone's expections. This one-sided victory was the direct result of a concerted and coordinated effort by Antifederalists to mobilize the electorate coupled with fortuitous circumstances in several counties that created rifts within Federalists' ranks. There was never any doubt that a large majority in New York City supported the Constitution. Antifederalists could only hope to chip away at this majority and perhaps elect the governor as one of the city's nine convention delegates. By mid-April the election of convention deiegates engrossed "all the Loose Chat" in New York City." Both par ies had nom- inated slates of candidates. Federalists boasted an impressive list headed by Confederation Secretary for Foreign Affairs John Jay, state Chief Justice Richard Morris, Chancellor R. bert R.Liv- ingston, Mayor James Duane, and recently elected congressman Alexander Hamilton. Other Federalist candidateF were Judge John Sloss Hobart. lawyer Richard Harison, and merchants and Isaac Roosevelt. Antifederalist candidates included Gov- ernor Clinton, Collector of CustomsJohn Lamb, alderman and former Sheriff Marinus Willett, merchant-lawyer Melancton Smith, merchant and former Assemblyman Wihiam Denning. and lawyer . Antifederalist expectations were so pessimistic, how- ever, that the governor and Melancton Smith were alsonominated in other counties, while Burr announced that he "declines serving .and that his Name has been given out without his Knowledge

"Peter Elting to Peter Van Gaasbeek. New York, 11 April, Peter Van Gaas- beek Papers, Senate House Museum, Kingston, N.Y. INKS!. 80 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR or Consent."" Onthe eve of the elections, SamuelB. Webb pre- dieted thut "The Governor & his partywill probably meet with a great mortification, the greatbody of Cityzens are much displeased with his political sentiments andConduct."" On Tuesday, 29 April, thepolls opened at 10:00 A.M. By 6:002r.m. almost 1,500 votes hadbeen cast for the Federalist ticket.° On this first day of ballotting,Antifecleralists circulated a new ticket. It was folded in such a way as to appearto be the original Federalist ticket, but in realityit placed the governor's name at the head of the Federalistcandidates, New Yorkers werewarned to beware of thiscounterfeit.° During the first three days ofthe elections, 29 April to I May, New Yorkers "laid asidetheir usual business, and paid their whole attention to the importantbusiness before them, all was conducted with perfect order andregularity, it was not a conmsted Election, the friends to an EnergeticFoedral Government were so unanimous, that no danger was tobe apprehended,a small at- tempt was made by theGovernors expireing party, in thefirst day, after which we heard no moreof them, out of about 3,000 Votes, I much doubt if they have twoHundred."42 There was no question thatFederalists had swept the city. The majority was said to be fifteen, twenty, oreven thirty toone." A total of 2,836 ballots were cast.John Jay received the highest number of votes (2,735), followedby Richard Morris (2,716). Ho- bart, Hamilton, and r ivingstoneach received 2,713 votes. Nicho- las Low, the least prp liarFederalist candidate received 2,651bal- lots. Antifederalists wore led byGovernor Clinton, who obtained a me,-e 134 votes.Marii us Willett got 108 votes andWilliam Den- ning 102. No other Anti...-cleralistreceived more than 30 votes. In the state's far west& n countyof Montgomery, it was be- lieved that Federalists wouldalso be victorious. On 13 February

saNew York Journal. 30 April. "To Catherine Hogeboom. NewYork, 27 April. Webb Family Collection. CtY. ""Extract of a Letter from a Gentleman atNew-York. to his Friend in this Town, dated April 30, 1788."Maryland Journal. 9 May. "-One of Yourselves," New YorkDaily Advertiser. 1 May. This article was also published as a broadside. stSamuel B. Webb to Catherine Hogeboom.New York. 4 May. Webb Family Collection. Ct Y. "-Extract of a Letter .. .." MarylandJournal. 9 May: to Mar- Papers, NHi: garet Beekman Livin{ston,New York. 4 May. Robert R. Livingston -Extract of a letter from New York,dated. May 5." Massachusetts Ceatiael, 10 May. New York 81

I 788 an extract from a letter published in the Massachusetts Centinel reported that "the federal cause gains strength daily" in Mont- gomery County. Federalist prospects were particularly optimistic in Montgomery because much of the property in the county was owned by wealthy Federalists from other counties. Chancellor Robert R. Livingston wrote to Philip Schuyler on 20 March and hoped "that Montgomery is not neglected." Nine days later Schuy- ler assured the chancellor that the Federal Committee of Albany County was diligently at work and "their Attention is Equally ex- tended to Montgomery and I believe we shall obtain a majority of foedral constitutionalists there."" A gentleman in Montgomery County thanked his friend in Albany for sending copies of the Constitution which were "distributed among those who stood in need thereof." They made "numerous proselytes to federalism." Henry Livingston of the upper manor appealed to Albany patroon to use his "great Influence" in the county.° , former law student and partner of John Lansing, Jr., was not so sanguine. "It is impossible to form a just Opinion at present of the general Sentiments of theInhab- itants of this County... I have conversed with but few about it, and those few were either uninformed, or as usual much divided; and I am sorry to add, that in common those who bestow the greatest Attention on the new Constitution seem to regard it more with an Eye to party Interest, than as a System of future Gover- ment. ..It is said by some Gentlemen here that a Majority of the best informed People of the County are (to use the most fash- ionable Language) on the federal Side, but for the Truth of these Assertions I can not undertake to vouchIn my opinion th.. VIerits of the important Question before us are so little enquired into & understood by the Inhabitants in General, that very few indeed have yet deliberately & from Conviction made up their Minds respecting it."46 One "Irish Landlord" was said to be "a violent Antifederalist, and denounces Vengeance against all who dare to differ from him, but unfortunately in the Transports of his Zeal he dot.not hesitate to dedare that he scorns even to read the

"Livingston tc: Schuyler, New York, 20 March. Schuyler Papers. NN: Schuy- ler to Livingsum, Albany. 29 March, LivMgston Papers, NHi. *5-Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Montgomery County. to his friend finl this city, dated April 2,- AlbanyFederal Herald.7April; Livingston to Van Rensselaer, I March. [NJ. "ToHenry Oot houdt and.feremiah Van Rensselaer, I I January 1788. James T. Mitchell Autograph Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania IPHij.

e) 82 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR new Constitution."'County clerk Christopher P.Yates believed that "The adoption of the newConstitution will be attended with such bad Consequences that weconceive it our indispensableduty to oppose it."49 Federalists expected that AbrahamVan Vechten would play a key role inwinning the Montgomery Countyelections. They had nominated him for theconvention and had "usedStrenuous Ex- ertions for his success"including the distribution of lists"with his Name inserted thro differentQuarters of the County." On 7April, however, after returningfrom Albany, Van Vechteninformed fellow Federalist candidatesPeter Schuyler and JosiahCrane that he wanted to be removedfrom the Montgomery CountyFederalist slate. Van Vechten said that"a variety of Circumstanceshave concurred to render it impossiblefor me to attend either theCon- vention or AssemblyYou'lltherefore oblige me much by striking my Name outof the List of Candidatesheld up in your District." Peter Schuyler was irate"wedeem it a late period forMr V: Veghten to retract his intentionand destroy the Effect ofhis as- surances, knowitigthat his Friends areSolicitous for preserving him as a Member toConvention, We are apprehensivethat the Consequence of his declining atthis Crisis, will CreateConfusion amongst the Election."'" Antifederalists made ...lean sweepof Montgomery's six con- vention delegates. ChristopherP. Yates, the most popularAnti- federal candidate, received1,209 votes; the lowest1,199. The most popularFederalist candidate received 811 votes;the lowest 756. Van Vechten, despitehis effort to withdrawfrom the race. received 806 votes, secondhighest among Federalistcandidates." Although tenant farmers supportedFederalist candidates to a de- gree, Antifederalistsclearly were favored by the morenumerous yeoman farmers. In Columbia County,Federalists also had high hopesbecause of the influence of theLivingstons. The campaignstarted propi- tiously in the intense wintercold when on 12 January thegrand jurors of the county courtof general sessions atClaverack en-

0/bid. orroGeorge Herkimer. Fry's Bush, 9April. Herkimer Papers, Oneida His- torical Society, Utica, N.Y. "Van Vechten to Peter Schuylerand Josiah Crane, 7 April, AbrahamVan Schuyler Papers. Vechten Papers, N Hi; PeterSchuyler to Unknown, 8 April, Peter N Hi. 9°New-York Journal, 5 June.

(.1 New York 83 dorsed the Constitution which "has in our opinion every safeguard, which human foresight can suggest, for perpetuating to our pos- terity the blessings of Freedom."" On I I March "someof the first characters in the county" met in Claverack to nominate Fed- eralist candidates. A committee "of the most respectablecharac- ters from each district" nominated aslate of candidates for the convention, Assembly, and Senate which "the Gentlemen present approved of & pledged their honors to support."" Aweek later Antifederalists met in Claverack and nominated their candidates." Federalist convention candidate Peter Van Schaack wrote that "We have some very great men among us, and a wonderfuldegree of information among the common people. Public speaking ismuch in vogue." It evoked images for Van Schaack "of thedays of ancient Greece and Rome." The campaign, however, was intense not merely "a war of tongues, but afew bloody noses have been the consequence."" Peter Ten Broeck wrote from the upperLiv- ingston manor that "all we hear here is a Constitutiontalk; as for my part I troble my head but verylittle about: relying that like all other evils it will work its own Curetho I could wishit to be adopted as in my Juvenile opinion with a few alterations it tobe a very good one &without any akeratn. better than none, sensible that something of the kind must [be] done withoutwhich this is a ruinous Country & nation & everyCitizen must naturally see & feel it: if not remedied at this time at this very junctive(we have no time to delay) it mustbe adopted or we will sink beneath the gripe of remedy."" Despite these favorable reports,Chancellor Livingston wrote Philip Schuyler about his "fearsrelative to the conduct of our friends in Columbia." Schuyler respondedthat Livingston's fears were "unhappily but too well founded;all was in confusion there."" When Schuyler left the legislature in Poughkeepsie to go home to Albany, he stopped along the way in Columbia.There he found that John Livingston had withdrawn as oneof the Fed-

"Albany Gazette, 17 January (supplement). "Hudson Weekly Gazette, 13 March. "Hudson Weekly Gazette, 20 March. "Peter Van Schaack to Henry Walton. Kinclerhook, 3 June 1788. HenryC. Van Schaack, ed.. The Die of Peter Van Schaack .. (NewYork. 1842). 425. "To Peter Van Gaasbeek, ManorLivingston, 7 April 1788, PeterVan Gaas- beck Papers, NKS. "Livingston to Schuyler, NewYork, 20 March. Schuyler Papers, N N: Schuy- ler to Livingston. Albany. 29 March, Livingston Papers. NHi. 84 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR eralist candidates for the Assembly andhad refused to support Thomas Jenkins of Hudson, anotherAssembly candidate. The thriving settlement of Hudson, recently founded as acommercial venture by New Englanders,had little good will toward the Liv- ingstons, and John Livingston declared that hewould be opposed to "every person unfriendly tohis family." Schuyler "expostulated with him on the impropriety, if not dangerof such a determina- tion; attempted to shew the disgrace which mustresult to his fam- ily, to me, and to all our friends.but in vain,he adhered to his opinions." Schuyler asked James Duane, JohnLivingston's brother- in-law, to intercede, but that too failed. Schuylerand Peter R. Livingston, John's brother, again pleadedfor a change of heart. and "after a long conversation, he promised not tointerfere one way or the other, butstill refused to stand a candidate." When Schuyler went to Claverack, however, he"learnt that Mr. Jenkins had also declared, that he should injurethe common cause, as Mr. John Livingston was so much opposed tohim."57 Peter Van Schaack then threatened towithdraw as a con- vention candidate "if such discordantIngredients still prevail."" Schuyler hurried a letter to Van Schaack in whichhe pleaded with him to stay on the tick "You stand so well at Hudson, Claverack, & Kinderhook that...ust entreat you not towithdraw your name from the nomiP..itit.. -.. If you do, the opponentswill gain a decided victory,ff you do not !withdraw l we will at leasthave one from Columbia to support the Cause."" Schuyler wasalso informed that Judge Isaac Goes "was offended" because hehad not been invited to the nomination meetingand that Goes "would probably be in opposition." All of these "circumstances Induced"Schuyler to recommend another nomination meeting atwhich he hoped Henry Livingston would be replaced by the morepopular Peter R. Liv- ingston, the chancellor's brother-in-law.Schuyler's suggested change in candidates "was not relished."The Federalist peace- maker then tried to mend fences by visitingthe "chagrined" Goes at Kinderhook. Schuylerapologized for General Robert Van Rens- selaer's oversight in not inviting Goes tothe first meeting. Goes was informed of thesecond meeting and was assured "that he would be called" to attend. Goes saidthat he would attend, and

"Mid. "ro Philip Schuyler, 3 April, Schuyk.r Papers,NN. "8 April. Schuyler Papers. NHi. New York 85

Schuyler believed that Goes would "sincerelyJoin in every mea- sure which may promotethe foedral Interest."" In leaving Columbia, Schuyler lamentedthat Federalists' "hopes of Success in that County, are smallindeed." To make matters worse, within a weekSchuyler was informed that the ten- ants in eastern Columbia wereinvolved in "Controversies about their Lands" and that they were "wonderfullypoison'd" against all the manor lords," Assemblyman Dr. of Red- hook in Dutchess County asked ChancellorLivingston to "come up early enough to take afew pains in the Elections fin Columbia and Dutchess counties]. I think youmight revive the Foederal cause."" On 30 April Dr. Alexander Coventry ofHudson wrote in his diary that "Few people [attended] at theelection." Coventry also reported that a Mr. Delemeter was"committed to jail for challenging Hezekiah Dayton, one of theboard, for putting a different ticket into the box, from the one hereceived from one of the electors."'" Robert Livingston, Jr., thirdlord of the Manor of Livingston, reported that Federalist pollwatchers saw "a num- ber of (Antifederalist] emissarys dailygoing about to poison the Tenants. .they do considerable mischief among the Ignorant but hope all they can do will not prevent ourobtaining the Desired End."5 Federalist lawyer John C. Wynkoop wrotethat about 300 votes had been evenly cast atHudson and 719 votes had been registered at Kinderhook. Wynkoop felt "sureof a federal dele- gation from" Columbia County. Peter Wynkoop,Jr., believed that Antifederalist candidates had received a slight majorityof the votes cast at Kinderhook. Healso stated that the "common report" was that the districts of King's, Hillsdale, Claverack,and Camp were Antifederalist; while Hudson, Clermont, and ManorLivingston were Federalist. It was expectedthat the county election hinged on the outcome inLivingston Manor. Peter Wynkoop believed that the results would "be in Favour of the FederalParty" because

*Schuyler to Robert R. Livingston, Albany, 29 March.Livings.on Papers, NHL el/bid, "Peter Van Schaack to Schuyler, 3 April, Van Schaack,Life af Paer Van &haat* 425. °Poughkeepsie, 31 March, Robert R. Livingston Papers, NHi. "NHL "To James Duane, Manor Livingston, 30 April, DuanePapers, NHi. 86 T H E RELUCTANT PILLAR of the "Compulsive Measures ...used to lead the Tenants."° Despite these predictions of a narrow Federalist victory,the three Antifederal convention candidates got almost 55 percentof the vote and defeated theirFederalist opponents by an average of 1,852 to 1,488. Federalist support was weakest in Ulster County, theClinton iamily home. On 14 February the freeholders andinhabitants of Kingston met and unanimously voted to oppose the newConsti- tution. A committee was appointed that drafted acircular letter to Ulster County justicesand supervisors encouraging them to adopt "a spirit of alacrity, firmness, and unanimity"in electing Antifederal candidates to the convention." It was reportedthat Ulsterites burned a copy of the Constitution and aneffigy of Alex- ander Hamilton.° Six Antifederal convention candidates werenominated for Ulster County including the governor, his olderbrother James, and Assemblyman Cornelius C. Schoonmaker.When New York City Antifederalists realized their strength in Ulster,they decided to switch Governor Clinton'scandidacy to Federalist Kings County. It was believed that Clinton could stillbe elected in Kings, thus defeating a Federalist candidate there. Clinton'sAntifederal re- placement in Ulster would also surely win. In this way,Antifed- eralists would gain an additional seat in the convention.The idea seemed sound, but as the election neared, Clinton'scandidacy in Kings was viewed with skepticism. Furthermoreit was believed that "If we dont Continue" Clinton in Ulster, "manyPeople will be Cool and many will suspect A design or Trick isintended, this you know is very easy toimprint on the Maids of the more Ignorant People,"" Schoonmaker was thus given theunpleasant task of telling Melancton Smith and the New York CityAntifederalist committee that Ulster would not give up theirfavorite son. On 4 April Schoonmaker wrote Samuel Jones andinformed him that Ulsterites would "not hazard the Election of the Governorin Kings

"John C. Wynkoop to Adrian Wynkoop. Kinderhook, 9May, Peter Van Gaasbeek Papers, NKS: Peter Wynkoop. Jr., to Peter VanGaasbeek, Kinderhook. 5 May, Franklin D. Roosevelt Collection, RooseveltLibrary. Hyde Park, N.Y. f NHpRi. "Nine-York Journal,29 February. "Brockholst Livingston to William Livingston, 15 February,Livingston Pa- pers, MHi. "Pewr Van Gaasbeek to Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Kingston.91 March. Peter Van Gaasbeek Papers, NKS. New York 87

County for fear that thefederal Machinations in theCity of New Election of the York may probablydisconcert our plans and the Governor be lost, andthat we were determinedthat he shall be voted in this County."°Coincidentally, New York CityAntifed- eralists reached the sameconclusions. They realizedthat Clinton's chances of being electedin Kings were remote,therefore they decided to run him in bothNew York City and UlsterCounty. In delegate from New this way, perhapsFederalists would be denied a York City without anydanger to Clinton's candidacy.Melancton Smith rationalized: "Forhe had better be chosenin two Places, than not to be elected atall."" George Clinton received1,372 votes in Ulster, thehighest total. His brother received905 votes, the lowesttotal of any vic- torious candidate. Thethree unsuccessfulFederalist candidates for the convention received68, 35, and 29 voteseach. Except for the brief interestin running GovernorClinton from Kings, little is knownabout the election in thisLong Island county. Acorrespondent in the NewYork Daily Advertiser, 20 ...for February, advised citizensof Kings County to "Lookabout two honest,thinking, independentfreeholders, to represent you in Convention; be governed asmuch as may be in yourchoice, by the policy on this subject,which predominates in thecity of New York; be persuadedthat pur interest isinseparably connected with that of the city, and beassured at the sametime, that a general energetic Government is bestcalculated for both, and thatthey are enemies to your prosperity,whether they know it or not,who maintain the contrary."This writer attacked thecounty's assem- blymen, Charles Doughtyand Cornelius Wyckoff,who had op- posed a state ratifyingconvention. "Dismiss themtherefore from confidence. To say nothing your service,they are unworthy of your of their abilities, they areboth" under the influenceof Queens Assemblyman Samuel Jones,who was himself a toolof the gov- ernor. Althoughthe writer nominated noparticular candidates, he warned the peopleof Kings "to beware ofthat insidious influ- ence which will veryprobably creep under variousdisguises among Caution and cen- you when youtake this important business up.

"Schoonmaker to Peter Van Gaasbeek,7 April. Franklin D. RooseveltCol- lection. N HpR. Papers, "To Cornelius C. Schoonmaker,New York, 6 April, John Lamb NHi. 88 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR ning will be practised, which mustbe opposed by steadiness and circumspection." By early April Federaliststrength was so evident that two fairly inconspicuous candidates(judge Peter Lefferts and Sheriff Peter Vandervoort) wereselected to run against the state's most successful politician. ChancellorLivingston and Congressman Leonard Gansevoort foresaw nodanger as they predicted an over- whelming Federalist victory. EvenMelancton Smith soon realized that it would "not be prudent tohazard" Governor Clinton's elec- tion in Kings. Most men in Kingscould agree with "A Flat-Bush Farmer" who wrote "that everytime I read it (the Constitution], I think it more perfectthan I before believed it tobe...the peace, happiness, andprosperity of our country depends" onthe adoption of the Constitution. Asthe election closed, Morgan Lewis announced that Federalists "havesucceeded in King's County be- yond Doubt."" Dutchess County was one of the strongestcenters of support for Governor Clinton. Since 1782only one man with federal prin- ciplesAttorney General EgbertBensonrepresented the county in the Assembly. Because ofthis political tradition, it wasexpected that Dutchess would electAntifederal delegates to the state con- vention. On 22 May Federalist Dr.Thomas Tillotson wrote that "Our affairs wear a verygloomy appearance at this time &the Great Superintendant of humanaffaires only can brighten the scene." Tillotson asked ChancellorLivingston to come to Dutchess County to "revive the Foederalcause."" For his part, ChancellorLiv- ingston was disappointed with theefforts of Dutchess County Fed- eralists. The chancellor confidedin Philip Schuyler: "Benson & our friends inDutchess County as far as I have yetlearned are unpardonably negligent. Endeavourif possible to cause them to exertion." "A large number ofrespectable citizens from tenprecincts of Dutchess County" met inOswego on 26 February and unani- mously agreed to a slate ofconvention delegates. The slate was

Livingston to Philip Schuyler, New York,20 March, Schuyler Papers, N N; Gansevoort to , NewYork, 18 March, Gansevoort-LansingPa- C. Schoonmaker, New York, 6April, Lamb Papers, pers, NN; Smith to Cornelius Margaret NHi-, "A Flat-Bush Farmer" (Broadside,New York, 21 April); Lewis to Beekman Livingston, New York, 4 May,Robert R. Livingston Papers, NHi. "Tillotson to Robert R. Livingston,Poughkeepsie, 22, 51 March, Livingston Papers, NHi. "New York. 20 March, Schuyler Papers,NN.

1 New York 89 Smith, Surrogate composed of JudgeZephaniah Platt, Melancton ,Assemblyman John Gilbert Livingston, Senator Akins." This slate DeWitt, Ezra Thompson,and Quaker Jonathan excluded was unusualin that it containedMelancton Smith but leaders, which gave"dissatisfaction" to some some powerful county moved to Antifederalists. Smith, amerchant-lawyer, had recently his adult life in Pough- New York City afterhaving lived most of keepsie. Recognized as oneof the state's leadingAntifederalists, Smith knew that he could notbe elected to theconvention from Federalist New York City. Hethus sought electionfrom his former home county where hestill maintainedpersonal and business con- nections and owned asizeable estate. Dutchess County Federalistshad two goals in theelections. they hoped to defeatMelancton Smith and First and foremost, in the con- thus deprive Antifederalistsof one of their generals probably unattainable goal wasto so divide vention. A second and slate of candi- the Antifederalist votersthat a unified Federalist victory. Dr. ThomasTillotson hinted at the dates might eke out a in order Federalist strategy: "Weprefered secret to open measures forward with that the other partymight divide before we come ournominations."6 Journal published not On 4 March thePoughkeepsie Count?). also another slate rec- only the OswegoAntifederalist slate, but ommended by "ManyANTIFEDERA LISTS."This second Anti- federalist slate was, inreality, a Federalistplant. In an opening address "To the FreeElectors of DutchessCounty," "Many of prominent ANTIFEDERALISTS"condemned the omission politicians from theOswego slate as well asthe Dutchess County told to beware inclusion of outsiderMelancton Smith. Voters were opposition to the Consti- of Smith because hehad softened his tution. The new Antifederalist list includedonly one candidate slateJacobus Swartwout.The newly recom- from the Oswego General Lewis mended candidates wereJudge Cornelius Humfrey, Graham, Colo- Duboys. Sheriff HermanHoffman, Colonel Morris nel John Drake, andDr. Barnabas Payne. slate immediatelyevoked public The second Antifederalist "Cas- comment in thePoughkeepsie CountryJournal. On 18 March slate which was "pur- sius" denouncedFederalists for this new

7sPoughkeepsie Cowan: Journal. 4March. Papers. Nth. nrIO Robert R. Livingston.22 March, Livingston

4 if 90 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR posely designed, to divide" the Antifederalist vote."Cassius" told Dutchess County Antifederalists that their opponents"are sensible that you greatly exceed them in number andrespectability.They well know, that unanimity in you, will defeatand ruin their pros- pects in this country, and, thatthe only method for them to bring about their purposes, is, to raise up jealousie among you,and to set you at variance." "Cassius"defended the selection of Melanc- ton Smith as a Dutchess Countycandidate, and affirmed what was "universally known," i.e., "that there is no manin the State more firm in his opposition to the new constitutionthan Mr. Smith; no man that more fullyharmonizes in sentiment with you concerning it; and no man that would serve you with greaterfidelity in the convention." "A Landholder," however,satirized Smith's candi- dacy in the Country Journal on 8 April byproposing a slate of seven New York City merchants who would beDutchess County's can- didates for the Assembly. Included in the list wereMelancton Smith and Federalists Comfort Sands andNicholas Low. On 1 April General Duboys, Judge Humfrey,Colonel Graham, and Sheriff Hoffman told the public not to votefor them for the con- vention. A week later, "One of the Many"reaffirmed his support for these four "self-denying" statesmen. "As inthe concernments of the tender passions commend me tothe coy withdrawing maiden, shrinking even from herself; so in politics, give methe men who must be forced from their retreats to mountthe important theatre of public life." On 18 March the Country Journal;announced a meeting to be held on 8 April in Nine-Partners district toselect a new slate of convention candidates. The meetingunanimously endorsed seven Federalists includingEgbert Benson. The meeting also ap- proved an address "To the IndependentELECTORS in Dutchess County" that was published in the CountryJournal on 15 April. The meeting believed that Americans werein the midst of "a CRISIS in the progress of our nationalExistence." The new Con- stitution was said to be "founded on the truePrinciples of Re- publican Libertythat its powers are no morethan equal to the proper objects of a nationalGovernment, our general Union, Pro- tection and Prosperity; and that a dueportion of power as a safe guard against usurpation and oppression is still toremain in the several State Governments." Finally,the meeting maintained that "it would be advisable for the [NewYork] Convention after having ratified the Constitution to propose suchamendments as on dis-

104 New York 91 cussion shall appear proper, and to bereferred to the Congress. Such a mode of Revision is practicable andsafe, every other pursuit is fallacious and may be ruinous." On the same day that Federalists met atNine-Partners, the annual meeting of the ConstitutionalSociety of Dutchess County met in the town of Amenia.The society believed that the outcome over the Constitution was"an event of the greatest importance, whereon depends our liberties, privileges,and national safety." It was agreed that theratification of the Constitution by New York would "involve ourselves in manydifficulties incompatible with a free people," consequently the societyendorsed the Oswego slate of Antifederalist candidates." Many of the persons at the Oswegomeeting reiterated their support for their slate in anaddress to the electors in the Country Journal on 15 April. They denouncedthe Federalists' appeal for the proposal of amendments after NewYork ratification. "Cer- tainly a system of government whichcontains such obvious defects as to requireimmediate correction is unworthy theadoption of a free and enlightened people." The writerreminded the electors "that the strength of a party in a great measureconsists in their unanimity; adhere therefore to this maxim,and you may be as- sured of success." Dutchess County voters adhered tothis advice as almost 67 percent of them supportedthe Oswego slate. The average Oswego candidate received 1,750 votes compared toonly 881 votes for the Federalist candidates. A Federalistcorrespondent in the Coun- try Journal, 3 June, rationalizedthis one-sided result. To obtain one-third of the vote was a real victorybecause at the beginning of the year only one-twentieth of thepopulation would have sup- ported Federalist candidates. "So farfrom being chagrined at the result of the Election in this County,"the correspondent viewed "it as a source of consolation and triumph."Antifederalists, how- ever, elected all sevenof their candidates. The most heated election inthe state occurred in Albany County. Federalists were confident of'victory. The city of Albany, long voting in tandem with New YorkCity, was believed to be strongly Federalist. The countryside wasfilled with vast manors and estates of Federalist aristocratstheSchuylers, the Van Rens- selaers, the Duanes, the Ten Broecks,the Gansevoorts, and the

"Poughkeepsie Country Journal. 15 April 92 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR Cuylers. The only Antifederalistlanded aristocrats of any size in Albany County were the Lansings, theTen Eycks, the Douws, and the lesser Van Rensselaers. On 12 February AlbanyAntifederalists met and formed a committee to direct the county'selection campaign. Party politics raged as Antifederalists workedtirelessly to convince the people of the dangers inherent in theproposed Constitution. Major Wil- liam North of Duanesburgh,inspector of the and James Duane's son-in-law,reported that "The Centinel, the farmers letters, & every other publicationagainst the Constitution are scattered all overthe County."" Despite these tirelessefforts, Leonard Gansevoort believed that theAntifederalists could not succeed"the Minds of the People arewell impressed that the present Government isinefficient...and embrace the present plan as the only one held out.""North, however, was not so op- timistic: "if the Federalists do not exertthemselves ...they will be beaten."6° Antifederalists, infact, surprised themselves. Abra- ham G. Lansing wrote that "OurMeasures have hitherto a most favorable aspect and if we Continue ourExertionswe have the greatest prospect of success."91 Federalists followed their opponents'example and created an election committeeled by Albany merchant RobertMcaallen. On 12 March McCiallen wrote JamesDuane asking him to use his "influence among the Inhabitants ofDuanesburgh" and request- ing him to write to the otherlanded aristocrats in Albany County to urge them to assist inthe campaign." Both election committeescampaigned hard. Judge Henry Oothoudt, an Antifederal conventioncandidate, wrote that not "since the settlement of America"had "such exertions ...been made upon a question of any kind asthe present upon the New Constitution. Those who advocatethe measure are engaged from morning until evening they travelboth night and day to proselyte the unbelieving antifederalsTheyhave printed in hand Bills their lists...by thousands."" On 12 Marchthe small northern district of Scatakoke met "for the purposeof knowing the sentiments of

"To Henry Knox, Albany, 13 February,Knox Papers. Mill "To Peter Gansevoort, Albany, 13 February,Gansevoort-Lansing Papers, N N. "To Henry Knox. Albany, 13 February.Knox Papers. "To Abraham Yates, Jr., 12 March,Yates Papers. NN. "Duane Papers, NHL "To John McKesson, Albany, 3 April,McKesson Papers, Nth.

tild New York 93 the people on the ImportantSubject.. when there appeared a majority" of 27 to 5 in favor ofthe Constitution." TheLansing- burgh Federal Herald could notpredict who would win the county elections, but on 5 May itannounced that four-fifthsof Lansing- burgh was "federal" and thatthe district had "a majorityof near 300 federal voters." Despitethis favorable projection,Federalist convention candidate jeronemusHoogland of Lansingburgh warned Philip Schuyler aboutthe Antifederalists' attempt "toDi- vide the Federalist [vote by]publishing a Variety of Lists of persons held up for members of theIntended Convention."Hoogland suggested that Federalists print one ortwo thousandhandbills for Albany County "Recommending properpersons for ourmembers, Setting forth the Designsof the Antifederalists & thoseSign'd by a few of the mostInfluential Characters who arefor our measures in the Countyit wouldbe well I think to have some menof Activity who can be Depended on toattend each District Election, with a parcel of those handBills with themDepend on itthe Enemies of the New Constitution aremaking great Efforts to carry their favourite point & I haveReason to think they make too great a Progress intheir business. They will beunited while I fear we will without great care beDivided."'" Chairman of theAntifederal committee Jeremiah VanRensselaer was confident, but hewarned some of hisdistrict lieutenants to "attend atthe Polls constantly until it is closed to see thatall Matters are properlyconducted. We rely on your Exertionsand from the fair Prospectsin every Part of the County wehave no dottht of ZuccessWe expect a decided Majority in thisCity." Van Rensselaer alsowarned the district leaders about an attempt to pressuremanor tenants."We are told thatthe Patroon Tenants are tofold up their Ballots in a particularMannerif they do, you willdirect the anti Voters to do the same."86 The Albany County boardof supervisors met from27 to 29 May. Before counting theballots, the supervisorsinvalidated the votes from Stephentown, adistrict twenty miles east ofAlbany, because a majority of thatdistrict's election inspectors hadfailed to sign theballots." When the results ofthe county election were announced, Federalists were"much Crest fallen andhave very

"Lansingburgh Federal Herald, 17 March. "Lansingburgh. I March, Schuylef Papers,NN. N. rro Benjamin Egbertsen, JonathanNiles, and others. Albany, 20 April, "Proceedings of the Supervisors of theCity and County of Albany. N. 94 THERELUCTANT PILLAR

Little to say."99 Antifederalist candidates "had a Majorityin every District except the City of Albany" where Federalists had won a "respectable majority." A total of 7,449 votes were cast for con- vention delegates." All seven Antifederal candidates, including Robert Yates and John Lansing, Jr., were overwhelmingly elected. The seven Antifederalists got an average of 4,670 voteseach; the seven Federalist candidates received an averageof 2,618 votes apiece. Little is known of the elections in Queens, Orange, and Wash- ington counties. Federalist Leonard Gansevoort reported in mid- March that Queens was "somewhat divided but our Friends are very sanguine that they will carrytheir whole ticket of nomina- tion."" Three weeks later, however, the New York City Antifed- eralist Committee wrote "that the people begin to pay attention to the subject of the proposedConstitution and the opposition is formidable and increasing."91 On the day after the elections dosed, Morgan Lewis, the chancellor's brother-in-law, felt confident that Federalists had won at least two of the county's four convention seats." Despite this prediction, Antifederalists continuedtheir dominance in Queens. The New York Daily Advertiser, 7 June, reported that Autifederalists had swept the elections in Oyster Bay, North Hempstead, and South Hempstead; while Federalists were successful in the less populous Jamaica, Flushing, and Newtown. Antifederalist candidates received 518, 517, 484, and 476 votes compared to 416, 415, 411, and 401 for the Federalists. Agricultural Orange County strongly supported Governor Clinton's policies. Abraham Yates, jr., predicted that theelections in Orange would "be Carried entirely By the opposers ofthe Con- stitution."" The New York Daily Advertiser, 14 June,printed an extract of a letter from Orange County inwhich only Antifed-

"Abraham G. Lansing to Abraham Yates, Jr., 27 May, Yates Papers, NN. "Matthew Visscher to Abraham Yates, Jr., John McKesson, andMelancton Smith, Albany, 30 May, Yates Papers, NN. reported that 'itrained almost continually" during the five election days and that "The roads areexceed- ingly bad." He said that the election at Schoharie went against theFederalists by -a Majority of 3 to I." To (James Duanej, Duanesburg, 4 May.William North Papers, N. "To Peter Gansevoort, New York, 18 March. Gansevoort-LansingPapers, N N. "To Gentlemen, 6 April, Lamb Papers, NHi. "To Margaret Beekman Livingston. New York, 4 May, Robert R.Livingston Papers. NHi. "To Abraham G. Lansing. Poughkeepsie, 28 February, Yates Papers.NN.

AA% 10 8 New Yerk 95 eralists were said to have received VOWSfor the convention. Jesse Woodhull, the most popular candidate,received 340 votes; the other three Antifederalists candidatesreceived 332, 331, and 221 votes, respectively. Antifederalists had strong support inagricultural Washing- ton County. FederalistLeonard Gansevoort, upon hearingthat the popular Senator John Williamshad decided to run for the convention, lamented that "the federalistswill be overpowered in that Quarter." Federalist success inWashington County could oniy be whieved if Albany CountyFederalists campaigned in Wash- ington." But Albany County Antifederalists werealso aware of their own important role in thcstate's northern settlements. Throughout March and April they sentAntifederalist agents and literature to Washington County fromwhich they reported that "our political Affairs wear afavorable Aspect."" No results of the convention elections were published inthe state's newspapers, but the New-York Journal, 7 June, reportedthat "it is supposed that the antifederal ticket will be carriedby a respectable majority." Most New Yorkers expected StatenIsland (Richmond County) to be solidly alignedwith New York City in support of theCon- stitution. Leonard Gansevoort predictedthat Richmond would "be unanimously federal."" In early AprilAssemblyman Abraham Bancker reported that the election wasthe only news in Rich- mond"the Spirit of Electioneering has notrisen to N.) high a Pitch for three Years past." Banckertold his cousin Evert that he intended to stand for election to boththe Assembly and conven- tion. Bancker believed his chancesof being elected were as good as ar one else's,but because -Party seems much toprevail," it was difficult tt)predict the results. In any case, ifBancker was elected it would "be by the free andunbiassed Suffrages of the people," in which case he would "befree to serve" the people. Bancker would not "officiate" in anyother "Capacity."8' Throughout the next month, AbrahamBancker continually ap- peared "among the People" as acandidate. "Much Policy and Chicanery," he said, "has been usedby certain Characters, I am

"To Peter Gansevoort, New York, 18March, Gansevoort-Lansing Papers. NN. "Albany Antifederalist Committee to JohnLamb, 12 April, Lamb Papers. N HI "To Peter Gansevoort, New York. 18March, Gansevoon-Lansing Papers, NN. "3 April, Bancker Family Correspondence.NHL /C9 tl 96 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR apprehensive that by low and subtile Craftiness, I shall fallshort of the Convention, but even that is conjecture." Hehad the righ- teous feeling, however, that he had "acted anupright Part, neither made Interest for myself, nor denied it to be made byothers."99 Rancker's upright role succeeded as he was the top vote-getter "without Soliciting One Vote to the Great Disappointment ofSome individuals."99 Federalist Judge Gozen Ryerss was also elected to the convention from Richmond. Federalists and Antifederalists in New York City were both optimistic about election prospects in Suffolk County.Geograph- ically the Long Island county was allied with Federalist NewYork City, but demographically the county was almosttotally agricul- tural with no cities or landed, aristocratic gentry.Politically Suffolk County had been divided between Clinton'sfriends and oppo- nents. Leonard Gansevoort believed thatSuffolk County would "be unanimously federal," while Melancton Smith wrote that"Ap- pearances on Long Island are favourable to our cause,and I have strong hopes, if proper exertions aremade that all will go well." The New York City Antifederal Committeeechoed Smith by writ- ing that the opposition to the Constitution onLong Island was "formidable and increasing."l® By the first week of April a Federalist slate of candidates was circulating in Suffolk calling for the election of GeorgeSmith, Judge Selah Strong, Benjamin Hunting, NathanielGardiner, and Senator Ezra L'Hommedieu. On 5 April AssemblymanJonathan N. Havens wrote John Smith that he was not eager tobecome a convention candidate. Two days later Havens wrote asupplement to John Smith. Havens was unsurewhether Smith would even consider being a convention candidate. Havens, himself,said that he did not care "a fig about it," but hetold Smith that what concerned him was "the ridicule that may be thrown upon usboth at home and abroad, for it will besaid we were dropt on account of our being antis."'"

"To , Staten Island. 4 May, Bancker FamilyCorrespondence, N Hi. "Adrian Bancker to Even Bancker, Staten Island, 29 May,Bancker Family Correspondence, NHi. '"Gansevoort to Peter Gansevoort, New York, 18 March,Gansevoort-Lan- sing Papers. NN: Smith to Cornelius C. Schoonmaker,New York, 6 April, Lamb Papers, NHi; Antifederalist Committee Circular Letter, NewYork, 6 April, Lamb Papers, NHL '6"Sagharbour, John Smith Misc. Mss, New York 97

When news of the Federalist slatereached New York City, Antifederalists there were irate. New YorkCounty Surrogate , until recently a resident ofSuffolk, wrote John Smith a scathing letter on 9 April. "For Shameyou mustStir yoursdf meet your Friends somewhereagree upon a good listholdthem up persevereeven to theendCharacters you knowgo through the Countydon't lie Idle."'" Gelston'sgoading had its effect. By 21 April Judge Thomas Treadwell wastravelling throughout the county with an Antifederalistlist. Treadwell painted "the dredful consiquences that will follow this adoptionof the Constitution in as high coulers asthe Prophet Daniel did thedistress of the Babilo- nians previous to their destruction."'" New York City politicians tooknothing for granted. They inundated Suffolk County withpamphlets written by John Jay and Melancton Smith. John Smith believedthat if copies of Melancton Smith's pamphlet "had been generallydespersed through the County two or three Weeks soonerthey would have convinced the greater part of the Peopleof the impropriety of adoptingthe New Constitution previous toits being amended."°4 No vote totals are available forSuffolk County. The election, however, must have been close because aslate as 15 May Federalist Ezra L'Hommedieu believedthat he had been elected to the con- vention.'" Not until 2 and 5 June didthe New-York Journal an- nounce thatAntifederalists had carried the county. The outcome in WestchesterCounty was also uncertain. Westchester had extensive manorsmany,however, were in the process of being divided.The county's assemblymen hadvacillated over the last several years,sometimes supporting and sometimes opposing paper money and anunconditional federal impost. But Westchester's assemblymen had voted toelect John Lansing, Jr., instead ofjames Duane to theConstitutional Convention in March I 787 and they had voted to censurethe Constitutional Convention for violating its instructions. On 28 February 1788 AbrahamYates, Jr., reported that "Antiferal Business is Carried on in . ..Westchester with Spirit.'"06

'"John Smith to David Gelston 125-27Apri11, John Smith Misc. Mss, NHi.

"*To Leonard Gansevoort, SuffolkCounty. 15 May. Gratz Collection, Old Congress, PHi. '"To Abraham G. Lansing, Yates Papers,NN. 98 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR Connecticut Federalist Jeremiah Wadsworth worried about West- chester's Antifederalism. As he passed through thetownship of East Chester, Wadsworth "found the Ante's had beenbusy and too Successfull."°' LeonardGansevoort, however, happily wrote his son about the events in Westchester. Philip VanCortlandt, the lieutenant governor's son, had become active in thecampaign. Van Cortlandt had been called forth "as outof a Gothic Cloister, and the Air so strongly impregnated withfederalism has infused into his nostrils the aromatic, his whole frameinfected with the contagion has called him forth to Action and hastransported him from extreme inaction to increasing exertion. he ismaking In- terest to be returned a Delegate andfrom the Influence which his Office as Commissioner of forfeiture has acquired himand his established reputation for probity and Integrity willdoubtless in- sure him success. how itwill go with the Members he is supporting in general is very uncertain, the People havein general a tincture of antifederalism. tho' it is said that six Stateshaving already adopted the Constitution stifles in a great Measurethe latent sparks."° Lewis Morris, the elderly lord of Morrisaniaand brother of the state's chief justice, had tried to get his sonWilliam nom- inated to the convention. Westchester Federalists,however, sensed the danger and insisted that the manor lordhimself stand as a candidate. To run the younger Morris "was putting toomuch at stake."°9 As the election closed, Morgan Lewis reportedthat Fed- eralists "have the most flattering prospects" inWestchester, "un- less the votes of Bedford should be rejected, on Accountof some Irregularity in the Appointment of their Inspectors."0The an- ticipated problem in Bedford apparently nevermaterialized. An extract of a letter from a gentlemanin Westchester, published in the New York Daily Advertiser, 2 June, reported"that the Federal Ticket...has prevailed by a majority of two to one. Sodecisive a victory, I frankly confess, has exceeded my mostsanguine expec- tations." In fact, Federalists swept WestchesterCounty with 64 percent of the vote. The sixFederalist candidates averaged 655

""To Henry Knox, 17 April, Knox Papers, MHi. mrro Peter Gansevoort, New York, 18 March.Gansevoort-Lansing Papers. NN. "9Kenneth Rendell Catalog 78; Item 92 (1972):3 1. "'To Margaret Beekman Livingston, New York, 4 May,Robert R. Liv- ingston Papers, NHi. New York 99 votes to their opponents'374. Abraham Yates, Jr., bemoaned the way that Westchesterhad "been most Shamefully takenin."m No single factor can explain the countydivisions over the Constitution. Various explanations have beensuggested: north vs. south, merchant vs, farmer, tory vs. whig,debtor vs. creditor, aristocrat vs. democrat, and states rights vs.nationalism, All of these elements were indeed present in New Yorkpolitics, although no one dichotomy totallyexplains the election of convention del- egates. One overriding issueseemed to tie all of New York's con- flicts together. To a remarkable degree the contest overthe elec- tion of convention delegates was a conflictbetween Clintonianism and the proposed Constitution. It wassuggested that Clinton, "The Helmsman leads a majority by the nose just ashe pleases."2 An- other correspondent believed that GovernorClinton "is at the head of the opposition, and it is believedthat if he would say ya, nineteen twentieths of the anti-federabstswould say so too. If it be so, the opposition in this state, thoughapparently formidable, is in fact involved in one man."3 Whatever the reasons for the division overthe voting, a cor- respondent in a widely circulated newspaper essaylamented the party spirit that had developed."Wherever the spirit of party reigns, the public weal generally falls asacrifice to it." Despite the one-sided Antifederalist victory, it washoped that the convention would give the Constitution "a fair discussion.""But if blind prej- udice, predetermined opposition, and'silent negatives' are to he characteristic of our Convention, ourreputation as a Sovereign State will be deservedly lost forever!"4

The Convention At 11:0 A.M. on Saturday the14th of June 1788, Governor Clin- ton and a number of otherAntifederalist delegates left New York City without fanfare aboard aPoughkeepsie sloop "determined

"'To Abraham G. Lansing, 1 June, YatesPapers, NN. "*"Extract of a letter from New York, July 20, 1788,"New Hampshire Spy, 29 July. "2"Extract of a letter from a gentleman in NewYork. to his friend in this City, dated May 24," Charleston ColumbianHerald, 19 JUne. John Vaughan, a Philadelphia merchant. wrote thatGovernor Clinton's **opposition is the only formidable one." Whatever directionClinton would take. "New York follows of course." N. d.. Dkkinson Papers, Free Libraryof Philadelphia. "'New.York Parket, 6 June.

113 100 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR not to ars pt [theConstitution) without previousamendments tho all the (Afters should."5 Sevenhours later James Duane, John Sloss Hobart, and other Federalistdelegates started their trek up the Hudson, cheered on by the"loud acclamations" of "a great concourse of citizens" andsaluted by thirteen discharges of cannon from the bauery."5 As the delegatesconverged on Poughkeepsie, they realized the critical situationof the state and country. Eight of the required nine states hadalready ratified the new Consti- tution and the New Hampshireand were in session. It was expected that NewHampshire would ratify; Vir- ginia's decision was uncertain. Sixty-one of the sixty-five delegatesattended the opening session of the New York Convention at noon on17 June. Governor Clinton was unanimously electedpresident, other convention of- ficers were appointed, and the doors ofthe convention were or- dered open to the public. After thelegislature's resolution calling the state convention was readand a rules committee was ap- pointed, the convention adjourned to11:00 the next morning. On the 18th, the convention agreed tothe rules brought in by the committee, read the Constitution andthe resolutions of the Con- stitutional Convention and Congress,and ordered these docu- ments printed so thateach member of the conventionwould have his own copy. Albany delegateJohn Lansing, Jr., moved thatthe convention meet the next day as acommittee of the whole to discuss the Constitution." That evening "Federalists intimatedtheir wish" that Chief Justice Richard Morris be madechairman of the committee of the whole. Antifederalists, however, hadother plans, On Thursday morning, 19 June, Judge HenryOothoudt was elected chairman and Federalists "acquiescedwithout opposition." After the Con- stitution and other papers were readin the committee of the whole, Chancellor Robert R. Livingston roseand delivered an hour-long oration in a low voice that was hard tohear amid the noise of the

"5Abrabam Yates, Jr.. to Abraham G. Lansing,New York. 15 June. Yates Papers. NN. "81siew York Daily Adwrtiser. 16 June. "rrhe manuscari t and printed journalsof the convention are brief skeletal ings. For greater details of the eventsincluding reports of outlines of the proc of debates taken by Francis Childs, see The Debatesand Proceedings of the Cotwennon the State of Neu-Ktrk .(New York, 1788). mJohn Lansing, Jr., to Abraham Yates,Jr., Poughkeepsie, 19 June. Gan- sevoort-Lansing Papers, N N.

114 New York 101 crowded convention. The chancellorexpounded on thq deficien- cies of the Articles of Confederationand condemned New York's inflexible policy on the federal impost.He warned the delegates of the dangers facing New Yorkoutside the Union. Staten Island might be seized by New Jersey andLong Island by Connecticut. Northern New York would be endangeredby Canadians and land- grabbing Vermonters, while westernNew York would be increas- ingly threatened by the British andtheir Indian allies. Livingston thus urged that the delegatesconsider the new Constitution ob- jectively, not from the point of viewof interested state office- holders, which many of the delegates were,but with the open minds of citizens with the bestinterests of the state and country at heart. In closing, hemoved that the Constitution bediscussed by paragraphs and that no votesbe taken on the Constitution or any parts of it untilthe whole had been discussed.Antifederalists agreed to Livingston's motion withthe proviso that amendments to the Constitutioncould be proposed and debated at anytime. The vote on Chancellor Livingston'smotion was critical. A number of Antifederalists both inand out of the convention were displeased with the decision. JohnLansing feared "some Injury from a long delay," while DavidGelston in New York City was disappointed that the convention did notadjourn "immediately after reading the Constitution."9Abraham G. Lansing, the Albany County surrogate and youngerbrother of John, was apprehensive that "we will eventually be injuredby delays, notwithstanding the decided majority."20 Federalistdelegate Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand, reported to JamesMadison on 19 June that "there is every appearance that a fulldiscussion will take place, which will keep us together at least afortnight." Two days later Hamilton again wrote Madison that "theonly good information I can give you is that we shallbe sometime together and takethe chance of events."' Federalists had won thefirst major battle of the con- ventionthey had avoided an immediateadjournment or rejec- tionthey had won a three to fourweek reprieve during which time they hoped to hear that NewHampshire and Virginia had ratified the Constitution. AbrahamG. Lansing feared the influ- ence of these other states onAntifederalist delegates, but he was more fearful that "ourCountry Friends with whom it is nowthe

"911nd,; Gelston to John Smith. 21 June.John Smith Misc. Mss. NHL 1"To Abraham Yates. Jr.. 22 June. YatesPapers. NN. ""Rutiand. Madison, X1:156. 165.

1 i 5 102 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR Busy Season," might leave the convention to tend totheir farms. He therefore appealed to Abraham Yates, Jr.,then in New York City attending Congress, "to write Swart, Vrooman, Yates, etc . urging them to stay until the Business is compleated."'n Many Antifederalists saw little danger from consideringthe Constitution by paragraphs. Only a handful of delegates had come to the convention with the idea of animmediate rejection of the Constitution. A greater number of Antifederaliststhought that the convention might adjourn quickly to reconveneperhaps in the spring or summer of 1789. In any event, with theadvantage of a two-to-one majority, Antifederalistsdid not _wish to give the impression that they were unfair. They would listen tothe argu- ments of their opponents. Antifederalists were also buoyed by recent news from Vir- ginia. Patrick Henry, George Mason, and otherVirginians had sent a copy of their proposedamendments to the Constitution and asked the New York Convention "to agree on the necessary Amendments" and communicate them to Virginia as soon as pos- sible.'" New York Antifederalists appointed a committee of cor- respondence, chaired by Robert Yates, an Albany delegate,that responded to their Virginia counterparts on 21 June. "We are happy to find that your Sentiments with respect to theAmend- ments correspond so nearly with ours,and that they stood on the Broad Basis of securing the Rights and equallypromoting the Happiness of every Citizen in the Union. OurConvention.. . yielded to a Proposal made by our Opponents to discussthe Con- stitution in a Committee of the whole, without putting aQuestion on any Part, providedthat in the course of this Discussion, we should suggest the Amendments or Explications, which wedeemed necessary to the exceptionablePartsFully relying on the Steadi- ness of our Friends, we see noDanger in this Mode and we came into it to prevent the Opposition from charging uswith Precipi- tation. . .We have ...the fullest Reliance that neither Sophistry Fear or Influence will effect any Change" in theAntifederalists.'" Other Antifederalists agreed that the "Unanimit)!and Harmony" among the Clintonians "shut outthe Shadow of Hope in the Fed- eralists, of creating Divisions." " 'ft22 June, Yates Papers, NN. nohn Lamb to George Clinton, New York. 17 June. LambPapers, NHL '"Robert Yates to George Mason, Poughkeepsie, 21 June,Emmet Collec- tion. N N. Injames M. Hughes to John Lamb, Poughkeepsie. 18 June,Lamb Papers. NHi.

11G New York 103

Federalists, however, spied a glimmer of hope. Almostim- mediately, Hamilton, Livingston, and John Jay began"singling out the Members in Opposition(when out of Convention) and conversing with them on the subject." Jay wrotehis wife that "the Event" was uncertain, but "I do not despair . .altho I see much Room for apprehension." Hamilton said that"the minor partisans have their scruples and an air of moderationis now as- sumed. So far the thing is not to be despairedof."1" On 20 June John Lansing responded toChancellor Living- ston's oration by saying that the problems of theConfederation could be solved if Congress were given the power toraise men and money. Fear of the dissolution of the Union,however, should not be the reason to adoptthe new Constitution. Lansing looked upon the abandonmentof the Union "with pain," but it was better to break up the Union than to"submit to any measures, which may involve in its consequencesthe loss of civil liberty." Lansing also attacked Livingston's insinuation that stateofficeholders op- posed the Constitution for selfish reasons. Such "anilliberality of sentiment," he maintained, "would disgrace the worstcause." Dutchess County delegate Melancton Smith hopedthat the convention would now discuss the Constitution byparagraphs. He was tired of "general observations."Addressing the convention, Smith said that "he was disposed to make everyreasonable conces- sion, and indeed to sacrifice every thing for aUnion, except the liberties of his country." There was no doubt thatthe Confed- eration was defective, but that was no proof"that the proposed Constitution was a good one." He then turnedthe tables on Liv- ingston by suggesting that some mensupported the Constitution because they thirsted for federal office. After thisdigression, Smith addressed the first part of the Constitution. Heobjected to slaves being included in the apportionment of congressional represen- tatives, to the small number of federal representatives,and to the ratio of one representative for every 30,000inhabitants. Hamilton immediately responded, referring to "theimbe- cility of our Union" under the Confederationand predicting "that a rejection of theConstitution may involve most fatal conse- quences." He agreed that "we ought not to beactuated by un-

"Tharles Tillinghast to John Lamb, Poughkeepsie, 21 June,Lamb Papers, NHi. t"Poughkeepsie. 21 June, N. tUrro James Madison, Poughkeepsie, 19 June,Rutland, Madison, XI:156.

:117 104 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR reasonable fear, yet we ought to beprudent." He reprobated the idea of giving the ConfederationCot.gress the power over men and money"Will any man whoentertains a wish for the safety of his country, trust the sword andthe purse with a single Assem- bly?" To give the ConfederationCongress such powers "wouldbe to establish a despotism."Hamilton had much more to saybut, after an hour, he asked theconvention's leave because "1feel myself not a little exhausted." On Saturday, 21 June, JohnWilliams of Washington County addressed the convention for the firsttime. He believed "that all our present difficulties are notto be attributed tothe defects in the Confederation." The extravagantconsumption of foreign lux- uries also contributed to thehard times of postwar America.He called for a thorough examinationof the Constitution to seeif it would "preserve the invaluableblessings of liberty, and secure the inestimable rights of mankind. If itbe so, let us adopt it.But if it be found to containprinciples, that will lead to thesubversion of libertyIf it tends toestablish a despotism, or whatis worse, a tyrannical aristocracy, let usinsist upon the necessaryalterations and amendments," He tooobjected to Chancellor Livingston's "imaginary dangers: For to say that abad government must be established for fear of anarchy, is inreality saying that we must kill ourselves for fear of dying."Smith, Lansing, and Hamilton followed with long orations, thelatter concluding "that afirm union is as necessary to perpetuate ourliberties, as it is to make us respectable;and experience will probably prove,that the na- tional government will be asnatural a guardian of ourfreedom, as the statelegislatures themselves." Governor Clinton then reiterated someof the objections to the small number of federalrepresentatives. He concluded by stat- ing that the United States was a vastterritory and that the states weredissimilar"Their habits, their productions,their resources, and their political andcommercial regulations are asdifferent as those of any nation on earth."Hamilton attacked the governor's inference "that no general free governmentcan suit" the states. He maintained that "thepeople of America are as uniformin their interests and manners, as thoseof any established in Europe."The governor was aghast atthe "unjust and unnaturalcolouring" given to his statements.He declared "that thedissolution of the Union is, of all events, the remotestfrom my wishes." Hamilton,the governor said,wished "for a consolidatedIwish for a federal

s New York 105 republic. The object of both of us is a firm energetic government: and we may both have the good of our country in view:though we disagree as to the meansof procuring it." On 24 June word arrived in Poughkeepsie by expressrider that New Hampshire had ratified the Constitution.Although the news had been expected, no onereally knew what the actual event would do to Antifederalist solidarity. Antifederalist delegates were pleased with the reaction. Chairman Oothoudt reported thatthe news "Does not seem to make anImprestion. I Expect it will not.""9 Christopher P. Yates of Montgomery County wrotethat "we stand firm we have as yet lost no ground. ...there is not the most distant fear of a division amongourselves.. ..I observe no change in the countenances, the opinion or theresolution of any."° Governor Clinton wrote that "The Antis areFirm & I hope and believe will remain so to the End."Antifederalist ob- servers in Poughkeepsieagreed. DeWitt Clinton, the governor's nephew, believed that "The Republican Members are (to use an expression of the Plebian) united as one man."" AbrahamG. Lansing reported that Antifederalists congratulatedtheir oppo- nents on New Hampshire'sratification and expressed "our satis- faction that they can now give the New System anExperiment without Interfering in the politics of the State of NewYork." Although not discouraged by New Hanipshire's ratification, Lansing and other Antifederalists still worried about "theLength of Time which must necessarily elapse before theBusiness can be concluded." Lansing also believed that a report ofratification by Virginia will have "a more serious effect I fear upon theSpirits and determination of our Friends."4 In New York City,Abraham Yates, Jr., was asked by several members ofCongress what the state of New York would do nowthat the new government was going to be established. His response was that NewHampshire's ratification was irrelevant; New York would ratify theConstitution but "slot without previous Amendments.""

t"To Abraham Yates, Jr.. Poughkeepsie, 27 June, Yates Papers,NN. I"To Abraham Yates, Jr.. Poughkeepsie, 27 June, Yates Papers,NN. l"To Abraham Yates. Jr.. Poughkeepsie, 28,June, YatesPapers, NN. t"To Charles Tillinghast, Poughkeepsie, 27 June, DeWittClinton Papers, N NC. "To Abraham Yates, Jr., Poughkeepsie, 29 June. YatesPapers, NN. "4Ihzd. 1"To Abraham G. Lansing. New York. 25 June, YatesPapers. NN.

r 9 106 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR New Hampshire's ratification did have aneffect on Me lanc- ton Smith, the Antifederalists'convention manager. Smith hoped that the news would convince hisfellow Antifederalists "to con- sider what is proper to be done in the presentsituation of things," but he could "scarcely perceive any" changein attitude. Smith feared "that there will not be a sufficient degreeof moderation in some of our most influential men, calmly toconsider the cir- cumstances in which we are and toaccommodate our decisions to those circumstances." Perhaps, Smithbelieved, it would be best not to ratify the Constitutionwith conditions. Rather, Smith for- mulated in his own mind a new plan thatcalled for the convention to ratify the Constitutionunconditionally but with the proviso that New York would withdraw from theUnion if a second constitu- tional convention was not called within a year or two.Smith pro- posed this scheme to his friend MassachusettsCongressman Na- than Dane, but did not present this newidea to the convention at this time." Philip Schuyler, observing the convention inPoughkeepsie, sensed a slight change in Antifederalisttactics. He believed that "the Antis do not seem inclined to makemuch speed in the busi- ness. they probably wish tolearn the result of Virginia's conven- tion."" The latest news from Virginia wasdiscouraging to Fed- eralists. James Madison had writtenHamilton on 15 June about the critical state of affairs in Richmond.On 25 June Hamilton responded that "Our chance of successhere is infinitely slender, and none at all if you go wrong." Twodays later Hamilton wrote again that "our chance of success depends onyou."s Events, however, turned in the Federalists'favor, and on 25 June the Virginia Convention ratified theConstitution with re- commendatory amendments. News of theimportant c vent reached New York Chy on 2 July at 2:00 A.M. Within tenhours the news reached Poughkeepsie by express rider.Federalists were elated; Antifederalists concerned. OutwardlyAntifederalists again said that Virginia's ratification had made "noimpressions upon the republican menfbers," but slight signsof disunity began to appear.'" "aSmith to Dane, Poughkeepsie, 28 June.Dane Papers, Beverly Historical Society. "To Henry Van Schaack, 24 June. Henry VanSchaack Scrapbook. The Newbeny Library, Chicago, Ill. "altutland, Madison, XI:179-80, 183. 1"DeWitt Clinton to Charles Tillinghast, Poughkeepsie,2 July, DeWitt Clin- ton Papers, NNC. New York 107

As soon as news of Virginia reached Poughkeepsie, Feder- alists adopted a completely different tactic in the convention. Up until that time, Federalists had delayed the convention proceed- ings hoping for favorable news from New Hampshire and Virginia. Now Federalists stopped debating. Queens County delegate Na- thaniel Lawrence reported on 3 July that previously Federalists had "disputed every inch of ground but today they have quietly suffered us to propose our amendments without a word in op- position to them."4 During its first two weeks, the convention had debated only the first eight sections of Article I. During the next five days, the remainder of the Constitution wassped through as Antifederalist amendments weresubmitted without Federalist comment. What were Federalists up to? It seems as if Federalists had gotten all the benefits possible out of their strategy of delay.They now wished to see what Antifederalistsplanned to do with their amendments. Federalists believed that an outright rejection of the Constitution was unlikely. While hoping for unconditional ratifi- cation accompanied by recommendatory amendments, Federalists thought that adjournment was preferable to conditional ratifica- tion. Abraham Yates, Jr., warned Governor Clinton and Abraham G. Lansing that Federalists hoped to adjourn the convention so that during the recess the members "will be Seperated and open to their Management" while "the Statewould be in Continual Convulsion. "i' On 7 July the convention finished discussing the Constitution and John Lansing read a bill of rights that was "to be prefixed to the constitution." For the next two days, no business was trans- acted in the convention as Antifederalists caucused in order to arrange their proposed amendments. Hamiltonand John Jay sensed that the "Party begins to divide in their opinions." Some A nti- federalists favored previous conditional amendments, others fa- vored ratification for a number of years "on Condition that certain Amendments take place within a given Time," and still others favored unconditional ratification with recommendatory amend- ments. Federalists saw "some ground of hope."142

14°To John Lamb, Poughkeepsie. Lamb Papers, NHi. "'To Abraham G. Lansing, New York. 29 June, and to George Clinton. New York. 27 June, Yates Papers, NN. nay to George Washington, Poughkeepsie, 4-8 July. Washington Papers. DLC: Hamilton to James Madison, Poughkeepsie, 8 July. Rutland, Madison,X1:187.

1 ° 1

s 108 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR submitted a plan ofamendments On 10 July John Lansing There which represented acompromise among Antifederalists. kinds of amendments: (1)explanatory, (2) conditional, were three bill of rights and and (3) recommendatory.The first included a of unclear portions ofthe Constitution. The some explanation convention conditional amendmentsprovided that, until a general considered these matters,Congress should not (1)call the state militia to serve outsideNew York for longerthan six weeks without the consent of the statelegislature, (2) regulatefederal elections within New York, or (3)collect direct taxes in NewYork without first requisitioning the taxfrom the state. Therecommendatory amendments, which were"numerous and important,"would be considered by the firstfederal Congress underthe Constitution. Livingston, and RichardMorris attacked the John Jay, Chancellor as plan as "a gilded Rejection"that Congress would never accept Governor Clinton, andLan- a validratification. Melancton Smith, sing defended the plan"this.Say they is our Ultimatum.We go beyond it." In fact, manyAntifederalists "thought they not a Step "if the feds. had conceded too much."DeWitt Clinton wrote that proposal I have had been friendly insteadof being inimical to the voted my doubtswhether la) majority ofantis would not have against itbut the oppositionof their political adversarieshas rec- onciled them."45 On 11 July John Jaymoved that the conventionratify the explanations and Constitution withoutconditions but with certain amendments. AntifederalistSamuel Jones with recommendatory would take place, did of Queens County,thinking the final vote not attend theconvention. It was saidthat he was "very much terrified." He believed thatthe Constitution shouldbe ratified but did not wish to voteagainst his party.'"Despite Antifederalists' attempts to get a vote ontheir plan, debate continuedfor almost evi- a week. PhilipSchuyler believed that"the opponents are so dendy deranged andembarrassed by this measure,that It affords a hope of abetter Issue than wehave hitherto had a prospect of."1450n 15 July MelanctonSmith moved to amend Jay'smotion Bancker Fam- "'Abraham Bancker to EvertBancker, Poughkeepsie, 12 July, Tillinghast, Poughkeepsie, ily Correspondence, NHi:DeWitt Clinton to Charles Papers. NNC. 12 July, DeWitt Clinton Webb, Poughkeepsie, 14 July,W.C. Ford, toDavid S. Bogart to Samuel B. vols. (New York, 1893 ed., Correspondence and Journalsof Samuel Illachleit Webb, 3 1894).111:104. Papers. DLC. ""To Stephen Van Rensselaer,Poughkeepsie, 14 July, Schuyler New York 109 to make it conform to Lansing's originalplan of 10 July. Debate over this amendment continuedfor several days. With the situation again looking bleak, Federalist John Sloss Hobart of New York City moved on 16 July for an adjournment until 2 September so "that the Members might have an opportunity of going home to Consult their Constituents." On 17 July Hobart's motion was de- femed 40 to 22. James Duane of New York City then moved that Smith's amendment be postponed in order to consider another variant of a conditional ratification. Duane's proposal was defeated 41 to 20. After some debate on his amendment, Smith, with Judge Zephaniah Platt of Dutchess County, brought in a new plan of ratification. The convention would first declare that the Consti- tution was defective; but since ten states had already ratified, New York would also ratify preserving the right, however, to withdraw from the Union if Congress did not call a convention to consider amendments within four years. In introducing this plan, Smith said that he was convinced that Congress would not accept any conditional ratification, "and as he valued the Union, he was re- solved that this State should not be excluded." Therefore, Smith announced that he would not vote for any form of conditional ratification. Antifederalists were displeased with Smith's new proposal. Cornelius C. Schoonmaker of Ulster County believed that "the federalists will agree to" the new plan "as the most favorable to them, and having no great hopes of a betterthey say the lesser Evil of the two. I believe the Antis will divide on this plan which will I fear be against us. It appears to me very little short of an absolute adoption."'" The convention adjourned to the next day. On 18 July it was expected that Smith's amendmentplan would be postponed in order to consider his new proposal; but, when the time came for the motion to postpone, "a long Silence ensuedthe f A ntifederalisti Party seemed embarrassedfearful to divide among themselves."' The convention adjourned so that Antifederalists could caucus. With the new proposal in mind, Hamilton wrote James Mad- ison, back in Congress in New York City, asking him whether

14Irro Peter Van Gaasbeek, Poughkeepsie, 18 July, Peter Van Gaasbeek Pa- pers, N KS. "John Jay to George Washington, Poughkeepsie, 17-4 181 July, Jay Papers. N NC.

1?3 110 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

Congress would accept New York'sratification with a "reservation of a right to recede in case ouramendments have not been decided upon in one of themodes pointed out in theConstitution within a certainnumber of years."'" Antifederalists,however, rejected Smith's new proposal in caucus.Therefore, when the convention met on 19 July, Smithwithdrew the plan. John Lansing thenmoved, and the convention agreed 41 to18, that all of the other plans under consideration be postponed sothat a new conditional rat- ification could be considered. Theconvention considered Lan- sing's plan from 19 to 23 July. The convention was now dividedinto four groups: "one of which was for in Adoption withConditions, one for a given time in order to withdraw if aGeneral convention is not obtainedin that time; one for an adjournmentand one for an absolute Rati- fication."49 For a while it looked as ifthe convention would ad- journ. Such a move was favoredby Federalists and a handfulof Antifederalists. It was thought that itmight be too inconsistent for Antifederalists to vote infavor of ratification "in the same session they have so violentlyopposed itand a short recess may at least put a bettercoloring to their assenting to it. alittle time and cool conversation with theirfriends at home no doubt will have a good effect.'"" On 20 July convention delegateDirck Swan arrived in Al- bany, much to the surprise ofAbraham G. Lansing. Swart told Lansing that he had leftPoughkeepsie the day before at10:00 A.M. and that a motionfor adjournment was expected to passthe convention. Lansing was irate. "Ifthis Measure should take place, all the Exertions we havemade and the anxiety we haveexperi- enced for the Liberty of ourCountry will end in nothing."Rather than adjourn, Lansing would foregoprevious amendments and would support a ratification withonly recommendatory amend- ments. An adjournmentwould leave Antifederalists"without any prospect of Success. TheBaneful Manor Interest will beexerted to obtain Instructions tothe Delegates, and the poordeluded well meaning Yeominery of our Country, nothaving it in their power to follow the dictatesof their own Consciences, will becompelled to sign theseInstructions to keep well with theirMasters. Our

11191 July, Poughkeepsie, Rutland.Madison, X1:188. "s'isaac Roosevelt to ,Poughkeepsie, 22-1231 July, NtipR. "Tierse Long to Nicholas Gilman,Portsmouth. N.H., 22 July, J.S.H. Fogg Autograph Collection, Maine HistoricalSociety.

124

r " P. N e w Y o r k 1 I I

Friends in the City, and Numbers in theCountywill decline sign- ing counter Instructions, by the Meaneauversof the Federalists who will hold out every Circumstance they can toalarm and In- timidate." To combat any move for adjournment,Lansini and other Albany Antifederalists wrote a letter totheir delegates rec- ommending "by all Means to finish the Business to aClose before they rise." Lansing castigated Melancton Smith,who was "charged with some improper steps," which "if it is True1,1he has injured the Cause of our Country more than anyFederalist."' No motion was made for adjournment atthis time. On 23 July the convention considered John Lansing'sform of ratification which called for New York to ratify theConstitution "upon con- dition" that certain amendments beaccepted. Samuel Jones then moved that the words "upon condition" beexpunged and be re- placed by the words "in full confidence."Melancton Smith sup- ported the change. "He was as thoroughlyconvinced then as he ever had been, thatthe Constitution was radically defective, amendments to it had always been the objectof his pursuit, and until Virginia came in, he had reason tobelieve they might have been obtained previous to the operationof the Government. He was now satisfied theycould not, and it was equally the dictate of reason and of duty to quithis first ground, and advance so far as that they might be received into the Union.He should hereafter pursue his important andfavourite object of amendments with equal zeal as before, but in a practicable waywhich was only in the mode prescribed by the Constitution."Conditional ratification "must now be abandoned as fallacious,for if persisted in, it would certainly prove in the event, only adreadful deception to those who were serious for joining the Union."'"Dutchess County del- egates Gilbert Livingston andZephaniah Platt echoed Smith's sen- timents. Governor Clinton replied that hewould "pursue what he believed to be the sense" of Ulster County,which was a conditional ratification.'" The vote on Jones's motion wastaken and it was adopted 31 to 29. Antifederalists werestunned. If nothing new occurred, New York would ratify theConstitution uncondition- ally. But Antifederalists were not ready togive upthey "mean to rally their forcesand endeavour to regain that Ground."'" 151Abraham G. Lansing to Abraham Yates. jr.. 20 July,Yates Papers. NN. '""Copy of a Letter from Poughkeepsie, datedFriday. July 25, 1788." New York Indepfndent Journal. 28 July (supplementextraordinary).

154john Jay to George Washington, Poughkeepsie,23 July, Washington Pa- pers, DLC. 112 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR

The New York City FederalProcession, 23 July 1788

Revolu-America." After two hoursof or- Ever since the end of the be- tion, Americans celebratedtheir in-ganizing, the grand procession dependence on the 4th of July.Ingan the mileand a half trek down 1788 this day of celebrationtookBroadway to Great DockStreet meaningsupporters ofthrough Hanover Square,Queen, on added Chatham, Division, andArundel the Constitution proclaimed not parade made its only the twelfth anniversaryof in-streets. Finally the dependence but also the birth of away down BullockStreet to Nicho- city's pa- new general governmentadoptedlas Bayard's house and the by the people of America. rade grounds. Despite the general joy atthe The procession, led by two adoption of the Constitutionby tenhorsemen with trumpets and a com- City Federalistspany of artillerywith a field piece, states, New York divisions. The faced a perplexing dilemma.Theywas divided into ten wished to honor the newConsti-first eight divisions werecomposed, tution on the 4th of July,but Newseeminifly at random, oftradesmen York had not yet ratifiedthe newand artisans of everydescription avoid any millers, bakers, brewers,hatters, form of government. To carried its em- disrespect to the convention,New etc. Each occupation York City Federalistspostponedblems, and some rode onelaborate their celebration first to10 July,floats. The ninth division was com- then to the 22nd, and finally totheposed of lawyers, thephilological 23rd. Despite rumors to the con-society, the president,faculty, and procession would students of ColumbiaCollege, and trary, the planned tenth be delayed no longer eventhoughmerchants and traders; the the state convention had not yet division was made up ofphysicians, foreigners, and militia officers. acted. July, The high point of the procession At 8:00 A.M. Wednesday, 23 division. ten cannon shotssignaled the gath-appeared in the seventh ering of what was to be the"most A twenty-seven-footfrigate named brilliant" display "ever seenin The Hamilton, upon acarriage

On 24 July John Lansingproposed that the form ofratifi- cation include the rightof New York to secedefrom the Union within a cer- if amendments to theConstitution were not adopted tain number of years.Hamilton then read a letterhe had recently received in which JamesMadison said that "a reservationof a right and as such New York to withdraw" was"a conditional ratification" "could not be received [inthe Unionj on thatplan." After similar opinions from James Duaneand Chancellor Livingston,the con-

e.'

sr.,: New York 113

farm( Skt concealed by canvas waves, was For more on the New York City pulled by ten horses. The ship wasprocession, see Whitfield J. Bell. Jr., manned by over thirty sailors and "The Federal Fmcessions of 1788," New marines and carried thirty-two guns York Historical Society Quarterly XLV1 (1 962):5-40. For contemporary ac- that were discharged at different counts of the procession, see the New times. York Daily Advertiser and the New York When the procession reached the Independent Journal. both 2 August 1788. parade grounds the marchers wentBy the end of August, fifteen other to one of ten tables, each 440 feet newspapers from New Hampshire to long, radiating like the spokes of a Virginia reprinted these accounts of the half wheel from a hub composed ofprocession. Accounts of celebrations of three raised pavilions connected by the ratification of the Constitution by a 150 foot colonnade.The elabo- New York were also widespread. See: rate structure, designed by PierreAlbany, 8 August (Federal Herald. 1 I L'Enfant, seated over 6,000. The August; New York Packet, 5 September); members of Congress were seated Ballston, Albany County, 30 July (Fed- in the center pavilion flanked by the eral Hemld. 4 August); Flushing. Queens foreign diplomatic corps on theCounty, 8 August (Daily Advertiser. 13 right and the officers of the Con- August); Half Moon District, Albany County, 13 August (Federal Herald. 25 federation government and the August); Hurley, Ulster County, 12 Au- city's clergy on the left. The whole gust (Country Journal, 26 August); New- concourse was treated to a banquet burgh. Ulster County, 26 July (New York provided by the trade associations. Packet, I August); Poughkeepsie. Dutch- At 5:00P.M.the procession re- ess County, 11 August (CountryJournal. traced its march and the partici- 19 August); Red Hook, Dutchess pants were dismissed at 5:30. Al- County, 6 August (Country journal. 12 most 5,000 individuals marched in August); Saratoga, Albany County, 13 the processionone-quarter of the August (Federal Herald. 18 August); and city's populationwhile estimatesSchenectady, Albany County. 15 Au- of up to 20.000 onlookers lined the gust (Pennsylvania Mercury, 4 Septem- streets. ber).

vention adjourned.'" On 25 July Lansing'smotion was rejected 31 to 28. The committee of the wholeapproved the final form of ratification by a vote of 31 to 28 and unanimouslyresolved that a circular letter beprepared to be sent to the states "pressingin the most earnest manner, the necessityof a general convention to 151ames Madison to Alexander Hamilton, New York,1201 July. Rutland, Madmon. XI. 189; "Copy of a Letter from Poughkeepsie.dated Friday, July 25. 1788." New York Independent Joumal . 28 July(supplement extraordinary).

Agef

qug 114 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR take into their considerationthe amendments to theConstitution, proposed by the several StateConventions." On 26 July the con- vention approved the committeeof the whole's report toratify the Constitution withrecommendatory amendments by a voteof 30 to 27. John Jay thenbrought in the proposed circularletter which was unanimously approved.Cornelius C. Schoonmaker la- mented "that the Federalistshave fought and beat us from our own groundwith our own weapons."'"According to Philip Schuy- ler, "perseverence, patienceand abilities have prevailedagainst numbers and prejudice."'"

New York The ReluctantPillar Why then did the New YorkConvention, with a two-to-oneAnti- federalist majority, ratify theConstitution? As the debate overthe Constitution progressed and as onestate after anotheradopted the new form of government, arising tide of public opinion came to favor adoption. It wasfelt that all of the ratifying statescould not be wrong,and therefore the Constitutionshould be given a chance. Convention Antifederalists werefar from being unanimous. From the very beginning of theconvention, most Antifederafist delegates opposed an outright rejection.Only a few leaders, among them Governor Clinton, werewilling to hazard such drastic steps as rejection oradjournment. Federalist delegateAbraham Bancker of Richmond County believedthat if Clinton had not so stren- uously opposed the Constitution,the convention would have adopted it a month earlier thanit did. Hamilton believedthat the governor's adamancy stemmedfrom his desire "to establishClin- tonism on the basis ofAntifoetteralism."1" The other divisionswithin moderate Antifecleralist ranks alsomade united action difficult. Federalist strategy alsocontributed to the adoption. Theabil- ity to keep the convention insession during the first criticalweeks ultimately set the stage for ratification.For the most part, though, Federalist strategists played awaiting game. They let JohnLansing

"6To Peter Van Gaasbeek,Poughkeepsie, 25 July. MariusSchoormtaker, The History of Kingston. New York . (NewYork. 1888), 394-96. "'To Peter Van Schaack, Poughkeepsie.25 July, N. "°Abraham Bancker to Evert Bander,Poughkeepsie, 28 June. Bancker Madison, (2 July). Family Correspondence. NHi;Alexander Hamilton to James Rutland. Madison, Xl: I 85.

S New York 115 and Melancton Smith orchestrate the entire convention. The divi- siveness among Antifederalists created opportunities for Feder- alists. Throughout the convention, Federalists tried to remain as conciliatory as possible. Their perseverance and stamina were im- portant weapons, much more effective than their touted elo- quence. Repeatedly, Federalists and Antifederalists said that or- atory convinced no one to change his mind. The single most important factor in obtaining ratification, however, was simply the course of events taking place throughout America. Hamilton admitted that "Our arguments confound, but do not convinceSome of the leaders however appear to me to be convinced by drcumsbances."'" The ratification by New Hamp- shire and, most important, by Virginia were determining factors. New York could not kill the Constitution by itself. The new gov- ernment was going into effect with or without New York. Since New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware had ratified the Consti- tution. New York was isolated without a chance of establishing a middle confederacy. By staying out of the Union, New York would lose the federal capital and most of the benefit of its lucrative state impost. Furthermore, the threat of civil war within New York or among the states or the secession of the southerndistrict from the state were real and serious concerns to New Yorkers. Finally,the all-important task of amending the Constitution seemed most ob- tainable if New York, within the Union, cooperated with other like-minded Antifederalists. All of these factors convinced enough Antifederalists dele- gates to join with their Federalist colleagues and form aslim ma- jority capable of unconditionally ratifying the Constitution. These assenting Antifederalists had not been converted to Federalism. For the most part, they maintained objections to the Constitution. They viewed ratification, however, as a lesser evil than the con- sequences of not ratifying the Constitution. The most important Antifederalist delegate to be converted was Melancton Smith, theself-proclaimed convention manager. While attending the convention, Smith regularly corresponded with Antifederalist friends in New York City. On 28 June he wrote Massachusetts Congressman Nathan Dane saying that he wanted "to support the party with whom I am connected as far as is con- sistent with proprietyBut. I know, my great object is to procure

"%id.

129 116 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR such amendments in this government asto prevent its attaining the ends, for which it appears to me,and to you calculated-1 am therefore very anxious to procure goodamendmentsI had rather recommend substantial amendments,than adopt it [the Consti- tution] conditionally withunimportant ones, leaving ourcritical situation out of the questionI do notfind these endeavors suf- ficiently seconded." Smith did notimmediately reveal these sen- timents to the convention; he askedDane, however, "to com- municate any observations you maythink useful."°° Dane responded to Smith on 3July with a lengthy, insightful letter. If the Constitution was notratified, violence would surely occureither civil war within thenon-ratifying states or between the ratifying and non-ratifying states.The result of such violence would be "at least a system moredespotic than the old one we lay aside, or the one we areadopting." Dane told Smith that"our object is to improve the planproposed: to strengthen and secure its democratic features; to addchecks and guards to it; to secure equal liberty by proper Stipulations to preventany undueexercise of power, and to establishbeyond the power of faction toalter, a genuine federal republic, toeffect this great and desirableobject the peace of the Country mustbe preserved, candorcherished, information extended and the doorsof accommodation constantly kept open." To accomplish these ends,amendments to the Constitution had to be proposed in the firstfederal Congress. "For any state now to stand outand oppose" the ratification ofthe Constitution would be a mistake. If New Yorkdid not unconditionally ratify, Dane believed that "the federalrepublicans or men who wish to cement the unionof the states on republicanprinciples will be divided and have but a part of theirstrength in Congress where they ought to have the whole."Although Dane still retainedhis "opinion respecting the feeblefeatures, the extensive powers,and defective parts of the System, yetcircumstanced as we are," he felt "no impropriety in urging"New York to ratify theConsti- tution. "Men in all the stateswho wish to establish afree, equal, and efficient government to theexclusion of anarchy, corruption, faction, and oppression oughtin my opinion to unite intheir ex- ertions in making the best of theConstitution now established."81

"Toughkeep%ie. Dane Paper9, BeverlyHistorical Society. 'elohn Wingate Thornton Collection.New England Historic Genealogical Societv.

u New York 117

A week later, Confederation TreasuryBoard member Sam- uel Osgood wrote Melancton Smith andSamuel Jones from New York City offering similar advice.According to Osgood, Antifed- eralists had already accomplished theirgoalthe country seemed ready to accept necessary amendments to theConstitution. In fact, Osgood wrote that "the Danger of notobtaining Amendments such as we would wish for, will in my Opinionbe greatly enhanced by the Absence of New York." " Melancton Smith responded to Dane saying "Ientirely ac- cord with you in Opinion." Smith,however, knew that he faced a divided Antifederalist party."Time and patience," he said, "is necessary to bring our party toaccord, which I ardently wish." He explained "that time & great industryis requisite to bring us to act properlymy task isarduous and disagreeable"; but despite the fact that he would surely antagonize someof his political allies, Smith said that he would openly "avow"the sentiments that he, Dane, and Osgood shared.'" Zephaniah Platt agreed with Smith. Plattexplained that he voted for unconditional ratification "notfrom a conviction that the Constitution was a good one or that theLiberties of men were well Secured. NoI voted for it as a Choiceof evils in our own present Situation." TheConstitution, he wrote, "Must and would now go into operation.the only Chance remaining was to get a Convention as Soon as possible to take up ourAmendments & those of other States while the Spiritof Liberty is yet alive." In sum, Platt said "that wehave Endeavoured to consider allSides of the question & their probable consequencesonthe whole Iwe) desided on what we Suposed was for theIntrest and peace of our State under present Circumstances."'"

if/Mew York. I I July. ,Collections of National Memorial, New York City. loSmith to Dane, Poughkeepsie, lc. 15 July), JohnWingate Thornton Col- lection. New England Historic Genealogical Society. 1"To William Smith, Poughkeepsie, 28 July,Museum, Manor of St. George, Mastic Beach, Long Island, N.Y.

1 31 MATERIALS

A Guide to Sourcesfor Studying the Ratificationof the Constitution by New YorkState

GASPARE J. SALADINO University of Wisconsin-Madison

Clarence E. Miner, in his pi- oneer study on New York'sratification of the Constitution, wrote that the party divisions of the 1780s hadtheir origins in the "con- flict between local and central authority whichhad been charac- teristic of the Revolution." To betterunderstand the politics of ratification, then, one must investigate the politicsof the late co- lonial period. The seminal study is Carl Becker,The History of Political Parties in the ,1760-1776 (Madison, Wis., 1909), Becker viewed New York politics as astruggle be- tween aristocrats and democrats.The Revolution in New York was a fight for homerule and who should rule at home. Most historians have either attempted to support, refute,rehabilitate, or refine Becker. A good overview of the history of the"revolutionary gen- eration" in New York can be found in volumes 111-Vof the Histoo: of the State of New York, 10 vols. (New York,1933-1937), edited by Alexander C. Flick. This work includes thewritings of a number of eighteenth-century specialists. The bestsingle volume for the

'The Ratification of the Federal Constitutkat by the State of NewYork (New York, 192)). 13. Unless otherwise noted. New York is the state ofpublication.

.134:1 Guide to Sources 119 colonial period is Michael Kammen,Colonial New York A History (New York, 1975). The war years are the subject ofFlick's edition ofThe in New York Its Po litital, Social and Eco- nomic Significance(Albany, 1926); and Jackson Turner Main'sThe Sovereign States, 1775-1783(New York, 1973). The standard study of New York in the Confederation is E. Wilder Spaulding,New York in the Critical Period, 1783-1789(New York, 1932). On the economy and society, Spauklingis supplemented by Thomas C. Cochran,New York in the Confederation: An Economic Study(Phila- delphia, 1932); CurtisP.Nettels,The Emergence of a National Econ- omy, 1775-1815(New York, 1962); and Main,The Social Structure of Revolutionary America(Princeton, NJ., 1965). The classic study of the American states in the1780sis Merrill Jensen,The New Nation:AHistory of the United States During the Confederation, 1781- 1789(New York, 1950). There are good bibliographic aids for this period. Thebest are Milton M. Klein, comp.,New York in the American Revolution: A Bibliography(Albany. 1974); and Ronald M. Gephart, comp., Revolutionary America, 1763-1789: A Bibliography,2 vols. (Wash- ington, D.C., 1984). Both works, covering the same period of time, are arranged topically and havesuccinct descriptions and analyses of printed primary and secondary sources. They aresupplemented by the bibliographic essays in Kammen,Colonial New York,and Alfred F.Y oung, The Democratic Republicans of New York The Origins, 1763-1797 (Chapel Hill, N .C., 1967). Valuable also areDouglas Greenberg, "The Middle Colonies in Recent American Histo- riography,"William and Mary Quarterly, 3rdser., XXX VI (1979): 396-427; and David Maldwyn Ellis, "Recent HistoricalWritings on New York Topics,"New York HistoryLXIII (1982):74-96. Research and Publications in New York State Historyanex- haustive annual bibliography of recent worksis publishedunder the auspices of the , Division of Historical and Anthropological Services. Between 1952 and 1968 the state historian's office prepared an annual bibliography that was printed in the July issue ofNew York History.In 1969 the state assumed direct responsibility for publication andprinted Research and Pub- licationsuntil 1972. No volumes appeared from 1973 to1975, but publication was revived in 1976. Constitutional Convention On21 February 1787 the Confederation Congresscalled a con- stitutional convention to meet in Philadelphia on 14 May. On6

133 120 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR March the New York legislature appointedRobert Yates, John Lansing, Jr., and Alexander Hamiltondelegates to the Constitu- tional Convention. The state legislature'sresolutions ind pro- ceedings on this appointment are inConstitutional Documents and Records, 1776-1787, volume 1 of MerrillJensen et al., eds., The Documentary History of the Ratification of theConstitution (Madison, Wis., 1976-). Yates and Lansing attended the conventionuntil 10 July; Hamilton remained until the last day, 17September, although he was absent on severaloccasions. Each man took notes of the de- bates. Yates's and Hamilton's are in MaxFarrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention, 3 vols. (New Haven,Conn., 1911).2 Ham- ilton's notes and other convention papers arealso in volume 1V of Harold C. Syrett, ed.. The Papers ofAlexander Hamilton, 26 vols. (New York, 1961-1979). Lansing's notes arein Joseph Reese Strayer, ed., The Delegate from New York, orProceedings of the Federal Convention from the Notes ofjohn Lansing, Jr.(Princeton, N.J., 1939).

Legislative and Executive Records On 11 January 1788 Governor GeorgeClinton addressed the state legislature at Poughkeepsie and turned over to it a copyof the proposed Constitution and a 21 December1787 letter from Yates and Lansing explaining why they opposedthe Constitution. On 31 January the New York State Assemblyadopted a resolution calling for a state convention to meet in Junein Poughkeepsie and for the election of convention delegates.The New York State Senate concurred the next day. The contemporary printed Journals of theAssembly and Sen- ate for this legislative session(9 January-22 March) are available on microfilm andmicrocard. On microfilm, the printedJournals are in the Recordsof the States of the United States of America(Wash- ington, D.C., 1951-52)a collection broughttogether by William S. Jenkins. On microcard, the Journals arein Clifford K. Shipton, ed., Early American Imprints, 1639-1800(Worcester, Mass., 1955- 1964). The manuscript Journals of neitherhouse exist. The proceedings and debates of bothhouses on this reso- lution were published in the New York DailyAdvertiser and the

IA fourth volume, published in 1937, has a generalindex and an index of the clauses of the Constitution.

.134 Guide to Sources 121

New-York Journal from 14 January to 21February. (See below for a description ofthese newspapers.) Francis Childs ofthe Daily Admrtiser attended the legislature andtook shorthand notes. Thomas Greenleaf of the New-York Journalarranged to have re- ports on the legislature sent tohim by correspondents. On 14 January both newspapers printed GovernorClinton's speech and the Yates-Lansing letter. Clinton'sspeech is also in Charles Z. Lincoln, ed., Messages from the Governors,Comprising Executive Com- munication, to the Legislature and Other PapersRelating to Legislation .[1683-19061, 1 1 vols. (Albany, 1909),11:281-83. On 8 Feb- ruary the DailyAdvertiser published the Senate debates of1 Feb- ruary in two pages.The Assembly debates of 31 January were printed in the Daily Advertiser on 12February. The New-York Jour- nal printed its version of theAssembly debates on the 21st. Very few letters have survived that shedmuch light on the actions of either house. The extant executive papers are sparse.In the disastrous 1911 fire at the New York StateLibrary, forty-two of the fifty- two volumes of GovernorGeorge Clinton's Papers were lost.The volumes that survived were badlydamaged. Copies of some rd- evant documents in these papers,however, had been made for historian George Bancroft in 1880 and are amongthe Bancroft Transcripts in the New York PublicLibrary. The extant manuscript records of thelegislative and exec- utive departments are now housed inthe New York State Archives in Albany and are described inGuide to Records in the New York State Archives (Albany, 1981). Thework also lists the archives' hold- ings of material relating to the stateconvention (see below). The reader should also examine the Klein andGephart bibliographies (above) for the guides to New York'sofficial records that were published before 1974. These earlyworks help to determine the type and amtiunt ofmaterial that was lost in the 1911 fire atthe state library. A detailed(but unpublished) description of the pres- ent state of the ClintonPapers has been prepared by the state archives.

Personal Papers There are many collections of personal papersfor New York's ratification of the Constitution; bothFederalists and Antifeder- alists are well represented. The most seriousdeficiency is the pauc-

.1 33 122 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR ity of letters for the period SeptemberDecember1787. Political correspondence did not become heavy until February 1788,after the state legislature called the state ratifying convention. The New- York Historical Society, the New York PublicLibrary, and the Libraries have valuablecollections. The his- torical society has the papers of such Federalists asAbraham, Ad- rian, and Even Bancker (Bancker Family Papers), JamesDuane, Robert R. Livingston, Walter Rutherfurd, and RichardVarick; and such Antifederalists as John Lamb, John Smith ofMastic, Long Island, and Abraham B. Bancker. The Lamb Papers arerich in information for the interstate and intrastate cooperation among Antifederalists and for the work of Antifederalist committeesin New York State, The New York Public Library ownsthe papers of such Antifederalists as Abraham Yates, Jr., AbrahamG. Lan- sing, John Lansing, Jr., Gilbert Livingston, and GeorgeClinton. The Yates Papers, which are especially rich, includeletters from Arnifederalist politicians, drafts of his own newspaper essays.and a draft of his history of the movementfor the Constitution. Fed- eralists are represented in the papers of LeonardGansevoort and Philip Schuyler. There are also a few good items in suchbusiness papers as the Constable-PierrepontCollection, the Collin Mac- Gregor Letterbooks, and the Lewis Ogden Letterbook.Columbia University Libraries (Rare Book and ManuscriptLibrary) owns the DeWitt Clinton Papers, including a brief journal thatthis young Antifederalist kept at the state convention. Columbia alsohas the largest collection of the papers of John Jay. The VanSchaack Family Correspondence contains the letters ofFederalist Peter Van Schaack. Several libraries outside New York City also haveimportant collections. The papers of AntifederalistMelancton Smith at the New York State Library in Albany includeSmith's notes of debates in the Confederation Congress that sent theConstitution to the states in September 1787,5a numberof Smith's letters, and a wide variety of material on the state convention. Thecorrespondence of Antifederalist Peter Van Gaasbeek is in theSenate House Mu-

'These notes are printed in John P. Kaminski and Gaspare J.Saladino, eds., Commentaries on die Constitution.. Public and Private, volume I(Madison, Wis.. 1981), volume XIII of Merrill Jensen et al., eds., The Dononentary Historyof die Ratification of the Constitution. the first of five volumes presenting theday-to-day regional and national debate over the Constitution that took place in letters, newspapers, mag- azines. broadsides, and pamphlets. Guide to Sources 123

seum in Kingston and at theFranklin Delano Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park* The correspondence between VanGaasbeek and Cornelius C. Schoonmaker is especiallyilluminating. The Mu- seum, Manor of St. George, atMastic Beach, Long Island, has a few Antifederalist letters to Judge WilliamSmith. The Library of Congress has the papers ofAntifederalist Hugh Hughes, which include drafts of his newspaper essays,and the largest and most varied collection of the papersof Alexander Hamilton. Some of Hamilton's letters are in theJames Madison and George Washington papers, while theWashington Papers also include letters from John Jay. The Webb FamilyPapers at Yale University include the letters of FederalistSamuel Blachley Webb, a commercial agent inNew York City. The Henry Van Schaack Scrapbook at the Newberry Library in Chicagohas a few letters of Peter Van Schaack and Philip Schuyler. As the seat of the Confederation Congress,New York City was filled with congressmen,members of the executive depart- ments, and foreign diplomatsmanyof whom wrote letters about the Constitution. The MassachusettsHistorical Society has Sec- retary at War Henry Knox's papers,while Postmaster General Ebenezer Hazard's letters are in its Belknap Papers.The letters and papers of all congressmen are beingcollected and published by Paul H. Smith and his staff at the Library ofCongress as the Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774 1789 (Washington, D.C., 1976). The Library of Congress also has thecorrespondence of French, English, Spanish, and Dutch diplomats based in NewYork City. This correspondence is available, with goodfinding aids, on pho- tostats, microfilm, or transcripts. Most of the libraries mentioned above have somefine au- tograph collections and collections ofmiscellaneous manuscripts that contain letters on New York ratification.For example, James Kent wrote several informative letters that arescattered in such collections at the New-York Historical Society,the Historical So- _ ciety of Pennsylvania, and the MorristownNational Historical Park, Morristown, N.J. The basic guides to manuscriptcollections are Philip M. Hamer, ed., A Guide to Archives and Manuscripts inthe United States (New Haven, Conn., 1961); and TheNational Union Catalog of Man-

4For an analysis of the papers at Kingston, see MichaelD'innocenzo and John Turner. -The PPier Van taasbeek Papers: AResource for arly New York History, 1771-1797,- New York History INYHI, XLVII(1966): 153-59. 124 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR uscript Collections, a continuingpublication of the Library of Con- gress. The guides toNew York manuscript repositoriespublished before 1974 are listed in the Kleinand Gephart bibliographies (above). These bibliographies also listthe published correspond- ence and personal papersof some New York politiciansand the biographies of others that include lettersand other documents. A full listing of New York manuscriptrepositories, arranged by towns and counties, is in the Directory of Archivesand Manuscript Reposi- tories in the United States (Washington,D.C., 1978). This directory compiled by the National HistoricalPublications and Records Commissionbriefly describes the holdingsof these repositories and includes the guides to theseholdings. The national data base for this bibliography is regularlyupdated and a revised edition will soon be published. This commissionis also a cosponsor of an important project begun in 1978 by theNew York Historical Re- sources Center, Olin Library,Cornell University. The center has been surveying manuscripts andarchives collections in New York State repositories and has begun topublish guides for each of the state's sixty-two counties. Whencompleted, the guides will list the manuscripts and archival materials foralmost three thousand his- torical agencies, public libraries,colleges, and universities. The center also submits allinformation to the National Historical Pub- lications and Records Commission forits national data base. Lastly, the New York State Library hassurveyed its manuscripts collec- tions and has prepared a guidethat is in press.

Newspapers Newspapers are perhaps the mostimportant source for studying the debate over the ratificationof the Constitution in New York, especially for the first four or fivemonths after the Constitutional Convention adjourned on 17 September1787. Between 21 Sep- tember and 4 October, nine New York newspaperspublished the Constitution.i Newspapers printed awide variety of articles de- fending and attacking the Constitution,ranging from fillers or squibs to sophisticated political treatises.They reprinted propa- ganda material from out-of-state newspapersand reported on the progress of ratificationoutside New York. Newspaperscarried the

3Leonard Rapport. "Printing the Constitution:The Convention and News- paper Imprints,August-November 1787." Prologue 11 (1970):69-89.

1 3 S Guide to Sources 125 proceedings and debates of the NewYork legislature and ratifying convention, as well as the proceedingsof public meetings. Lastly, newspapers includednomination lists of candidates seekingelec- tion to the legislature and theconvention and the returns of these elections. Between September 1787 and July1788, thirteen newspapers and one magazine were published inthe state at one time or an- other. Seven newspapers were printed in NewYork City, as dailies, semiweeklies, or weeklies. The dailies wereThe Daily Advertiser; The New-York Morning Post, and DailyAdvertiser; and The New-York Journal, and Daily Patriotic Register. TheThursday issue of the New- York Journal, which circulated moregenerally in the country, was called The New-York Journal, and WeeklyRegister. The Daily Advertiser printed numerousFederalist essays, in- cluding The Federalist. The printer FrancisChilds took shorthand notes of the proceedingsand debates of the statelegislature and convention and printed them in his newspapers.William Morton's New-York Morning Post published bothFederalist and Antifederalist material; its principal pieces werereprinted from out-of-state newspapers. Thomas Greenleaf's New-York Journal was aprolific Antifed- eralist newspaper. Until 19 November1787 the New-York Journal was a weekly, but itbecame a daily so that it could printthe many Antifederalist articles that it received. TheNew-York Journal pub- lished such serialized essays as "Cato"(7 nos.), "Brutus" (16 nos.), "Cincinnatus" (Arthur Lee of Va., 6 nos.),"A Countryman" (Hugh Hughes, 6 nos.), and "A Countryman"(DeWitt Clinton, 5 nos.). It also reprinted prominentAntifederalist material from outside New York: seventeen of eighteen essaysby "Centinel" (Samuel Bryan of Pa.), seven of eight numbersby "An Old Whig" ("a club" in Philadelphia), and all twelveinstallments of Marylander Luther Martin's Genuine Information.Often accused of being partial, Greenleaf tried to ease the criticism byprinting Federalist articles, including some numbers of TheFederalist. Three of New York City's newspapers weresemiweeklies The New-York Packet; The IndependentJournal: or, the General Adver- tiser; and The New-York Museum.The New-York Packet, owned by Samuel and John Loudon, and theIndependent Journal, printed by J. IWLean andCompany, publihed all of TheFederalist. With the issue of 2 July 1788, Archibald M'Lean wasadmitted to the firm of J. M'Lean and Company. There arefew extant issues of John

. 139 126 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

Russell's New-York Museum, which wasestablished on 23 May 1788. The city's only weekly, The ImpartialGazetteer, and Saturday Eve- ning's Post, was established on 17 May1788 by John Harrisson and Stephen Purdy, Jr. The state's only magazine was NoahWebster's The American York City be- Magazine.. ., amonthly that was published in New ginning with the issue of December1787. It was first advertised for sale in early January 1788. Webster, aFederalist propagandist, included many of his own writings inthe American Magazine. Albany had two weekliesThe AlbanyGazette and The Albany Journal: or, the Montgomery,Washington and Columbia Intelligencer. The Albany Gazette was printedby Charles R. Webster and the Albany Journal by Webster and hisbrother George. The newspa- pers were Federalist,and they often shared articles.Despite Anti- federalist hostility towards him, Charles R.Webster printed some Antifederalist material in the AlbanyGazette. The Albany Journal was established as asemiweekly on 26 February 1788, butin about two months it became aweekly. The Northern Centinel, andLansingburgh Advertiser, a weekly published by Thomas Claxton and JohnBabcock, was Federalist. In January 1788 Claxton andBabcock moved the paper to Albany, and from 11 February to 14April, they published it as TheFederal Herald. The paper then returned toLansingburgh and was pub- lished under the same name, but EzraHickok replaced Claxton. Ashbel Stoddard's The Hudson WeeklyGazette, a Federalist weekly, printed Federalist andAntifederalist material. The Country Journal, and the Poughkeepsie Advertiser,another Federalist weekly, was owned byNicholas Power. The Country Journalpublished Fed- eralist and Antifederalist material,and it was the only newspaper in America to print, in itsentirety, the Letters from theFederal Farmer, a major Antifederalistpamphlet. (See below for more on this pamphlet.) The standard bibliography for newspapersis Clarence S. Brigham's History and Bibliographyof American Newspapers, 1690 1820, 2 vols. (Worcester, Mass.,1947). A supplement to this work is in the Proceedings of the AmericanAntiquarian Society, LXXI, Part 1 (1961): 15-62. Theresearcher should also examine Paul Mercer, Bibliographies and Lists ofNew York State Newspapers: An Annotated Guide (Albany, 1981);and Newspapers on Microfilm,1982

140 Guide to Sources 127

(Washington, D.C., 1983).° Forbiographical data on New York newspapers and printers,consult Milton W. Hamilton, TheCountry Printer, New York State, 1785-1830(New York, 1936); Douglas C. McMurtrie, A History of Printing inthe United States ...Volume II. Middle and South Atlantic States (NewYork, 1936); Joel Munsell, The Typographical Miscellany(Albany, 1850); Munsell, The Annals of Albany, 10 vols. (Albany,1850-1859); and A. J. Wall, "Samuel Loudon (1727-1813): (Merchant,Printer and Patriot), With Some of His Letters," Quarterly Bulletinof the New-York Historical Society VI (1922-23): 75-92.

Pamphlets and Broadsides The pamphlet and broadsideliterature is another rich sourcefor the study of ratification. The printersof New York published nine pamphlets and a two-volume editionof The Federalist. Five pam- phlets were original treatises byNew Yorkers; two were written by a South Carolina delegate tothe Constitutional Convention and a resident of New Jersey;and two were Antifederalistmaterial reprinted from other states. TheFederalist was penned by two New Yorkers and a VirginianAlexanderHamiltonjohn Jay, and James Madison. Some bibliographers believe thatThomas Greenleaf of the New-York Journal published fiveAntifederalist pamphlets. These were: several editionsof the Letters from the FederalFarmer;7 a re- print of "A Columbian Patriot"(Mercy Otis Warren of Mass.), Observations on the New Constitution ...; An AdditionalNumber of Letters from the Federal Farmer ...; "A Plebeian"(Melancton Smith), An Address to the People of theState of New-York ...; and ananthology entitled Observations on the ProposedConstitution ..that contains the writings of out-of-stateAntifederalists. Samuel and John Loudon ofthe New-York Packet published "A Citizen of New York"(John Jay), An Address to the People ofthe

*The Rendes Microprint Corporationis in the process of putting all eight- eenth-century American newspapers onmicrocard and a selected number of news- papers on microfilm. ?There is reason to believe that thispamphlet was written by a New Yorker, not Richard Henry Lee ofVirginia. See Gordon S. Wood. "TheAuthorship of the Letters from the Federal Fanner,-William and Mary Quarterly IW114Qi, 3rd ser.. XXXI (1974): 299-308; and Kaminskiand Saladino, eds., Commentaries on theCon- stitution, 2: 15-16. 128 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR Ad- State of New-York. ...Charles R. Webster printed An Impartial Refried. And John dress... or,the Thirty-Five Anti-Federal Objections and Archibald M'Lean publishedThe Federalist in two volumes. Francis Childs of the Daily Advertiserstruck off South Carolinian Charles Pinckney's Observations on tlwPlan of Government Submitted to the Federal Convention. .;and printed Observations on Government ...by "A Farmer, of New-Jersey" (JohnStevens, Jr., of Hoboken, N.J.). New York printers published morethan twenty-five broad- sides on matters relating to the Constitution.For example, Thomas Greenleaf issued "Centinel" I-11 and"Timoleon" (in original New York item) as a two-page broadside.and Ashbel Stoddard of the Hudson Weekly Gazette reprinted"The Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention" as afour-page broadside. During the months of March and April1788, at least a dozen handbills appeared in New York City and Albany asAntifederalists and Federalists campaigned for the election ofconvention delegates. In early July two broadsides were runoff announcing Virginia's ratification of the Constitution. The bibliographic aids for this literature areCharles Evans, American Bibliography ...11639-1799), 12 vols. (Chicago, Ill., 1903- 1934); and Roger P. Bristol, Supplement toCharles Evans' American Bibliography (Charlottesville, Va., 1970). Evansand Bristol are com- bined in Clifford K. Shipton and James E.Mooney, eds., National Index of American Imprints Through1800: The Short-Title Evans, 2 vols. ()Worcester, Mass.), 1969). The imprints are onmicrocard in Shipton's Early American Imprints,1639-1800 (Worcester, Mass., 1955-1964), and Supplement (Worcester,Mass., 1966-). The reader should also consult G. Thomas Tanselle, ed.,Guide to the Study of United States Imprints, 2 vols. (Cambridge,Mass., 1971). This work includes imprint bibliographies by townand city; studies of indi- vidual printers and publishers; and historiesof the press by town and city.

Printed Primary Sources Since the late nineteenth century, manyof the essays and pam- phlets mentioned in the two sections abovehave appeared in print. The pamphlets by the "Federal Farmer"(the first five letters only), "A Columbian Patriot," "A Citizen ofNew York," and "A Ple- beian" are in Paul Leicester Ford, ed.,Pamphlets on the Constitu-

1 4 2 Guide to Sources 129 lion. .(Brooklyn, 1888); and the essays of "Cato," "Caesar,"and "Sydney" (Abraham Yates, Jr.) are in Ford'sEssays on the Consti- tution. .(Brooklyn, 1892). The reader should be forewarnedthat Ford's identification of George Clinton as"Cato," Alexander Hamilton as "Caesar," Robert Yates as "Brutus"and "Sydney," Richard Henry Lee as the "Federal Farmer,"and Elbridge Gerry as "A ColumbianPatriot" have been challenged by a number of historians and political scientists. (See below for abrief discussion of this literature.) All of the lettersfrom the "Federal Farmer," along with a lengthy analysis of them, appearin Walter Hartwell Bennett, ed., Letters from the FederalFanner to the Republican (Uni- versity, Ala., 1978). William Jeffrey, Jr., hasanalyzed, discussed the authorship of, and published the"Brutus" essays in "The Letters of 'Brutus'A Neglected Elementin the Ratification Cam- paign of 1787-88," University of CindnnatiLaw Review XL (1971): 643-777. In volumes 2 and 6 of The CompleteAnti-Federalist, 7 vols. (Chicago. Ill., and London, Eng., 1981), HerbertJ. Storing has included all of the New York Antifederalist essaysand pamphlets mentioned above, as well as several other essays.His first volume is a general analysis of Antifederalistpolitical thought. Some of the writings of New YorkFederalists and Antifed- eralists appear in John P. Kaminski andGaspare J. Saladino, eds., Commentaries on the Constitution: Public and Private, 5vols. (Madison, Wis., 1981-), volumes XIII-XVII ofMerrill Jensen et al., eds., The Documental). History of the Ratificationof the Constitution. The editors provide editorial notes that fullydiscuss the authorship of, circulation of, and commentaries upon awide variety of newspaper essays, broadsides,and pamphlets. The sections on authorshipin- clude discussions of the writings of historiansand political scientists who have identified the writers of anonymous orpseudonymous articles and pamphlets or who havedisputed the authorship of various articles and pamphlets. Theremaining documents on New York will appear in volumes IX-X and anaccompanying micro- fiche publication. These two volumes,the microfiche, and Com- mentaries on the Constitution will representthe most comprehensive collection of documents ever published onNew York ratification.

The Federalist Eighty-four numbers of The Federalist werepublished in New York City between 27 October 1787 and 28 May1788. Alexander Ham-

143 130 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR ilton wrote fifty essays, James Madison fourteen, andJohn Jay five. The most recent scholarship generally suggests that Madison wrote the remaining disputed essays.° The first seventy-six essays were originally printed in four city newspapersthe IndependentJournal, the New-York Packet, the Daily Advertiser, and the New-YorkJournal. All of these essays, including the first printingsof the last eight essays, were published by John andArchibald MTean in a two- volume book edition. The first volume appeared on 22March 1788; the second on 28 May. The M'Lean edition containseighty- five essays because newspaper number 31 was dividedinto two parts. The Independent Journal andthe New-York Packet printed all the essays; the Daily Advertiser, nos. 1-50; and theNew-Yorkjournal, nos. 23-39. The AlbanyGazette reprinted nos. 1-6,8-10,12-13, and 17; the Hudson Weekly Gazette, nos. 1-11; theLansingburgh Northern Centinel (later Albany Federal Herald), nos. 1-10 and69; and the Poughkeepsie Countty Journal, nos. 14-21. The best edition of the essays is Jacob E. Cooke, ed.,The Federalist (Middletown, Conn., 1961). The texts are fromthe news- papers, with emendationsfrom three authorized book editions the M'Lean edition of 1788, the George F. Hopkinsedition of 1802, and the Jacob Gideon edition of 1818. Cookeincluded an introduction about the publication of The Federalist and thehis- torical controversy surrounding its authorship. Thisintroduction and Hamilton's essays are reprinted in volume IVof Harold C. Syrett, ed., Hamilton Papers, for which Cooke served asassociate editor. Madison's contributions, along with editorial notesdis- cussing authorship, are in volume X of Robert A.Rutland, ed., The Papers onames Madison (Charlottesville,Va., 1977). Jay's five essays, including draftsof four of them, will appear in volume III of Richard B. Morris's edition of the papers ofJohn Jay. All of The Federalist will be published with editorial notesdiscussing the authorship and circulation of the essays and commentaries upon them in Kaminski and Saladino, eds., Commentaries onthe Consti- tution. For the first time, The Federalist essays will appearin their proper contextsurroundedby other Federalist and Antifeder- alist essays. Recently, the study of the conceptsin The Federalist has been aided by Thomas S. Engeman,Edward J. Erler, and Thomas B. Hofeller, eds., The Federalist Concordance(IMiddletown,

8One exception is Linda Quinne Smyth,"The Federalist:The Authorship of the Disputed Papers- (Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 1978).

1414 Guide to Sources 131

Conn.], 1980), This concordance is keyed to Cooke's edition of The Federalist.

The Sources for the New York Convention The elections for the delegates to the state convention took place from 29 April through 3 May 1788. On 17 June the convention met in Poughkeepsie and elected Governor George Clinton pres- ident, John McKesson and Abraham B. Bancker secretaries, and Nicholas Power of the Poughkeepsie Country Journal printer. Ex- cept for Sundays, the convention met continuouslyuntil Saturday, 26 July, when it ratified the Constitution with an accompanying declaration of rights and recommendatory amendments. It also ordered the president of the convention to transmit to the exec- utives of the other states a circular letter strongly recommending a second general convention to consider theamendments pro- posed by the various state conventions" Election returns are in the Daily Advertiser, 29 May-14 June, and the New-York Journal, 31 May-12 June. The journal listed all of the elected delegates and their party affiliations, concluding that forty-six of the sixty-five delegates were Antifederalists. Together, the two newspapers printed the vote totals for nine of the thirteen counties. There are no vote totals for the counties of Kings, Rich- mond, Suffolk, and Washington (and Clinton). On 7 June the Daily Advertiser carried the vote totals for Queens County by towns. The John McKesson Papers at the New-York Historical Society have all of the election certificates except those for Columbia County and the City and County of New York. The certificate for the latter is in the society's James Duane Papers. The sources for the convention consist of the Journal (man- uscript and printed); notes of debates taken by delegates and pri- vate reporters; drafts of manuscripts, such as resolutions and com- mittee reports; newspaper summaries of proceedings and debates; private letters written by members of the convention or by ob- servers; and a brief journal by DeWitt Clinton.

9For a description of the meeting place of the convention, see Helen Wilk- inson Reynolds. comp. and ed., "The Court House of Dutchess County. . . .." Dutch- ess County Historical Society, Year Book XXIII (1938): 74-98; andFrederic A. Smith. "Where New York Ratified the Federal Constitution." NY14. XVIII (I 937): 218-19.

1 4 5 132 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR The manuscript Journal of theconvention is in the records of the Department of Statelocated in the New York State Ar- chives. Lengthy fragments of smoothand rough Journals, from which this Journal was apparentlyconstructed, are in the Mc- Kesson Papers at the New-YorkHistorical Society. The McKesson Papers also include more than twentyroll calls for insertion in the Journal. The manuscript Journal inthe New York State Archives contains a twenty-page pamphletof the Constitution printed by Nicholas Power for the use of thedelegates. The text is printed on one side of theleaves until page 17; after that the textis printed on both sides. Atthe end of the Journal is a copyof the circular letter signed by forty-seven delegates,including Clinton. These signatures do not appear in the officialprinted version of the Jour- nal. The manuscript Journal, withthe exception of this copy of the circular letter, formed the basisfor the printed Journal. The Journal was printed by NicholasPower. By order of the convention, each delegate was toreceive a copy and a copy was to be sent to each city, town,district, and precinct in the state. Both manuscript and printed journals are onmicrofilm in William S. Jenkins, Records of the States;while the printed Journal is on microcard in Clifford K. Shipton,Early Amerkan Imprints. The McKesson Papers includedrafts of resolutions in the handwriting of such delegates as JohnJay, Robert R. Livingston. Melancton Smith, and John Lansing, Jr.The papers also contain drafts of committee reports,recommended amendments, a dec- laration of rights, forms of ratification,and the circular letter. More drafts of recommendedamendments, forms of ratification, and the circular letter are in theMelancton Smith Papers, New York State Library. These papersalso include drafts of Smith's speeches. Drafts for speeches by otherdelegates are in the Robert R. Livingston Papers. New-YorkHistorical Society: the George Clinton Papers, New York PublicLibrary; and the Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress. The debates of the convention mustbe reconstructed from several sources. For the most part, thefullest sets of notes cover the debates for the month of June; mostof these accounts fall off badly in July. A full reconstructionof the debates has never been published, but the editors of theHamilton Papers, in volume V, have printed several versions ofHamilton's speeches. The editors Guide to Sources 133 also describe their procedures and evaluate the quality of various notes of Hamilton's speeches."' The most complete account of the convention debates was printed by Francis Childs of the Daily Advertiser, who published a pamphlet entitled Debates and Proceedings of the Convention of the State of New-York....Childs's version is complete through 2 July, but then it becomes a summary of proceedings and must be sup- plemented by the convention journal because Childs did not al- ways supply a full account of proceedings." DespiteChilds's de- nials, Antifederalists considered him a "partyman" whose record of debates favored Federalist speakers. Three newspapersthe Daily Advertiser, the New-York Journal, and the Poughkeepsie Country Journalprinted original accounts of debates and proceedings. The Country Journal carried the fullest reports of the first two days, and it was the first newspaper to carry the form of ratification and the circular letter. The Daily Advertiser, apparently with intentions of printing all of Childs's notes, pub- lished complete debates for 19 and Mune but stopped such treat- ment in favor of summaries of debates and proceedings.The New- York Journal published the fullest summaries of debates and pro- ceedings for July. John McKesson and several delegates took notes of debates. The most extensive notes for June were kept by McKesson and Melancton Smith. Gilbert Livingston's notes, in the New York Public Library, surpass any set of notes for the period 14 to 26 July. Other note takers, whose notes are meager or difficult to use, are Alexander Hamilton,Richard Harison, Robert R. Liv- ingston, and Robert Yates. The Hamilton and Harison notes are in the Hamilton Papers and the Yates notes are in the Edmund C. Genet Papersall at the Library of Congress. Robert R.Liv- ingston's notes are in his papers in the New-York Historical So- ciety. DeWitt Clinton's journal (15-19 July), in his papers at Col- umbia University, contains a brief account of speeches and

"For an example of the manner in which The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution will reconstruct the debates for the state convention, see volume 11, Ratification of the Constitution by the States:Pennsylvania (Madison. Wis., 1976). "The Childs version is reprinted in volume 11 of Jonathan Elliot, ed.. The Debates in the Several State Cornvntwns, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution .. rev. ed.. 5 vols. (Philadelphia, Pa.. 1836-1845).A facsimile of the Childs version wasprinted by the Vassar Brothers Institute in Poughkeepsie in 1905.

147 134 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR convention gossip. The Morris-PophamPapers at the Library of Congress has a notebook that includesdelegate Richard Morris's general comments on the Constitution andtwenty-three num- bered objections to the Constitution andMorris's replies to most of them. It is not clear if these notes weretaken during the convention. There are two copies of the form ofratificationone is in the records of the Department of State,New York State Archives, and the other is in RG II, General Recordsof the United States Government, Certificates of Ratification of theConstitution.. National Archives, Washington, D.C. Thelatter is available in a microfilm publication of the NationalArchives (M-338). A last source for the study of theconvention is the large number of letters written by convention delegatesand spectators. More than a dozen delegates wrote lettersduring the convention. Four of John Jay's ten letters were written toGeorge Washington, and eight of Alexander Hamilton's ten letters went toJames Mad- ison. Among the Federalist spectators, PhilipSchuyler wrote ten letters and Samuel Blachley Webb andDavid S. Bogart two each. Antifederalists are represented by delegatesCornelius C. Schoon- maker (6 letters) and George Clinton (3), and spectatorDeWitt Clinton (5). A number of their letters (andthose of other Anti- federalists) went to John Lamb and his aides in NewYork City who coordinated activities with Antifederahtsin other states with respect to amendments and asecond geaeral convention. Con- vention secretary Abraham B. Banckcr pennedeleven letters.

Secondary Accounts of Ratification Studies on New York ratification have concentrated onthe division between the state's two political parties over theissue of strength- ening the general government; on the relationshipof this issue to state issues, such as the stateimpost and paper money; on the formation, composition, principles, and strengthof the two par- ties: on the methods that each party used toachieve its ends and goals: and on an explanation of why theoverwhelmingly Antifed- eralist New York Convention ratified theConstitution. The early modern historiography of ratification by NewYork and other states was dominated by thesectional and class interpretations of Orin Grant Libby and Charles A. Beard. Beginningin 1955, a group of consensus historians and politicalscientists reacted negatively

1 4 Guide to Sources 135 to these interpretations and denied the existenceof a class struggle over the Constitution. Both Federalists andAntifederalists were committed to the idea of popular government. This school did not become dominant among historians as a groupof neo-Pro- gressive historians rushed to Beard's defense and tried to reha- bilitate. him, although they, too, were critical of him. The battle was apparently too intense for some historians whodecided neither to defend nor criticize Beard; theyattempted to ignore him." In 1894 Orin Grant Libby, a student of Frederick Jackson Turner, wrote the first scientific study of the ratification of the Constitution. His research was thin but his impact was formidable. In New York, Libby argued, the Constitution was supported by classes on the seacoast and on the Hudson River; these classes consisted of New York City merchants and commercial farmers of the southern counties and parts of the Hudson Valley, but not the great manor lords. The farmers in the isolated frontier coun- ties of the north opposed the Constitution because the new gov- ernment would put an end to the state hnpostand paper money." Two decades later, Charles A. Beard accepted Libby's thesis, but introduced new elements into the study of New York ratifi- cation. His work was tentative and suggestive. Beard believed that the state convention vote on ratification reflected the fight be- tween the holders of real property (small farmers and manorlords) and the holders of personal property (merchants and publiccred- itors). Sixteen of the thirty delegates who voted for ratification in the state convention in 1788 were creditors of the general gov- ernment; the new government under theConstitution would re- deem the Continental securities held by these individuals. The fight over the Constitution was a class struggle; men of property sought protection against the democratic spirit of the times. Had

liOn the formation and ratification of the Constitution, see Jack P. Greene, "Revolution, Confederation, and Constitution, 1763-1787," in William H. Cart- wright and Richard L Watson, Jr., eds., The Reinuntretation of American History and Culture (Washington. D.C.. 1973), 259-95; and jaines H. Hutson, "Country, Court. and Constitution: Antifederalism and the Historians," WMQ, 3rd ser., XXXV111 (1981): 337-68, and "The Creation of the Constitution: Scholarship at a Stand- still," Reviews in American History, XII (1984): 463-77. "The Geographkal Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution, 1787-8 (Madison, Wis., 1894). On Libby's impact, see Robert P. Wil- kins. "Orin G. Libby: His Place in the Historiography of the Constitution," North Dakota Quarterly X XXVII (1969): 5-20.

1 4 :1 136 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR underrepresented in the con- the Antifederalistcountiet not been vention, New York wouldhave rejected theConstitution." full-scale study of In 1921 Clarence E.Miner wrote the first He cursorilyexamined the politics ofthe New York ratification. and Clin- 1780s and discovered twopolitical partiesHamiltonians tonianswho were divided on papermoney and mostimportam, federal impost of 1783.In May 1786 theClintonian leg- on the conditions that were un- islature ratified thefederal impost with Confederation Congress.Clintonians were con- acceptable to the wanted to retain cerned about the state'ssovereignty, and they state's position onthe federal impost "de- the state impost. The the final votes cided the fate of theConfederation." In analyzing concluded that New Hamp- of the state conventionin 1788, Miner shire ratification was "a severeblow" but Virginia's wasthe "de- critical; he and other cisive blow." MelanctonSmith's defection was Antifederalists feared thatNew York mightbe left out of the U nion." In 1932 Thomas C.Cochran, New York inthe Confederation, political alignments onthe federal impostof declared that the action on 1783 and the Constitution wereidentical. New York's the Confederation.Clintonians were defiant the impost wrecked impost and maintain states' righters whowanted to keep the state the state's sovereignty. York in the Critkal In the same year, E.Wilder Spaulding, New of the 1780s anddem- Period, thoroughlyinvestigated the politics onstrated clearly thatthe two politicalparties were divided on Clintonians supported thegeneral governmentbefore many issues. hostile to it after the peace. 17413 but becameeither indifferent or in building theEmpire State; they did not They were interested des- want New York tobe dependent onCongress. Hamiltonians

of the Constitution of theUnited States (New York. '44n Economic Interpretation "Power and Authority in 1913). For Beard's impact, seeJohn Pan-ick Diggins, His- American History: The Caseof Charles A. Beardand His Critics," Amerwan torical Review LXXXVI(1981): 701-30. the first printed "See note I above. Miner'sdoctoral dissertation was not ratification. In IV): or shortlythereafter. G. A. McKillipDyess on New York dissertationThe Conflict aver theRatification of the Federal published a thirty-six page written at New YorkUniversity. Constitution in the State ofNew Yorkthat he had ratification was a strugglebetween democrats and aristocrats Dyess argued that The state conventionratified and between commercialand agricultural imerests. and Virginia ratification:(2) the threat of secession because of (I) New Hampshire and "fears" and tacticalblunders by the southern counties;and (3) the "stupidity" of Governor Clinton.

1 5 Guide to Sources 137 perately wanted a strong central government and New York's po- sition on the federal impost of 1783 made them moredetermined than ever. On ratification, Spaulding accepted the sectionaldivi- sion of parties and the commercial versus non-commercialinter- ests, but listed the great manor lords asFederalists. The bitter struggle in the state convention was between social classes. Anti- federalists were outmaneuvered but circumstances hurt them more. Governor Clinton could not hold the Antifederalists together be- cause of (1) New Hampshire andVirginia ratification; (2) the threat of secession by New York City and the southern counties; and (3) the promise of a federal capital. The moderate Antifederalistswho switched their votes were from areas closest to New York City or in the Hudson Valley."3 in 1955 Cecilia M. Kenyon launched the assault upon Beard, chiding him for not considering the theoretical foundations of the Constitution. She viewed Antifederalists, including those inNew York, as "men of little faith." They were not democrats andthey did not believe in national democracy. ironically,the Federalists provided the framework for national democracy." The next year Robert E. Brown, Beard's severest critic, dis- missed the notion that public securities determined the vote on ratification and scored Beard for uncritically using 1791records to determine who held public securitiesin 1787 and 1788. There was no class struggle;society was basically democratic. Brown sug- gested that political and personal interests were mostimportant. Most people sincerely believed that theArticles of Confederation were defective, and the prestigeof the Constitutional Convention helped ratification."' For an appreciation of Spaulding's book, see Linda Grant DePauw. "E. Wilder Spaulding and New York History," NY H, XLIX(1968): 142-55. ""Men of Little Faith: The Anti-Federalists on the Nature of Representative Government," WMQ, 3rd ser., XII (1955): 3-43; and The Antsfederalists(Indian- apobs, Ind., and New York, 1966). For Kenyon's extended critiqueof Beard. see " 'An Economi: Interpretation of the Constitution'After Fifty Years," Centennial Rniew VII (1963): 327-52. Richard W. Crosby agreed that theAntifederalists were "men of little faith" and that they were not truelibertarians. Crosby declared that the Federalists "were the faithful libertarians." See "The NewYork State Ratifying Convention: On Federalism." Polity IX (1969): 97-116. "'Charles Beard and the Constitution: A Critkal Analysis of "An&or:oink Inter- pretation of the Constitution" (Princeton, N.J., 1956). In line withBrown, Charles Edward La Cerra, Jr., rejected Beard's thesis that New York aristocratssupported the Constitution only out of self-interest. See "The Role ofAristocracy in New York State Politics During the Period of Confederation. 1783-1788"(Ph.D. diss., New York University. 1969).

5 1 138 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR Forrest McDonald presented his analysis ofratification in three studies published between 1958 and1965. In 1786 Clin- tonians had a vision of the Empire State andrefused to help Con- gress. These attitudes andClinton's financial program (which ben- efitted his supporters) aroused the ire of Hamiltonianswho fought back. McDonald put Beard to the test. Heinvestigated the eco- nomic interests of state conventiondelegates and concluded that economic interests had no part in the showdown onratification because neither group had a monopoly of theseinterests. (Much of his economic data has been questioned.)Although he presented little evidence, McDonald asserted unequivocallythat the conven- tion ratified because of the southern counties'threat to secede. The convention "degenerated comically" afterNew Hampshire and Virginia ratification. Antifederalists were notunited in the convention.t9 In 1960 Lee Benson concluded that Beardfailed to realize that there is seldom total class solidarity. Beard was wrongabout public securities, but right about the small numberof New Yorkers who supported the Constitution. Bensonrecommended that his- torians also study ethnic and relip,tous factors indetermining classes, and he called for "a credible, systematic accountof the sequence of events" in the state convention toexplain why the Federalists won. The evidence onthe threat of secession was too impressionistic." In 1960 and961 Jackson Turner Main defended Beard. Main wrote an exhaustive history of theAntifederalists in each state. He stated that during the1780s New York's two parties were divided over manyissues, especially paper money and the federal impost of 1783. The division overratification was between commercial and non-commercial sections andclasses and between aristocrats and democrats. The vote on ratificationfollowed the votes on paper money and thefederal impost. Public securities were an important factor.Antifederalist defectors were influenced

MVe the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution(Chicago, /IL 1058); "The Anti-Federalists. 1781-1789." The WisconsinMagazine of History X LV I (1965): 206-14; and E Plunks Unum: The Formation of theAmerkan Republic, 1776-1790 (Boston. Mass.. 1965). For the paper money aspectsof Clinton's financial program of 1786, see John Paul Kaminski, "Paper Politics: TheNorthern State Loan-Offices During the Confederation. 1783-1790" (Ph.D.diss., University of Wisconsin. Mad- ison. 1972). "Turner and Beard: American Historical Wri6ngRecoruidered (Glencoe, Ill., 1960).

1 5 Guide to Sources 139 by New Hampshire and Virginia ratification; the threatened seces- sion of the southern counties; and the belief that New York had to remain in the Union." Staughton Lynd's study on Dutchess County also reinforced the Beardian tradition. Lynd saw a sharp class conflict. The great landlords and their tenants were Federalists; the well-to-do free- holders and lesser landlords were Antifederalists. Dutchess elected seven Antifederalist delegates to the state convention. Four voted for ratification; two against; and one abstained. The four defectors were ambitious men of substance from the Poughkeepsie area; they were bound by economic and family ties. The two party stal- warts were from southeastern Dutchess which had a tradition of violent antilandlordism.n In 1966 Linda Grant De Pauw announced that it was "time for Beard to leave the spotlight of the Constitution." In the most comprehensive study of New York ratification to date, De Pauw ignored Beard but challenged the conclusions of many other his- torians. She rejected the notion that political parties existed for the years 1781 to 1786. The Antifederalists of 1787-88, including Clinton, had always been friends to the general government; New York Antifederalism was compatible with a strong feeling toward this government. The emphasis that newspaper articles and con- vention speakers put on class divisions was mere rhetoric; both sides drew their strength from the middle class. New Yorkers were not overwhelmingly Antifederalist. The basic difference between the two groups in the state convention was how and when to ratify. Most Antifederalists wanted conditional ratification; none sup- ported outright rejection. No Federalist opposed amendments on principle. Antifederalists were not disturbed by the news from

"-Charles A. Beard and the Constitution: A Critical Review of Forrest McDonald's We the People,- WMQ. 3rd ser.. XVII (1960): 86-102; and The Anti- federalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788 (Chapel Hill. N.C.. 1961). Main's views about the importance of the public creditors in New York are shared by E. James Ferguvm, The Power of the Purse: A History of American Public Finance, 1776- 1790 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1961). For Main's fuller discussion of the state's two parties, see The Upper House in Revolutionary America, 1763-1788 (Madison, Wis., 1967): and Political Parties before the Constitution (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1973). "Anti-Federalism in Dutchess County, New York: A Study of Democracy and rtosS Conflict in the Revolutionary Era (Chicago, Ill., 1962). The reader should also Lynd's "The Mechanics in New York Politics, 1774-1788," Labor History V (19o-t). 225-46: and several essays in his Class Conflict, Slavery, and the United States Consti- tution: Ten Essays (Indianapolis, Ind.. and New York. 1967). Melancton Smith, one of the four Antifederalist defectors, lived in New York City but he had been a Poughkeepsie merchant for many years.

- 153 140 THE RELUCTANTPiLLAR New Hampshire andVirginia, and the threatof secession was inconsequential. MelanctonSmith and othermoderate Antifed- realized that Congress eralists voted forratification because they they feared for the would not accept aconditional ratification and John Jay's conciliatoryattitude helped Union and Antifederalism. brilliant oratory had no win over someAntifederalists. Hamilton's effect. Ratification was asmuch a victory forAntifederalists as through a second Federalists. Amendmentswould be obtained general convention." The same year RobertA. Rutland statedthat his book was "neither a defense nor anattack on Beard." Hewanted to discuss of the Antifederalists. the personalities,problems, and apsirations Rutland declared that inthe state conventionAntifederalists used the tactics of delay, notfrom design, but outof uncertainty. The know how to call threat of secession was abluff, but they did not end; he could it. A confused Clinton gave uphis leadership at the not stop theAntifederalist defections." In 1967 Alfred F.Young, The DemocraticRepublicans of New York, refused to allowBeard to expire, althoughhe challenged him points. Young demonstratedthat there were twodis- on certain large part a class tinct political parties andthat this division was in middle class and division. The Clintonians wereled by men of the lesser aristocrats; somehad attained wealthduring the Revolution but they lacked social status or"tone." They were stateparticu- Hamiltonians. The larists who feared thenationalist policies of the Hamiltonians were the partyof privilege, status,and wealth; this sought na- was the partyof the merchantsand manor lords who tional solutions to theproblems of the stateand the Union. Me- the Hamiltoniansbecause they believedthat chanics lined up with conflict in a strongcentral governmentwould revive trade. The clear-cut class struggle; itreflected the the state convention was a and the rep- old antagonism betweenthe privileged aristocracy

State and the Federal Constitution(Ithaca.1966). "The Elei,enth Pillar: New York York played a major part, On the secondconventionmovement, in which New "The Anticlimax ofAntifederalism: The Abortive seeDe Pauw's genera/ study. (1970): 98-114;EdwardP. Second Convention Movement.1788-89,"Prologue 11 Towards a Second ConstitutionalConvention in 1788." Smith. "The Movement History of the Vnited States . . in J. Franklin Jameson.ed., Essays in the Constitutional Allen Rutland,The Ordeal of the Con.stnution:The (Boston,Mass.. 1889); and Robert (Norman. Okb., 1966). chap- Antifederaliits and the RatificationStruggle of 1787-1788 ter XV, "Seenote 23above. Guide to Sources 141 resentatives of the people who had been oppressed by them. Beard was correct about public securities, and Main wasright about the split along commercial and non-commercial lines. Several factors led to ratification: (1) the rising tide of public opinion in favor of the Constitution; (2) the serious division of opinion among Anti- federalists; (3) New Hampshire and Virginia ratification; and (4) the skill of the Federalists who used the threat of secession and offered conciliatory amendments. Melancton Smith was despised by Amifederalists for changing his vote." In 1969 Gordon S. Wood appeared to join the Beard forces. He believed that "The Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the pe- riod..." It repudiated the Revolutionary ideals that New York Antifederalists wanted to preserve. Antifederalists strove to give people a greater role in government. As democrats, they feared a national government dominated by anatural aristocracy. To Federalists, the Constitution was the best means to protect repub- licanism which was being endangered by excessive egalitarianism in state politics. Federalists developed an elitist theory of democ- racy; they expected people to vote for the rightleaders who would save republicanism." In 1976 and 1979 Steven R. Boyd asserted that New York Antifederalists were a well-organized, purposeful group through- out the ratification struggle. They failed, however,for several rea- sons: (1) the news of Virginia ratification; (2)Congress was moving toward the adoption of an ordinance calling for the first federal elections; and most important, (3) the Antifederalists in the state convention believed that they could get amendments from a sec-

o3Also useful on the subject of New York's political parties and leaders are such unpublished doctoral dissertations as Edmund Philip Willis, "Social Origins of Political Leadership in New York City from the Revolution to 1815" (University of California, Berkeley, 1967); Leonard H. Bernstein, "Alexander Hamilton and Political Factions in New York to 1787" (New York University, 1970); and Dom- inick David De Lorenzo. "The New York Federalists: Forces of Order" (Columbia University, 1979). "77u, Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Chawl Hill. N.C., 1969). For detailed, unpublished doctoral dissertations on political thought in New York, see Theophilus Parsons, Jr., "The Old Conviction versus theNew Realities: New York Antifederalist Leaders and the Radical Whig Tradition" (Columbia Univer- sity, 1974); JeromeGillen, "Political Thought in Revolutionary New York, 1763- 1789" (Lehigh University, 1972); and Maria T. Eufemia, "The Influence of Re- publican Ideology on New Yorkers, 1775-1800: An Examination of the British Libertarian Tradition" (Fordham University, 1976). 142 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR ond general convenfion.Antifederalists decided to workwithin the system and change its" In 1981 Edward Countryman'sstudy of New York society and politics demonstrated thatthe confrontation of 1787-88 was the culmination of a ten-yeardevelopment. Between 1779and 1788 two distinct, well-organizedpolitical parties developed; everyone knew theleaders and the issues. Thispartisanship was based upon class, sectionalism,economics, royalism, and the ques- tion of the extent of people'sparticipation in government. The vote on ratificationlay in regionalism and economicgeography; the farther north a county, the morelikely it was to be Antifed- eralist. Antifederalist delegates wholived closest to a city were most likely to switchtheir votes." Elsewhere in this volume, JohnP. Kaminski also sees two distinct political parties.Emphasizing their different attitudes to the central government.Kaminski concludes that thefight over the ratification of theConstitution was the most intense party battle between 1777 and1788.1n particular, the campaign toelect state conventkmdelegates demonstrated how bitterlythe parties were split. NewYork ratified for several reasons:(I) most impor- tant, after NewHampshire and Virginia adoptedthe Constitution New Yorkers feared that, ifthe state convention failed toratify, New York would be isolated,civil war would break out, andthe southern counties would secede; (2) anincreasing number of peo- ple came to support theConstitution; (3) Antifederalistsin the convention were badly divided,while Federalists wereconciliatory and patient; and (4) theconversion of Melancton Smith wascrucial. Biographers of some state conventiondelegates also consider the process of ratificationin New York. Many biographersof Alex- ander Hamilton, beginning inthe middle of the nineteenth cen- tury, portrayed him asthe key to understandingthe struggle for ratification; without him, NewYork would not have ratifiedthe Constitution.29 This myth-makingreached its apogee with the pub- "Ile Impact of the Constitution onState Politics: New York as a Test Case," in James Kirby Martin, ed..The Human Dimensions of NationMaking: Essays 1976). and The Politws of Op- on Colonial andRevolutionary America (Madison, Wis., position: Antifederalins and theAcceptance of the Constitution (Millwood,1979). "A People in Revohnion: The AmericanRevolution and Political Society in New York. 1760-1790 (Rakimore, Md.,and London, Eng., 1981). "This literature is reviewed inRobin Brooks, Alexander Hamilton,Me- lancton Smith, and the Ratification ofthe Constitution in New York,"WMQ, Srd ser., XXIV (1967):359-58; and Philip R. Schmidt,"Virginia, Secession. and Alex- ander Hamilton: New York Ratifiesthe Constitution" (M.A. Thesis,University of Kansas. 1965).

15f; Guide to Sources 143 lication of biographies by Broadus Mitchell in 1957 and Clinton Rossiter in 1964. Mitchell believed that New York ratification was Hamilton's foremost political exploit. He stressed Hamilton's great powers of reasoning and persuasion andhis moral earnestness." Rossiter stated that "The conversion of (Melancton Smith] was the most notable success of Hamilton's checkered career as a pol- itician.. .The Hamilton of Poughkeepsie was the best of all pos- sible Hamiltons, not alone as politician and rhetorician but also as a political scientist." Rossiter,however, admitted that Hamilton was also "lucky"; several eventshelped Hamilton considerably." In the 1960s Hamilton's role began to be deemphasized as several historians, among them Jackson Turner Main, Linda Grant De Pauw, and Robin Brooks, punctured the myth. Two of Hamilton's most recent biographersRobertHendrickson and Jacob E. Cookemake no grandiloquent claims for their subject's role in bringing about the ratification of the Constitution in New York." Robin Brooks believed that Melancton Smith may well have been indispensable to New York ratification; Smith, not Alexander Hamilton, was the real hero of ratification. His decision to vote for the Constitution, in order to keep New York in the Union, was an example of high statesmanship.He gave up his political future to vote for ratification." Richard B. Morris asserted that John Jay was more important than Hamilton. jay realized that many Antifederalists in the conventiondid not want to reject the Constitution and he won some of them over by being moderate and conciliatory." George Dangerfield gave no such credit to Rob- ert R. Livingston, but he developed asound interpretation of rat- ification. Dangerfield emphasized the character of the two groups and the class conflict endemic in the convention. Clintoniansfeared consolidation, aristocracy, and despotism, but they were divided, irresolute, stolid, and obstinate. Most important, they were un- willing to reject the Constitution outright. On the other hand, Federalists were united, energetic, resolute, purposeful, better ed- ucated, and willing to compromise."

5*Alexander Hamdton: Youth to Maturity. 1755-1788 (New York, 1957). 5'Alexander Hamilton and thr Constitution (New York, 1964). "Hendrickson. Hamilton 1 (1757-1789) (New York, 1976): Cooke. Alrxa inter Hamilton (New York, 1982). "See note29 above. ""' John jay and the Adoption of the Federal Constitutionin New York: A New Reading of Persons and Events," NYH, LXIII (1982): 132-64. "Chancellor Robert R. Livingston o f Nov York, 1746-1813(New York, 1960).

157 144 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR New York, then, ratified theConstitution for a variety of reasons. The ratificationof the Constitution by NewHampshire and Virginia, especially the latter,convinced a number of Anti- federalists in the state convention th i:a.there would be no future for New York or Antifederalismoutside the Union, and, there- fore, New York had no choice but toratify the Constitution. New York would be subjected to thehostility of neighboring states which had long chafed under NewYork's economic domination. The Union had to be preservedand a large, wealthy state like New York had to be part of it.The threat of secession by the southern counties would isolatethe northern counties and would lead to civil strife and economicruin. The promise of the retention of the federal capital in New YorkCity and the growing support for the Constitution among thepeople in some parts of the state also influenced some Antifederalists. These concerns could not havehad such a significant impact had not the Antifederalists inthe state convention been badly divided. As a group, Antifederalistslacked common goals anddif- fered on tactics. Most important,they lacked strong effective lead- ership. At the end of theconvention George Clinton, their prin- cipal leader, abdicated his leadership;he could not hold his group together. On the other hand,Federalists were united under a strong, energetic, andpurposeful leadership. Federalistleaders, particularly John Jay, were realistswho concluded that compro- mise was absolutely necessaryin order to achieve ratification.They refused to allow the bitter classconflict revealed in the publicand convention debates to destroy thechances for ratification. Alex- ander Hamilton was open to someconcessions, but he was too widely distrusted by Antifederalists tohave had any appreciable influence upon them. The defectionof Melancton Smith, the prin- cipal Antifederalist speaker, wascrucial. Smith led a group of Anti- federalists who realized that NewYork had to remain in theUnion. These Antifederalists representedcommercial areas which would benefit from the ratification of theConstitution because the new government would havethe power to regulate foreignand inter- state commerce and paythe public debt. The vote onratification of the Constitution resembledearlier votes in the New York leg- islature on the federal impost of1783 and state paper money. The ratification struggle of 1787-88 wasthe culmination of ten years of party strife in NewYork. Lastly, the Antifederalistdefectors

1 5 Guide to Sources 145 sincerely believed that a second general convention would be called and that it would recommend amendments to the Constitution. Local Histories and Genealogies One last category of secondary materiallocal histories and ge- nealogiesdeserves some mention, Some of the historians men- tioned above, especially Spaulding and De Pauw, have used these sources effectively. Town and countyhistories and genealogies often include primary sources that are no longer available ordif- ficult to locate, biographical material on lesser known political figures, and descriptions of places and styles of living. Some local histories, in fact, attempt to cover every aspect of life.These sources, however, must beexamined with a cool, critical eye. Many were written by amateur historiansin the nineteenth century when standards of historical scholarship were not as rigorous as they have become. More recently, the study of local communitieshas become the province of some professional historians and the qual- ity of these histories has improved considerably. An examination of the monthly Dissertation Abstraas International, A: TheHumanities and Social Sciences (Ann Arbor, Mich.) reveals that, in recent years, the study of local communities has become popular among com- puter-oriented doctoral candidates. The better local histories are listed in the Klein and Gephart bibliographies (above). More extensive guides are Charles A. Flagg and Judson T. Jennings, A Bibliography of New YorkColonial History, New York State Library Bulletin No. 56 (1901), 291-558;and Harold Nestler, A Bibliography. of New York State Communities:Coun- ties, Towns, Villages (Port Washington, 1968). Many ofthe most recent local histories andgenealogies are listed in Research and Publications and are reviewed in New York History and The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record. Before it stoppedpublication in early 1980, the New-York Historical Society Quarterly alsoreviewed this literature. Perhaps the finest collections of localhistory and gmealogy in New York State are those in the New YorkState Library. Albany; the New York State Historical AssociationLi- brary, Cooperstown; the Olin Library, Cornell University, Ithaca; and the New York Public Library, the New-YorkHistorical So- ciety, and the New York Genealogical andBiographical Society, all in New York City. Local historical societies,historic sites, and public libraries often have excellent holdings for theirlocalities and contiguous areas. Guides to some of these places arelisted in 146 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR

Manuel D. Lopez, New York AGuide to Information andReference Sources (Metuchen, NJ., andLondon, Eng., 1980). Suggestions for Further Study Despite the flurry ofhistorical activity, or perhapsbecause of it, a completelypersuasive explanation of whyNew York ratified the Constitution has not emerged.Several subjects demand further investigation. The movement for a strongercentral government among New Yorkersand the state's attitudetoward the Confed- eration Congress must be studiedsystematically and exhaustively. In particular, close attention mustbe paid to the state'sattitude toward the federal impost of1783. Moreover, some of the more recent writers on NewYork ratification have beenunwise in down- playing the Clintonians' desire toretain the state impost,their offices, and their hopes andaspirations for an Empire State.The further investigation of thesetopics will probably help toexplain more fullywhy many Antifederalists,especially George Clinton and his more faithful followers,fiercely opposed the Constitution. The burgeoning conflict betweenthis particularist philosophyand the nationalist philosophy ofthe Hamiltonians is oneof the keys to understandingNew York politics in the1780s. The public debate over ratificationhas not been sufficiently explored. Political writers onboth sides were prolific andwhat they said and how they saidit must be subjected to acritical anal- ysis, not dismissed as mererhetoric. How much impact didthis avalanche of politica) writing have onthe electorate? It probably had some effect because theAntifederalist majority in the state convention significantly exceededthe Antifederalist majoritiesin the most recent electionsfor the state legislature. TheFederalist has long been considered the mostsignificant American contri- bution to the history of politica/thought, but no adequate ex- amination has ever been made todetermine its impact on New York politics in 1787 and 1788.It must be rememberedthat the authors of The Federalistaddressed their arguments directly tothe people of the state of New York. The factors that determinedthe vote in the state convention also need further study. Thethreat of secession, thoughadmitted by most historians, has notbeen thoroughly examined. LeeBenson was certainly correctwhen he declared that theevidence for the threat of secession was tooimpressionistic. Moreover, did thethreat of secession have any historicalbasis? Had the southern counties ever threatened tosecede before? A numberof historians have

ltJu Guide to Sources 147 alluded to the importance of keeping the federal capital in New York City, but none has researched the question in depth. Historians have closely examined the impact that economic and political factors have had on the composition of political par- ties and the vote on ratification, but they have not sufficiently considered the influence of ethnic and religious factors. The em- phasis that historians of colonial New York are placing upon the states extraordinary ethnic and religious diversity should be ex- tended to include the period of the Confederation and the Con- stitution. New York society was perhaps the most complex of any American state. For decades, the state attracted large numbers of New Englanders who emigrated there in even greater numbers during the 1780s. This group undoubtedly changed the complex- ion of New York politics and its impact would be a worthwhile field of study. Certainly, a better understanding of the divisions among Antifederalists in the state convention is needed. These divisions were possibly of long standing and surfaced on such a critical issue as the ratification of the Constitution. If possible, we must try to discover how Federalists worked behind the scenes to convince some Antifederalists to change their votes." It seems plausible that this happened, but the evidence presented to date has not been substantial. More than twenty years ago, Lee Benson called for "a cred- ible, systematic account of the sequence of events" in the state convention to explain why Federalists won. Unfortunately, no one has accepted his challenge. The scope of Linda De Pauw's mon- ograph gave her the best opportunity, but her insistence that Anti- federalists supported the Constitution prevented her from ade- quately investigating this sequence of events. These events must be tied together with the outthie circumstances that have been emphasized by many historians. The material for such a study is perhaps too diffuse and it might not be possible to attempt the study until The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Consti- tution has brought together and published all of the primary material.

"Mice P. Kenney suggests that Federalist delegates exerted pressure on wavering Antifederalists through long-standing family, commercial, and religious ties. This kind of pressure, a tradition in New York polkics,mild not be duplicated by adamant Antifederalists (The Gansetworts of Albany: Dukh Patriciani in she Upper Hudson Valley [Syracuse, 19691).

161 MATERIALS

FictionAnother Source

JACK VA N DER HOOF Russell Sage College

Remembering the past, recreat- ing the past, honoring the past,and celebrating the past demand many differentapproaches and choices. Theadoption of the fed- eral Constitution is no exception tothe rule. Scholarly works by Charles A. Beard, Edward S. Corwin,and others are important and necessary for certain levelsof understanding and a more com- plete recreation of the past.Commentaries and correspondence of Federalists and Antifederalists serve asanother avenue to un- derstanding. Biographies and localhistories are also useful. Many scholars of political and constitutionalhistory would dismiss works of fiction as an appropriate means tounderstanding, honoring, or presenting a recreated past. Thisdismissal is unwarranted when one understandsthe role of fiction in studyingthe past and, more specifically, New York and the adoptionof the federal Constitution. When "history" and "fiction" arewed, the first image of the union is the sultry "historicalromance." Dismiss this idea. Any novel is a historical novel eitherbecause it deals with some aspect of past reality, imagined reality, or pastimagination or is itself of the past. Usually, "historicalnovels" is a term used to describe mediocre or poor efforts; if thework has merit it becomes liter- ature or "belles-lettres."Consider War and Peace and classifyit. What should a novel accomplishif one is to use it as another useful way of approaching pastreality? Gyorgy Lukács in his splen- did and thorough The HistoricalNovel supplies one answer. What matters therefore in thehistorical novel is not the retelling of great historical events,but the poetic awakening Fiction: Another Source 149

of the people who figured in those events. What mattersis that we should re-experience the social andhuman motives which led men to think, feel and act just as they did inhis- torical reality.' And Lukics continues: The historical novel therefore has to demonstrateby ar- tistic means that historical circumstances andcharacters ex- iRted in precisely such and such a way. What in (SirWalter] Scott has been called very superficially "authenticityof local colour" is in actual fact this demonstration of historicalreality.' The novel should give the reader an insight into theordinary lives of the people in the story and it must, tobe of value, set this ordinariness in the proper milieu. Thus, the functionis insight for the former and perspective for the latter.Serendipity permits dis- covery ofiunexpected facetsof the life and times of the subject under investigation. Valuable also,especially in the classroom set- ting, is the flavoring that conceals the real orimagined bitterness of the medicine. This, of course, assumeshistory as nonfiction is unadulterated cod liver oil and the novel is spearmintflavored oil. The novel also enhances the imagination andunderstanding of what it was like living in the past; and, if the novelis good, it underscores our great chain of being and confirms ourhumanity. A caveat before a specific illustrationof the use of the novel: Michael Kammen in A Season of Youth suggeststhat novelists were really relativists in their interpretations.He cites Hervey Allen: It is in this capacity to produce an illusion of relivingthe past that the chief justification for the historicalnovel exists. Since no one, neither historian nornovelist, can reproduce the real past. one may infer that, if supremelywell done, the historical novel, by presenting the past dramatically, actuallygives the reader a more vivid, adequate, and significantapprehension of past epochs than does the historian, who conveysfacts about them.*

Shad Run Howard Breslin's Shad Run published in 1955is set in Pough- keepsie, New York, during the year 1788, moreprecisely from

tOy6rgy Lukács, The Higorital Novel (London, 1962),42. *Ibid., 43. 'Michael Kammen, A Season of Youth (New York, 1978), 151. 150 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR mid-March through 24 June.4As the title suggests, the springshad run in theHudson River is the overarchingfactor under which is set a series ofromantic events, class conflict,and, with a seeming naturalness and almostinevitableness, the ratification ofthe new Constitution by New York. How does Breslin in ShadRun meet the criterion of perspec- tive? His depiction of theHudson River milieu, lateeighteenth century, is acceptable,believable, and accurate. Thedescriptigw. of the ice breaking up onthe mighty Hudson conveys tothose who have not experienced thisphenomenon a sense of presence. But for Breslin's heroine,Lancey, sixteen-year-olddaughter of a river fisherman, it meant areal inconvenience for she hadwalked four miles from home and wasplanning to skate back. Thebreak- ing was worse for thetraveler, Dirck, whom Lancey had tohelp get out of the riverwhen his mare broke throughthe ice. Dirck was the son of the gentryfamily van Zandt of Rhinebeck.Here is a common andunderstandable liaison complicatedby gentry and fishmonger antecedents. The subject of theimpending state ratifying conventionis introduced in a natural fashion.It is a subject of conversation not because the fishermen wereconsumed with interest in andfeelings about the Constitution butbecause the ratifying conventionwould attract more people toPoughkeepsie while the shad wererunning and it would mean increaseddemand and higher prices. The con- versation about the ConstitutionalConvention that had met in Philadelphia was what one might expectof these folk. "It stands to reason," Pardonsaid, "that they didn't hold that meeting in Philadelphia fornothing. Every blessed time those high-cockalorums gettogether in Philadelphia some- thing new comes out of it. For yearsnow." He raised a big fist, snapped a finger upright ashe made his points. "First off come a petition toKing George, rot him. Then, comethe war. Then, General Washington'sappointment. Then, the Dec- laration. Lastly, the Confederation."(Breslin, 45) The shad swam up the riverand fishermen caught and soldthem in what seemed a naturalrelationship. So the intrusionof the ratifying convention and thewhole range of the politicalworld was natural butwith a priority a cutbelow the shad season. This

4Howard Breslin. Shad Run (NewYork, 1955). Hereafter. Breslincitations appear in the text. Fiction: Another Source 151

is the perspective Breslin offers. For Breslin the novelist, the at- titudes toward the Constitution were molded by simple and com- plex forces, informed study of the arguments, class antagonisms, acceptance of the positions of powerful political leaders and per- sonalities, and gut feelings. What insight does Breslin offer about the views of those caught up in the struggle over the ratification of the Constitutionin New York? One of the leading characters is Justin, a Massachusetts man who escaped to New York after the collapse of Shays's Rebellion. He was unhappy with Governor George Clinton of New York because the governor marched a,. army to the border to prevent the routed insurgents from coming into New York. Justin intro- duced the standard connection between the Massachusetts action and the ratification of the Constitution. "Yes, he's [Daniel Shays's] saft. in the Vermont Republic now:* Justin shrugged, stared moodily at the ground. "But that isn't the worst of it, Lancey. In Massachusetts they used what we'd done as an argument in favor of this Constitution. So such an outrage could never happen again they said. And folks listened, and voted to ratify." (Breslin, 230) Justin was opposed to the Constitution and rehearsed a standard argument. "We won a war, Lancey, and every day it becomes less a victory. First we fought for our rights as English citizens. Then, because we couldn't get them otherwise, we fought to be free and independent states. And now we seem determined, state by state, to trade both freedom and independence for a government that grants only the rights it wishesr' (Breslin, 230) Justin felt if New York stood firm and refused to ratify, the 11 proposel, iew form of government could be defeated; but hisdire A preNor weuld never be realized. As the adversaries gathered in the afternoon and evening of 16 June for the ratifying convention on the following day, one gets some idea of the leadership and the leanings of the local citizenry. Clinton, the first non-royal , was a local hero. He was described as "valley born, riverbred," a powerful figure in state affairs. Though he was not very effective as a military tactician during the American Revolution,he was regarded locally as a power in the state. As one character notes:

I G;) 152 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

His had been one of the early voices raisedagainst the Tory landlords, among the first to cry for independence.lf, in the long struggle to keep the British from control ofthe Hudson, George Clinton had been a more willingthan able general, he had proved his courage and his energy.The redcoats had driven him, and beaten him, but they had nevercrushed him. With Washington's help, he had managed, exceptfor the raid that razed Kingston, to hold on to the upperriver. (Breslin, 236-37) He was there that evening with hisAntifederalist supporters, including Melancton Smith, Zephaniah Platt,Gilbert Livingston, and DeWitt Clinton. The last described as"the elegant young fellow with the quiet smile ...the governor's nephew." Though the governor was in his own element and wascheered as he rode to the Clear Everetthouse, the dominant figure was yet to appear. Alexander Hamilton is presented as theprotagonist. He had been, as all knew, Washington's aide and as oneof the river folk commented, "Didn't hart none either that hemarried a Schuylerr There is some uncertainty reflected about theauthorship of , but one viewer indicatesthat if Hamilton did write all or some of them he was "amighty sharp young man." He rode into Poughkeepsie as a conqueror,and though Breslin emphasizes the favorable impression he made uponthe residents of the town, Hamilton was not held in warmregard by many of his fellow delegates. The thoughts ofthe heroine reveal Breslin's assumptions of Hamilton's performance atthe convention. Listening, Lancey Quist realized she waswitnessing some- thing extraordinary, perhaps momentous. Thegirl lacked the words and the experience to recognize a greatartistic per- formance, but she instinctively knew that this was a rare oc- casion, when a man and an historic momentblended in perfect harmony.

He might have been born . .for this cause and this convention.. . Whoever won or lost, however the country wasformed or governed, surely no man, not evenAlexander Hamilton, could hope to reach brilliant perfection morethan once in a lifetime. Here was a dominant will that held itsaudience en- thralled. It was a triumph of personality overprejudice, of an eloquent conviction that convinced. (Bresfin,246) Fktion: Another .7ource 153

New York's role in the ratification processis more fully pre- sented by Breslin earlier in the novel. Beforethe convention met, news had arrived from NewYork City that Maryland's vote for adoption on 28 April brought the number ofratifications to seven; previously Massachusetts had also voted aye. NewYork had not yet decided nor had Virginia. "We are still the keystone," Lancey said. She was not travelled, but she knew her beliefs for truth. "Byposition, and wealth. Because of the river. Even the Britishrealized that." "You forget one thing, Mistress," Master Venicksaid, "When nine states vote this Constitution intobeing, it has been adopted. Done. Set up. In force." "For these nine only!" (Breslin, 177-78) Numbers come into play later, at the end ofthe novel. "Lancey, Hendrick, Hester! The word's justarrived. New Hampshire ratified!" Lancey recalled their stupefied questions, her own utter disbelief. "Are you sure. Dirck?" "When?" "I-1 don't believe it." "It's truer' Dirck had sounded positive, aswell as angry. "New Hampshire voted to adopt theConstitution on the twenty-first of June! New Hampshire, for God'ssake!" "But-but doesn't that mean" "Yes, Lancey! That makes New Hampshirenumber nine. The ninth state! It's the law of the land now, no matterwhat we decide here in Poughkeepsie!"(Breslin, 274) It was true there would be argumentsfor a while. New York would be the reluctant eleventh pillar and theshad wbuld run. Breslin closes the novel on the day that the newsreached Poughkeepsie that the ninth state had ratified theConstitution. One will not learn from the novel that theFederalists eked out a victory. Whether the Antifederalists snatcheddefeat from the jaws of victory or whether the Federalistssnatched victory from the jaws of defeat will depend up-an one's assumptionsand one's pre- dilections. No claim is made for the novel asthe sole or the entire approach to understanding the past, merelyfor the novel as an- other approach to past reality. Insight and perspective have been demonstratedby the na- ture of the experience.Serendipity by definition precludes ex-

.1i;7 154 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR ample. Howard Breslin in Shad Run has created another view of the ratification process in New York, but more than that he has given us an opportunity to approach the ratification process in a proper and natural fashion. Not only does this modest novel have an immediacy about it in terms of the ratifying convention and the shad season, but there is also an element of timelessness about the work:

"Granted," Justin Pattison said. "But some of us at Val- ley Forge, quick and dead, thought we were fighting for lib- erty. Not for any lousy piece of paper that says the rich get richer, and the poor man keeps his placer' (Breslin, 81)

Suggestions For Further Study If the discussion to this point has been a spotlight on Shad Run and the New York ratification process as it centered in Pough- keepsie, perhaps a floodlight upon some paths that might be fol- lowed would help respond to the wider questions of ratification posed elsewhere in this collection. The same kind of approach might be applied to other novels with a potential for revealing something about the ratification process in other states. The read- ings to follow are to be seen as suggestive and not as knowingly fruitful or valuable for all concerned. They range from the center of ratification activity, as in Inglis Fletcher's Queen's Gift set in North Carolina, to Elizabeth Page's The Tree of Liberty, a sweeping novel with some helpful observations about the Constitution and its ratification. The net is cast wide to include antecedents of po- litical and constitutional activity, such as Shays's Rebellion, and subsequent events as Aaron Burr's western intrigue. If flights of imagination are to be generated by this essay consider the "what if" of the past as Robert Sobol has done in a splendid tour de force, For Want of a Nail...If Burgoyne Had Won at Saratoga (New York, 1973). For the purposes of this essay, what if New York had failed to ratify and remained determined to stay out of the newly organized federal system? The "what ifs" are innumerable and certainly a way of stating the implications and effects of ratification. Fiction: Another Source 155

A Reading Lisle

Atherton, Gertrude F. The Conqueror. ..New York, 1902. 546p. Life of Alexander Hamilton. Barnhill, J. Hatching the American Eagle. New York, 1937. 399p. Philadelphia during the years 1766-89. Belknap, Jeremy. The Foresters, an American Tale: Being a Sequel to the History of John Bull the Clothier, in a Series of Letters to a Friend. Boston, 1792. 216p. Allegory containing reference in Letter 15 to a debate between fiddlers and antifiddlers over a proposed plan of partnership. Bellamy, Edward. Duke of Stockbridge: A Romance of Shays's Rebellion. New York, 1900. 371p. Beyea, Basil. The Golden Mistress. New York, 1975. 380p. Life of Mme. BetsyJumel (later married to Aaron Burr) to the 1790s. Clemens, Jeremiah. The Rivals: A Tale of the Times of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Philadelphia, 1860. 286p. Lives of Burr and Hamilton from the Revolution to their duel. Degenhard, William. The Regulators_ . New York, 1943. 598p. One of the best dealing with Daniel Shays in 1786-87. Fletcher, Inglis. Queen's Gift. Indianapolis, 1952. 448p. The sev- enth in the author's Carolina series deals with North Carolina during 1788-89 with the ratification as pivot. Gerson, Noel. Dandy: A Biographical Novel of John Hancock. New York, 1965. 352p. Life of Hancock from 1754 to 1789. Give Me Liberty: A Novel of Patrick Henry. New York, 1966. 347p. Kelley, Welbourn. Alabama Empire. New York, 1957. 503p. Pan- orama of the early national period,1789-93, with the first part set in New York City in 1789. Markoe, Peter. The Algerine Spy. ...Philadelphia, 1787. 129p. Covers years from 1783 to the Constitutional Convention. Mudgett, Helen. The Seas Stand Watch. New York, 1944. 391p. Salem and New Bedford during the years 1780-1812 by a Professional historian. Muir, Robert. The Sprig of Hemlock: A ;11avel about Shays* Rebellion. New York, 1957. 314p.

&Citations taken from Jack VanDerhoof. A Biblwgraphy of Novels Related to American Frontier and Colonial History (Troy, 1971) and from work currently un- derway by the author.

IC; 9 156 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

Page, Elizabeth. The Tree of Liberty. New York,1939. 985p. Vir- ginia family from 1754 to 1806. Turnbull, Agnes. The King's Orchard. Boston, 1963.467p. Pitts- burgh during the years 1772-95, based on the lifeof James O'Hara, Revolutionary soldier, later appointed quartermas- ter general in 1792. Contains infrequentreferences to na- tional events after the Revolution. Van De Water, Frederic Franklyn. Wings of the Morning. NewYork, 1955. 335p. The third in the author's Vermont seriesin- volving New Yorkers versus Vermonters during1777-91. Contains infrequent references to national events afterthe Revolution. Vidal, Gore. Burr; A Novel. New York, 1973. 430p. Setin the 1830s with frequent references back to Burr's activities in the1780s. Wheelwright, Jere Hungerford. Kentucky Stand. New York, 1951. 279p. Life on the Kentucky frontier during1777-92, with infrequent refertnces to national events after the Revolution.

Works on History and Fiction Blake, Nelson Manfred. Novelists' America: Fiction asHistory 1910 1940. Syracuse, 1969. Feuchtwanger, Lion. The House of Desdemona or the Laurels and Limitations of Historical Fiction. Detroit, 1963. Henderson, Harry B. III. Versions of the Past: The Historical Imagi- nation in American Fiction. New York, 1974. Inge, M. Thomas. Handbook of American Popular Culture.Vol. 1. Westport, Conn., 1978. Klein, Milton M. New York in the American Revolution: ABibliography. Albany, 1974. Leisy, Ernest E. The American Historical Novel. Norman,Okla., 1950. Levin, David. In Defense of Historical Literature: Essays onAmeriran Histom Autobiography, Drama, and Fiction. New York,1967. Matthews, Brander. The Historical Nowl, and OtherEssays. New York, 1901. Wilson. Rufus Rockwell. New York in Literature: The StanTold in the Landmarks of Town and Countrv. Elmira, N.Y.,1947. PEOPLE ANDPLACES

A BiographicalGazetteer qf New YorkFederalists and Antifederalists

compiled by STEPHEN L. SCHECHTER Russell Sage College

The debate over the adoptionof the new Constitution was not anabstraction. It was a long and complicated process of many stages. Ateach stage there were real people debating specific issues andtaking concrete actions in real places. This section offers tworeference aids that can be used to locate the people and places of thatdebate in New York. The first aid is a biographical gazetteerconsisting of 255 New York par- ticipants in the ratification debate.The second is an inventoryof surviving homes of New YorkFederalists and Antifederalists, fol- lowed by an interpretive guide tohistoric sites open to the public. The final section includeschronologies of the key events ofthe debate in New York and the nation.Men, places, and events are only part of the story of ratification.Another reference aid, which would be of inestimable value,is a concordance of the key terms, political ideas, and historicalallusions gleaned from the writings and speeches of Antifederalistand Federalist writers and politi- cians. This massive undertakingwould enable the kind of intel- lectual comparisons now possiblein the recently published con- cordance of The Federalist.' The 'Thomas S. F.ngeman, Edward J.Erler, and Thomas B. Hotelier, eds., Federalist concordance (Middletown, Conn.,1980). 158 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR The biographical gazetteer is the most completelisting avail- able of New Yorkers involved in the debate over theConstitution. Its search criteria are chronologically based and include:(1) New York delegates to the Confederation Congress in 1787and 1788; (2) New York delegates to the Constitutional Conventionof 1787; (3) members of the eleventh (january-March 1788)session of the New York State Assembly and Senate, responsible forcalling the state ratifying convention; (4)Federalist and Antifederalist can- didates campaigning in the spring of 1788 for the stateratifying convention; (5) Federalist and Antifederalist candidatescampaign- ing in the spring of 1788 for the twelfth session of theNew York State Assembly and Senate; (6) members of Federalist andAnti- federalist county committees who helped organize the election campaigns of 1788; (7) Federalist and Antifederalist writerswho played a role in articulating party platforms: and (8) printerswho published the writings of these men. Utilizing these search criteria, most of the activeparticipants in the debate are identified. Most of the remaining gaps aredue more to the unavailability of resourcesthan to the limits of the criteria. It was not possible to locate consistently reliablelists of Federalist county committeemen. Also missing arerecords of de- feated candidates (mainly Federalists) from approximately one- fourth of the state legislative and convention races of1788, not a high figure consideringthe intervening vagaries of history. On the other hand, few known participants were missedbecause of the limits of the search criteria, and those that weremissed are included as "partisans" without office or formal position.2

Sources Various sources were used to identify the participants. The most reliable source for members of the ConfederationCongress meet- ing in 1787 and 1788 is volume VIII of Letters ofMembers of the Continental Congress, 8 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1921-1936),ed- ited by Edmund C. Burnett. State legislators, stateconvention del-

*Partisans missed in the formal search, but included in thefinal list, are of three basic types: (a) recent arrivals (such as Judge William Cooperfrom New Jersey, from Massachusetts, and , on a brief returnfrom his Pennysivania sojourn): (b) political mavericks and renegades(such as Peter Van Gaasbeek): and (c) fence-sitters on this issue (notably LieutenantGovernor Pierre Van Cortland°.

tor Biographical Gazetteer 159 egates, and statewide officers can be found easily in any one of the many state civil lists compiled in the nineteenth century.Primary reliance was placed on the edition of Edgar A. Werner, Civil List and Constitutional History of the Colony and State of New York (Albany, 1891). However, errors and discrepancies were discovered based on checks of the civil lists against theMinutes of the Council of Appointment; the Journals of the New York State Assembly, Sen- ate, and Convention; and the election lists noted below.(Errors in and discrepancies between sources are noted in the biographical gazetteer.) For the candidates, county tickets published in newspapers are especially important. They are supplemented bydata found in the files of The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, located at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (hereinafter cited as the Ratification Project). The most complete list of candidates was published in the New-York Journal on 5 June 1788. This list is supplemented by a list in Steven R. Boyd's The Politics of Opposition: Antifederalists and the Acceptance of the Consti- tution (Millwood, N.Y., 1979), 80-81, that includes Antifederalist candidates for the state ratifying convention and the twelfth ses- sion of the Assembly.' Missing are some of the defeated candidates (most of them Federalists) for the state convention and the twelfth session of the Assembly. They are as follows: Federalist Assembly candidates for Montgomery, Suffolk, and Ulster counties; Fed- eralist convention candidates for Orange County: Federalist As- sembly and convention candidates for Washington County; and Antifederalist Assembly and convention candidates for Richmond County.4

'Additional sources are as follows: for Dutchess County, Federalist Assembly and convention candidates appeared in the Poughkeepsie Cauntryfaurnal, 15 April 1788, and the New York Deity Advertiser, 6 June 1788, respectively. For Orange County. Federalist Assembly candidates were found in the New York Daily Adver- tiser. 14 June 1788. For Queens County, the Federalist convention candidates ap- peared by last name only in the Albany Journal, 16 June 1788. The full names of these candidates, along with the full names of defeated Federalist Assembly can- didates, were given in Henry Onderdonk, Queens in Olden Times (Jamaica, N.Y., 1865), 71. For Suffolk County, Federalist convention candidates were listed in a letter from "St. Patrick" (Jonathan N. Havens) to John Smith, 5 April 1788, John Smith Misc. Mss, New-York Historical Society. 'In all likelihood, the maximum number of missing candidates closely ap- proximates the total number of missing offices at stake (thirty-five, or 25 percent of the offices at stake). The minimum number of missing candidates would be six if every known Federalist candidate had run for both Assembly and convention seats. 173 160 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

For Antifederalist committeemen, thelist compiled by Steven Boyd for his book, The Politics of Opposition,80-81, was most useful. Consulted but not included is a longerlist of "active Antifeder- alists" appearing in Theophilus Parsons,Jr., "The Old Conviction versus the New Realities:New York Antifederalist Leadersand the Radical Whig Tradition" (Ph.D.diss., Columbia University, 1974), Appendix. No comparablestudies or credibly consistent lists could be found for Federalist countycommitteemen.5 For some counties, the namesof Federalist organizers (and the can- didates for whom they campaigned) areprobably lost forever; for others, a more careful sifting of manuscriptcollections may yield positive results. The identification of Federalistand Antifederalist writers posed the special problem ofattribution, since most used pseu- donyms. At the risk of incompleteness,only those authors whose attribution is certain are included. Someof these were found in John P. Kaminski and Gaspare J. Saladino,eds., Commentaries on the Constitution: Public and Private(Madison, Wis., 1981), of Mer- rill Jensen et al., eds., The DocumentaryHistory of the Ratification of the Constitution. For printers,primary reliance was placed on vol- ume 1 of Clarence S.Brigham, History and Bibliography of American Newspapers, 1690-1820, 2 vols. (Worcester,Mass., 1947), supple- mented by volume II of Douglas C.McMurtrie, A History of Printing in the United States (New York, 1936).

Organization In 1788 the county was thebasis of representation (and, hence, campaign politics) for the stateAssembly and state ratifying con- vention; state senators were apportioned amongfour multi-county districts. (See Table I .) Forhistorical and practical reasons, the gazetteer is organized bythe thirteen counties representedin 1788. The state's fourteenthcountyClintonwas created on 4 March 1788; however, Washingtonand Clinton counties were repre- sented together in the twelfthlegislative session and in the con- vention; and, in any case, norepresentative from Clinton County was elected in 1788.Hence, they are treated togetherhere. The

'On the Antifederalist side, twenty-one persons(two to three per county). whowere active only by virtueof their membership in a county committee. are identified. This provides one basis for estimatingthe number of similarly involved Federalists missing from this search.

1 7 .1 Biographical Gazetteer 161

TABLE I County Representation in 1788

State Assembly & Convention State Senators Seats. County Population. Counties, by as a percent of state Senate District No. Percent No. Percent population, 1790

Southern District 9 57.6% 28 43.1% 28.6% 1.3 Kings 1 4.2 2 3.1 New York 3 12.5 9 13.8 9.7 4.7 Queens 1 4.2 4 6.2 3.1 1.1 Richmond 1 4.2 2 Suffolk 2 8.3 5 7.7 4.8 7.0 Westchester 1 4.2 6 9.2 Middle Distrkt 6 25.0 17 26.2 27.3 Dutchess 5 12.5 7 10.8 13.3 Orange 2 8.3 4b 6.2 5.4 8.6 Ulster 1 4.2 6 9.2 We.§tern District 6 25.0 16 24.7 39.5 Albany 3 12.5 7 10.8 22.3 8.2 Columbia 1 4.2 3 4.7 Montgomery 2 8.3 6 9.2 8.8 4.6 EasternDistrict 3 12.5 4 6.2 Washington & Clinton 3' 12.5 4 6.2 4.6 ToTAL4 24 100.1 65 100.2 99.8

Narss: The number of senators by districtand assemblymen by county wasfixed in the New York State Constitution of1777. with provisions for reapportionment every seven years. The firstreapportionment took effect in the fifteenthlegislative session (1792) and was based on the censusof 1790. Most of the imbalances reflected in the 1788 figures of thetwelfth session were corrected by the1792 reapportionment. convention was equal 'The county allotment ofdelegatesto the state ratifying to the number of assembly seatsassigned to the county. bOne of these Assembly seats was vacantin the twelfth Session. 'One of these Senate seats was vacantin the twelfth session. lrfotals do not equal 100.0 due torounding.

present-day counties included inthe counties of 1788 are listed in Table 2 and, for convenience, infootnotes appropriately placed at the beginningof each county listing.

1 75 162 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

TABLE2 New York State Counties of 1788 and Today

Counties of 1788 Present-day Counties Substate Regions

Albany Albany Upper Hudson Valley Delaware, part of' Delaware Valley Greene Upper Hudson Valley Rensselaer Upper Hudson Valley Saratoga Upper Hudson Valley Schenectady Mohawk Valley Schoharie, part of Schoharie Valley Ulster, part of Mid-Hudson Valley Washington, part of Upper Hudson Valley Columbia Columbia Upper Hudson Valley Dutchess Dutchess Mid-Hudson Valley Putnam Lower Hudson Valley Kings* Kings (Brooklyn) New York City Montgomery' Fulton Mohawk Valley Herkimer Mohawk Valley Montgomery Mohawk Valley Otsego Susquehanna Valley Schoharie, part of" Schoharie Valley New York" New York () New York City Orange Orange, most of Lower Hudson Valley Rockland Lower Hudson Valley

Entries within counties are to individual participants ar- ranged in alphabetical order. In the 1780s there were no general residency requirements for public office and few restrictions on the number of offices one could hold. Moreover, none of the latter restrictions (e.g., those barring the chancellor, supreme court jus- tkes, and sheriffs from holding other state offices) seems to have applied to the office of state convention delegate. Hence, it was not uncommon for convention candidates to run foroffice in a "safe" county instead of their home county, or to run for the same office in both safe and home counties, or to run for two offices (e.g.. convention delegate and assemblyman) in their home county. Participants, then, are placed in each county where they sought and held office. For example, Melancton Smith is listed under New Biographical Gazetteer 163

TABLE 2 Continued

Counties of 1788 Present-day Counties Substate Regions

Queens Nassau Long Island Queens (Queens)' New York City Richmond* Richmond (Staten Island) New York City Suffolk Suffolk Long Island Ulster Delaware, part oP Delaware Valley Orange, part of Lower Hudson Valley Sulfivan' Delaware Valley Ulster, most of Mid-Hudson Valley Washington & Clinton' North Country Clinton Essex' Upper Hudson Valley Franklin, part of' North Country Warren' Upper Hudson Valley Washington, most of Upper Hudson Valley Westchester Bronx (The Bronx)' New York City Westchester Lower Hudson Valley

'No participant in the ratification debate of 1787-88 lived in the area now part of this county. *Now a state-designated county (and city-designated borough) of the City of New York. Present-day Kings and Queens counties are included in the New York City region, even though they are situated on Long Island. *The 1788 boundaries of Montgomery County included all the western lands claimed by New York. Included in this table are only those present-day counties formed from the areas of Montgomery County that were most heavily settled in 1788.

York County as a defeated convention candidate and under Dutch- ess County as a victorious convention candidate. Smith's other offices and positions are placed under his New York County entry because that was the county he represented or the county consid- ered to be his place of residence during the terms of those offices. Each entry contains five elements: the individual's full name, party affiliation, offices sought and held, town or ward represented, and its present-day place name. Footnotes accompanying entries are intended to explain or resolve peculiarities associated with the entry. Excluded from the footnotes are otherwise interesting points unrelated to the entry elements on the individual at the time of the ratification debate. These elements are briefly explained below.

177 164 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR Name of Participant. The firstline of each entry, the full name of theparticipant, would seem to be the moststraightfor- ward of elements, but it is not.The eighteenth-century mind(pre- dating the federal census and allit represented) was unaccustomed to standardization;New Yorkers were stillwrestling with the dif- ferences between English andDutch names; and successive gen- erations of recorders haveattempted to impose their ownbrand of standardization oneighteenth-century names. For purposes of politicalidentification, most of the partici- pants listed herein areidentifiable by a standard appellationthat has become accepted overthe generations. (Such a claim cannot be made for the subsequenttask of searching personaland family records.) Where problemsof political identificationpersist, they are of threebasic categories: alternativespellings of one person's name, two or more personswith the same name, and erroneous attributions by subsequentrecorders. Wherever possible, these sources of confusion areresolved in footnotes. Two special features areincluded in this element. First, in the interest of readability,all footnote numbers areplaced on the first line of the entry,regardless of which element theymodify. Second, the names of stateconvention delegates are inCAPITALS AND SMALL CAPITALS.(Also in capitals and small capitals are cross- references appearing in footnotes.) Party Affiliation. The secondelement of each entry indicates the party affiliation of theparticipant in 1787-88 on theissue of the rafification of theConstitution. In the 1788 elections,candi- dates for the state legislatureand stzte ratifying convention were listed on tickets as Federalist orAntifederalist. And though there were often severalnominating lists, there was typically oneelection list in each county thatmirrored the final choice ofFederalist and Antifederalist county committeesof one kind or another. For con- venience, the terms "party"and "partisanship" refer tothese or- anizations and their ties ofaffiliation, mindful always of the eight- eenth-century disinclination to usethese terms. Regardless of how one chooses todescribe them. "Federalist" and "Antifederalist" wereaccepted terms of campaignpolitics in 1788. Problems in attributingaffiliation are less over this general point than over three special cases:printers' preferences, candi- dates listed by both parties,and members of the eleventhsession. The newspapers of 1788 wereowned, published, and often edited by printers. None ofthe newspapers covering theratifi- Biographical Gazetteer 165 cation debate were "party organs," in the sense that they were sponsored and subsidized by a party organization, (A close ap- proximation is Thomas Greenleaf's The New-YorkJournal, and Daily Patriotic Register, begun on 19 November 1787 as a daily with the aid of generous Antifederalist subscribers and patrons.) None of the printers were, as far as could be determined, members of a county party committee. However, most printers hadclear per- sonal preferences; and, with the exception of Greenleaf, their pref- erences were generally Federalist. Thesepreferences affected what came in through the transom andwhat was printed. And it is in this sense that printers' preferences, if not affiliations, are ascribed. (The first "party organ" in the state was The Albany Register, es- tablished by John and Robert Barber three months after New York's ratification vote, with the support of Antifederalists who had been displeased with the coverage by the Federalist-dominated press of Albany.)8 A different kind of problem respecting party attribution is concerned with candidates listed on both Federalist and Antifed- eralist tickets in 1788. These instances might have been part of a committee's effort to confuse the opposition or to develop a com- promise slate with the opposition. Also involved may have been a candidate's own calculation that a listing on two tickets was better than one. Unfortunately, fome of the 'esser known candidates involved in these machinations left no indication of their true affiliation, if they had one. Where affiliations are attributable by other measures, they are so indicated; otherwise, the candidate is listed as "affiliation uncertain." Yet another problem concerns the political affiliation of memLers of the eleventh session of the state legislature. Elected in the spring oi 1787 be1t7e the Constituti-mal Convention met, tigey weve expected to vote in 1788 on the Federalist versusAnti- federalist issue of calling a state ratifying ri Invention. For those tr .-mbers who did run as Federalists or Antifederalistsin the sul sequent spring ekctions of 1788, policy stanres.e based solely on their recorrll' wotes on keymotiu.)., in the eleventh session. In thesserubly, polic, stances are based on votes cast for three Antifederatisi motions (all defeated): (1) a motion by Cor- nelius C. Schoonmakcr c.;a 31 January that the ConstitutionalCon-

60n the Albany Register. see Douglas C. McMurtrie, A !tutor?. of Punt mg an the Unoted States, 11:176.

73 166 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR vention had exceeded its authority; (2) a motionby Samuel Jones on 31 January to assurethat the state convention had theright to propose amendments tothe new federal Constitution; and (3) a motion by SamuelJones on 22 January to insert the nameof (a neutral), instead of the partisanAlexander Ham- ilton, as a delegate to the ConfederationCongress. (The motion to call the stateconvention was passed in the affirmative without a recorded vote, andthe Assembly resolution was transmitted to the Senate.) In the Senate, stances are based on votes castfor three mo- tions: (1) a motion by AntifederalistAbraham Yates, Jr., on I February to commit the Assemblyresolution to a committee of the whole (defeated); (2) a second motionby Yates on February I to postpone considerationof the Assembly resolution (defeated); and (3) a motion by Federalist JamesDuane on I February to concur with the Assemblyresolution (passed). Inconsistent voting patterns are footnoted for both senatorsand assemblymen. All affiliations, then, are for stances takenin 1788, whether those stances be on legislative or campaignissues. No serious effort is made to record all of the manychanges in affiliation that oc- curred between 1783 and 1790. However, attempts aremade to note those instances when someonetemporarily switched affilia- tions on the issue of adopting the newfederal Constitution. Key Offices and Positions. The thirdelement in each entry is concerned with the offices and positionsheld or sought by the participant in 1787-88. Items included are of two types:first are the key offices and positions directly related tothe politics of the ratification debate. These are based on theselection criteria set out earlier, and they include seatsheld in the Confederation Con- gress and the ConstitutionalConvention, state legislative and state ratifying convention seats won and lost, countycommittee posi- tions served, pseudonyms used, and newspaperspublished. (See "Key to Abbreviations" following thisintroduction.) Second are other state and county offices concurrentlyheld by the participant. These include: state executive offices; supreme courtjudgeships; the state commission of forfeiture; the statecouncils of appoint- ment and revision; and the countyoffices of clerk, sheriff, sur- rogate, and first judge of the countycourt.7 These offices appear 'In 1788 the state supreme court wasthe highest court in the state; it was later renamed the court of appeals. The statecommissioners of forfeiture were appointed and responsible for dispensingforfeited Loyalist property within districts Biographical Gazetteer 167 in brackets to set them off fromkey offices. (See "Key to Abbre- viations.") Confederation offices areidentified in footnotes, as are key city offices for Albany, Hudson,and New York. However, the items in this element, as in the otherelements, are restricted to the participants' activities in 1787-88. Also included in this element are thespecial electoral, voting, and attendance features for certainkey offices. For the state con- vention, the votes of delegates on thefinal motion to ratify the Constitution are given. For the stateSenate, those members who were newly elected tothe eleventh and twelfth sessions areindi- cated.° For the state convention andthe twelfth session of the state legislature, defeated candidates areidentified. (Codes for the abovementioned features can be found inthe "Key to Abbrevia- tions.") In addition, footnotes areutilized to identify unusual elec- tions, inconsistent voting records, and casesof nonattendance and early departures. Towns of 1788. The remainingelements identify the partic- ipant's place of residence; first, bythe town and city ward desig- nations of 1788; then, by apresent-day place name designation; and finally, by present-day county,if different from that of 1788. As explained below, this task ispossible because the present town system was established justbefore the spring elections of 1788. Today, every New York schoolchildlearns that the state was subdivided into counties which were, in turn,subdivided into towns. Often missing from this lesson isits practical effect: everyone in

roughly conforming to Senate districts.Members of the state councils of appoint- ment (empowered to fill certain state, county,and local offices) and of revision (empowered to revise or veto state Laws) wereappointed from the existing ranks of state government. The council ofappointment was appointed by the Assembly and included one senator from eachof the four Senate districts; the councilof revision was composed of the three supreme courtjustices, the chancellor, and the governor. The surrogate in each county wasauthorized to probate wills and determine other testamentary matters. A 1787 lawempowered the governor to appoint county surrogates with the advice and consentof the council of appointment. Theother county offices included here wereappointed by the council. In New York City,the county court (a general trialcourt), was the mayor's court (civil) and courtof sessions (criminal), with Mayor James Duaneserving as presiding judge. aln the state Senate, the terms of one-fourth(or six) of its members expired each year. Only five new senators wereseated in the twelfth session: (Ulster County); Ezra L'Hommedieu(Suffolk County); Paul Micheau (Richmond County); Isaac Roosevelt (New YorkCounty); and Peter Van Ness (Columbia County). The vacant seat was Ebenezer Russell's(Washington County). See the footnotes to Russell and EdwardSavage, also of Washington County.

s I 68 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR

New York who livesoutside a city or an Indianreservation lives in both a county and a town;and some may also livein a village (Le., an incorporated cityin miniature) or a hamlet(i.e., an un- incorporated community).Invariably missing fromthis lesson in government is theori 'n of town government. The present system of town governmentwas broughtinto effect by the state legislature onvarious dates in March1788, shortly before the stateconvention elections held between29 A pril and 3 May. Over a periodof several weeks, nearlyninety towns were created toreplace the eclectic systemof provincial and early state-created towns, precincts,and divisions. Curiously, scantat- tention has been devotedby historians to this statewide actof local reorganization; however, E.Wilder Spaulding suggeststhat the establishment of the town system wasthe latest in a series ofchal- lenges to the authority ofthe manors9; and it seemslikely that the legislators acted with theimpending legislative andconvention elections in mind. Whatever the historical reasons,the creation of the present town system in1788 provides a standardand consistent basis for locating the participants inthe ratification debate.Since 1788, new townsand cities have been splitoff from the original towns, and villages and hamletshave sprung up within towns.However, the towns of 1788 providedthe basis for the firstfederal census of 1790, early statecivil lists, and most local and countyhistories. Utilizing these sources,supplemented by the expertiseof New York's municipal and otherlocal historians, it has beenpossible to identify thelocation by town of most ofthe participants living outside the state's three cities(Albany, Hudson, and NewYork) Lan- and a few unincorporatedcommercial communities (such as singburgh) that had beenfounded beyond the boundsof town and

Period, 1783-4789 (New York,1952), 69-40. "See New York in the Critical made by the The state constitution of 1777confirmed all previous land grants eliminated manor representation inthe legislature British Crown. However, it also had district seats in the (the manors of Corriandt,Livingston, and Rensselaerwyek provincial legislature). Over the nextdecade, the state legislaturechipped away at the practices of entail andprimogeniture (thereby the manor system by eliminating feudal obligations enabling the division and alienationof manor lands), terminating had long since been forgotten),and enabling land- ard tenures (many of which owing to the difficulties owners to commute thequitrent (then used as a tax loophole nonfeudal manor system oflandlord-tenant relations of collection). The resulting unconstitutional persisted until the 1840s when itsessential features were declared by the state courts and bannedby the state legislature. Biographical Gazetteer 169 manor control. (For ward designations, see"Albany and New York City Wards: An Historical Note," below.) The identification procedure is as follows: beginning with two known facts (the participants' namesand the counties they represented), participants are first located by town and city ward utilizing the 1790 federal census. This provided a starting point for follow-up research. Between 1788 and 1790, there were no significant changes in local designations (though the 1790 federal census incorporated the conversionfrom named to numbered wards that was finalized by New York City the next year).Hence, the principal objectives of follow-up research entailed checking for census errors, distinguishing the correct entryin the case of mul- tiple entries, identifying the place of residence for participants not listed in the 1790 census, identifying those participants whose county of representation andresidence differed, and identifying those participants who changed their town or ward ofresidence between 1788 and 1790. Outside of New York City, these objectives were realized by relying on genealogies, local histories, and local records. These materials were initially perused in the biographical files of the Ratification Project. The support of municipal and other local historians was enlisted r- '9-depth research. In the case of New York City, wheir mobiht!, between wards washigh in the late 1780s, the most reliable basis for determiningresidences in 1788 is the property tax lists (the only surviving city records or- ganized by ward). However, these lists remain unindexed and could not be reviewed in their entirety. Instead, reliance wasplaced on the city directories for 1787 and 1789 (1788 was neverissued), noting what appear to be major moves from one ward toanother. Present-Day Place Designations.The last element in each entry is the present-day local and countydesignation for the area in which the participant lived in 1788. A local designationis always indicated, even if it is the same as that used in 1788. A county designation is indicated only if the county is different from that of 1788. In researching this element, the expertise ofmunicipal and other local historians has been especially useful.Wherever warranted, follow-up research, second opinions, and independent verification were sought. In the case of persistent uncertainties, present-day designations are indicated as "probable" (meaning likely). "perhaps" (indicating less certainty), or "unknown."

1 S 3 170 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR For one-third or more of :heparticipants, surviving or re- cently standing homes provideevidence for determining present location. For roughly another third, localrecords or reliable his- tories sufficiently fix the location of theparticipant's home for the broad designations used here. Moreover,in many of these cases, and in others as well, boundariesand designations have remained relatively stable over time. Hence, thiswriter is reasonably con- fident about most of the entries; degreesof confidence in the remainder are n Red. Several regional patterns of changes emergefrom this re- search. The greatest jurisdictionalchanges have occurred in the 1788 counties of Albany and Montgomery,where extensive boundaries have been steadily reduced bythe formation of new counties, the erection of new townsfrom older towns, and the incorporation of cities (from towns) andvillages (within towns). By contrast, the Upper HudsonValley counties of Columbia and Washington have remained relativelystable. In the the Mid-Hud- son and Lower Hudsonvalleys, the major changes have occurred in the southern pertion of each county,where new counties were created (Bronx County and borough fromWestchester, Putnam from Dutchess, and Rockland fromOrange) or borders altered (notably resulting in the movementof southern Ulster County towns into the jurisdictionof Orange County). On LongIsland, the most significant jurisdictional changeshave involved the cre- ation of Nassau County from QueensCounty and the conversion of the latter into a borough and county.The town boundaries in Suffolk and present-day Nassau countieshave remained remark- ably stable; however, within these towns,there has been a sub- urban proliferation of unincorporatedcommunities with clear commercial centers and hazy boundaries.New York County (now Manhattan) is a special case. Thisintroductory statement con- cludes with an historical note on thechanges in the 1788 bound- aries and place names of New York Cityand Albany.

Albany and New York City Wards: An Historical Note The City of Albany, according to thefederal census of 1790, had a population ofapproximately 7,000, less than one-tenththe size of Albany County and roughlyone-fifth the population of the coterminous city and county of NewYork. in the late 1780s the Biographical Gazetteer 171 city of Albany was essentially confined to the area bounded by the Hudson River on the east, Patroon Street (now Clinton Avenue) on the north, Snipe Street (now NewScotland Avenue) on the west, and Gansevoort Street on the south. The most densely pop- ulated part of the city was further confined to two areas: one, between State and Patroon streets, up the hill from the Hudson River to Eagle Street; the other, an irregular area between State and Hudson streets, up the hill from the river to Washington Street. The closest approximation of the city's ward boundaries in 1788 is from a "Plan of the City of Albany ..1794," surveyed by Simeon DeWitt, and reproduced by Historic Urban Plans (1th- aca, 1968). According to that plan, the citycontained three num- bered wards. (Unless otherwise noted, ward boundaries here and in New York City ran up the center of the streets named.) First Ward, now known as the South End, included the area west of the Hudson River, between the city's southernboundary (near Gansevoort Street) and a northern ward line running up Mark Lane from the river, across Market Street, and up the hill parallel to, and just north of, State Street. The northern ward line then crossed Eagle Street on the south side of the public square, proceeding up Deer Street beyond Snipe Street where the plan of 1794 ends. In this ward, the plan depicts the Schuyler and Yates estates, separated by Beaver Creek: with the Pastures area located below the two estates. Second Ward, now known as Capitol Hill, included the area west of Middle Lane (now James Street) between theState-Deer streets line and Patroon Street, up to Snipe Street andbeyond. In this ward, the plan of 1794 shows the Arbor Hill block and the public square. Third Ward, now known as Downtown Albany, was the most compact and densely populated section of the city. Itincluded the area bounded by the Hudson River, Mark Lane,Middle Lane, and a line running through the blocks from Patroon Street tothe river. The hub of this area was the market on Market Street. The present-day area of North Albany was part of the town of Watervliet in 1788. Nvto York City's area of dense settlement in 1788 was confined to what is today Downtown (or Lower) Manhattanand the Lower East Side, south of Chambers Street on the west side and Broome Street on the east side. Contained in this area were all of five wards

185 172 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR and the southern portions of two wards.Together, these seven wards were created by the Montgomerie Charterof 1731 which was confirmed by the stateconstitution of 1777. They remained essentially unchanged until 1791, when, amongother things, the switch from named to numbered wards occurred.(The 1790 fed- eral census used the numbered ward system.) South Ward (later the First Ward), locatedbetween the Bat- tery and Bowling Green, wasbounded by a line up Broad Street from the , west on Wall Street at City Hall(then Federal Hall), then south on New Street, and west onBeaver Street to the Hudson River. The shorthand reference for this areais "above the Battery, inside Beaver & Broad sts," Dock Ward (later the Fourth Ward), containingFraunces Tav- ern, was bounded by Broad,Wall, and Smith (William) streets and the East River. The shorthand reference is"below Wall St., betw. Broad & William sts." East Ward (later the Fifth Ward), containingthe largest num- ber of Federalist and Antifederang leaders aswell as most printers, was bounded by a line fromOld yap up Smith and William streets, and then down John Street to Burling Slip.The shorthand ref- erence is "east of William St.,betw. Old & Burling slips." Montgornerie Ward (later the Sixth Ward), includingthe pres- ent-day South Street Seaport Restoration, wasbounded by a line from Burling Slip up John Street, up William Street toFrankfort Street, then through the blocks to the Fresh WaterPond (where the Criminal Courts Building and "Tombs" nowstand), east to the corner of Chatham and Roosevelt streets,and down the latter to the New Slip (just north ofwhat is now the Brooklyn Bridge) via Cherry and James streets. The shorthandreference for tlie principal area of settlement in this ward is "eastof William St., betw. Burling & New slips." West Ward (later the Second Ward)included the area north of Beaver Street and west of a line runningparallel to, and just east of, Broadway. In present-day terms,The World Trade Center area would dominatewhat were the most heavily settled partsof this ward. From south to north, the areathen boasted the second Trinity Church (1788-1790), St. Paul's Chapel, andColumbia Col- lege (moved north in 1857). Richmond Hill(built in 1767) was then a "country mansion," located neartoday's intersection of Charlton and Varick streets. The shorthandreference is "Broad- way area, belowChambers St."

:;t) Biographical Gazetteer 173

North Ward (later the Third Ward) was located between West and Montgomerie wards, bounded by Wall Street onthe south and the Fresh Water Pond area on the north. It includedthe Fields or Commons, a triangular plotfronting the almshouse, Bridewell, and the jail. The shorthand reference is "aboveWall St., between Broadway and William St." Out Ward (later the Seventh Ward), divided into Boweryand Harlem divisions, essentially included all of the islandnorth of Montgomerie Ward and east of the West Ward. The "country estates" of and Nicholas Bayard werelocated in this ward at Rutgers Street and Bayard's Lane, respectively.In today's terms, the shorthand reference is "Lower EastSide," for the principal area of settlement in which Federalistand Antifed- eralist leaders lived. Ward boundaries are from Thomas E. V. Smith, The Cityof New York in the Year of Washington's Inauguration, 1789 (NewYork, 1889), 54-55. For more information on New YorkCity in 1787- 88, see Sidney I. Pomerantz, New York An AmericanCity, 1783- 1803, A Study of Urban Life (New York, 1938). 174 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR Key to Abbreviations Key Offices and Positions A-11 Member, New York StateAssembly, Eleventh Session Poughkeepsie, 9 January-22 March1788. A-12 Member, New York StateAssembly, Twelfth Session Albany, 11 December 1788-3March 1789. Cong(87) Delegate, ConfederationCongress New York, 6 November1786-5 November 1787) Cong(88) Delegate, ConfederationCongress New York, 5 November1787-3 November 1788.' Comm Member, County Party Committee Antifederalist unless otherwiseindicated. FedCon Delegate, Constitutional Convention Philadelphia, 14 May-17 September1787. RaCon Delegate, New York StateRatifying Convention Poughkeepsie, 17 June-26 July1788. Eleventh Session S-11 Member, New York State Senate, Poughkeepsie, 11 January-22March 1788. S-12 Member, New York State Senate,Twelfth Session Albany, 11 December 1788-3March 1789. Other State Offices andPositions Appt(87) Member, Councilof Appointment, 1787 Appt(88) Member, Councilof Appointment, 1788 AttGen Attorney General Chanc Chancellor, Court of Chancery Forf Commissioner of Forfeitures Gov Governor LtGov Lieutenant Governor Rev Member, SCt Justice, Supreme Court

oThe official journals of Congressfollow the federal year which thenbegan quorums were achieved on on thefirst Monday of November. In1787 and 1788 17 January and 21 January.respectively.

I S S Biographical Gazetteer 175

Other County Offices and Positions CoClk County Clerk CoJdg First Judge of County Court Sher Sheriff Surr Surrogate Electoral Characteristics Elected in 1787 (S-11); elected in 1788 (S-12). (d) Defeated in election for office indicated. Convention Votes (no) Voted against the final ratification motion. (nv) Not voting on the final ratification motion. (yes) Voted for the final ratification motion. Local Jurisdictions (boro.) borough (c.) city2 (co.) county (t.) town2 (v.) village

*For cities and towns, an abbreviation is used only in thoseinstances where confusion might otherwise arise.

1 176 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR Binraphical Gazetteer

Albany' Douw, Volkert P.' affiliation unknown Babcock, johna S-11/ S-12 Federalist Albany, ward unknown printer still Albany, area unknown town unknown present place nameunknown Duncan, John' A ntifederalist Claxton, Thomas' A-12 Federalist Schenectady, South printer now in Niskayuna town unknown Schenectady Co. present place nameunknown Gansevoort, Leonard° Cuyler, Jacob Federalist Federalist A-11/ Cong(88)/ A-12(d) RaCon(d) Albany, Second Ward 'Not to be confused with his cousin, now Albany, CapitolHill Volkert A., who lived in the third ward and signed a statement of the Antifed- 'An original county, its bounds in eralist Committee, 10 April 1788. Volk- 1788 include all of the present-dayer/ P. may a1so have been an Antifed- counties of Albany, Greene, Rensselaer, eralist, but he is not recorded as voting Saratoga, and Schenectady, and parts of on any of the key Senatemotions. (For the present-day counties of Delaware,key motions in the Senate and Assern- Schoharie, Ulster, and Washington. In I-1y, see the introduction to this gazet- 1788 the county was in the western Sen-. eer,section on "Party Affiliation.') ate district. (For Albany citywards, see `olkert P. Douses residence in 1788 is the introduction to this gazetteer. sec-Hot known, though he may havebeen tion on "Albany and New York Citylivog at the family home located at Wards: An Historical Note.") Dou ,'s Point south of Crailo in whatis *Leading partner with THOMASnow ti.° city of Rensselaer.Rensselaer CLAXTON in publishing the short-lived County. Northern Centinel, and Lansingburgh Ad- 'Schenectady, South, refers to one vertiser in 1787, the first newspaperof1788 town, "Schenectady South of the Lansingburgh. He removed to AlbanyMohawk." from which the present-day for severa: months early in 1788 to es- city of Schenectady and the town of Nis- tablish The Federal Herald with Claxton.kayuna were formed. A second 1788 returning in April to Lansingburgh, town. "Schenectady," was located across where he continued The Federal Heraldthe Mohawk River. with EZRA HICKOK until 1790. °Not to be confused with his cousin *Joining JOHN BABCOCK in publish- Leonard, Jr. Though the 1790 census ing the short-lived Lansingburgh North-puts him in the first ward,his home and ern Centinel and AlbanyFmterat Herald, inherited family lot were probably on he became doorkeeper of the U.S. House the nonhside of State Street in the third of Representatives in 1789. ward. Magraphical Gazetteer 177

Albany, Third Ward Knickerbacker, John, Jr.° now Albany, Downtown Federalist A-12(d) Gansevoort, Peter, jr.7 Schaghticoke Federalist still in Schaghticoke RaCon(d) now in Rensselaer Co. Albany, Third Ward now Albany,Downtown Lansing, Abraham G.'° Antifederalist Gordon, James Comm/Purr] Federalist prob. Watervliet A-11/ RaCon(d) prob. now Colonic Ballston still in Ballston LANSING, JOHN (TEN EYCK), now in Saratoga Co. JR11 Antifederalist Hickok, Ezra8 RaCon(no)/ Cong(87)/ Federalist FedCon/ A-12(Speaker)/ printer Comm Lansingburgh Albany, Third Ward now in Troy (c.) now Albany,Downtown Rensselaer Co. Hoogland, jeronem us Federalist 'Probably Colonel Johannes If RaCon(d) (1751-1827), sonof Colonel Johannes I Lansingburgh (1723-1802). Johannes II inherited his father's estate, including the Knicker- now in Troy (c.) bocker Mansion (begun in 1749. com- Rensselaer Co. pleted by 1772). and raised fourteen children. One ofhis sons was Harmon. -Prince of Schaghtkoke," friend of 7Elder brother ot LFONARD. Be- Washington Irving, and believed to be tween 1783 and 1790. he wasprobably the model for Irving's Diedrich Knick- attending his lumber business on the erbocker. Snort(Kill where he built a frame house '°Not to be confused with Abraham in 1787. Snock Hill was then in the town J., founder of Lansingburgh. Abraham of Saratoga, Albany County. but is now G. was the son of Gerrit J., brother ot in the town of Northumbr 'and. Sara- JOHN. JR., and son-in-law of ABRAHAM toga County. YArEs, JR. 'Published The Federal Heraldin "Brother of ABRAHAM G., he was Lansingburgh with JOHN BABCOCK mayor of Albany (1786-90).Delegate (1788-90). Lansingburgh. then adjoin- to both Congress and theConstitutional ing the RensselaerwyckManor.was not Ctdivention in 1787, he did not attend yet erected by the state legislature as a the former and left before the conclu- town or village. sion of the latter.

1 di 178 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

McClallen, Robert12 5-11/ S-12/ [Appt(88)] Federalist Albany, First Ward Comm(Chairman) now Albany. South End Albany, First Ward now Albany, South End Sickles, Thomas'6 Federalist Nicoll, Francis A-11 Federalist Hoosick RaCon(d) still in Hoosick Watervliet now in Rensselaer Co. now in Bethlehem Sill, Richard" OOTHOUDT, HENRY" Federalist Antifederalist A-12(d) RaCon(no)/ Comm/ (Fort] Albany, ward unknown Catskill still Albany, area unknown now Jefferson Heights, Catskill Greene Co. SWART, DI RCK." Antifederalist Schermerhorn, John W." RaCon(nv) Federalist Stillwater RaCon(d) still in Stillwater Philiestown now in Saratoga Co. now in Nassau Rensselaer Co. Ten Broeck, Abraham Schuyler, Philip" Federalist RaConk (CoJclgj Federalist Albany, Third Ward '*McClallen was a long-time alder- now Albany. Downtown man and political leader for the First Ward. TEN EYCK, ANTHONY" "Leader with JEREMIAH VANAntifederalist RENsSF1AER of the Albany Atnifeder- alist Committee, Henry Oothoudt was °Party designation based solely on chairman, committee of the whole, state votes cast in the eleventh session. In I 788 ratifying convention. Sickles was probably living on a farm on '4Philipstown was located between the Walloomsack in Hoosick. Stephentown and Schodack (then a part "Did not move into Bethlehem of Rensselaerwyck Manor). but not yet House (then in Watervliet and owned erected by the legislature as a town. John by his father-in-law FRANCIS NICOLL) was not the Schermerhorn liviag in the until 1790. His wedding there in 1785 house now standing in Schodack Land- is said to have brought ALEXANDER ing. HAMILTON, AARON BURR, and others. 35Considered by many tu be the "Left the convention on 19 July. ar- leader, with his son-in-law ALEXANDER riving in Albany the following day. HAsituroN, of the Federalists in state °Though he did not vote on the fi- politics. Schuyler was a spectator andnal ratification motion, he voted the correspondent at the state ratifying con- A ntifederalist position on preceding vent ion. motions at the convention.

1 Biographical Gazetteer 179 RaCon(nv) now in Schenectady (c.) Rensselaerwick Schenectady Co. now in Schodack Rensselaer Co. Van Orden, Hezekiah" Ten Eyck, John de Peyster" Federalist affiliation unknown A-11/ A-12(d) A-11 Catskill Albany, First Ward still in Catskill now Albany, South End now in Greene Co.

THOMPSON, ISRAEL Van Rensselaer, Henry K." Antifederalist Antifederalist RaCon(no) A-12 Pittstown Rensselaerwick prob. still in Pittstown now in East Greenbush now in Rensselaer Co. Rensselaer Co.

Thompson, John Van Rensselaer, Jeremiah" Antifederalist Antifederalist A-12 A-12/ Comm(Chairman)/ Stillwater [Foil] still in Stillwater Albany, Second Ward now in Saratoga Co. now Albany, Capitol Hill Van Dyck, Cornelius Antifederalist A-12 "VanOrden livedin that part of Schenectady, South Catskill corresponding to the far south- now in Schenectady (c.) ern section of the Great Inboght Dis- trict of earlier years andnear the pres- Schenectady Co. ent-day village of Catskill. "Son of Kilian and brother of Philip Van 1ngen, Dirck" who built Cherry Hill in 1787.Henry Federalist K. was of the "Fort Crailo" line (one of A-11 several Van Rensselaer lines). He lived in what later became knownas the Van Schenectady, South Rensselaer-Genet House. no longer standing. "Of many jeremiahs. this is proba- "No votes recorded on key Assem- bly the son of Captain Hendrick of Clay- bly motions. Possibly Antifederafist.crack. As chairman of the Albany Ant i- since three Ten Eycks (ANTHONY.federalist Committee, he helped Henry. and Jacob C.) appearon Anti-supervise the county's defection from federalist lists of one kind or another. the Federalist ranks of STEPHEN VAN "Party designation based solelyon RENSSELAER (a distant cousin). PHILIP votes cast in the eleventh session. SCHUYLER, and others. 180 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR Van Rensselaer, Stephen" printer Federalist Albany, First Ward A-12(d) now Albany, South End Watervliet now North Albany Webster, George" Federalist Visscher, Matthew printer Antifederalist prob. Albany, ward unknown Comm(Secretary)/ [Co Clkj prob. still Albany, area Albany, Second Ward unknown now Albany, CapitolHill Yates, Abraham, Jr," Vrooman, Isaac Antifederalist Federalist Cong(87,88)! S-11/ 5-12/ A-12(d) 4`Rough Hewer"/ Schenectady, South "Sidney"! "Sydney" now in Schenectady (c.) Alb2ny, Third Ward Schenectady Co. now Albany, Downtown

VROOMAN, PETER" Yates, Peter W. Antifederalist Antifederalist RaCon(nv) Comm Schoharie Albany, First Ward now in ie (v.) now Albany, South End Seioharie Co. YATES, ROBERT" Webster, Charles R.27 Antifederalist

Federalist _ Journal: or. the Montgomery. Washington "Sixth and last kr-d of the Rensse- and Columbia Inteltigencer, briefly pub- laerwyck Manor, Stephen was of the so- fished as a semiweekly (26 January 1788 called "patroon" line of Van Rensse-31 March 1788) and then as a weekly laers. He was a son-in-law of PHILIP until 11 May 1789. SCHUY LER and brother-in-law of "Published theAlbany Journalwith ALEXANDER HAMM ION. His mansion his brother CHARLES R. In 1789 he was located off Tivoli Street. then in the joined his brother in publishing theAl- town of Watervfiet, now inthe cityof bany Gazetteuntil shortly after 1820. Albany. "Uncle of ROBEICT, he attended "Linda Grant De Pauw speculates Congress from 20 to 28 September that he might have left the convention 1787, but not from 13 to 21 February early. See The Eleienth Pillar: .Vew Fork of that year. State and the Federal Constitution(Ithaca, "Delegate to the Constitutional 1966). 247. Convention, he left before its conclu- "Foremost Albany printer, he pub- sion. At the state ratifying convention. lishedThe Albany Gazette,the first long- he was chairman of a committee of cor- lived newspaper of that city. from 1784 respondence appointed by an Antifed- until shortly after 1820, with various eralist caucus to work with Virginians in partners, including his twin brother formulating previous and absolute GEORGIE who also joined inThe Albany amendments" to the Constitution. In Biographical Gazetteer 181

RaCon(no)/ Fed Con/ [SO/ RaCon(d) Rev] Hillsdale Albany, First Ward now in Austerlitz now Albany, South End Jenkins, Thomas" Young love, John" Federalist affiliation uncertain A-12(d) A-11/ A-12 Hudson (c.) Cambridge still in Hudson (c.) prob. now in White Creek Washington Co. Kortz, John Antifederalist Columbia" A-12 Germantown A DGATE, MATTHEW still in Germantown Antifederahst RaCon(no)/ A-12/ Comm Livingston, Henry" Canaan Federalist now in New Lebanon RaCon(d) Livingston BAY, JOHN still in Livingston Antifederalist RaCon(no)/ A-12/ Comm Livingston, John" Claverack Federalist still in Claverack A-11/ A-12(d) Livingston Ford, Jacob still in Livingston Federalist

1789, a moderate Antifederalist, he was "Hudson was incorporated as a city the Federalist nominee of anti-Clinton hot 785, the same year it was laid out as forces for governor. He was defeated in a panned community by Jenkins and the election byGEORGE CLINTON. other New Engbnders. For twenty-eight "He voted the Federalist position in of t he neat thirty years, members of the the eleventh session. For the twelfth ses- Jenkins family served as the city's marr. sion, he was listed on both Antifeder- "Member, "upper manor line." Sixth Mist and Federalist tickets, winning on and youngest son of Robert, Jr., third the former. It is not known why he was lord of the manor. Not to be confused listed on both tickets or where his with Henry (Poughkeepsie). clerk of stronger affiliations were placed. Dutchess County (1777-89). In 1788 the "Columbia County was established upper Livingston manor and the town in 1786 from Albany County with the of Livingston were coterminous, as was support of the members of the Living- the town and "lower manor" of Cler- ston Manor, the senior branch ofthe mont associated with Chancellor family, known as the "upper manor RosERTR. LIVINGSTON (See NeW York line." The county's boundaries have re- County entry). mained virtually unchanged since 1786. 16111ember. "upper manor line." Fifth In 1788 the county was in the western youngest son of Robert, Jr., and brother Senate district. of Henry.

1J 182 T H ERELUCTANT PILLAR

Ludlow, William H. Whiting, William B. Federalist Antifederalist A-12(d) Comm Claverack Canaan still in Claverack still in Canaan Powers, William Dutehess" Federalist A-11 AKINSJONATHAN Carr an Antiferalist now in Chatham RaCon(no)/ A-12 Pawling Silvester, Peter still in Pawling Federalist A-11/ 5-12(d) Bailey, Theodorus" Kinderhook Antifederalist now in Kinderhook (v.) Comm Poughkeepsie Stoddard, Ashbel" still Poughkeepsie Federalist printer Barker, Samuel A." Hudson (c.) affiliation uncertain still in Hudson (c.) A-12 Frederickstown VAN NESS, PETER now in Kent Antifederalist Putnam Co. RaCon(no)/ S-11/ 5-12*1 Benson, Egbery" Comm/ f Cojcig) Federalist Kin& rhook still in Kinderhook "An original county, its boundaries in 1788 include all of present-day Van Schaack, Peter" Dutchess and Putnam counties. In 1788 Federalist it was in the middle Senate district. RaCon(d) "Not known is whether Bailey lived in that pan of Poughkeepsie now in the Kinderhook city or town of the same name. now in Kinderhook (v.) "Samuel A. (also Samuel Augustus) was listed on both Antifederalist and Federalist tickets for the twelfth session. "Sole printer in the city of Hudson Though he won on the former, his af- at this time, he published The tiled wn filiation is not certain. Weekly Gazette (a Federalist newspaper in 61Attorney General of New York the ratification debate), from 1785(1777-89), he andALEXANDER HAM- through the end of 1803, initially with IL IONwere the only New York dele- the supportof CHARLFS R. WEBSTER. gates who attended the Annapolis Con- "Van Schaack/Van Schaick. the lat-vention in 1786. In 1787 he attended ter spelling appearing only on the Fed- Congress from 13 to 21 February, but eralist ticket. not from 20 to 28 September. In 1788 Biographical Gazeteer 183

A-11/ Cong(87,88)/ DE WITT, JOHN, JR. RaCon(d)/ A-12(d)/ Antifederalist [AttGenj RaCon(yes)/ A-11/ A-12 Rhinebeck Clinton now in Red Hook still in Clinton Bloom, Isaac*/ affiliation uncertain DuBois, Lewis" A-11/ A-12 Antifederalist Clinton Comm now in Pleasant Valley Poughkeepsie still Poughkeepsie Cantine, Peter, Jr." Federalist Graham, Morris" A-11 Antifederalist Rhinebeck A-11 now in Red Hook Northeast now in Pine Plains Cary. Ebenezer Federalist Griffin, Jacob RaCon(d) Antifederalist Beekman A-12 still in Beekman Fishkill Crane, Joseph still in Fishkill Federalibt RaCon(d) Hoffman, Anthony prob. Southeast Town Federalist now in Southeast S-11*/ S-12/ lAppt(88)] Putnam Co. Rhinebeck now in Red Hook D'Cantillon, Richard Federalist RaCon(d) Clinton "Dubois (also Duboys) was placed on a spurious Antifederahst ticket put for- now in Hyde Park ward by Federalists to divide the Anti- federal vote. That tkket was reported Benson's Assembly motion of 31 Janu- inThe Country Journal, and the Pough- ary became the basis for the legislative keepsie Advertiser, 4 March 1788. Not resolution to call the state ratifying con- known is whetherDubois lived in that vention. part of Poughkeepsie which is now in "Listed on both Antifederalist and the city. Federalist tickets for the twelfth session. "In the eleventS session, Graham Though he won on the former, his af- voted the Antifederalist position on mo- filiation is not certain. tions 1 and 3 and the Federalist positkm "Party designation based on votes on motion 2. He was listed on the spu- cast in the eleventh session and on cam- rious Antifederalist ticket, reported in paign activities in 1788. the Country jouenol, 4 March 1788.

197 184 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

Hughes, Hugh" A-12(d) Antifederalist Washington "A Countryman"/ now in Stanford "Expositor/ "Intermgator Kent, James town unknown Federalist present place name unknown "A Country Federalist" Poughkeepsie Humfrey, Cornelius° prob. now in Poughkeepsie (c.) Antifederalist S-11/ S-12 LIVINGSTON, GILBERT" town unknown Antifederalist present place name unknown RaCon(yes)/ A-12/ Purr! Husted, Ebenezer" Poughkeepsie Federalist still in Poughkeepsie (L) Father of JAMES M. of New York Patterson, Matthew County. Hugh Hughes authored six se- Antifederalist rialized essays published in the New-York Journal. under the pseudonym "AA-11/ A-12/ Comm Countryman." (DeWitt Clinton of New Frederickstown York County also wrote under this pseu-now in Kent donym.) "Expositor" I, printed in three Putnam Co. installments, and "Expositor" II were also written by Hughes and published in the New-York Journal. Hughes's "Inter- PLATT, ZEPHANIAH rogator." an attack upon Thr Federalist Antifederalist No. 15. was never published. In early RaCon(yes)/ [CoJdg] April 1788 he was living in Dutchess Poughkeepsie County and planning to move to a farm in Yonkers (Westchester County) owned still in Poughkeepsie (t.) by joHN LAMS whose children he had been tutoring. Power, Nicholas5° "In the eleventh session, Humfrey Federalist voted the Antifederafiu position on all printer three motions. He also appears with Mortals GRAHAM and Limn DuBois CM Poughkeepsie the spurious Antifederalist ticket of 4 prob. now in Poughkeepsie (c.) March (see note 44 above). Though def- initely Antifederalists, neither Graham nor Humfrey appear in a long list of "Grandson of Gilbert, the youngest "active Antifederalists," compiled by son of the first manor lord, and the fam- Theophilus Parsons, Jr., "The Old Con- ily's sole Antifederalist in the ratifica- viction versus The New Realities: New tion debate. York Antifederalist Leaders and the "Official printer of the journal of Radical Whig Tradition" (Ph.D. diss.. e state ratifying convention, he pub- Columbia University, 1974), Appendix. lished a Federalist newspaper, The Coun- "Probably Major Ebenezer Husted. try Journal, and the Poughkeepsie Adver- Jr., son of Ebenezer. Sr., whose will is tiser (continued in 1789 as The dated 1785. The son lived on a farm, Poughkeepsie Journal). from 1785 until later known as the juckett Farm. 1806, with various partners after 1796. 185 Biographical Gazetteer

Sands, Robert Washington now inStanford Federalist RaCon(d) Rhinebeck Tillotson, Thomas still in Rhinebeck Federalist A-11/A-12(d) SMITH, MELANCTON" Rhinebeck Antifederalist still in Rhinebeck RaCon(yes) (North Ward, N.Y.C.) Van Wyck, Isaac See New YorkCounty Federalist A-I2(d) SWARTwouT, JACOBUS" Antifederalist still in Fishkill RaCon(no)/ &II*/5-12 Fishkill Wiltse, Martin now inWappinger Federalist Tallman, Isaac I. RaCon(d) Federalist Fishkill RaCon(d)/ A-12(d) now inBeacon (c.) Pawling still in Pawling Kings (now alsoBrooklyn boro.)" Tappen, Peter Antifederalist Doughty, Charles" Comm Antifederalist Poughkeepsie A-1 I / RaCon(d)/A- I 2(d)/ now inPoughkeepsie (c.) Comm Brooklyn THOMPSON, F.ZR A" now inCadman Plaza area, Antifederalist near FultonFerry RaCon(nv)

51Listed on the Antifederafisttickets it is now one New York City, "An original county, in Dutchess County and of the five boroughsof the city of New he won on the formerand lost on the other boroughs, a Revolution he moved York and, like the latter. Before the vestigal county for certainpurposes. from Queens County toDutchess, set- is Brooklyn In 1784 he moved Hence, its city designation tling in Poughkeepsie. borough, while its statedesignation re- to New YorkCity. In 1788 it was in "Swartwout was the onlycandidate mains Kings County. the southern Senatedistrict. nominated on both theAntifederalist County lawyer, Antifederalist ticket "A prominent Kings ticket and a spurious not to beconfused with theCharles proposed by Federalists. Doughty who occup:edthe Kings land "Became ill and left theconvention House (still standing)in Queens County. early. 186 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR Giles, Aquita5° Federalist A-11/ RaCon(d)/A-12(d) A-12 town unknown Flatbush present area unknown still in Flatbush,near Erasmus Wyckoff, Hendrick° Hall Antifederalist LEFFERTS, PETER" Comm Federalist Flatbush RaCon(yes) present area unknown Flatbush Montgomerf still in Flatbush,now Botanic Garden area Arndt, Abraham° Vanderbilt, John" Federalist Federalist A-11/ RaCon(d) S-1 IS-I2/ [Appt(88)] Canajoharie Flatbush now in Fort Plain (v.) still in Flatbush Cooper, William° VA N DEVOORT,PETER Federalist Federalist RaCon(yes)/ A-I2/[Sher] "This Wyckoff couldhave been any Brooklyn one of se-eral Hendricks:H.1, b. 1768, prob. now in politically active, andliving at a Bowling Bedford- Green address inManhattan; H.11, b. Stuyvesant 1745 in Flatbush;and K111, b. 1733. living on WyckoffLane (now Wyona Wyckoff, Cornelius" Street), not far fromthe Wyckoff-Ben- Antifederalist nett House (nowa private residence off Kings Highway inSheepshead Bay). %Giles was then "Established in 1772from Albany living in MelroseCounty, its 1788 boundaries Hall, off thecorner of Flatbush Avenue included all the western lands and what isnow Winthrop Street, then claimed by New near York; however its Erasmus Hall Academywhich he and most settled areas in many others (including 1788 were limitedto the present-day ALEXANDER counties of Fulton, HAMILTON and AARONBURR) helped Herkimer, Mont- to establish. gomery, Otsego, andwestern Scho- harie. In 1788 it Lefferts Homesteadwas then lo- was in the western Sen- cated on Flatbush ate district. Avenue, near what is "Canajoharie, later now the Botanic Garden.The home was Minden, now later moved Fort Plain. across Flatbush Avenueinto Prospect Park. (See "In 1787 WilliamCooper laidout "A Guide to His- the frontier hamlet tork Sites.. ." in this collection.) of Coopers-Town, "Of the m: ny John one of the first interiorsettlements of Vanderbiks this the Susqw.hanna is probably Judge Valley. In 1790he Vanderbilt who lived brought his family, on Flatbush Avenueand led the drive including his infant to establish Erasmus son James Fenimore, from Hall Academy. New Jersey. Burlington, 5.None of the Addressed by thetitles many Cornelius Wyck- "Judge" and "Squire," offs have been locatedin Kings County he was laterpor- or nearby during this trayed as "MarmadukeTemple" in his period. son's novel The Pioneers. Biographkal Gazetteer 187

leading partisan Caughnawaga Otsego now in Johnstown (c.) now in Cooperstown (v.) Fulton Co. Otsego Co. Paris, Isaac" Crane, Josiah affiliation unknown Federalist A-11/ Purr] RaCon(d) Canapharie Palatine now in Fort Plain (v.) still in Palatine Schuyler, Peter" Fonda, Jellis" Federalist affiliation unknown S-11/ S1-12/ RaCon(d)/ S-11*/ S-12 lAppt(87)] Caughnawaga Canapharie now in Fonda (V.) now in Danube Herkimer Co. FREY, JOHN Antifederalist STARING, HFNRY RaCon(no)/ A-11/ A-12/ Antifederalist Comm RaCon(ro)/ A-12 Palatine German Flaus still in Palatine now in Schuyler Herkimer Co. HARPER, WILLIAM" Antifederalist Van Horne, Abraham RaCon(no)/ A-12/ Comm Federalist Mohawk RaCon(d) now in Florida Canapharie Livingston, James" now in Fort Plain (v.) Federalist A-11/ RaCon(d) Van Vechten, Abraham Federalist "Elected to. but not present at, the RaCon(d) eleventh session. In 1788 he was living Canajoharie either on his farm or on his new homepresent place name unknown site, both now located in the village of Fonda. He died in 1791 before con-VEEDER, VOLKERT struction was completed on his new home. Antifederalist "The town of Mohawk was thenRaCon(no)/ A-11/ A-12/ south of the Mohawk River. Comm "The state civil list is incorrect in listing John Livingston as the assembly- man from Montgomery County. It is e'No voting record or other indica- James who appears in the Assembly tion of party affiliation. Journal. "Nephew of PHILIP SCHUYLER.

20 1 188 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

Caughnawaga Bayard, Nicholas" now in Mohawk Antifederalist A-11 / A-12(d) WINN, JOHN" Out Ward Antifederalist now Lower East Side RaCon(no)/ A-11/ A-12 Canajoharie Brooks, David" present place name unknown Federalist A-I 1 YATES, CHRISTOPHER P." ward unknown Antifederalist present area unknown RaCon(nv)/ A-I2/ Comm/ [Co Clkj Burr, Aaron Canajoharie Antifederalist still in Canajoharie A-I2(d) South Ward New York (now also ManhattanAbove the Battery, inside boro.)" Beaver & Broad sts. Bancker, Evert" Federalist Childs, Francis's A-1 I Federalist North Ward printer Above Wall St., betw. ward unknown Broadway & William St. present area unknown

'"Elected to the convention on the Antifederalist ticket, he had voted the "Bayard was a long-time alder-man Federalist position in the eleventh ses-and political leader for the Out Ward. sion on motions 1 and 2 and cast no vote "There were several New Yorkers for motion S. with the name David Brooks. According "Though he did not vote on the fi- to one authority, probabilities favor Ma- nal ratification motian, he voted thejor David, assistant clothier general Antifederalist position on preceding(1780-82) and lawyer. See Jackson motions at the convention- Turner Main, Political Parties before the "An original county. its 1788Conslitution (Chapel Hill. N.C., 1973). boundaries were confined to Manhattan 419. Island. In 1788 the most densely settled "Published The Daily Advertiser. from areas were in what is today Downtown 1 March 1785 through 1796, the first (or Lower) Manhattan and the Lower newspaper established as a daily in New East Side. (For ward boundaries. see in- York City. Childs took notes at the state troduction. section on "Albany and New ratifying convention and subsequently York City Wards: An Historical Note.") published the most complete account of In 1788 it was in the southern Senateconvention debates in a pamphlet enti- district. tled Dellates and Proceedings of the Con- "Father of ABRAHAM 13. of Ulster vention of the State of New-York . .His County and uncle of ABRAHAM of Rich- printing shop was at 190 Water Street mond County. and he may have lived nearby.

I Biographical Gazetteer 189

Clinton, DeWitt?* RaCon(yes)/ S-11*/ S-12 Antifederalist North Ward "A Countryman" Above Wall St., betw. ward unknown Broadway & William St. present area unknown Duer, Clinton, George" Federalist Antifederalist "Philo-Publius" RaCon(d)/ [Gov/Appt(87,88)/West Ward Rev (87,88)j Broadway area, below East Ward Chambers St. East of William St., betw. Old & Burling slips Gelston, David" Antifederalist Denning, William S-12(d)/ [Surrj Antifederalist East Ward RaCon(d)/ A-12(d) East of William St., betw. Old East Ward & Burling slips East of William St., betw. Old & Burling slips Gilbert, William W." Federalist DUANE, JAMES" A-12 Federalist West Ward Broadway area, below "Son of JAMES and nephew of Chambers St. GEORGE. DeWitt was born and raised at his father's home in Ulster County.Greenleaf, Thomas" Graduated from Columbia College, he Antifederalist authored five serialized essays under the pseudonym "'A Countryman." (HUGH HUGHES of Dutchess County also wrote removed to Duanesburgh with his bride under this pseudonym.) DeWitt was a to manage his father-in-law's landhold- spectator and correspondent at the state ings, ratifying convention. "Secretary of the Board of Treasury "George Clinton was the first gov- under the Confederation Congress in ernor of New York State (1777-95 and 1788. 1801-04) and the v:ncipal leader of "Gelston/Gheiston. Born in Bridge- Antifederalists in the state. Listed as a hampton in the Suffolk County town of convention delegate on the Antifeder- Southampton, he removed to New York alist tickets in Ulster County and New City in 1786. York City, he won on the former and 52Gi lbert was a long-time alderman lost on the latter. (See Ulster Countyand political leader for the West Ward. entry.) "Manager (1785-87) and then pub- "Mayor of New York City (1784-lisher (1787-98) of the New-York Jour- 89), Duane also owned Albany Countynal, he was the lone newspaper pub- land. organized into the town offisher with clear Antifederalist leaniags. Duanesburgh in 1765. now Duanesburg During the ratification debate, the in Schenectady County. In September newspaper was published as a daily un- 1787 William North married Duane's der the title The Nete-York Journal, and eldest daughter and. sometime in 1788,Daily Patriotic Register (19 November

203 190 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR printer RaCon(yes)/ [SCt/ Rev] East Ward North Ward East of William St., betw. Old Above Wall St., betw. & Burling slips Broadway & William St. HAMILTON, ALEXANDER" Hoffman, Nicholas Federalist Federalist RaCon(yes)/ Fed Con/ A-12 Cong(1118)/ "Publius" Dock Ward East Ward Below Wall St., betw. Broad & East of William St., betw. Old William us. & Burling slips Hughes, James M." HARISON, RICHARD Antifederalist Federalist Comm RaCon(yes)/ A-11/ A-12 North Ward West Ward Above Wall St., betw. Broadway area, below Broadway & William St. Chambers St. JAY, JOHN" Harrisson, John" Federalist preference unknown RaCon(yes)/ "Publius"/ "A printer Citizen of New York" East Ward East Ward East of William St., betw. Old East of William St., betw. Old & Burling slips & Burling slips HOBART, JOHN SLOSS Jones, Samuel" Federalist Antifederalist RaCon(d)/ Comm 1787-26 July 1788). During this period, the Thursday edition, The NerYorkMontgomerie Ward Journal, and Weekly Register, arriedEast of William St., betw. Antifederalist essays and other items to Burling & New slips the upstate and Long Island counties. "A son-in-law of PHILIP SCHUYLER "Son of HUGH HUGHES of Dutchess of Albany County, Hamilton was a lead- County. ing proponent of the proposed Consti- "Secretary for Foreign Affairs un- union, coauthor (with JOHN JAY and der the Confederation Congress in 1788. James Madison) of The Federalist, and a Coauthor of The Federalist with principal organiser of the Federalists in ALEXANDER HAMILTON and James New York City. Madison. "Published the city's only weekly at "Listed on the Antifederalist tickets this time, The Impartial Gazetteer, andin Queens County and New York City, Saturday Evening's Post (renamed The he won on the former and lost on the New-York Weekly Museum on 20 Septem- latter. Unlike other candidates listed in ber 1788), from 17 May 1788 through two counties, he maintained an active 1804, initially joined by STEPHEN PVIUDY residence in each county. (See Queens JR. County entry.) Biographical Gazeiteer 191

King, Rufus" Lawrence, John9I Federalist Andfederalist leading partisan RaCon(d) prob. East Ward East Ward East of William St., betw. Old East of William St., betw. Old & Burling slips & Burling slips Lamb, John" Livingston, Brockholst" Antifederalist Federalist RaCon(d)/ Comm(Chairman) A-12 East Ward West Ward East of William St., betw. Old Broadway area, below & Burling slips Chambers St.

Laurence, John9° LI V I NGSTON,ROBERT R." Federalist Federalist S-11*/ S-12 RaCon(yes)/ [Chanc/ Rev] East Ward West Ward East of William St., betw. Old Broadway area, below & Burling slips Chambers St.

el Of the many John Lawrences this "A Massachusetts native, he was one is probably Jonathan. a Water Street of that state's delegates to the Confed- merchant, who, likeMELANCTON eration Congress and to the Constitu- &arm had moved from Queens County tional Convention in 1787. as well as ato Dutchess County and then to New member of the Massachusetts Conven-York City. maintaining business deal- tion of 1788. On 6 February the Mas-ings with Smith and other Dutchess sachusetts Convention voted to ratify the County Antifederalists. Constitution, and shortly thereafter King "Born Henry Brockholst Living- left for New York City to be with hisston, k* chose not to use his first name. wife, probably staying at the home of A member of the "upper manor line," his father-in-law John Alsop. At the end he was the son of William (brother of of May, the Kings went to Boston, where the third manor lord, first governor oi Rufus relayed news or the New Hamp- New Jersey, and a Constitutional Con- shire Convention toALEXANDER HAM- vention delegate). ILTONat the New York Convention. '6Known as "the Chancellor." owing Later, the Kings returned to New York to his lengthy service (1777-1801) as City where they settled until retiring af- chancellor of the powerful state court ter 1805 to a home on Long Island. of chancery, he was the eldest son of "Lamb was then serving as customsjudge Robert R., head of the Clermont collector for the Port of New York. estate, then located in Columbia and "Laurence/Lawrence, the former Dutchess counties. In 1775 he inherited spelling appearing in reference to his the Clermont estate, known as the congressional service. Not to be con-"lower manor," though the original fused withJOHN LAWRENCE. theNew grant carried no manorial privileges. York City Antifederalist. Laurence is After ratification, he switched his sup- probably the attorney at 13 Wall Street. port to GovernorCLINTON.

205 192 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR Loudon, John" McKesson, John" Federalist Antifederahst printer Clerk(A-11/ A-12)/ East Ward Secretary(RaCon)/ Comm East of William St., betw. Old South Ward & Burling slips Above the Battery, inside Beaver & Broad sts. Loudon, Samuel" Federalist McKnight, Charles printer Federalist ward unknown "Examiner" present area unknown North Ward Above Wall St., betw. Low, NICHOLAS96 Broadway & William St. Federalist M'Lean, Archibald" RaCon(yes)/ A-11/ A-12 Federalist Montgomerie Ward printer East of William St., betw. East Ward Burling & New slips East of William St., betw. Old & Burling slips Ludlow, Gabriel Antifederalist M'Lean, John" A-12(d) Federalist Dock Ward Below Wall St., betw. Broad & "As clerk of the state Assembly William sts. (1777-93). McKesson was appointed secretary of the convention along with ABRAHAM B. BANCIERof Ulster County, then clerk of the state Senate. In 1 788 "Joined his father SAMUEL in pub- he was also clerk of the state supreme lishing The New-York Packet in 1785 and court and of the courts of nisi prius, oyer remained with the firm until his death and terminer. in September 1789. His father's print- "On 2 July 1788 Archibald M'Lean ing shop was at 5 Water Street. The firm joined his brotherJOHNin publishing of Samuel and John Loudon was state The Independent purr 11: or, the General printer (1785-89). Advertiser (The New-York Daily Gazette "Began publishing the New-Yorkfrom 29 December 1788) which he con- Packet in New York City in 1776. Thetinued to publish after John's death un- next year he reestablished the newspa- tit 1798. The M*Leans were the first to per at the VAN WYCK House in Fishkill, publish The Federalist in book form. returning after the Revolution to New "Pubfished the l'ndent Journal York City where he continued publish- (later the New-York Daily Gazette) from ing the newspaper until 1792. He also 1783 until his death in 1789, initially published Noah Webster's The American with Ctissuis R. Wtas-rsit and then with Magazine. . .. ARCHISALD M'LEAN. The M'Leans also "City directories for 1787 and 1789 published the Norfolk and Portsmouth place Low at 216 Water Street (Mont-Journal (1786-89), a Virginia newspa- gomerie Ward) and 24 Water Street per. John conducted the Norfolk paper; (probably East Ward), respectively. ARCHIBALD ran the New York paper.

05 I Le t.) Biographical Gazetteer 193 printer Niven, Daniel"' Out Ward Federalist now LowerEast Side A-11 West Ward Macomb, Alexander Broadway area, below Federalist Chambers St. A-12 West Ward Purdy, Stephen, JO" Broadway area, below preference unknown Chambers St. printer ward unknown Makom, William present areaunknown Antifederalist Randall, Thomas)" RaCon(d) Montgomerie Ward Federalist East of William St.,betw. Comm(Chairman) Burling & New slips South Ward Above the Battery,inside Moms, RtcHARDI® Beaver & Broad sts. Federalist RaCon(nv)/ (SO/ Revj ROOSEVELT, ISAAC North Ward Federalist Above Wall St., betw. RaCon(yes)/ S-12* Broadway & William St. Montgomerie Ward East of William St., betw. Morton, William"' Burling & New slips preference unknown printer Russell, john"3 East Ward preference unknown East of William St.,betw. Old printer & Burling slips Out Ward now Lower EastSide and "Irounger brother ofLEWIS sokly on Richard "vParty designation based half-brother ofGOUVERNEUR. session. In all of the state supreme votes cast in the eleventh was chief justke likelihood, this Niven was alumber mer- court from 1779(afterjOliN JAYre- in 1788, convention, he chant on Cortlandt Street tired) until 1790. At the probably located in the WestWard. did not vote on the finalratification mo- JOHN HARRISSON(1788- tion, though he voted theFederalist po- "loined 91) in publishing theImpartial Gazetteer sition on preceding motions. the New-York Weekly Museum). '°1PublishedThe New-York Morning (later, (a bipartisanTheir printing shop was at 3 Peck Slip, Past, and Daily Advertiser nearby. newspaper in theratification debate), and Purdy may have lived initially with "'In all likelihood, thisRandall was from 1783 until 1792, in 1788. Morning Post(be- living on Whitehall Street Samuel Horner. The probably located in the SouthWard. gun in 1782 as theNew-York Evening Post) a to sur- "PubfishedThe New-York Museum, was the only Loyalist newspaper short-lived newspaper of 1788, vive the Revolution.

207 194 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR Rutgers, Henry Tillinghast, Chariest" Anufederalist Antifederalist A-12(d) Comm(Secretary) Out Ward Out Ward now Lower East S.de now Lower East Side Sands, Comfort Varick, RicharcP" Federalist Federalist A-11/ A-12 A-I I(Speaker) East Ward East Ward East of William St., betw. Old East of William St.,betw. Old & Burling slips & Burling slips Smith, Melanctoni" Verplanck, Gulian Antifederalist Federalist RaCon(d)/ Cong (87)1 A-12(d)/ Comm/ A-11/ 4.12 "A Plebeian" East Ward North Ward East of William St.,betw. Old Above Wall St., betw. & Burling slips Broadway & WilliamSt. Watts, John, Jr. Federalist Stoughton, Thomas A-12 Antifederalist A-12(d) West Ward Dock Ward Broadway area, below Chambers St. Below Wall St., betw.Broad & William sts. Webb, Samuel Blachley"° Federalist Stoutenburgh, Isaac'°7 Antifederalist RaCon(d)/ A-12(d)/ '"Son-in-law of JOHN LAMB.the IForfj Antifederalist committeechairman. West Ward looVarick was recorder(chief legal of- Broadway area, below ficer) for the city of NewYork, 1784- Chambers St. 89, and mayor, 1789-1801,He also served as stateattorney general for a losIn 1787 he attended few months in 1789,resigning in Sep- Congress intember to becomemayor. both February and September.In 1788 he was listed on Antifederalist "Webb was an activecorrespondent tickets inand observer, thoughhe was not polit- Dutchess County and NewYork City,ically active in party winning on the formerand losing on the organizations. Like latter. (See Dutchess PHILIP SCHUYLER ofAlbany County. County entry.) Webb was a Federalistwho visited wAccording to Mired F.Young, Poughkeepsie during the Stoutenburgh becamea member of the state ratifying small Federal-Republic convention. His publishedletters and Society in Newother writingsappear in W. C. Ford, ed., York City of whichCHARLEs TILLING- HAST W3S secretary and JOHN Correspondence and Journalsof Samuel LAMB was Blachley Webb, 3 vols. (NewYork, 1893- chairman. See The DemocraticRepubli- cans of Nero York Thu Origins. 1763-1797 1894); and James W. Webb,ed.. Remi- niscences of General SamuelB. Webb (New (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1967),50n. York, 1882). Biographical Gazetteer 195

leading partisan A-12 prob. West Ward New Cornwall Broadway area, below now in Cornwall Chambers St. Clark, Jeremiah"4 Webster, Noah"1 Antifederalist Federalist A-11/ A-12 "A Citizen ill' America"/ New Cornwall "America"! "Giles now in Cornwall-on- Hickory"/ magazine editor Hudson (v.) ward unknown present area unknown Coe, John D. Marinusus Federalist Antifederalist A-12(d) RaCon(d)/ A-12(d)/ Comm Haverstraw East Ward now New City, Clarkstown East of William St., betw. Old Rockland Co. & Burling slips Gale, Coe Orange's Antifederalist Comm Carpenter, John Goshen Antifederalist now in Goshen (v.) "A Connecticut native, he livedHARING, jOHNII8 briefly in Philadelphia where in Octo- Antifederalist ber 1787 he wrote a pamphlet in sup- port of the Constitution, entitled An Ex- RaCon(no)/ Cong(87)/ S-11/ amination into the Leading Principles of the 5-12/ [Coldg) Federal Constitution. By A Citizen of America. He removed to New York City noLived in the Canterbury area of and edited The American Magazine. New Cornwall, now located in the vil- the city's first monthly mapzine (De- lage of Cornwall, renamed Cornwall-on- cember 1787-November 1788). In hisHudson in 1978. American Magazine, Webster used the "In 1787 he attended Congress in pseudonym "Giles Hickory" for several September, but not in February. In 1788 important artic ti against the need forhe voted the Federalist position in the a bill of rights. He also published a long state Senate on motions 1 and 9, but was attack on "The Dissent of the Minorityclearly an Antifederalist. He served as of the Pennsylvania Convention" under county judge until 12 March 1788, at the pseudonym "America" in the New which time WILLIAM THOMPSON as- York Daily Advertiser. sumed that office. In 1794 Haring re- "In 1788 Willett was alderman for moved to Bergen County, New Jersey; the East Ward. He was sheriff of Newand a decade later, he returned to Tap- York County, 1784-87 and 1791-95; pan, by then in Rockland County. Robert Boyd was sheriff from 29 Sep- Hence, this may have been the John tember 1787 to 29 September 1791. Haring who appears as a New Jersey leg- usAn original county, its boundaries islator in 1795-96 and a New York as- in 1788 include all of present-day Rock- semblyman in 1806. See Wilfred B. Tal- land County and most of present-day man, limo Things Began in Rockland County Orange County. In 1788 it was in the and Places Nearby (Rockland County middle Senate district. Historical Society, 1977), 50-93.

209 19- THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

Orangetown now West Nyack,Clarkstown now Tappan, Orangetown Rockland Co. Rockland Co. Taulman, Peter Hathorn, John Antifederalist Antifederalist A-11/ A-12(d)/ Comm S-11/ S-12/ Comm/ Orangetown jAppt(87)/ FoifJ now in Piermont (v.) Warwick Rockland Co. still in Warwick Thompson, William'17 Hopkins, Reuben affiliation uncertain Antifederalist A-11/ [CoJdg) Comm Goshen Goshen still in Goshen still in Goshen Wisner, Henry, jr."8 Marvin, Seth Antifederalist Federalist A-11/ A-12 A-12(d) Wallkill New Cornwall still in Wallkill now in Blooming Grove then Ulster, now Orange Co. Moffatt, Thomas WISNER, HENRY, SR. Antifederalist Antifederalist Comm RaCon(no) New Cornwall Goshen now in Blooming Grove still in Goshen Post, james"8 WOOD, JOHN Federalist Antifederalist A-12(d) RaCon(no) Warwick Goshen still in Warwick now in Goshen (v.)

Pye, David "Not voting on motions I and 2, Federalist 'Thompson voted the Federalist position A-12(d) on motion 3. On 12 March 1788,he replaced JottN HARING as county judge. Haverstraw "Henry, Jr., was the son of HENRY, SR., a prominent figure in provincial and "gn the Assembly elections of 1788,state politics. Henry. Jr., represented _fames Post and PETER TAULMAN each Orange County in the Assembly; how- received 128 vote-.., tying for fourthever. all evidence suggests that he was place. As a result, neither could serve. then living in the Phillipsburgh area of thereby depriving Orange County of its Wallkill, a town now in Orange, but then fourth Assembly seat that year. in Ulster County. Biographical Gazetteer 197

WOODHULL, :num JONES, SANUEL1" Antifederalist Antifederalist RaCon(yes) RaCon(yes)/ A-II/ A-I2 New Cornwall Oyster Bay now in Blooming Grove still in Oyster Bay Nassau Co. QUIttle" LAWRENCE, NATHANIEL)" Antifederalist CARMAN, STEPHENI" RaCon(yes) Antifederalist South Hempstead RaCon(yes)/ A-11/ A-12/ now in Hempstead Comm Nassau Co. South Hempstead now in Hempstead Ledyard, Isaac.'" Nassau Co. Federalist RaCon(d) Cornwell, Whiteheadin Newtown Antifederalist now in Middle Village area A-1I/ A-12 Queens borough South Hempstead Lewis, Francis, jr.1" now Far Rockaway, Federalist HPmpstead Nassau Co. "Jones represented Queens County in the convention and the Assembly. An adroit lawyer, he was a leader of the Antifederafists in both bodies, though he later became a Federalist. (See New "'Woodhull is depicted as a yeomanYork County entry.) farmer and citizen politician by Michel- i"Nathaniel was the son of Captain Guillaume Jean de Crevecoeur, Eight-James and the fifth generation of the so- eenth-Century Travels in Pennsylvania andcalled Thomas Lawrence line. The state New Yank, trans. and ed. Percy G. Adams civil list places Nathaniel Lawrence in (Lexington, Ky., 1961), 18-25. South Hempstead; however, he may "An original county, its boundaries have resided, or just previously resided, in 1788 include present-day Queens in New York City, where the 1789 city County (now also a borough) and Nas- directory lists a Nathaniel Lawrence as sau County. In 1788 it was part of the a Burling Slip lawyer. southern Senate district. "Ledyard lived in New York City "Colonial Hempstead was divided and associated with ALEXANDER HAM- into North and South Hempstead in ILTON. He acquired the confiscated Van 1784. In 1796 South Hempstead be- Dine estate in Newtown sometime be- came Hempstead, while North Hemp- fore or during 1794, when he erected stead has retained its name. a mansion there, to which he removed "Cornwell/Cornell, the latter spell-with his family in 1795; however, it is ing appearing only in the state civil list. not known whether he had any other No voting record on key eleventh ses-connections to Queens County at the sion motions. In 1788 he was listed ontime of the ratification debate. the Antifederalist ticket for the Assem- "Son of Francis, Sr.. signer of the bly. Declaration of Independence.

211 198 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR A-11/ RaCon(d)/ A-12(d) still in Oyster Bay Flushing Nassau Co. now Whitestone area Queens borough Richmond(now also Staten Island boro.)1128 Onderdonck, Hendrick Federalist BANCKER, ABRAHAM"9 RaCon(d) Federalist North Hempstead RaCon(yes)/ A-12/ [Sher] now Roslyn, North HempsteadCastleton Nassau Co. prob. now Richmond Terrace, near Sailors' Snug Harbor SCHENCK, JOHN Antifederalist Dongan, John C.'" RaCon(yes)/ A-12 Antifederalist North Hempstead A-11/ A-12 now Manhasset, North Castleton Hempstead prob. now Richmond Terrace, Nassau Co. in Port Richmond Seaman, Nathaniel Micheau, PauP" Federalist Federalist A-12(d) S-I2*/ [Cojdgi South Hempstead "An original county, it is now Sta- now in Hempstead ten Island borough (officially renamed Nassau Co. in 1975) and Richmond County. In 1788 it was part of the southern Senate dis- ToWnsend, Prior'" trict. Federalist n9Not to be confused with his cousin ABRAHAM B. of Ulster County. Abra- RaCon(d)/ A-I2(d) ham was the son of EVERT'S brother Oyster Bay Adrian who was surrogate of Richmond still in Oyster Bay County (1787-92). Abraham and his Nassau Co. fellow Richmond County delegate COZEN RYERSS are generally regarded Townsend, Samuel as Federalists. Perhaps in error, they were listed on the ticket as "sentiments Federalist unknown," in the New-York Journal, 5 S-I I*/ S-I2 June 1788. Oyster Bay "'In the eleventh session, he voted the Federalist position on motion 3, but did not vote on motions 1 and 2. How- ."According to Henry Onderdonk, ever, an out-of-state newspaper re- the candidate is Prior Townsend of Oys- ferred to Dongan as "A pigmy antifed- ter Bay. (See Queens in Olden Times (Ja- eral frigid reptile, of Staten-Island" (The maica, N.Y., 18651,71.) However,New-Jersey Journal, and Pohtical listens- Alfred F. Young discusses the candidacy genrer, 9 January 1788). of James Townshend in The Democratic "Listed on the Federalist ticket for Republicans of Neu, York, 163. the Senate. Biographical Gazetteer 199 Westfield Brookhaven now Arthur Kill Road, in now Mastic Beach, Greenridge Brookhaven RYERSS, GOZENI" Gardiner, Nathaniel's's Federalist Federalist RaCon(yes) A-I 2/ RaCon(d) Northfield East Hampton perhaps now in Fort now in East Hampton (v.) Richmond HAVENS, JONATHAN N. Winant, Peter's' Antifederalist Federalist RaCon(yes)/ A-I 1/ A-I2/ A-11 Comm Southfield Shelter Island now Arthur Kill Road, near still Shelter Island Richmondtown HEDGES, DAVIDI" Stip lki34 Antifederalist RaCon(nv)/ A-II/ A-12/ Cooper, Caleb Comm Antifederalist East Hampton Comm now Sagaponack, East Southampton Hampton still in Southampton Hunting, Benjamin's° Floyd, William'n Federalist Antifederalist RaCon(d) S-11/ [Appt(87)1 Southampton now in Southampton (v.) II*See ABRAHAM BANCKER, note 129. Ryerss is said to have weighed so much neSon of Colonel Abraham, who was that he had to occupy two seats at thethe brother of John, fifth Proprietor of convention. Gardiner's island. Nathaniel Gardiner "Tarty designation based solely on was defeated on the Federalist conven- votes cast in the eleventh session. tion ticket and elected on the rival As- '"An original county, its boundariessembly ticket. He was probably consid- have changed little since 1788 when itered a viable candidate by both parties; was part of the southern Senate district. however, based on two letters from -St. goThough Floyd voted the Feder- Patrick" (JONATHAN N. HAVENS) to alist position on motions / and 2 in the JOHNSMITH of 5 and 7 April 1788, it eleventh session, he was considered aseems likely that Gardiner's stance on popular moderate by Assembly Antifed- the Constitution was Federalist. eralists who in January 1788 sought un- "A ccord i ngtoLinda Gra nt De Pauw, successfully to have him replace the more it is likely that he left the convention partisan ALEXANDER HAMILTON inearly. See 71w EIntenth Pillar, 247. Congress. Floyd later was elected to the "sHunting/Hunning. Colonel Ben- first frderal Congress where he votedjamin, father of Benjamin of Sag Har- the Antifederalist position. bor.

213 200 T H EkELUCTANT PILLAR L'Hommedieu, Ezra's Smith, George.'" Federalist Federalist S-11/ S-12V RaCon(d)/ RaCon(d) Cong (88)/ [CoClkj Smithtown Southold now in Nissequogue(v.) still in Southold SMITH,JOHN"' Antifederalist Osborn, Danie114° RaCon(yes)/ A-11/ A-12/ Federalist Comm A-11 Brookhaven prob. East Hampton now Mastic Beach, prob. still in East Hampton Brookhaven SCUDDER, HENRY Strong, Selah Antifederalist Federalist RaCon(yes)/ A-12/ Comm RaCon(d)/ [Cojdgl Northport (v.), Huntington Brookhaven still in Northport (v.) now Setauket, Brookhaven Smith, Epenetusw "'Probably George (1749-1822), son of Job and a member of the Richard Antifederalist Smith line of Smithtown. Born in Smith- Comm town, George served in General Wash- Smithtown ington's spy ring with SmutSTRONG. now in Village of the SAMUEL TOWNSEND,and others. In 1780 George and his brother Woodhull in- Branch (v.) herited their family house, now in the village of Nissequogue, but it is unlikely that George lived there for any length "91.*4ommedieu was listed on the of time thereafter. He is recorded in Federalist convention ticket and on both Connecticut for part of the Revolution; Federalist and Antifederalist tickets for and then, by the births of his children, the twelfth session of the Senate. He was in Huntington (1784), Mechanicstown clearly a Federalist and, like Antifed- in Dutchess County (1788-90), and later eralistWILLIAM FLOYD, amoderate held in New York City. During the first half in high regard by his colleagues. of 1788. he may have been in Smith- "'Party designation based solely on town, Huntington, or Dutchess County; votes cast in the eleventh session. There however, he is placed in his home com- were various Daniel Osborns in East munity, now the hamlet of St. James in Hampton around this time, and he may the village of Nissequogue in the town have been one of them. However, he is of Smithtown. obviously not the one (b. 1774) whose "'Son of Judge William, third lord house still stands. of the Manor of St. George, John Smith "sEpenetus (b. 1724), grandson of long courted and finally wed a member the town's founder, along with his son of the wealthyFLOYDfamily. Under (Epenetus 11. b. 1769) owned and op- these fortuitous circumstances, his father erated a tavern still standing in what is left the manor estate tojohn`s son. The now Village of the Branch, an historic manor house is now located in Mastic district and incorporated village in the Beach. though the property extends into town of Smithtown. the hamlet called Shirley. Biographical Gazetteer 201

TREDWELL, THOMAS Kingston (t.) Antifederalist now in Kingston (c.) RaCon(no)/ S-11/ S-12/ Comm/ Purl Bruyn, Jacobus S. Smithtown Federalist now Fort Salonga, Smithtown RaCon(d) Kingston (t.) Wickes, Thomas now in Kingston (c.) Antifederalist Comm Bruyn, James"? Huntington Antifederalist now Centerport, Huntington A-11 Rochester Uister144 still in Rochester Bailey, Patrick"5 Bruyn, Johannes Antifederalist Federalist Comm RaCon(d) prob. New Windsor Shawangunk prob. still in New Windsor still in Shawangunk now in Orange Co. CANTINE, JOHN Bancker, Abraham B."5 Antifederalist Antifederalist RaCon(no)/ A-11/ A-12 Clerk(S- I 1/ S-12)/ Marbletown Secretary(RaCon) still in Marbletown

144An original county, its 1788CLARK, EBF.NEZER boundaries include all of present-day Sullivan Coma'', most of present-dayAntifederalist Ulster County. and parts of present-day RaCon(no)/ A-12 Delaware and Orange counties. In 1788 New Windsor it was in the middle Senate district. still New Windsor "Probably lived in New Windsor, he certainly lived in one of the border now in Orange Co. towns then in Ulster County and added to Orange County in 1798. These towns CLI NTON, GEORCEt48 are Montgomery, Newburgh, NewAntifederalist Windsor, and Wallkill. "4'Not to be confused with his cousin "Party designation based solely on ABRAHAM,a convention delegate from votes cast in the eleventh session. His Richmond County. Abraham B. fBoe- cousins, JAcosus S. and JoHANIVES, were len) Bancker was the son of EVERT of Federalists. New York County. Born in New York i488orn and raised in the Little Brit- City, Abraham B. eventually settled in ain area of New Windsor, he served as Kingston where he first became Senate the clerk of Ulster County throughout clerk (1784-1801). As Senate clerk in much of his adultlife (1760-18)2). 1788, he was appointed convention sec- Though he represented Ulster County retary withJOHNMcKessoN of New in the convention, he was then living in York City. New York City. As convention presi-

2 1 5 202 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

RaCon(nv)/ [Coakj RaCon(d) (East Ward, N.Y.C.) Shawangunk See New York County still in Shawangunk CLINTON,IAMES1" Parks, Arthur's' Antifedera ist affiliation uncertain RaCon(no)/ A-11/ S-12* S-11 New Windsor Montgomery still in New Windsor still in Montgomery now in Orange Co. now in Orange Co. SCHOONMAKER, CORNELIUS C. De Witt, Charles's° Antifederalist no affiliation RaCon(no)/ A-11/ A-12/ A-11 Comm Kingston (t.) Shawangunk now in Rosendaie still in Shawangunk Hardenbergh, johannis G.'" Smith, Nathan Antifederalist Antifederalist A-12 A-11/ A-12/ Comm Rochester New Windsor still in Rochester prob. still in New Winds( now in Orange Co. Jensen, Cornelius T.'m Snyder, Johannes's' Federalist Antifederalist Comm dent, he could not vote on the finalrat- Kingston (t.) ification motion; however, he earliernow in Saugerties voted the Antifederalist positionon key motions in the committee of the whole Tamen, Christopheriss when HENRY OOTHOUDT of Albany Antifederalist County was presiding. "'Elder brother of GEORGE and "'Though Parks voted the Antifed- father of DEWITT', James lived in theeralist position in the eleventh session, Little Britain area of the town of New he has not been found in subsequent lists Windsor, where Vas later home (built of active Antifedetalists. See Theciphi- 1798) still stands, his Parsons, Jr., "The Old Conviction '°Died on 27.6,-an11787 before theversus The New Realities," Appendix. Constitutional Convention met. "TETER VAN GAASREEH suspected '"Hardenbergh/Hardenburgh. thethat Snyder was a Federalistspy, al- former being the standard spelling, though there is no evidence to confirm though the latter appears on both the this suspicion. Antifederalist ticket and the state civil ""Tappen/Tappan. the latter spell- list. Johannes G. was the grandson ofing appearing only on the Antifederalist Johannes, a patentee of the Great Har-ticket. His sister Corneliawas the wife denbergh Patent. of GOVERNOR GEORGE CLINTON.and "Jensen/Jansen. Known locally bythe two stayed at Christopher's house, the latter spelling, though the formerthen on North Front Street, when they appears on the Federalist ticket. were in Kingston. Biographical Gazetteer 203

A-12 HOPKINS, DAVID Kingston (t.) Antifederalist now in Kingston (c.) RaCon(no)/ S-11/ S-12/ Comm/ [Appt(88)) Van Gaasbeek, Peter'56 Hebron Antifederalist still in Hebron leading partisan Kingston (t.) McCracken, Joseph now in Kingston (c.) Antifederalist A-12 WYNKOOP, DIRCK Salem Antifederalist still in Salem RaCon(no)/ Comm/ [CoJdgl Kingston PARKER, ICHABOD now in Hurley Antifederalist RaCon(no) Washington and Clinton&' Granville still in Granville BAKER,ALBERT Antifederalist Russell, Ebenezert" RaCon(no)/ A-11/ Comm Antifederalist Kingsbury S-11/ Comm/ (Appt(87)/ now in Hudson Falls (v.) Cojclg] Salem "Wariously recorded as a "rene-still in Salem gade," first for challengingan early Antifederalist convention ticket framed in Kingston, then for becominga Fed-Savage, Edwart1159 eralist m 1789, subse9uently fororgan-Antifederalist izing the first Federalist machine in Ul- A-11/ A-12/(S-12)/ (Surrj ster County (and perhaps in the state),Salem and finally tor SU rting AARON BURR'S still in Salem gubernatorial h'in 1792 and 1795. See Alfred F. Young, Tht Democratic lir- pubikans of New York, 278, 285. Alsosee Tearse, Peter B.m° Steven R. Boyd, The Politks of Opposition: Antifederalist Antifederalists and the Acceptance of the Constitution (Millwood, N .Y1979), 76. 1"Russell's Senate seat (the sixthup ,"Washington County was estab-for election in 1788) was vacant in the lished in 1772 from Albany County. Its twelfth session. See EDWARD SAVAGE, bounds in 1788 included all ofpresent- note I 59. Russell replaced ALEXANDER day Warren County and most ofpres- WE-DETER as county judge on 17 March ent-day Washington County. The state's 1788. fourteenth county, Clinton, formed 4 "9The state civil list incorrectly places March 1788 from Washington County. Savage in the twelfth session of both the was repre,ented with WashingtonAssembly and Senate. He may haverun County in the twelfth session of the leg- successfully for both seats, but he only islature and the state ratifyingconven- served in the Assembly. tion. In 1788 these two countieswere te6Tearse/Tierce, the latter spelling in the eastern Senate district. appearing only in the state civil list.

217 204 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR A-11/ A-12 A-11/ RaCon(d)/ A-12(d)/ Argyle Comm now in Fort Edward(v.) Salem now South Salem,Lewisboro Webster, Alexanderm Antifederalist HATFIELD, RICHARD A-11/ A-12/ Comm/ 1C04.1g1 Federalist Hebron RaCon(yes)/ (CoCtki still in Hebron White Plains now White Plains (c.) WILLIAMS, JOHN Antifederalist Horton, Jonathan RaCon(no)/ S-11/ S-12/ Federalist Comm A-12 Salem Westchester (t.) now in Salem (V.) perhaps now City Island Bronx borough Westchester'" LIVINGSTON, PHILIPR.'" CRANF, THADDEUS Federalist Federalist RaCon(yes)/ A-12 RaCon(yes)/ A-12 Westchester (t.) North Salem now Throg's Neck area still in North Salem Bronx borough Drake, Samuel'" Lockwood, Ebenezer Antifederalist Antifederalist A-11/ Comm A-11/ RaCon(d)/ A-12(d) Mount Pleasant Poundridge now in Ossining (v.) still in Poundridge Gilbert, Abijah Morris, Gouverneur.'" Antilederalist Federalist

telWebster served county judge I"Not to be confused with his uncle until 17 March I :4$8, at which time Philip, a signer of the Declaration of- In- EBINUER RussEit. assumed that office. dependence. Philip R. (known as IGTAn original county, its 1788-Gentleman Phir) was the son of Peter boundaries include all of present-day Van Brush of New York City, who was Westchester County and the Bronx, now the brother of the third manor lord. a county and borough. In 1788it was wHalf-brother of RH:Haan and in the southern Senate district. 1..twis, he moved to Pennsylvania in INAt this time Drake was living in 1779 to seek his political fortune. He the hamlet of Sparta in the town ofwas a Pennsylvania delegate tothe Con- Mount Pleasant where he owned a mill stitutional Convention, traveled to Vir- and a tavern on property acquired from ginia later in 1787, returned briefly to the confiscated Philipsburg estate. Sparta Morrisania in 1788, and then went off became part of the village of Ossiningto Europe for a decade of diplomatic in 1906. service.

21s Biographical Gazetteer 205 leading partisan Salem Morrisania now South Salem,Lewisboro now Morrisania area Bronx borough SARLS, LOTT W. Federalist MORRIS, LEIVISI" RaCon(yes) Federalist Bedford RaCon(yes)/ S-11/ 5-12 still in Bedford Morrisania now Morrisania area Seaman, Walter Bronx borough Federalist A-12 Pell, Philip, Jr.'" Bedford Antifederalist still in Bedford Comm/ [Surrj Strang, Joseph'm Pelham Antifederalist now in Pelham (v.) A-11/ RaCon(d)/ A-12(d)/ Rockwell, Nathan Comm Federalist Yorktown A-12 now Yorktown Heights, Yorktown

""Elder brother of RICHARD and Thomas, Thomasm half-brother ofGOUVERNEUR,Lewis was Antifederalist the third and last lord of the manor of A-11/ RaCon(d)/ A-12(d)/ Morrisania and a signer of the Decla- Comm/ [Sher] ration of Independence. The short-lived town of Morrisania (1788-91) may have Harrison been created at tire request of Lewis for now Harrison (1-v.) a combination of reasons, including the Fmection of his manor interests and his Tompkins, Jonathan G."° belief that Morrisania might be an eli- Antifederalist gible site for the new federal capital. With respect to the latter, there is re- cord of a 17e0 memorial by Lewis Mor- Strang/Strong, the latter being a ris to Presidem Washington in which the misspelling of the former. special advantages of the town are ""On 22 March 1788. Thomas re- enumerated. Seel Thomas Scharf, Ilu- placed Philip Pell If!, father of PHILIP tiny Wrstdiester County, Mew York, 2 vols. PELL, Pt.,as sheriff. Thomas lived in (Philadelphia, 1886), 11:823. The Purchase section of Harrison on "'Son of Philip III, the two men were what is now the State University of New living in a farmhouse built in 1750 by York (SUNY), College at Purchase. In the father on property adjacent to the 1975, to prevent the secession of Pur- remaining manor house lands (owned chase, the town of Harrison combined by Thomas Pell). Those lands had been its villages to fotm the coterminous town- much reduced after a period of many village of Harrison. a distinct form of subdivisions both within the family and local government. to outsick groups (including the Hu- 170Scarsdale is now also a cotermin- guenots). ous town-village.

219 206 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR A-I I/ RaCon(d)/ A-I2(d)/ Van Con landt, Pierreirs Comm Federalist Scarsdale fLtGov] now Scarsdale (t-v.) Cortlandt still in Cortlandt VAN CORTLANDT, PHILIPm Federalist RaCon(yes)/ A-12/ [Fort.] Cortlandt now in Croton-on-Hudson (v.)

'71Son of Lieutenant Governor ,and elder brother of Pierre. Jr.. Philip left Gov- ERNOR GEORGE CUNTON'Sranks to sup- 1"Upon inheriting Cortlandt Manor, port the Constitution, returning to the he moved there from New York in 1749 Republican fold in the early 17905. Inwith his wife and infant sonPHILIP.In 1788 he was occupying the manor house 1788 he was living in a second manor where he had been raised. That manor house on lands adjacent to those of his house is still standing and is known asson Philip. Pierre served as lieutenant the in Crown-on- overnor underGOVERNOR GEORGE Hudson, CLINTONfrom 1777 to 1795.

I. PEOPLE AND PLACES

A Preliminary Inventory of the Homes of New York Federalists and Antifederalists

compiled by STEPHEN L. SCHECHTER Russell Sage College

None of the public buildings that were part of the ratification debate in New York still stand. The City Hall where the Confederation Congress met in New York City was subsequently enlarged, renamed Federal Hall, and later demolished. The third courthouse where the state ratifyingcon- vention met in Poughkeepsie was destroyed by fire in 1806. Also gone are most of the public meeting places (and all of the more well-known taverns) where political leaders met. However, many of the homes of Federalist and Antifederalist leaders still stand, and these surviving sites are inventoried here. Of the 255 Federalists and Antifederalists listed in the bio- graphical gazetteer, the homes of 70 (or about 27 percent) have survived. These findings, gathered as part of the research for the biographical gazetteer, form the basis for the preliminary inven- tory of surviving sites. Most of the entries in this inventory are to the one surviving home occupied and, in all likelihood, owned byone of these men. The exceptions include: (1) two Albany County men, Francis Nic- oll and Richard Sill, who consecutively occupied one house: (2) three men, each of whom owned and occupied two homes still

211 208 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR standing (Philip Schuyler of Albany County, John Frey of Mont- gomery County, and Ebenezer Lockwood of WestchesterCounty); (3) one man, Samuel Drake of Westchester County, who owned but probably did not live in a tavern which still stands, in contrast to Epenetus Smith of Suffolk County, whose tavern wasalso his family home; (4) one entry for William Cooper of Otsego County, indicating various sites at Cooperstown associated with him; and (5) one entry for johannis G. Hardenbergh of Ulster County, whose room interiors supply the backdrop for the "HardenberghRooms" at the Henry Francis DuPont Winterthur Museum in Winterthur, Delaware. With these exceptions, the total number of sites, struc- tures, and collections is seventy-five. To facilitate cross-references, the inventory is organized in the same way as the biographical gazetteer; namely, alphabetically by the names of the counties of 1788 and, within each county, alphabetically by the occupant's last name. The first element of each entry is the occupant's name. The second element, when known, is reserved for the name and construction date of the house. The third element is the present ownership and status of the house; and the final element is its present location. Most of the entries are to homes occupied by politicians while they were involved in the debates of 1787-88. However, all sur- viving homes are included, so long as the homes and politicians were closely associated. One reason is the difficulty in pinpointing dates of occupancy; another is the danger of dismissing earlier or later occupancies that may be of relevance. Among the most com- mon examples of earlier and later occupancies are: (1)homes in which politicians were raised, such as the Van Gaasbeek's house (now known as the Senate House) in Kingston and the Smith fam- ily's Manor of St. George in Suffolk County; (2) homes of early construction to which politicians later retired, such as the John Jay Homestead in Westchester County and the [Rufus] King Manor in Queens County; and (3) homes of later construction and oc- cupancy, most notably the first home that Alexander Hami:ton ever owned, now known as the Hamilton Grange in Manhattan, not completed until 1802. About twenty instances of earlier or later occupancy are identified, and these are noted in the inven- tory; however, others may also exist. Most of the known instances of later occupancy are apparent from the dates of construction indicated in the second element of the entry. Instances of earlier

) 209 Preliminoly Inventoryof Homes indicated by foot- and later occupanciesthat are not apparent are note reference. still stand- As concerns present usage,most of the structures of which a small num- ing are now privateresidences (forty-four), historic districts.Another six areprivate busi- ber are located in One of these,Hendrick nesses andinstitutional headquarters. County home, is now arestaurant. Six Onderdonck's Queens under restorationfor structures areclosed, with only two now historic sites (theBethlehem House in subsequent reopening as House now inOrange Albany County andthe James Clinton County). historic sites or Of the structuresstill standing, nineteen are the public. For thesesites, the occu- historical museums open to does pant's name appearsin CAPITALS ANDSMALL CAPITALS, as be viewed fromthe the occupant's namefor other sites that can because they are privateresidences located in an outside, either closed historic district orbecause they arehistoric sites currently All sites open to orviewable by the public are and unoccupied. this inventory. described in the guide tohistoric sites that follows 210 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR Preliminary inventory Albany Albany CountyHistorical Peter Gansevoort,Jr. Association "The Old YellowHouse" historic site in ArborHill area (1787) Downtown, City ofAlbany private residence ANTHONY TEN EYCK Gansevoort, Saratoga Co. Ten Eyck House(ca. 1775) JOHN RNICKERBACKER, private residencein JR. Schodack Landing Knickerbacker Mansion(1772) District Knickerbocker Society Schodack, RensselaerCo. closed and unrestored D.RCK VAN INGEN (no plans for restoration) Van Ingen House(1790) Schaghticoke, RensselaerCo. private residencein Stockade District FRANCIS NICOLL Bethlehem House (1736) Schenectady, SchenectadyCo. owned by privaterealtor ISAAC VROOMAN closed for restoration Vrooman House(1754) (planned for publicuse) private residence in Bethlehem, AlbanyCo. Stockade District PHILIP SCHUYLER Schenectady, SchenectadyCo. (1764) Peter Vrooman state historic site in private residence The Pasturesarea Schoharie, SchoharieCo. South End, Cityof Albany Columbia PHILIP SCHUYLER Schuyler House(1777) John Bay national historicsite in private residence Saratoga NationalHistoric Claverack, ColumbiaCo. Park John Livingston Schuylerville, Saratoga Co. "Oak Hill" (by1796) RICHARD SILL private residence (See Nicoll entry) Livingston, ColumbiaCo. Dirck Swart ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON private residence Clermont (1778-81) state historic park Stillwater, SaratogaCo. Germantown, ColumbiaCo. Ten Broeck Mansion William H. Ludlow (1798) private residence

224 Preliminary Inventory 211 now under restoration private residence Claverack, Columbia Co. Pine Plains, Dutchess Co. PETER SILVESTER Jacob Griffin Silvester House (1797) "Rendez-vous" (ca. 1750s) private residence in private residence Kinderhook Village District Fishkill, Dutchess Co. Kinderhook, Columbia Co. Gilbert Livingston' PETER VAN NESSI "The Pynes" (1764) Van Ness House (1797) private residence later known as "Lindenwald," Tivoli, Dutchess Co. or Home Kinderhook, Columbia Co. Zephaniah Platt PETER VAN SCHAACK Platt Home (ca. 1735) Van Schaack House (1785) American Legion Post private residence in Poughkeepsie, Dutchess Co. Kinderhook Village District Robert Sands Kinderhook, Columbia Co. psychiatric patient home Datchess Rhinebeck, Dutchess Co. Isaac Bloom Jacobus Swartwout Bloom House (ca. 1798) Later Swartwout House private residence (ca. 1798) Pleasant Valley, DutchessCo. private residence , Dutchess Co. Ebenezer Cary2 private residence in ISAAC VAN WYCK Gardiner Hollow area Van Wyck Homestead (1732, Beekman, Dutchess Co. bef. 1756) Fishkill Historical Society John De Witt, Jr. historical homestead museum private residence in Fishkill, Dutchess Co. Frost Mills area Clinton, Dutchess Co. Kings (now also Brooklyn boro.) Morris Graham Graham House (ca. 1772) PETER LEFFERTS Lefferts Homestead (1783) 'Built in 1797 by Van Ness who lived here until 1803. However, this house is city owned historic site remembered for and restored to the later occupancy of Martin Van Buren, *Built in 1764 for a Gilbert Living- eighth U.S. president. ston. probably this Gilbert. Not known *Cary's occupancy is proktble, not is whether Gilbert ever hved in this certain. house.

225 212 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR now in Prospect Park New York (now also Manhattan Flatbush, Brooklyn boro.)

Montgomery AARONBURR° Morrisiumel Mansion WILLIAM COOPER4 (ca. 1765, 1810) various sites in the village city owned historic site in and at The Farmers' Museum Jumel Terrace District Cooperstown, Otsego Co. Washington Heights, Manhattan

Jellis Fonda ALEXANDER HAMILTON° private residence "Hamilton Grange" (1802) Fonda, Montgomery Co. national memorial in Hamilton Heiets District John Frey Upper West Side, Manhattan "Fort Frey" (ca. 1750) private residence John Jay Palatine, Montgomery Co. (See Westci. ster County) John Frey Rufus King Second Frey House (1806) (See Queens County) private residence Palatine, Montgomery Co. Robert R. Livingston (See Columbia County) Isaac Paris D.A.R. Chapter House Orange Fort Plain, Montgomery Co. John D. Coe Peter Schuyler private residence private residence New City, Rockland Co. Danube, Herkimer Co. Coe Gale Christopher P. Yates boutique and residence private residence Goshen, Orange Co. Canajoharie, Montgomery Co. private residence Warwick, Orange Co. *None of Cooper's houses survives. However, there are surviving structures of the period in the village, a recreated °Occupied by Burr for only six rural community at The Farmers' Mu- months in 183S during his equally short- seum, and Cooper collections at thelived marriage to Eliza jumel. headquarters of the New York State ',Built in 1802 by Hamilton who lived Historical Association. here until his death in 1804. Preliminary Inventory 213

David Pye Nathaniel Seaman private residence private residence West Nyack, Rockland Co. Hempstead, Nassau Co. SAMUEL TOWNSEND Peter Taulman Raynham Hall (ca. 1740) private residence town owned historic site Piermont, Rockland Co. Oyster Bay, Nassau Co. Henry Wisner, Sr. Richmond (now also Staten private residence Island boro.) Goshen, Orange Co. No surviving homes of John Wood ratification leaders private residence Salons Goshen, Orange Co. WILLIAM FLOYD Jesse Woodhull William Floyd Estate (1724, private residence 1930) Blooming Grove, Orange Co. national historic site Mastic Beach, Suffolk Co. Queens David Hedges private residence Stephen Carman Sagaponack, Suffolk Co. private residence Hempstead, Nassau Co. Benjamin Hunting Hunting-Foster House (1708) RUFUS KING' private residence King Manor (1730, 1750) Southampton, Suffolk Co. city owned historic site Ezra L'Hommedieu Jamaica, Queens private residence Southold, Suffolk Co. HENDRICK ON DERDONCKS Onderdonck House (1740, EPENETUS SMITH 1750) Epenetus Smith Tavern George Washington Manor (bef. 1750) Restaurant Smithtown Historical Society Roslyn, Nassau 0). historical tavern museum Smithtown, Suffolk Co.

'King retired here' sometime after heGeorge Smith° purchased the property in 1805. Job Smith House (bef. 1719) °Two houses built ten years apart (1740, 1750) were later joined and then 'Smith was raised here, and he and altered to form the present structure.his brother Woodhull inherited the Not known is whether the joining of the property in 1780. However, records two houses was undertaken during On- suggest that Woodhull, not George, lived derdonck's occupancy or later. here after 1780.

227 214 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR private residence in Cornelius T. Jensen the hamlet of St. James private residence Nissequogue, Suffolk CO. Shawangunk, Ulster Co. JOHN SMITH" Arthur Parks Manor of St. George (1693, private residence 1803) Montgomery, Orange Co. trustee-maintained historic site Mastic Beach, Suffolk Co. Cornelius C. Schoonmaker Schoonmaker House Thomas Tredwell (1716-21) private residence private residence Fort Salonga, Suffolk Co. Shawangunk, Ulster Co. Ulster PETER VAN GAASBEEK" Senate House (after 1730) Johannes Bruyn" state historic site in "Brykill Estate" Kingston Stockade District private residence City of Kingston, Ulster Co. Shawangunk, Ulster Co. Washington and Clinton John Cantine private residence David Hopkins Marbletown, Ulster Co. Hopkins House (1790) private residence JAMES CLINTON Hebron, Washington Co. James Clinton Historic House (1798) Edward Savage Orange County Historical Savage House (1794) Society private residence closed for restoration Salem, Washington Co. (scheduled to open in 1986) New Windsor, Orange CO. Westchester Thaddeus Crane JOHANNIS G. HARDENBERGH" private residence "Hardenbergh Rooms" in the Winterthur Museum North Salem, Westchester Co. Delaware SAMUELDRAKE" "Jug Tavern" (ca. 1758) '°Smith was raised here but never in- herited the manor. "Van Gaasbeek was raised in the "Bruyn's occupancy is probable. not original structure later rebuilt after the certain. fire of 1777. In 1788 he inherited the "The original interiors from Har-property by marriage and lived here un- denbergh's house form a backdrop for til his death in 1791. two -Hardenbergh Rooms- furnished "This structure may have been with New York State pieces in the Queen owned by Drake who operated a tavern Anne style. here or in the immediate vicinity. Preliminary Inventory 215 owned by the town of Jonathan G. Tompkins Ossining private residence dosed yet partially restored Scarsdale, Westchester Co. (no plans for full restoration) Ossining, Westchester Co. JOHN JAY"' Van Cortlandt Manor John Jay Homestead (1787) (by 1750) also known as "Bedford Sleepy Hollow Restorations House" historical manor museum now state historic site Crown-on-Hudson, Katonah, Westchester Co. Westchester Co. Ebenezer Lockwood PIERRE VAN CORTLANDT Pre-Revolutionary House Van Cortlandt Upper Manor commercial nursery House Poundridge, Westchester Co. also known as "Peekskill Manor" Ebenezer Lockwood"' owned by town of Cortlandt Post-Revolutionary House closed and unrestored church property (no plans for restoration) Poundridge, Westchester Co. Cortlandt, Westchester Co.

15Bui1t in 1987 by Jay who periodi- cally visited the homestead until retiring here in 1801. nvidence suggests that Lockwood's second home may still be standing and now serving as a church parsonage,

229 PEOPLE AND PLACES

A Guide to Historic Sites of the Ratification Debate in New York

STEPHEN L. SCHECHTER Russell Sage College

For those interested in how the Federalists and Antifederalists lived, New York offers a rich variety of materials to explore. There are, of course, the many forms of written material, fully described in the essays by Gaspare J. Sala- dino and Jack VanDerhoof found in section IIL But there are also historic sites and museum collections wherein one can acquire not only a sense of the way of life in I787-88, but also an independent basis for interpreting the ratification debate. In this guide, those previously inventoried homes open to the public are highlighted and the reader is alerted to other well- known historic sites, districts, and museum collections. Taken to- gether, these places are intended to provide a representative view of both the urban and rural life of political leaders in those regions of the state that were part of the ratification debate.

New York City Little remains of the urban life that existed during the years 1787- 88 in south of Chambers Street. None of the townhouses and countinghouses of Federalists and Antifederalists have survived. Also gone are the printing shops and public meeting Guide to Historic Sites 217 places that were so prominent duringthe ratification debate. As is so common to Lower Manhattangenerally, there are various out-of-the-way places that can be explored for asecondhand look back to this period, including tworeminiscent structures of 1790s construction in the South Street Seaport area.But St. Paul's Chapel is the only downtown structure evenremotely connected with the ratificatie r. debate that has survivedthe fires and development of the ensuing years. The present Federal Hall, now anational memorial admin. istered by the national park service,is two steps removed from the old City Hall, where theConfederation Congress met. J*1 late September 1788 Pierre L'Enfant wascommissioned by the City Council to remodel the old CityHall to meet the needs of the new federal government. The product ofL'Enfant's work was the first Federal Hall, completed early in1789 and immortalized by Peter Lacour's engraving done at the timeof George Washington's in- auguration on 30 April 1789. Thatbuilding has long since been demolished, and in its place stands the presenthalla nineteenth- century structure ofdifferent style, construction, andmaterials. The original Fraunces Tavernalso no longer stands. In its place is a twentieth-century buildingof the same name, owned by the Sons of the Revolution in theState of New York, and dubbed a "highly conjectural construction."Whatever one's view of the ex- teriors, the real value of FederalHall and is on the inside, where the formermaintains models and exhibits of earlier city and federal halls, and thelatter provides an upstairs museum of tavern life inthe eighteenth century. No longer standing are the countryhomes that dotted the Out Ward in what is today the LowerEast Side. Also gone are the homes and hills of the areaknown as the "village hills," and still referred to as the Villaps.Perhaps the most famous of these homes was Richmond Hill, on a hill ofthe same name, located in what is now the Charlton-King-Vandamdistrict; however, neither home nor hill now stands. This house wasthe residence of Vice President John Adams and then of AaronBurr during the 1790s. One of the most vivid accounts of RichmondHill (house and hill) is that of Adams's wife Abigail. Writing to anEnglish acquaintance in 1790, she stated:

11%lorval White and Elliot Willensky, AlA &Old tO New1- A. City, revised edi- tion, for the New York Chapter, American Instituteof Architects (New York, 1978), I I.

231 218 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

.. I have a situation here, which, for natural beauty, may vie with the most deliciousspot I ever saw. It is a mile and half distant from the city of New-York. Thehouse stands upon an eminence; at an agreeable distance, flowsthe noble Hudson bearing upon her bosom the fruitfulproductions of the ad- jacent country. On my right handare fields beautifully var- iegated with grass and grainto a great extent, like the valley of Honiton in Devonshire. Uponmy left, the city opens to view, intercepted here and there,by a rising ground, andan ancient oak. In front, beyond theHudson, the Jersey shores present the exuberance of a rich well cultivatedsoil. The ven- erable oaks, and broken ground,covered with wild shrubs, which surround me, givea natural beauty to the spot which is truly enchanting. A lovelyvariety of birds serenademe morning and evening, rejoicingin their liberty and security... .? The surviving homes of Federalistsand Antifederalistsare located well outside the downtownarea. Closest is the HAMILTON GR1.NGE NATIONAL MEMORIAL,moved from its original siteto 287 Convent Avenue, betweenW. 141st and W. 142nd Streets, in the Hamikon Heights Districton the Upper West Side. Con- sidered his "sweet project,"Hamilton began workon this country home in 1798. Completed in 1802,he lived there until his death two years later. Today, the restoration ofone floor is complete. (Some of Hamilton's furniturecan also be seen in the Museum of the City of New York, locatedon Fifth Avenue at 103rd Street; other pieces are stored in FederalHall.) Of a different calibreis the MORRIS-JUMEL MANSION,located at W. 160th Street and Edgecombe Avenue in the jumelTerrace District of Washington Heights. Built by Roger Morrisin 1765 as a slimmer residence, then used as a tavern until 1810when Stephen jumel remodeled it, Aaron Burr lived here for onlysix months in 1833. Reflecting the various periods of its earlyoccupants, from colonial through empire, the mansion isa jewel in the area but not very informative for students of the political historyof the 1780s. Like other city- owned historic sites, the mansionis on public parkproperty and administered by a private association. Farther north are three sites thatpresent a representative view of the differentstrata of late eighteenth-century life. How-

tTo Thomas Brand-Hollis, 6 September1790, John Disney, ed., Memoir4 of Thomas Brand-Hollis. Esq.. F.R.S. andS.A. (London. Eng., 1808).40. Guide to Historic Sites 219 ever, none of the occupants were leaders in the ratification debate. The nyckman House, rebuilt around 1783, is typicalof the small farmhouses of Upper Manhattan. Locatedon Broadway at W. 204th Street, it is now maintainedas a city-owned historic site. In the Bronx, then part of Westchester County, is themiddle-class Valentine-Varian House, 3266 Bainbridge Avenuebetween Van Cortlandt Avenue East and E. 208th Street, owned bythe Bronx Historical Society. And in Van Cortlandt Park, betweenW. 242nd and W. 246th Streets, is the Van Cortlandt Mansion.Now a city- owned historic site, the mansionwas occupied in 1788 by Fred- erick, a relative of the upper Van Cortlandt line ofPhilip and Pierre, whose manor houses still stand (see LowerHudson region below). Like the Bronx, Staten Island hasno surviving homes of the ratification leaders. Abraham Bancker probably livedon Rich- mond Terrace, not far from the Neville House ofthat period (now a private residence). In 1795 Cozen Ryerss builta home in North- field (now Port Richmond), later turnrd intoa hotel where Aaron Burr spent his last days. And Peter Winant livedtwo census enu- merations west of the Voorlezer House, which isnow located in Richmondtown Restoration, a city-owned historicarea adminis- tered by the Staten Island Historical Society. LEFFERTS HOMESTEAD in Brooklyn is the only survivinghome in New York City occupied bya political leader at the time of the ratification debate. Built by Peter, Sr., in 1783,it was moved in the early 1900s from its original locationat 563 Flatbush Avenue to Prospect Park (at Flatbush Avenue and Empire Boulevard), where it is now operatedas a city-owned historic site Neither Jf the Wyckoffs involved in the ratificationdebate were associated with the Pieter Claessen Wyckoff House in Flatlands,though Hen- drick may have lived nearor been associated with the Wyckoff- Bennett House, now a private residence in SheepsheadBay. Fi- nally, in Jamaica, Queens, there is theKING MANOR, to which Rufus King retired after purchasing the housein 1805. A city- owned historic site, themanor is now located in King Park on Jamaica Avenue between 150th and 153rdStreets. Though fur- nished from various periods, the originalconstruction is mid-eight- eenth century, and the library contains King'sbooks. Long Island As one travels farther outon Long Island, the picture steadily improves. Three surviving homesare open to the public andlo-

233 220 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR cated on the North Shore (two in Nassau County and onein Suffolk County). Two more homes are historic sitesin Mastic Beach on the South Shore. Proceeding from east to west, the first home is thatof Hen- drick Onderdonck, now the GEORGEWASHINGTON MANOR RESTAURANT, located at 1305 Old NorthernBoulevard in the North Shore community of Roslyn, NassauCounty. Originally, the site contained two houses (one builtin 1740, the other in 1750), later combined and altered. Also standing is a gristmill (1714), now owned by Nassau County.Though the date when the two houses were joined is unknown, Hendrick Onderdoncklived here at the time of the ratificationdebate. The second home in Nassau County is RAYNHAMHALL, now owned by the North Shore town of Oyster Bay andmaintained as an historic site, located at20 W. Main Street. The house was owned by Samuel Townsend, who purchased the property in1738, en- larged the original farmhouse around 1740, andremained there until his death in 1790. The front portion of the present structure is of Townsend's time; the back portion is of the1860s. Also on the North Shore, but in Suffolk County, isthe EPENETUS SMITH TAVERN, built before 1750. The tavern Was owned and operated by Epenetus and his son EpenetusII at the time of the ratification debate. It is now ownedby the Smithtown Historical Society and maintained as an educational museumof eighteenth-century taverns and their role in society. Open to school classes and small groups by appointment, the tavern islocated at 211 Middle Country Road (Rte. 25), Villageof the Branch (Smith- town). Inquiries should be addressed to: SmithtownHistorical So- ciety, P. O. Box 69, Smithtown, NY 11787 (tel.:516-265-6768). The principal South Shore sites are the country estateof William Floyd and the Smith family's Manor of St. George,both located in Mastic Beach, Suffolk County. The WILLIAM FLOYD ESTATE, occupied by the Floyd family from 1724 to 1976, is now a national historic site and a unit of FireIsland National Seashore. William Floyd was born on the estate in 1738 and lived there until 1803 when he moved to the town of Western in Oneida County. In 1755 his parents died of typhoid fever, and William, theeldest son, assumed responsibilityfor the estate and his eight younger siblings. The estate, located at 20 Washington Avenue, is a pres- ervation of changes since Floyd's occupancy, not a restoration to his occupancy. 221 Guide to HistoricSites operated as aprivate The MANOR OFST. GEORGE is now George C. andGeorge H. Furman.John museumby its trustees, during the here, perhapsliving at the manor Smith was raised wing (now thekitchen) of the ratification debate;but the smaller that remainsfrom his time. In present structureis the only pan owned by John'sfather JudgeWilliam Smith 1788 the manor was John's son, owing toJohn's mar- who bequeathedthe manor to family. The manoris now locatedoff riage into thewealthy Floyd the Smith Point Floyd Parkway, onemile south of the William to: Manorof St. George, Bridge. Inquiriesshould be addressed P. 0. Box 349,Patchogue, NY11772. might be madehere of LongIsland sites that Brief mention In Queens associated withratification leaders. might be mistakenly owned by a different County, the KingslazdHouse in Flushing was than the Charlesof Brooklyn;the Queens County Charles Doughty formerly known asthe Cornell House, Farm Museumin Bellerose, Whitehead Corn- occupied by eitherSamuel Cornell or was not House in Ridgewoodwas wel; and theVander-Ende Onderdonck not occupiedby HendrickOnderdonck. The Village in NassauCounty is a special case. Old Bethpage Manhasset where Schenck House wasmoved to thevillage from in 1788 byMinne Schenck, a it had beenowned and oc.:upied who might wellhave frequentedthe close cousin ofJohn Schenck the village the LawrenceHouse was moved to house. However, house nor the ownerwas closely from Flushing,and neither the Law- Antifederalist conventiondelegate Nathaniel related to the Thomas Lawrenceline). rence (afifth generationof the so-called

Lower HudsonValley various the Lower Hudsonregion encompassed In the late 1780s, occupied much ofthe western settlement patterns.Manor estates County in a wideningband, beginningwith half of Westchester northern and Morrisania manors(in what is now the Fordham the HudsonRiver Valley to Bronx County)and proceeding up (whose confiscatedLoyalist lands include thePhilipsburgh Manor lands had been sold), the PelhamManor (whose had been recently the Van CortlandtManor of greatly subdividedby the Pelts), and Farther north werethe settlementsof upperWestchester County. of several large Highland patent,the southernmost the Philipse's County, now inPutnam County. land patents, thenin Dutchess

235 222 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR Outside of theband of manor and patent lands,New Englanders had developedcommunities hugging Long Island Sound. the Connecticutborder and On the west sideof the Hudson, in Rock)and the southernmostlands (now County)were dominated by stead settlements Dutch and otherhome- in the oldTappan patentand a few river ments (notablyat presentKlay settle- Nyack andPiermont) wherever breaks in thePalisades allowed. of Orange Farther north laythe settlements County formedout of threegreat patentsthe in the west(including Minisink part of the town ofWallkill); the in the middle(including the Wawayanda towns of Goshen,Warwick, and Ches- ter); and thelong-extinguished Evans the inland border patent in the east(including town of Montgomeryand the river north of theHighlands, from settlements Cornwall, to NewWindsor, andon to Newburgh inthe old Germanpatent). Proceeding up the Hudson RiverValley from the first site inWestchester County Bronx, the Hall in Mount is St. Paul'sChurch and Parish Vernon. Amongits pewholders 1787 were theFells, Van Cortlandts, and vestrymenin ing the late I 780s, Roosevelts, andDrakes. Dur- the churchwas used during the of oyer andterminer where week as acourt Aaron Burr andothers practiced Now a nationalhistoric site, the law. at 897 South Columbus church and parishhall are located Avenue. The parishhall is the site first Bill ofRights Museum of the in the nationalpark system. Northward intocentral Westchester begins toassume a different County, thelandscape from Philipsburgh character. Travelingthe Post Road in Yonkersto Mount Pleasant man William Strickland in 1794, English- made theseobservations: From Philipsburgh to a tavern f probablySamuel Drake's] Mount Pleasantchurch where near through we breakfasted, theroad leads a country hardlyto be surpassed in the world. On beauty byany in our left the river, herecalled the Tapaan and not less thanfour miles in Sea, breadth, is generallyin sight. . On our tight hand, is ingeneral a cultivated swelling into gentleand various country, with wood, with inequalities, the knollscoverd various patches ofcopse and woad scatterd over the country. andthe whole the edge of the gradually slopingdown to water. The countrystrikingly resembles best parts ofHertfordshire, and the were the fields only would be stillmore like it, divided by wellplanted hedges the vile railingwhich every where instead of so greatly disfiguresit, and

2:; Guide to Historic Sites 223

here wood being still plentiful the railing is ofthe worst de- scription, what they call worm fencing, which isnot easy to describe either by words or the pencil.' Later that morning, Strickland arrivedat the Mount Pleasant tavern, probably Drake's tavern; now thejLIG TAVERN (closedand unrestored) or a nearby site,on Rte. 9 near the Arcadian Shopping Center in the village of Ossining. Hewrote: We had seen little yet to giveus a favourable idea of the comforts of travelling in thiscountry, and the external ap- pearance of the tavern at Mountpleasant added nothingto it; we put up our horses in a shed, much like that ata Blacksmith's shop in a country village, and expectedno better appartment for ourselves in which toeat our homely meal which we de- sired to be prepared whilewe took a walk to survey the neigh- bourhood; our surprise howeveron our return was of a very agreable nature when we saw ina neat room on a table cloth white as snow preparations made for breakfastwhich consisted of tea and bread and butter; honey;sweetmeats and marma- lades of various kinds, of quinces and wildfruits of the country; beefsteaks; mutton chops; pickles of severalsorts; milk and cheesecakes; such a scene gladdenedour hearts, we praised American fare and enjoyed a mealso well suited to our stom- achs, after a long ride ina frosty morning.* Farther up the Hudson in theupper Westchester County village of Croton-on-Hudson is VANCORTLANDT MANOR. Built by 1750 and restoredto the post-Revolutionary period, themanor is superbly maintainedas an historical museum by Sleepy Hollow Restorations. Inherited by Pierre VanCortlandt in 1749, it was occupied by his son Philip during the ratificationdebate. The Van Cortlandt Manor is locatedon Rte. 9A, Croton Point Avenue, and is the subject of a book published bySleepy Hollow Restorations headquartered at 10 White Plains Road,Tarrytown, NY 10591. In the late 1780s Pierrewas living in the Lipper Van Cortlandt (Peekskill) Manor, locatedon what is now Oregon Road in the town of Cortlandt. That structurewas recently given as a gift to the town to be used for publicpurposes, buL ;s now closed for lack of restoration funds.

'William Strickland,frurnal ofa Tour al the !Jutted States of America, 1794- 1795 (New York, 1971), 91. 95-94.

237 224 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR East of the Van Con lant Manoris another well-maintained site, the JOHN JAY HOMESTEAD, builtin 1787 and later known as the Bedford House. Located onwhat is now Jay Street (Rte. 22) in Katonah (town of Bedford), thehomestead is maintained as a state historic site and willundoubtedly figure prominently in the state's commemoration of thebicentennial of the Constitution. Although jay did not settle here until hisretirement in 1801, he supervised the building of the home in 1787,frequently visited it during the ensuing years, and lived out alengthy retirement here from 1801 to his death in 1829. The presenthouse, partially re- stored to the federal period, includes theoriginal four-room house of 1787, an enlargement made by Jay in1800, and subsequent additions (in 1818 by Jay, and in 1904and 1924). Not far from the homestead is the Bedford Court House,also built in 1787 and located on what is now Rte. 22. Thoughrestored to a later period, the courthouse is maintained as anhistorical museum and provides a sense of courtlife in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries when Bedford and White Plains wereboth county seats, with county court sessions alternating each yearbetween the two. Of the inventoried homes still standingin Putnam, Rockland, and Orange counties, none are nowmaintained as historic sites open to the public. Inthe northern Orange County town of New Windsor, the JAMES CLINTON HISTORIC HOUSEis presently being restored by the Orange County HistoricalSociety and should be open to the public in 1986.The house was not built until 1798 by James, elder brother of George andfather of DeWitt, and only the foundation of the early house remains.Nonetheless, restora- tion should afford a sense of the importanceof the Clinton family and New Windsor in the late eighteenth centurywhen the town was a center forinland commerce. For additional information, write to the Orange County Historical Society.Arden, NY 10910.

Mid-Hudson Region Journeying north into the Mid-Hudsoncounties of Ulster and Dutchess, the most complete view of the urbanlife of this region in the eighteenth century is found in theStockade District of the city of Kingston, in Ulster County. Boundedby Clinton Avenue and Pearl, Green, and North Front streets,the district contains several structures constructed or rebuilt in theeighteenth century. Of particular interest is the SENATE HOUSE, sonamed because it

2"; Guide to Historic Sites 225 stands on the site of the building in which the first New York State Senate met for approximately four weeks (9 September-15 Oc- tober 1777), before the British troops set the village afire. In fact, the original Senate House, partially destroyed and rebuilt, is most closely associated with Abraham Van Gaasbeek and his son Peter. Abraham moved into the original house sometime after his mar- riage to Sarah Ten Broeck in 1751, and Peter was undoubtedly raised here. In 1776 Sarah died and Peter joined the American secret service, thereby leaving the old house nearly vacant. This probably occasioned the renting of the house to the Senate. Some- time after the 1777 fire, Abraham probably rebuilt the house and resumed occupancy until his death in 1794. He bequeathed the house to his niece Sarah Du Pont who promptly married Peter, and the two lived there until Peter's death three years later. This house is now a state historic site located off Clinton Avenue in the northeast corner of the Stockade District. To visit the Senate House, one must first go to the museum building, situated to the southwest, wherein some of Peter's papers are housed. Two other structures in the Stockad! might be mistakenly linked to ratification leaders. The first is the Cornelius Tappen House, now owned by the Albany Savings Bank on Crown Street. Cornelius was the brother of Christopher and brother-in-law of Governor George Clinton, but his house played little part in the lives of those two leaders. When Governor Clinton visited King- ston, he stayed at Christopher's house, located at what is now the corner of North Front and Wall streets. However, that house was demolished in the early 1900s. The second, now the Hoffman House Restaurant at North and Green streets, was owned by an Anthony Hoffman, but not the state senator of the I 780s. The name of another Ulster County man, johannis G. Hard- enbergh, is associated with a different kind of legacy. The interiors of two rooms in his Rochester home were saved from destruction and removed to the Winterthur Museum. Those interiors now form the backdrop for the DIUSeues HARDENBERGH Roomsa bedroom and a sitting room furnished with New York State pieces in the Queen Anne style. The museum is located in Winterthur, Delaware, five miles north of Wilmington on Rte. 52. Across the river in Dutchess County, none of the buildings associated with the state ratifying convention in Poughkeepsie still stand. The courthouse where the convention met was the county's third one, built in 1785-86 and lost by fire in 1806. Gone also are

23 9 226 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR the Federalist and Antifederafist meeting places, known respec- tively as Hendrickson's Inn (later the Nelson House) and Poole's Inn. There are several homes of eighteenth-century construction still standing in Poughkeepsie, but their history is associated more with the Revolution than the Constitution. One, known as the Clinton House, had long been assumed to be Governor George Clinton's headquarters, until research proved otherwise. Outside the city of Poughkeepsie are various surviving homes of Dutchess County ratification leaders; however, most are now private residences and only one is an historic site open to the public. This is the VAN WYCK HOMESTEAD, located on Rte. 9, one mile south of the Fishkill business section. Nowowned by the Fishkill Historical Society, the homestead has two sectionsthe original structure (1732) and the main building (before 1756); both built by Isaac Van Wyck's grandfather Cornelius. Isaac was the head of the household by 1788. Today, the kitchen has been restored to the late eighteenth century; however, the remaining rooms of the house are essentially unfurnished. Foradditional information, write to the Fishkill Historical Society, P. O. Box 133, Fishkill, NY 12524. The Twenty Mile Historic District is traversed by River Road between the Hudson River and Rte. 9 from Staatsburg north to Germantown in Columbia County. Driving this strip of River Road is worthwhile for a sense of eighteenth-century siting; however, the homes are not readily visible from the road and, in any case, most are of a nineteenth-century character. The clearest vistaof this historic district is available from the river and can be most simply obtained by driving east across the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge. For the more adventurous, there are cruises departing from I Rondout Creek, Kingston, near the Hudson River Mari- time Center. For more information, contact Hudson River Cruises in Kingston.

Upper Hudson Region The Upper Hud--n Valley is among the richest in historic sites, parks, and districts, representing a variety of late eighteenth-cen- tury life styles. Its southern reaches include Clermont Manor and several historic districts in the river communities and inland vil- lages that flourished after the Revolution. The Schuyler Mansion in the city of Albany represents one of the clearest examples of Guide to Historic Sites 227 town life in the late eighteenth century, while the Schuyler House in Saratoga County presents an equally sharp image ofan eight- eenth-century country estate. Proceeding north through the Twenty Mile District,one en- ters CLERMONT STATE HISTORIC PARR, located off Rte. 9G in Germantown, now in Columbia County. The original mansionwas built about 1730 by Robert of Clermont, Chancellor RobertR. Livingston's grandfather, and burned by the British in 1777,two years after Robert R. inherited the estate. Within a few years, the mansion was rebuilt, incorporating theremnants of the earlier building in its walls. Over thenext decade, the chancellor, who had been raised in New York City, divided his time betweenthe new Clermont house (which he shared with his mother) and his New York City residence on the Bowling Green. Finally, in1794, he completed another and still grander mansion, also knownas Clermont (or Amyl), near the second mansion. Itwas in this third house, destroyed by fire in 1909, that the chancellor held sessions of court and followed his Jeffersonian-like scientific pursuits.The second tiansion still stands, but with several nineteenth-century additions. Nonetheless, its siting, exhibits, andtours provide a sense of late eighteenth-century life. From Clermont, one continues northon Rte. 9G to the Col- umbia County city of Hudson, the southernmost of several river communities and inland villages that flourished after, the theRev- olution and that retain features of their development in thelate eighteenth century. In the city of Hudson, Lower WarrenStreet affords a look back to the growth of that cityas a planned New England community. Going easton Rte. 23B, Claverack provides some excellent views of late eighteenth-century development, in- cluding Columbia County's first courthouse (1786) and thehomes of JOHN BAY, WILLIAM LUDLOW, and others attractedby the prospects of a new county seat. All are locatedon Rte. 233 in Claverack and are identifiedon the Penfield Map of 1799, parts of which have been reprinted by the Claverack andColumbia County historical societies. From Claverack,one travels north on Rte. 9H to the town of Kinderhook and the LINDENWALDHOUSE, built by Peter Van Ness in 1797 andnow a national historic site restored to the later occupancy of Martin Van Buren.From this site, one proceeds to Hudson Street and thenceon to its inter- section with Rte. 9 at the villagesquare in the Kinderhook Village Historic District. just south of the villagesquare, on Rte. 9 (Broad

24 228 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR Street) are the VAN SCHAACK HosasPeter's(built in 1785 and later remodeled in the Victorian style) andhis brother David's (built in 1774 and retaining much of itsoriginal Georgian style). Both are now private residences. From BroadStreet, one explores the village streets and then continuesnorthward on Rte. 26A to Stuyvesant Landing and, from there, north on Rte.9J to the Scho- dack Landing Historic District in Rensselaer County.Located on Rte. 9J in this district are several homesof eighteenth-century construction, including the TEN EYCK HOUSE (ca.1775). North of Schodack Landing, one crosses theHudson River and proceeds north to the city of Albany, stoppingalong the way to see the NICOLL-SILL HOUSE(1736), located in the southeastern section of the town of Bethlehem on VanderzeeRoad off Rte. 144 and presently closed and undergoing restoration.In the city of bany, the SCHUYLER MANSION (1764) presents ahappy coin- cidence of late eighteenth-century architectural andpolitical his- tory. Now maintained as a statehistoric site, the mansion is re- stored to Philip Schuyler's occupancy andreflects much of his position, activities, and connections (most notably to hisson-in-law Alexander Hamilton). The mansion is now located onClinton and Catherine streets (the former named for the familythat supplied Schuyler's nemesis). Below the mansion, and to thenortheast, lies The Pastures preservation district, containing rowhouses of early nineteenth-century construction. Several other Albany structures deserve mention.The first is the TEN BROECK MANSION, known as ArborHill, and located on what is now Ten BroeckPlace in the city's Arbor Hill section. Built by Abraham Ten Broeck in 1798, the mansionhas been regal ed to a later period and cc nainsonly a few items of Abraham or his occupancy. Thesecond is Cherry Hill, built in 1787 by Henry K. Van Rensselaer's brother Philip. Located onwhat is now South Pearl Street, Cherry Hill is the onlysurviving historic site of the Van Rensselaer family. Gone but notentirely lost is the mansion of Stephen Van Rensselaer, "The GreatPatroon." Built in 1765, the mansion was located on a Tivoli Street site overwhich the RCA dog now sits. In 1893 the mansion was moved toWilliams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts, where it remaineduntil it was demolished in the 1970s. Stonesfrom the original structure are said to have been savedand are awaiting reassemblage. North of Albany. in Saratoga County, is the SCHUYLER HOUSE, now a national historic site in Saratoga NationalHistoric

; Guide to Historic Sites 229

Park. A carefully restored example of a lateeighteenth-century country home, this historic sitenicely complements Schuyler's Al- bany mansion. The Saratoga house was builtby Philip Schuyler in 1777 to replace an earlier house that had beenburned by the British. In 1787 Schuyler gave the house to his sonJohn Bradstreet Schuyler who remained there until his death in1795. At that time, the house reverted back to Philip and was retainedby him until 1804 when he gave it to his grandson. The presenthouse, restored to the 1787-1804 period, islocated in Schuylerville, eight miles north of the Saratoga Battlefield.

Central New York The adoption of the Constitution was a majorfactor in opening up the lands west of theHudson River Valley. In the years im- mediately following the adoption of the Constitution, theriver valleys of central and western New York became well-traveled routes in the first westwardexpansion of the new republic. Re- turning to the Mohawk River Valley in 1791,Elkanah Watson wrote of the emigrants "swarminginto these fertile regions in shoals, like the ancient Israelites, seeking the land of promise." However, in 1790 there were only about 7,500 residents incentral and western New York, and the principal settlements werelargely confined to the areas of present-day Utica and Romein Oneida County and Cooperstown in Otsego County. In 1788 there were only two areas of westernsettlement represented in the state legislature and the state ratifying conven- tion. And both were a part of the late colonial periodof expansion. The first was the eastern section of the MohawkValley, from Schenectady west through the present-day counties of Montgom- ery, Fukon, and Herkimer. The westernmostconvention candi- dates were Peter Schuyler (defeated) and Henry Staring,both from that part of Montgomery County now inHerkimer County just east of Utica. The second area wasthe Schoharie Valley, located just west of the Hudson River Valley; an area settledbefore the Revolution and represented by Peter Vrooman at the convention. Throughout much of the late eighteenth century, the urban center of the Mohawk Valley wasSchenectady, a city that still

5History of the Rise. Pvagress, and Existing Conditions of the Western Canals inthe State of Nne-York, from September 1788 to the Completion of theMiddle Section af the Grand Canal, in 1819 ...(Albany. 1820). 81.

243 230 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

retains its westward orientation toward the Mohawk River.In 1788 the center of Schenectady was still essentially contained withinthe old stockaded area of the town bounded by State Street,Ferry Street, and, on its remaining sides, the Mohawk River. Today,the Stockade Historic District is enlarged to include thearea bounded by State Street, Erie Boulevard, and the Mohawk River.Within this district are several late eighteenth-century homes, including those of DIRCK VAN INGEN (1790)on North Church Street and ISAAC VROOMAN (1754) on Front Street. These homes, likeothers in the district, are now private residences; however,this is an ideal area for a walking tour from which much can be gleaned about this frontier urban settlement. For additional information,contact the Schenectady County Historical Society, 32Washington Ave- nue, Schenectady, NY 12305. West of Schenectady, little remains of the frontier lifeof the political leaders involved in the ratification debate. Thereare sev- eral surviving homes of Federalist and Antifederalistleaders, but these are now occupied as private residences. Mostof the historic sites open to the public are either earlier fortsor later villages; however, two roundabout avenuescan be followed. First are the homes now maintained as historic sites, restoredor otherwise, and tied to a slightly earlier period. These include: State Historic Site (1773), altered over the*Pears, located on West Main Street, Amsterdam, Montgomery Colinty; Johnson Hall State His- toric Site (1763), dominated by the earlieroccupancy of Sir Wil- liam Johnson, locatedon Hall Averete. Johnstown, Fulton County; Fort Johnson (ca. 1755), an earlier ..ome of SirWilliam and well maintained by the Montgomery County Historical Society,located west of Amsterdam on Rte. 5; and Herkimer Home StateHistoric Site (1760). comparable to the foregoing homesby virtue of the aspirations of its original occupant General NicholasHerkimer, located on Rte. 169, just south of Little Falls,Herkimer County. Also of interest are three sitesat COOPERSTOWN, Otsego County. In the village, the only survivingstructure dating back to the 1780s is a smithy,now housing a commercial art gallery, lo- cated on Pioneer Street. Out of the village,on Rte. 80 (Lake Road), the Fenimore House,now the headquarters of the New York State Historical Association, contains Cooper memorabilia.Across Lake Road is The Farmers' Museum,an outdoor museum, composed of authentic buildings from the region, arrangedto depict a pre- industrial nineteenth-century village crossroads.From here, one

2-4 .1 Guide to Historic Sites 231 can compare the original smithy (1786) in the village with later structures at the museum; and throughout the area, one can still see signs of original siting and lakefront locations.

Conclusion By way of review, it might be useful here to highlight those historic sites of prime importance in each region. In New York City, any list of such sites would include the Hamilton Grange, the only home Alexander Hamilton ever owned; the Lefferts Homestead, the only surviving home in the city occupied by a ratification leader during the ratification debate; and Federal Hall and Fraunces Tav- ern, because of their value as namesakes and for the special ex- hibits they contain. On Long Island, the most significant sites would include the William Floyd Estate and the Manor of St. George, owing to the prestige of their occupants, and Raynham Hall and the Epenetus Smith Tavern, by virtue of their focus on the period. In the Lower Hudson region, the John Jay Homestead and Van Cortlandt Manor are of great importance; the former perhaps more for its occupant, the latter perhaps more for its restoration to the period. Farther up the Hudson, the James Clinton Historic House in New Windsor promises to provide a much needed view of the late eighteenth-century role of that region. In the Mid- Hudson region, the Senate House in Kingston and the Van Wyck Homestead in Fishkill are of prime significance for the views they provide of that region's urban and rural life, respectively. Still farther up the Hudson, Clermont Manor is valuable more for its connection to Chancellor Robert R. Livingston than for its focus on Livingston's period. Elsewhere in the Upper Hudson region, the Schuyler Mansion in Albany and the Schuyler House in Sar- atoga County are of great consequence, both for the role of their occupant and the period to which they have been restored. Farther west along the Mohawk, the Schenectady Stockade affords the clearest view of that region in the late eighteenth century.

24 5 CHRONOLOGIES

A Chronology of Constitutional Events during the American Revolutionary Era, 1774 179 2

1774 5 September- First Continental Congress meets in Philadelphia. 26 October

1775 10 May Second Continental Congress convenes. 16 May Massachusetts asks Congress for advice on reorga- nizing its government. 9 June Congress advises Massachusetts to honor its Charter of 1691, but to hold new elections. By July Mas- sachusetts has resumed government without a roy- ally appointed governor. 18 October New Hampshire's delegates in Congress ask for ad- vice on reorganizing its government. 3 November Cc.ngress advises New Hampshire to "call a full and free . epresentation of the people" to form a new government.

1776 5 January New Hampshire legislature adopts new state con- stitution.

2.; f; National Events 03

9 January Thomas Paine'sCommon Sensepublished. 26 March South Carolina legislature adopts provisional con- stitution. May Rhode Island removes name of Crown from all government documents. Its Charter of 1663 stays in effect. I May Massachusetts General Court gives up the Charter of 1691 and removes the Crown's name from ap- pointments. 10, 15 May Congress advises colonies to form new govern- ments and to suppress the authority of the Crown. 7 June Richard Henry Lee of Virginia offers a resolution in Congress calling for independence and the prep- aration of a form of government. 1 I June Congress appoints a committee to draft a decla- ration of independence. 12 June Congress appoints a committee to prepare a plan of confederation. 12 June Virginia legislature adopts a declaration of rights. 29 June Virginia legislature adopts a constitution. 2 July Congress votes for independence. 2 July New Jersey legislature adopts a constitution. 4 July Declaration of Independence adopted. is, July Committee presents Congress with draft Articles of Confederation. 21 September Delaware Convention adopts a constitution and declaration of rights. 28 September Pennsylvania Convention adopts a constitution and declaration of rights. October Connecticut declares its Charter of 1662 to be in effect. 8 November Maryland Convention adopts a constitution and declaration of rights. 14 December North Carolina legislature adopts constitution and a declaration of rights on 17 December.

1777

4 February Georgia legislature adopts constitution. 20 April New York legislature adopts constitution.

247 234 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

June 1777- Massachusetts General Court drafts constitution for February 1778 adoption by people voting in towns. 5 November Congress adopts Articles of Confederation and sends them to the states for ratification.

1778 March People in towns in Massachusetts vote to rejectpro- posed constitution. 5 March A new constitution enacted by South Carolina Gen- eral Assembly on 5 March and signed into law by state's president on 19 March.

1779 1 September 1779-Massachusetts Convention prepares constitution 2 March 1780 and declaration of rights for consideration of towns.

1780 16 June Massa.:husetts Convention declares constitution to have been accepted by two-thirds of thevoters. 25 October Massachusetts Constitution goes into effect. 8-22 November Hanford Convention.

1781 2 January Virginia cedes its western lands to U.S. 3 February Congress submits Impost of 1781 to states forap- proval. 1 March Articles of Confederation takes effect with signa- ture of Maryland delegates. 19 October British surrender at Yorktown.

1782 1 November Rhode Island rejects Impost of 1781. 30 November Preliminary Treaty of Peace.

1783 18 April Congress proposes Impost of 1783 and asks for supplementary revenues. Congress alsoproposes an amendment to apportion expenses according to population, including three-fifths of slaves.

2;S National Events 235

2 July British Orders-in-Council restricting U.S. trade with West Indies. 3 September Treaty of Peace signed in Paris ending ReVolu- tionary War.

1784 14 January Congress ratifies Treaty of Peace. 23 April Congress adopts Ordinance for the Government of the Western Territory. 30 April Congress proposes grant of temporary power to regulate commerce.

1788

20 May Congress adopts Ordinance for the Sale of Western Lands.

1786

21 January Virginia legislature chooses delegates to meet with delegates from other states to consider commercial problems (Annapolis Convention). August- Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts. January 1787 11-14 September Delegates from New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl- vania, Delaware, and Virginia meet at Annapolis Convention and adopt a report calling for a con- vention in Philadelphia in May 1787 to revise Ar- ticles of Confederation. Report sent to Congress and the states. 20 September Congress receives Annapolis Convention report. 23 November- New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Caro- 10 February 1787lina, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Georgia ap- point delegates to convention in Philadelphia.

1787 21 February Congress calls for a convention to meet in Phila- delphia on the second Monday in May to revise Articles of Confederation.

249 236 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

3 March-17 May Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, Mary- land, and Connecticut elect delegates to conven- tion in Philadelphia. 14 March, 5 May, Rhode Island refuses to elect delegates to conven- 16 June tion in Philadelphia. 25 May A quorum is present in the Constitutional Con- vention for the first time. 29 May Edmund Randolph introduces Virainia Resolu- tions which are debated by the Constitutional Con- vention. 15 June William Paterson introduces the "New Jersey Amendments" as an alternative to the Virginia Plan. 19 June Constitutional Convention rejects the New Jersey Amendments as an alternative to the Virginia Plan. 13 July Congress adopts Ordinance for the Government of the Territory Northwest of the River Ohio (North- west Ordinance). 6 August Committee of Detail submits a draft constitution to the Constitutional Convention. 12 September Committee of Style submits report to the Consti- tutional Convention. 12-15 September Constitutional Convention considers Committee of Style report and rejects proposals to adopt a bill of rights. 17 September Convention delegates sign Constitution and Con- stitutional Convention adjourns. 20 September Constitution is read in Congress and 26 September is assigned for its consideration. 26-28 September Congress debates Constitution and sends it to the states for their consideration without approbation or amendment. 28-29 September Pennsylvania becomes the first state to call a state convention to consider Constitution. 6 October James Wilson becomes first member of Constitu- tional Convention publicly to defend Constitution in Philadelphia speech. 27 October First essay of The Federalist by "Publius" pub- lished in New York City. 3 November Elbridge Gerry's objections to the Constitution published. 6 November Pennsylvania elects delegates to state convention. 12 November Connecticut elects delegates to state convention. National Events 237

16 November Richard Henry Lee'si3roposed amendments tothe Constitution published but receive littleattention until subsequent publications on 6 and 20Decem- ber. 19 November- Massachusetts elects delegates to state convention. 7 January 1788 20 November- Pennsylvania Convention. 15 December 21,22 November George Mason's objections to theConstitution published. 26 November Delaware elects delegates to state convention. 27 November- New Jersey elects delegates to stateconvention. 1 December 3-7 December Delaware Convention. 4-5 December Georgia elects delegates to state convention. 7 December Delaware Convention votes unanimously toratify Constitution becoming the first state tor-tify. 11-20 December New Jersey Convention. 12 December Pennsylvania Convention ratifies Constitution,46- 23. 18 December "Dissent of the Minority of the PennsylvaniaCon- vention" published in Philadelphia, the first"of- ficial" Antifederalist analysis of theConstitution. 18 December New Jersey Convention ratifies Constitution unan- imously. 25 December- Georgia Convention. 5 January 1788 27 December Edmund Randolph's objections to theConstitution published. 31 December Georgia Convention ratifies Constitution unani- mously. 31 December- New Hampshire elects delegates to state conven- 12 February 1788tion.

1788

3-9 January Connecticut Convention. 9 January Cmmecticut Convention ratifies Constitution,128- 40. 9 January- Massachusetts Convention. 7 February

25 238 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

6 February Massachusetts Convention ratifies Constitution, 187-168, and proposes amendments. 13-22 February New Hampshire Convention meets and adjourns without voting on Constitution. 3-31 March Virginia elects delegates to state convention. 24 March Rhode Island referendum on Constitution boycot- ted by Federalists; Constitution rejected 2,711-239. 28-29 March North Carolina elects delegates to state conven- tion. 7 April Maryland elects delegates to state convention. 11-12 April South Carolina elects delegates to state convention. 21-29 April Maryland Convention. 26 April Maryland Convention ratifies Constitution, 63-11. 29 April-3 May New York elects delegates to state convention. 12-24 May South Carolina Convention. 23 May South Carolina Convention ratifies Constitution, 149-73, and proposes amendments. 2-27 June Virginia Convention. 17 June-26 July New York Convention. 18-21 June New Hampshire Convention, second session. 21 June New Hampshire Convention ratifies Constitution, 57-40, and proposes amendments. New Hamp- shire is the ninth state to ratify, satisfying require- ments for ratification of the Constitution. 25 June Virginia Convention ratifies Constitution, 89-79, and proposes amendments. 2 July New Hampshire ratification read in Congress, which appoints committee to prepare an act for putting Constitution into operation. 21 July-4 August North Carolina Convention. 26 July New York Convention ratifies Constitution, 30-27, proposes amendments, and adopts a circular letter calling for a second constitutional convention. 2 August North Carolina Convention declines to ratify Con- stitution, 180-80, and proposes amendments. 13 September Congress adopts act setting dates for election of the President of United States and meeting of the first U.S. Congress under the Constitution. 30 November North Carolina calls second convention. National Events 239

1789 21-22 August North Carolina elects delegates to second conven- tion. 26 September U.S. Congress proposes twelve amendments to the Constituuon to be sent to the states for ratification. 16-23 November Second North Carolina Convention. 21 November Second North Carolina Convention ratifies Con- stitution, 194-77, and proposes amendments.

1790 17 January Rhode Island calls convention. 8 February Rhode Island elects delegates to state convention. 27 February New York ratifies proposed amendments to Con- stitution. 1-6 March Rhode Island Convention meets and adjourns with- out voting on Constitution. 24-29 May Rhode Island Convention, second session. 29 May Rhode Island Convention ratifies Constitution, 34- 32, and proposes amendments.

1791 15 December First ten amendments to Constitution ratified by the eleventh state, Virginia, satisfying requirement for ratification of amendments to Constitution.

1792 1 March Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson notifies the states that the first ten amendments to the Consti- tution had been ratified (two proposed amend- ments, concerning apportionment and the size of the House of Representatives and restricting Con- gress' power to set its own salaries, are not ratified hy the states).

253 CHRONOLOGIES

A Chronology of New York Events, 1777-1788

1777 20 April New York legislature adopts state constitution. June George Clinton elected first governor.

1778 6 February Legislatureadopts Articlesof Confederation.

1780 25-26September Legisla? ire appoints delegates to Hartford Con- ventio.. 8-22 November Hartford Convention.

1781 19 March Legislature adopts Impost of 1781.

1782 21 July Legislature instructs congressional delegates to move for a constitutional convention.

1783 15 March Legislature repeals its adoption of the Impost of 1781. 25 November British evacuate New York City.

254 New York Events 241 1785 4 April Legislature adoptsgrant of commercial Congress. power to 9 April Legislature adopts amendment to Articlesof Con- federation changingmethod of penses of government. apportioningex-

1786 14 March Legislature receivesVirginia's call for Convention. Annapolis 18 April Paper moneyact takes effect. 4 May Legislature conditionally 5 May adopts Impostof 1783. Legislature appointsdelegates to vention. Annapolis Con- 11-14 September Annapolis Convention.

1787 13 January Legislature receivesreport of Annapolis tion. Conven- 15 February Assembly rejectsalteration in state's Impost of 1785. approval of 20 February Legislature instructs move for a constitutionalcongressional delegatesto 21 February convention. Melancton Smithand Egbert gress that a constitutional Benson move inCon- jected). convention be called(re- 23 February Legislature receives February calling congressional resolutionof 21 6 March Constitutional Convention. Legislature appointsdelegates to Conventi n. Constitutional 25 May Robert Yates andAlexander Hamilton Constitutional first attend 2 June Convention. John Lansing,Jr., first attends vention. Constitutional Con- 16 June John Lansing,Jr., speech in vention. Constitutional Con- 18 June Alexander Hamiltonspeech in vention. Constitutional Con-

255 PILLAR 242 THERELUCTANT Conven- Yates andLansing leaveConstitutional 10 July tion. Clinton in Daily Alexander Hamiltonattacks George 21 July Advertiser New Hamilton signsConstitution for 17 September Alexander York. York (Daily Ad- Constitution firstpublished in New 21 September vertiser). Constitution pub- First originalcommentary on 24 September lished in NewYork (DailyAdvertiser). published, First of seven"Cato" essays 27 September published. First of three"Curtius" essays 29 September. . published. First of two"Caesar" essays 1 October commentary onConstitution in Publication of first Journal). 3 October inland newspaper(Poughkeepsie Caunhy published. First of sixteen"Brutus" essays 18 October "Publius," TheFed- First of eighty-fouressays by 27 October eralist, published. (William Auer) essays First of four"Philo-Publius" 30 October published. Lee) essays pub- First of six"Cincinnatus" (Arthur 1 November lished. Stevens, Jr.) es- First of seven"Americanus" (john 2 November sayspublished. "Federal Farmer"Letters published. c. 2-8November becomes a dailynewspaper. New-York Journal 15 November Hughes) essays First of six "ACountryman" (Hugh 21 November published. (DeWitt Clinton) First of four"A Countryman" 6 December essayspublished. McKnight) essays First of five"Examiner" (Charles 11 December published. Yates-Lansing letter toGovernor Clinton. 21 December

1788 addresses legislatureand deliv- Governor Clinton Congress of 28 Sep- 11 January ersConstitution,resolution of tember, andYates-Lansing letter. New York Events 245

14 January First publication of Yates-Lansing letter to gover- nor. 31 January Assembly calls state convention to consider Con- stitution. 1 February Senate concurs with Assembly's call of state con- vention. 7 February Constitution burned at Montgomery, Ulster County. 22 March Publication of first volume of The Federalist. 15 April Publication of "A Citizen of New-York" (John Jay). 17 April Publication of "A Plebeian" (Melancton Smith). 29 April-3 May Elections of delegates to state convention. 27 May County supervisors authorized to open ballot boxes and count ballots. 28 May Publication of second volume of The Federalist. 14 June Governor Clinton leaves New York City for con- vention. 17 June-26 July Convention. 17 June George Clinton elected president of Convention. 18 June Convention reads Constitution. 19 June Henry Oothoudt elected chairman of committee of the whole. 24 June News of New Hampshire's ratification of Consti- tution arrives in Poughkeepsie. 2 July News of Virginia's ratification of Constitution ar- rives in Poughkeepsie. 7 July Convention finishes discussion of Constitution, and John Lansing presents a bill of rights to be prefixed to Constitution. 10 July John Lansing presents plan of ratification with con- ditional amendments. 11 July John Jay proposes unconditional ratification of Constitution. 17 July Melancton Smith and Zephaniah Platt propose lim- ited-term ratificition of Constitution. 19 July Melancton Smith withdraws motion for limited- term ratification. 23 July Convention's commit.....e of the whole votes to rat- ify Constitution without conditional amendments (31 to 29).

257 244 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

25 July Convention rejects John Lansing's motion for lim- ited-term ratification. 25 July Committee of the whole agrees to Form of Rati- fication. 26 July Convention ratifies Constitution (30 to 27) and unanimously approves Circular Letter to the states calling for a second constitutional convention.

't Index

"Americanus" (JohnStevens, Jr.). Adams, Abigail.217-18 32-33, 217-18 71 Adams, John, 26, Annapolis Convention:called, 34, Adams. Samuel, 46 55; meetingof, 35; reportof, "Address of theSeceding Penn- 70 38-39, 56, 58, 59 sylvania Assemblymen," Antifederalists, vii,20, 67-68, 76, Adgate, Matthew,181 77. 78, 92, 105-6.106, 107, Akins, Jonathan,89, 182 committee of, 91, 93, 94. 115; New York Albany, City of, 49. 70. 80, 86-87,87, 94, 96; 113, 170-71 unity of in NewYork Conven- Albany County,49, 91-94, 95, tion, 102, 105;disunity of in 176. See alsoBallston; Half New YorkConvention, 107, Moon District;Saratoga; 108, 109, 114,115, 117 Schaghticoke;Schenectady: Aristocrats, 48, 49,53, 54. See Schoharie also Manors Amendments toConstitution, 14; Aristotle, 5, 19 proposed byMassachusetts 186 proposed by Arndt, Abraham, Convention, 46; Articles ofConfederation, 7, 24, Virginia Convention,46-47, 40, 42; provisionsof, 27, 28; 102; should beadopted after need to be revised,29-35, 51. establishment of newgovern- 56. 58, 59, 67,83. 92, 101, ment, 72,90-91, 107; should 103; abandonedby Constitu- be adopted beforeratification tional Convention,41-42, 64, of Constitution.72. 91, 100: 67; support for,67, 104 New YorkConvention consid- Assembly; See NewYork Assem- ers, 74-75,76. 101, 102, 105, bly; New Yorklegislature 107, 108; needfor. 83. I 1 1, York's assis- 116, 117; New Babcock, John. 176 tance neededin federal Con- See Bailey, Patrick,201 gress toobtain. 115, 116. 182 Convention, Bailey, Theodorus. also Bill of rights; Baker, Albert,203 second general Ballston (AlbanyCounty), 113 Amenia (DutchessCounty), 91 198. 219; let- Citizen" (Tench Bancker. Abraham, "An American ters from,95. 95-96. 108,114 Coxe), 70

2 5 9 Index

Adams, Abigail, 217-18 "Americanus" Uohn Stevens, Jr.) Adams, John, 26, 32-33, 217-18 71 Adams, Samuel, 46 Annapolis Convention: called, 34, "Address of the SecedingPenn- 55; meeting of, 35; report of, sylvania Assemblymen," 70 38-39. 56, 58, 59 Adgate, Matthew, 181 Antifederalists, vii, 20, 67-68, 76, Akins, Jonathan, 89, 182 77, 78, 92, 105-6, 106, 107, Albany, City of, 49, 91, 93, 94, 115; New York committee of, 113, 170-71 70, 80, 86-87, 87, 941 96: Albany County, 49, 91-94, 95, unity of in New York Conven- 176. See also Ballston; Half tion, 102, 105; disunity of in Moon District: Saratoga: New York Convention, 107, Schaghticoke;Schenectady; 108, 109, 114, 115, 117 Schoharie Aristocrats, 48, 49, 53, 54. See Amendments to Constitution, 14; also Manors proposed by Massachusetts Aristotle, 5, 19 Convention, 46; proposed by Arndt, Abraham, 186 Virginia Convention, 46-47, Articles of Confederation, 7, 24, 102: should be adopted after 40, 42; provisions of, 27, 28; establishment of new govern- need to be revised, 29-35, 51, ment, 72, 90-91, 107; should 56, 58, 59, 67, 83, 92, 101, be adopted before ratification 103; abandoned by Constitu- of Constitution, 72, 91, 100; tional Convention, 41-42, 64, New York Convention consid- 67; support for, 67, 104 ers, 74-75, 76, 101, 102, 105, Assembly: See New York Assem- 107, 108; need for, 83, 1 1 1. bly; New York legislature 116, 117; New York's assis- tance needed in federal Con- Babcock, John, 176 gress to obtain, 115, 116. See Bailey, Patrick, 201 also Bill of rights; Convention, Bailey, Theodorus, 182 second general Baker, Albert, 203 Amenia (Dutchess County), 91 Ballston (Albany County), 113 "An American Citizen" (Tench Bancker, Abraham, 198. 219; let- Coxe), 70 ters from, 95, 95-96, 108, 114

259 Index 247

mendations of Constitutional "A Countryman" (Hugh Hughes), Convention, 38. 59; considers 70-71 Constitution, 44, 65 "A Countryman" (Roger Sher- Connecticut, 25, 29, 45, 52, 70 man), 70 Constable, William, 78 Coventry, Alexander, 85 Constitution Making, 3-15 Crane, Joseph, 183 Constitution, U.S., 21, 141; pro. Crane, Josiah, 82, 187 cedure for ratification of, 8; Crane, Thaddeus, 204, 214 Preamble of, 13-14, 43; read Cuyler, Jacob, 176 in Congress, 44; submitted to New York legislature, 64. 73; first printed in New York, 68; Dana, Francis, 46 copies sent to Montgomery Dane, Nathan, 59; letters to, 106, County. 81; burned in Ulster 115-116; letter from, 116 County, 86; read in New York D'Cantillon, Richard, 183 Convention, 100 Debt. See Public debt Constitutions, State, 24, 26 Declaration of Independence, 13- Convention, Constitutional: the- 14, 27 ory of, 7; compromises of, 21, DeLancey Family, 49 22-23; desire for to amend Ar-Delaware, 25-26, 35, 45, 56, 115 ticles of Confederation, 35-36, Delemeter, Mr., 85 39, 50, 51, 56; constitutionality"A Democratic Federalist," 70 of, 38, 39-40; election of dele- Denning, William, 79. 80, 189 gates to, 38, 58, 59; proceed- Depression of 1785-1786, 33-34, ings of, 40-44; abandons Arti- 37-38, 49, 51, 51-52, 54 cles, 41-42, 61; exceeds its DeWitt, Charles, 53, 202 powers, 44. 67, 74, 75; New DeWitt, John, Jr., 89, 183, 211 York delegates in, 60; unanim- Dickinson, John, 99n ity of, 68; sources for, 119-20 "Dissent of the Minority of the Convention, New York. See New Pennsylvania Convention," 70 York Convention Dongan, John C., 198 Convention, Second General: fa- Doughty. Charles, 87, 185 vored, 43, 47, 68, 69, 76, 106, Douw, Volkert P., 176 1 as, 113-14, 117; opposition Drake, John, 89 t,68. See also Amendments to Drake, Samuel, 204, 208, 214-15, omitution 223 Conventions, Ratifying: theory of, Duane, James, 56, 60, 79, 84, 189; letters to, 36, 92; letter Cooper, Caleb, 199 from, 51; and call of state con- Cooper, William, 186-87, 208, vention, 75-76, 76, 166; as 212 convention delegate, 100, 109, Cornwell, Whitehead, 197 112 "A Country Federalist" (fames Duanesburgh (Albany County). 92 Kent), 71 Duboys, Lewis, 89, 90, 183 "A Countryman" (DeWitt Clin- Duer, William, 71, 189 ton), 71 Duncan, John, 176

2 6 248 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

Dutchess County, 88-91, 139, Franklin, Benjamin, 68 182. See also Poughkeepsie; Fraunces Tavern, 217 Red Hook Frey, John, 187, 207-8, 212

East Chester (Westchester Gale, Coe, 195, 212 County), 98 Gansevoort, Leonard, 55, 176-77; Economic Conditions: See Depres- letters from, 88, 92, 94, 95, sion of 1785-1786 96, 98; letter to, 97 Egbertsen, Benjamin, 93 Gansevoort, Peter, Jr., 177, 210; Elections (New York): provisions letters to, 88, 92, 94, 95, 96, for, 48, 75, 75-76, 79; for rati- 98 fication convention, 77-99; ob- Gardiner, Nathaniel, 96, 199 jection to congressional inter- Gardoqui, Don Diego de, 63 ference in. 108 Gelston, David, 97, 101, 189 Eking, Peter, 79 Georgia, 26, 45 "Examiner" (Charles McKnight), Gerry. Elbridge, 43, 46, 70 71 Gilbert, Abijah, 204 "Expositor" (Hugh Hughes), 70- Gilbert, William W., 189 71 Giles, Aquila, 186 Gilman, Nicholas, 110 "Fabius," 71 Goes, Isaac, 84-85 Farmers, 37: support George Gordon, James, 177 Clinton, 49, 53, 55. See also Graham, Morris, 89, 90, 183, 211 Tenant farmers "Grand Constitution." 70 Federal Democracy: definition of. Great Britain, 101. See also Revo- 8-9 lutionary War "Federal Farmer," Letters, 71, 92 Greece, 18, 18-19. See also Aristot- Federalism: definition of, 8-9, le 16-17, 19-20; derivation of Greene, Nathanael, 36 word, 8-9, 19 Greenleaf, Thomas, 70, 73, 165, The Federalist (Alexander Hamil- 189-90 ton, James Madison, John Jay), Griffin, Jacob, 183, 211 71-72, 129-31, 152; quoted, vii-viii, 11, 18, 21 Half Moon District (Albany Federalists, vii, 66, 68, 68-69, 70, County), 113 76, 77, 78, 79-80, 80-81, 81. Hamilton, Alexander, 31, 39, 60, 89. 92, 103. 106-7, 114 67. 69, 86, 112, 166, 212, 218: "A Flat-Bush Farmer," 88 author of The Federalist, vii- Floridablanca, Conde de, 63 11, 18; supports stronger Floyd, William, 56, 166, 199, 213, powers for Congress, 31, 36, 220 50, 56; as delegate to Annapo- flushing (Queens County), 94, lis Convention, 35, 55, 56; let- 113 ters from. 36, 47, 52, 101. "Foederal Constitution," 70 103, 106, 107, 109-10, 114; Fonda, Jellis, 187, 212 letters to, 51, 106, 112-13: as Ford, Jacob, 181 delegate to Constitutional Con- Forest, Antoine de la, 63 vention, 60, 62, 64; id., 61, Index 249 190; and electionto state con- vention, 79, 80; 30, 51, 52; of1783, 31-32, 34, as convention 39, 56, 97; New delegate. 103,103-4, 104, York state im- 142-43. See also post, 52, 54, 55, 101,115 The Federalist Indians, 101 Hancock, John, 45,46 Iredell, James, 71 Hardenbergh, JohannisG., 202, 208, 214, 225 Jamaica (Queens Haring, John, 65,75, 195-96 County), 94 Harison, Richard, Jay, John, 190,212, 215, 224;let- 74, 79, 190 ters to, 34, 48, 72; Harper, William,187 letters Harrisson, John, 190 from, 34-35, 38,103, 107, 109, 111; Hartford Convention,29. 50-51, as author of "A Citi- 51 zen of New-York,"72, 97; and election to Hatfield, Richard,204 state convention, Hathorn, John, 79. 80; asconvention delegate, 196, 212 103, 108, 114, Havens, JonathanN., 96, 199 143. See also Hedges, David, The Federalist 199, 213 Jay, Sarah (Mrs. Henry. Patrick,46, 102 John), 103 Jefferson, Thomas, Herkimer, George,82 71, 77 Hickok, Ezra, 177 Jenifer, Danielof St. Thomas,63 Jenkins, Thomas, Higginson. Stephen,32, 36 84, 181 Hillsdale (Columbia Jensen, CorneliusT., 202, 214 County), 85 Johnson, Sir William, Hobart, John Sloss.51. 79, 80, 230 100, 109, 190 Johnson, WilliamSamuel, 62 Hoffman, Anthony. Jones, Samuel, 87,108, 111, 190, 183 197; and call of Hoffman, Herman,89, 90 state conv 1- Hoffman, Nicholas, tion, 74, 166;letters to, tio-87, 190 117 Hogeboom, Catherine,80 Hoogland, Jeronemus, 93, 177 Kent, James, 69, Hopkins, David,77, 203, 214 71, 184 Kinderhook (ColumbiaCounty), Hopkins, Reuben.196 84, 85 Horton, Jonathan,204 House of King, Rufus.191, 212, 213,219 Representatives, U.S.: Kings County, debate over smallsize of, 103. 49, 86, 87-88.185 104 Kings District(Columbia County). 85 Hudson (ColumbiaCounty), 49, 84, 85 Kingston (UlsterCounty), 86 Hughes, Hugh, Knickerbacker, John.Jr.. 177, 70-71, 184 210 Hughes, James M., 102, 190 Knox, Henry, Humfrey, Cornelius,76, 89, 90, 36, 77, 92, 98 184 Kortz, John, 181 Hunting, Benjamin,96, 199, 213 Hurley (Ulster Lafayette, Marquisde, 78 County), 113 Lamb, John, 70, Husted, Ebenezer,184 79, 191; letters to, 95. 102, 103,107 Land Sales, 52, Imposts: proposedby Hartford 53, 55 "Landholder" (OliverEllsworth), Convention, 29. 51;of 1781, 70

263 PILLAR 250 THERELUCTANT Livingston, MargaretBeekman, "A Landholder,"90 80, 88, 94, 98 Lansing, AbrahamG 177; letters 84 93-94, 101, Livingston, Peter R., from, 62, 63, 92, Livingston, Philip R.204 101-2, 105,110-11, 111; let- Jr., 85 97, 99-100.105, Livingston, Robert, ters to, 94, Livingston, RobertC., 55 107 Livingston, RobertR., 55-56, 60, Lansing, John, Jr.,61; as delegate 212, 227; letters Convention, 88, 191, 210, toConstitutional to, 32-33,811 83, 85, 88,89; 60, 61-62,62-63; id., 60-61, conven- letter, 64- and election to state 177; Yates-Lansing tion, 79, 80;letters from, 81, 65, 65, 73; andelection to convention delegate, 94; letters 83, 88; as state convention, 100-1, 103, 108,112 from, 100, 101; asconvention 36, 78 delegate, 100, 103,104, 107, Livingston, William, 113. 114-15 ,49 108, 110, 112, (Columbia County), Livingston Manor Lansingburgh (Albany County), 85 93 19 191 Locke, John, 9, Laurance, John, Lockwood, Ebenezer,204, 207-8, Laurens, Henry,36 Lawrence, John,191 215 69, 71, 107,Long, Pierse, 110 Lawrence, Nathaniel, Loudon, John, 192 197 Loudon, Samuel,192 Lawyers, 49 79, 80, 90, 192 197 Low, Nicholas, Ledyard, Isaac, Loyalists, 49, 52,53 Lee, RichardHenry, 27, 37, 44, Ludlow, Gabriel,192 70 H., 182, 210-11, Lefferts, Peter,88, 186, 211,219 Ludlow, William L'Enfant, Pierre,113, 217 227 Lewis, Francis, jr.,197-98 Lewis, Morgan:letters from, 80, Mcaallen, Robert,92, 178 88, 94, 98 McCracken, Joseph,203 L'Hommedieu, Ezra,96, 97. 200, McKean, Thomas,30, 45 213 McKesson, John,92, 94, 192 Liberties: Constitutionprotects, McKnight, Charles,71, 192 13, 83, 90; impostof 1781 en- Maclaine, Archibald,71 dangers, 30, 31;Constitution M'Lean, Archibald,192 91, 92, 103, endangers, 64, 72, WLean, John,192-93 104, 117 Macomb, Alexander.193 Limited-termRatification, 106, Madison, jameS, 21,21-22, 31, 107, 109, 110,112-13 36, 37, 38,39-40, 44, 46;let- Livingston, Brockholst,78, 191 36-37, 47, 65,101, 89, 111, 152, ters to, 33, Livingston, Gilbert, 103, 106, 107,109-10, 114; 184, 211 letters from, 34,39, 58, 61, Livingston, Henry,81 70, '73, 77, 106,112. See also Livingston, Henry,84, 181 187 The Federalist Livingston, James, Makom, William,193 Livingston, John,83, 181, 210 Index 251

Manors, 49, 91-92, 110, 168n. tion (percentages by counties), See also Aristocrats 161; counties, 162-43 "Many Antifederalists," 89 New York Assembly: election of, Martin, Luther, 63 48; calls state convention, 73, Matvin, Seth, 196 74-75; apportionment of Maryland, 26, 28-29, 46 among counties, 161 Mason, George, 38, 43, 63, 70, New York City, 33, 87, 108;0P- 102 position to George Clinton, 49, Massachusetts, 29, 34, 38, 39, 45- 80, 87; occupied by British, 50, 46, 52, 53, 78; state constitu- 51; supports Constitution, 77- tion of, 8, 13, 26. See also Bos- 80; procession in, 112-13; de- ton, Mass. scription of, 171-73, 188 Mercer, John Francis, 36-37 New York Constitution, 26, 48, Merchants, 49, 52-53. See also 74, 161, 168n Commerce New York Convention: election Micheau, Paul, 198-99 of, 14-15, 46, 76-99, 128. Militia, 49, 108 131; proceedings and debates Mitchell, Stephen Mix, 57 of, 47, 99-117; ratifies Consti- Moffau, Thomas, 196 tution, 47, 112-14; legislature Monroe, James, 33, 34 calls, 73-77, 165-66; Antifed- Montesquieu, Charles, Baron de, eralists fear delays in, 101, 21-22. 66 105; proposes limited ratifica- Montgomery County, 49, 80-82, tion of Constitution, 106, ;07, 186 109, 110, 112-13; Circula Montmorin, Comte de, 63 Letter of, 113, 114; sources Morris, Gouverneur, 204 for, 131-34; apportiomnent of Morris, Lewis, 76, 98, 204-5 delegates of by county, 161 Morris, Richard, 79, 80, 100, New York Legislature, 39, 48, 51, 108, 193 56-58; seeks additional powers Morton, William, 193 for Congress, 29, 50, 50-51, 51, 55; calls for a constitu- tional convention, 31, 51, 58; Natural Rights, 8, 9 appoints delegates to Annapolis New Hampshire. 29, 37, 38, 46, Convention, 55; appoints dele- 100, 101; state constitution of, gates to Constitutional Conven- 8, 25, 26; ratifies federal Con- tion, 59; receives Constitution, stitution, 47, 105, 153; influ- 64; calls state convention, 73- ence of ratification by on New 77; records for, 120-21. See York, 47, 115 also New York Assembly; New New Jersey, 37, 38, 52; and An- York Senate napolis Convention, 35, 56; rati-New York Senate: election of, 48; fies federal Constitution, 45, as part of Council of Appoint- 115 ment, 48; calls state conven- New Jersey Plan, 42 tion, 73, 75-76, 166; appor- New York: thought to be antifed- tionment of among counties, eral, 58-59, 65; ratification his- 161 toriography, 134-44; popula- Newburgh (Ulster County), 113

265 252 THE RELUCTANT PILLAR

Newspapers: debate in New York Paine, Ephraim, 53 in, 66, 70, 77, 124-27, 164; Paine, Thomas, 36 Albany Gazette, 66; Albany Regis- Pamphlets, 66, 71-72, 97 ter, 165; Charleston Columbian Paper Money, 37, 49, 54, 54-55, Herald, 99; Poughkeepsie Coun- 97 try kurnal, 69, 71, 89, 90, 91, Paris, Isaac, 187, 212 113; New York Daily Advertiser,Parker, Ichabod, 203 65,67,68, 68-69,70, 80, 87- Parks, Arthur, 202, 214 88,94,94-95, 98,115, 125; Parsons, Theophilus, 32 Lansingburgh Federal Herald, Paterson, William, 42 95, 113; New York Independent Patterson, Matthew, 184 Journal, 70, 111, 112-13; Payne, Barnabas, 89 Maryland Journal, 80; Massachu-Pell, Philip. Jr., 205 setts Centinel, 63, 80, 81; Massa- Pennsylvania, 25-26, 33, 57; and chusetts Gazette, 63; New Hamp- Annapolis Convention, 35, 56; shire Spy, 99; New-York Journal, ratifies federal Constitution, 65, 66, 66-67, 67, 69, 70, 73. 45, 115 95, 125, 165. New York Morning Philadelphia. 33, 70 Post, 70, l'26; New York Packet, "Philo-Publius" Duer), 70, 99, 113; Pennsylvania Mer- 71 cury, 115 Pinckney, Charles, 37 Newtown (Queens County), 94 Platt, Zephaniah, 89, 109, 111, Nicoll, Francis, 178, 207, 210, 117, 152, 184, 211 228 "A Plebeian" (Melancton Smith), Niles, Jonathan, 93 72, 97 Nine-Partners District (Dutchess Polis: theory of. 6 County), 90 Post, James, 196 Niven, Daniel, 193 Poughkeepsie (Dutchess County). North Carolina, 47 75. 106. 113 North, William, 92, 94n Power, Nicholas, 184 North Hempstead (Queens Powers, William, 182 County), 94 Private Property, 37 Processions, 112-13 Officeholders. State, 101, 103; list Public Debate over Constitution. of abbreviations for, 174-75 65-72. 77 "An Old Whig," 70 Public Opinion: in New York Onderdonck, Hendrick, 198, 213, over Constitution, 77, 78, 98, 220 114 "One of the Many." 90 Public Debt: New York state. 49, "One of Yourselves," 80 54; United States. 51, 54, 55 Oothoudt, Henry, 80, 92, 100, Purdy, Stephen. Jr., 193 105, 178 Puritans. 8 Orange County. 49, 94-95, 195 Pye, David, 196. 213 Osborn, Daniel, 200 Osgood, Samuel, 117 Oswego (Dutchess County), 88-89 Queens County. 49. 94, 197. See Oyster Bay (Queens County). 94 also flushing

2"E.() Index 253 Schuyler, Philip, 48, 61, 83, 178; Randall, Thomas, 193 Randolph, Edmund, 38, 40-41, letters from, 48, 78, 81, 83, 84, 106, 108, 114; letters to, 41, 43, 46, 61, 73 of, Red Hook. (Dutchess County),113 81, 83, 84, 88, 93; houses Republic: definition ofcompound 207-8, 210, 226-27, 228, republic, 10; theory of small 228-29 Scudder, Henry, 200 ,21-22 republies Seaman, Nathaniel, 198, 213 "A Republican," 67 Revolutionary War, 49, 50, 51, Seaman, Walter, 205 Secession: danger of in New 118-19 York, 115 Rhode Island, 25, 37, 40, 46; re- legis- fuses to ratify impost of1781, Senate, N. Y; See New York lature; New York Senate 30, 51 Separate Confederacies, 66,104- Richmond County (StatenIsland), 49, 95-96, 198 5, 115 Shad Run, 149-54 Rockwell, Nathan, 205 Shays's Rebellion, 37, 38, 151 Roosevelt, Isaac, 79, 110, 193 Sickks, Thomas, 178 "Rough Hewer" (Abraham Yates, "Sidney" (Abraham Yates, Jr.),71 Jr.), 57 Sill, Richard, 73, 178, 207,210, "Rough Hewer, Jr." (Abraham 228 Yates, Jr.), 57 Silvester. Peter, 182, 211 Russell, Ebenezer, 203 Slaves; three-fifths clause, 32,103 Russell, John, 193 Smith, Epenetus, 200, 208, 213, Rutgers, Henry, 194 220 Rutherfurd, John, 64, 73 Smith, George, 96, 200. 213-14 Rutherfurd, Walter, 64, 73 Smith, John, 96, 97, 200, 214, Ryerss, Cozen, 96, 199, 219 221 Smith, Melancton, 58, 60, 65, 88, Sands, Comfort, 90, 194 152; as Antifederalist leader, Sands, Robert, 185, 211 47, 86-87, 117, 143; as author Saratoga (Albany County), 113 of "A Plebeian," 72, 97; letters Saris, Lott W., 205 from, 78, 87, 96, 106, 115-16, Savage, Edward, 203, 214 117; and election to state con- Schaghticoke IScatakokej (Albany vention, 79, 89, 90; id., 89, County), 92-93 185, 194; as convention dele- Schenck, John. 198 gate, 103, 104, 106,108, 108- Schenectady (Albany County),113 9, 109, 110. III, 114-15, Schermerhorn, John W., 178 115-16; letters to, 116, 117 Schoharie (Albany County), 94n Smith, Nathan, 202 Schoonmaker, Cornelius C., 76, "Social Compact," 70 86, 202, 214; and call of state Social Compact Theory, 9 convention, 74, 165-66; letters South Carolina, 26, 46 from, 86-87. 109. 114; letters South Hempstead (Queens to, 87, 88, 96 County), 94 Schuyler, Peter, 82, 187, 212, Southern States, 52 229 Snyder, Joharmes, 202

26? 254 THE RELUCTANTPILLAR

Staring, Henry, 187, 229 Townsend, Samuel, 198, 213,220 Staten Island: See Richmond Tredwell, Thomas, 97, 201, 214 County States, 49, 57, 59; Constitution Ulster County, 49, 86-87, 201. endangers, 67, 72 See also Hurley; Newburgh Stephentown (Albany County), 93 Union: debate over importance Stoddard, Ashbel, 182 of, 52, 67, 101, 103 Stoughton, Thomas, 194 Stoutenburgh, Isaac, 194 Van Cortlandt, Philip, 98, 206, Strang, Joseph, 205 215, 223 Strong, Se lah, 96, 200 Van Cortlandt, Pierre, 59-60, Suffolk County, 96-97, 199 206, 215, 223 Sullivan, John, 36, 70 Van Dyck, Cornelius, 179 Swart, Dirck, 102, 110, 178, 210 Van Gaasbeek, Peter, 203,214, Swartwout, Jacobus, 89, 185, 211 224-25; letters to, 79, 83, 85- "Sydney" (Abraham Yates, Jr), 86, 87, 109, 114 57 Van Horne, Abraham, 187 Van Ingen, Dirck, 179, 210,230 Tallman, Isaac I 185 Van Ness, Peter, 182, 211, 227 Tappen, Christopher, 202-3 Van Orden, Hezekiah, 179 Tappen, Peter, 185 Van Rensselaer, Henry K., 179 Taulman, Peter, 196, 213 Van Rensselaer, Jeremiah, 80,93, Taxes, 52, 53, 54, 108 179 Taylor, John, 60 Van Rensselaer, Philip, 228 Tearse, Pet Pr B., 203-4 Van Rensselaer, Robert, 84 Tenant Farmers, 49, 85; discon- Van Rensselaer, Stephen, 78,81, tent of, 85; pressure from 108, 180, 228 manor lords placed upon, 86, Van Schanck, Henry, 106 93 Van Schaack, Peter, 83, 84,114, Ten Broeck, Abraham, 178,210, 182, 211, 227-18 228 Van Vechten, Abraham,81, 82, Ten Broeck, Peter, 83 187 Ten Eyck, Anthony, 178-79, 210 Van Wyck, Isaac, 185, 211,226 Ten Eyck, John de Peyster, 179 Vanderbilt, John, 186 Thomas, Thomas, 205 Vandervoort, Peter, 88, 186 Thompson, Ezra, 89, 185 Varick, Richard, 110, 194 Thompson. Israel, 179 Varnum, James M., 36 Thompson, John, 179 Vaughan, John, 99n Thompson, William, 196 Veeder, Volkert, 187-88 Tillinghast, Charles, 70. 103, 105,Vermont, 52, 53, 101 106, 108, 194 Verplanck, Gulian, 194 Tillotson, Thomas, 185; letters Virginia, 28, 31, 33, 34, 46-47, from, 85, 88, 89 100; and Annapolis Conven- Tompkins, Jonathan G., 205-6, tion, 34, 35, 55, 56; and dele- 215 gates to Constitutional Conven- Tories: See Loyalists tion, 38, 40, 59; influenceof Townsend, Prior, 198 ratification on New York, 47,

2I) Index 255

101, 102, 106, 111, 115; rati- Williams, John, 75-74, 75, 77, 95, fies federal Constitution, 106 104, 204 Virginia Plan, 41 Wilson, James. 45, 70 Visscher, Matthew, 94, 180 Wiltse, Martin, 185 Vmoman, Isaac, 180, 210, 230 Winant, Peter, 199, 219 Vrooman, Peter, 102, 180, 210, Winn, John, 188 229 Wisner, Henry, Sr., 196, 213 Wisner, Henry, Jr., 196 Walton, Henry, 83 Witherspoon, John, 29 Wadsworth, Jeremiah, 36, 57, 73, Wood, John, 196, 213 98 Woodhull, Jesse, 95, 197, 213 Washington, George, 36. 38, 40, Wyckoff, Cornelius, 8, 186 68, 69; letters from, 34, 44, Wyckoff, Hendrick, 186 72; letters to, 34-35, 38, 52, Wynkoop, Adrian, 85 58, 61, 70, 73, 77, 107, 109, Wynkoop, Dirck, 203 111 Wynkoop. John C., 85 Washington County, 49, 95, 203. See also Clinton County Wynkoop, Peter, Jr., 85 Watson, Fikanah, 229 Watts, John, jr., 194 Yates, Abraham, Jr., 56-57, 59- Webb, Samuel Blachley, 108, 60, 65, 71, 75, 166, 180; let- 194-95; letters from, 72, 78, ters to, 61, 63, '78, 92. 93-94, 80 94, 100, 101, 101-2, 105, Webster, Alexander, 204 110-11, 111; letters from, 94, Webster, Charles R., 180 97, 99, 99-100, 105, 107 Webster, George, 180 Yates, Christopher P., 82, 105, Webster, Noah, 195 188, 212 "Well Wisher to the United States Yates, Peter, 180-81 of America." 66 Yates, Robert, 60, 61, 62-63, 94, "West Chester Farmer," 66 102: id., 60, 180-81; letters Westchester County, 49, 97-99, from, 61, 102; Yates-Lansing 204 letter, 64-65, 65, 73 Whiting. William B., 182 Yeomen: See Farmers: Tenant Wickes, Thomas, 201 farmers Willett, Marinus, 79, 80, 195 Younglove, John, 181

289 Contributors

MARTIN DIAMOND was Professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University (1971-77). Just before his death in 1977, he accepted the Thomas and Dorothy Leavey Chair in Foundations of American Freedom at Georgetown University. A leading authority on the Constitution and its framing, his books include The Founding of the Democratic Republic and The Revolution of Sober Expectations.

DANIEL J. ELAZAR is Professor of Political Science at Temple University, where he also directs the Center for the Study of Federalism. A leading authority on American federalism, his writings on the subject include American Federalism: A View From the States, now in its third edition, and The American Partnership: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the Nineteenth- Century United States.

JOHN P. KAMINSKI and GASPARE J. SALADINO are co-editors of The Doc- umentary History t#. the Rahfication oft/it Constitution. RICHARD LEFFLER serves as associate editor. This multi-volume collection is co-sponsored by the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the University of Wisconsin, Mad- ison, where the project is housed. With six volumes published to date, The Documentary History is the definitive source for the debate over the ratification of the Constitution.

STEPHEN L. SCHECHTER is Associate Pi afessor of Political Science and History at Russell Sage College, where he also directs the Upper Hudson program. He is the editor of various publications, including Teaching About American Federal Democracy and Local History in the Classroom.

JACK VANDERHOOF is Professor of History at Russell Sage College. He has lectured widely on the subject of history and fiction. His publications include A Bibliography of Novels Related to American Frontier and Colonial History, cited by the American Library Association as an outstanding ref- erence work.

27u Designed by William Kasdorf

Typeset in Baskerville on a Penta-driven APS-A5 by Impressions, Inc., P.O. Box 3304, Madison, Wisconsin 53704, from text originally input on Xerox and IBM PC diskettes

Printed on 55# Sebago Natural and perfect bound in 80# Curtis Linen Eggshell cover

ON THE COM: This illustration appeared in the Charleston City Gazette on 11 August 1788 as a preface to the report of New York's ratification of the Consti- tution. The City Gazette first used a similar illustration with eight pillars on 28 May 1788 in its report of the ratification of the Constitution by South Carolina on 23 May. On 16 July the illustration, showing nine pillars, accompanied the report of Virginia's ratification, and on 22 july another pillar was added for New Hampshire. In the late eighteenth century, the thirteen original states were tra- ditionally listed in geographical order from north to south. This practice, followed in Congress in recording votes and signing official documents, was used in this illustration. The state columns start with New Hampshire on the left and end with Georgia on the right. The two missing columns are therefore easily identifiable as Rhode Island and North Carolina.

2 7 'as ...t. e

. Ii 1 :k