DOCSLIB.ORG

John Smilie, Antifederalism, and the 'Dissent of the Minority/1787-1788 Rodger C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
John Smilie, Antifederalism, and the 'Dissent of the Minority/1787-1788 Rodger C John Smilie, Antifederalism, and the 'Dissent of the Minority/1787-1788 Rodger C. Henderson plan of government created by the authors of the Constitution was born inan age of conflict.Thomas McKean, on THEDecember 10, 1787, anticipated positive consequences of ratifi- cation "upon the character and prosperity of the United States, both at home and abroad." He declared the plan "theBEST THEWORLDEVER SAW."1 But allPennsylvanians did not agree. Many feared that adoption of the Constitution in Pennsylvania would "produce a mighty convul- sion." 2Aleading opponent of the proposed law of the land, John Smilie argued that the methods required to implement the Constitution's plan of government would be the same as those "necessary to execute a despotism." Hefeared theabuse ofpowers bythe officers of government would provoke discontent throughout the land. Toadminister the plan, government officials would use increasingly oppressive means to sub- due popular opposition. Smilie concluded that ifadministered, "itmust be by force." The system, he thought, would be destructive of the people's liberties; rights would remain lost until "recovered by arms." 3 Indeed, on the afternoon of December 12, 1787, at the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, John Smilie and Jasper Yeates called for the votes on whether the state wouldratify the plan drafted September 17in Rodger C. Henderson teaches at Pennsylvania State University-Fayette inUniontown. He wishes toacknowledge the research assistance received fromtheNationalEndowment for the Humanities, "Travel to Collections"; the Fayette Campus Advisory Board; and the Penn State Research Development Grant Program. 1 Pennsylvania Gazette, Dec. 12, 1987. 2 WilliamShippen, Jr., toThomas LeeShippen, Nov.7, 1787, inMerrillJensen, ed., The Documentary History ofthe Ratification of the Constitution, Vol.II:Ratification ofthe Constitution by the States: Pennsylvania (Madison: 1976), 236. (Hereafter, "DHRC, II, Pa.") 3 Ibid., 592. The Western Pennsylvania HistoricalMagazine, Vol.71, No. 3/4 (July/Oct.1988) Copyright ©Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania 235 236 Rodger C. Henderson Philadelphia— at the Constitutional Convention.— Yeates joined 45 other delegates two-thirds of the convention voting yes. John Smilie and Nathaniel Breading, both from Fayette County, along with 21 other delegates, opposed the Constitution. 4 Nine of the 23 opponents repre- sented areas insouthwestern Pennsylvania. Indeed, nearly 40 percent of allopposing votes came from the representatives ofFayette, Westmore- land,Washington, and Bedford counties. Nineof11delegates fromthese four counties voted against ratification of the Constitution. 5 Clearly, Fayette and the surrounding area formed a solid core of Antifederalist political sentiment. In part, the considerable opposition to the Constitution was the consequence ofthe efforts ofSmilie,who was inthe forefront of Pennsylvania's Antifederalist leadership. The purposes of this paper are toexamine the lifeof one Antifeder- alist delegate to the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention. Analyzing Smilie' s career helps tobring into focus issues of ideology, politics and society that formed the controversy over ratification. This study also seeks tounderstand Smilie's style ofAntifederalism. Why didhe oppose ratification? Was itbecause he came from the frontier farming areas of western Pennsylvania? Do personal frustrations and economic class issues explain his reasons fordissent? Did he oppose ratification simply because he anticipated that adoption would weaken his professional political position as a long-time office holder? Didhe debate and vote against the Constitution because of his ethnic-religious heritage as a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian? To what extent did personal and family life contribute tohis Antifederalism? How did the Revolution influence his thinking about the Constitution? What political experience and ideas formed his opinions on the Constitution? Analysis of his speeches and behavior at the Convention and outside of it reveal the nature of his deeply held convictions. History and experience were his guides. From September 28,1787, when violent measures were used tophysically drag two seceding members of the Pennsylvania Assembly back to the ses- sions to create a quorum, through the election night riotofNovember 6, 1787, to the altercation between Smilie and Thomas McKean near the close of the Convention, John Smilie was "strenuous in...[his] opposi- tion/'6 Answering these questions about the life and political career of Smilie also clarifies other issues about the nature and extent of Antifed- eralism inPennsylvania. 4 Ibid., 590-591. 5 Ibid., 326-327; 590-591. 6 William Shippen, Jr. to Thomas Lee Shippen, Nov. 18, 1787 in Jensen, ed., DHRC,IIPa., 236. John Smilie 237 John Smilie actively participated inthe Revolutionary movement and became a political leader under the Pennsylvania Constitution of17767 He was born September 16, 1742, in County Down,Ireland. By 1760 he had migrated toAmerica and settled inLancaster County, Pennsylvania. Smilie became an early leader of the movement inresistance to British authority, serving as a member ofthe Lancaster County Committee, and of the Provincial Conferences of1775 and 1776. In1778 and 1779, under the "radical" Constitution of1776, the voters ofLancaster County elected himto the General Assembly. Near the end ofthe war,in1781, he moved westward toWestmoreland County. In1783 the voters ofWestmoreland selected himas a member ofthe Council of Censors. With the formation of Fayette County by 1784, the qualified freemen chose Smilie as their firstrepresentative inthe Assembly and re-elected him in1785. He also served on the Supreme Executive Council from November 2,1786, until November 19, 1789. Itwas during this phase of his career that Fayette Countians made Smilie a delegate to the Ratification Convention. He became a leading debater in the Convention, and after Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution, he persisted inhis efforts to have the plan modified. Scholars have interpreted Smilie's lifeina variety of ways: •Orin G.Libby identified the major divisions inPennsylvania over the Constitution ingeographic and economic terms. The western agricul- tural and frontier areas opposed the plan, but the eastern counties, with more population, wealth and commercial interests, sided withthe Fed- eralists. 8 •Charles Beard explained the differences between Federalists and Antifederalists in terms of personalty and realty. Federalists in the Ratification Convention had more delegates "interested inpublic pa- per." Antifederalists, however, represented landed interests. Ratifica- tion inPennsylvania was a reflection of the triumph of personalty over realty interests. 9 •In a broad reinterpretation of Beard's thesis, Forrest McDonald argued that the Federalists and Antifederalists owned "about the same 7 Jensen, ed., DHRC, II,Pa.,732; William Henry Egle, 'The Federal Constitution of 1787: Sketches of the Members of the Pennsylvania Convention/' Pennsylvania Magazine ofHistory and Biography 11 (1887), 264-266; Edward Everett, "John Smilie, Forgotten Champion of Early Western Pennsylvania," Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 33 (1950), 77-89. 8 Orin G. Libby,The Geographical Distributionofthe Voteofthe Thirteen States onthe Federal Constitution, 1787-1788 (Madison: 1894). 9 Charles A.Beard, AnEconomic Interpretation ofthe Constitution of the United States (New York: 1913), 273-281. 238 Rodger C.Henderson amounts of the same kinds ofproperty/' and they held "similiar occupa- tions." According toMcDonald, Antifederalists possessed more "hold- ings of most forms of personalty," especially public securities. On this basis, McDonald concluded "that the exact opposite of Beard's thesis is more nearly the truth." 10 (Jackson T.Main has insisted, however, that major differences inproperty ownership existed between Federalists and Antifederalists. 11) Other interpretations have flowed from these views: •Edward Everett said Smilie was an Antifederalist because he was a "radical backwoods farmer, democrat, champion of the common man," and that the voters in Western Pennsylvania elected him because he represented the "dignity and rights of the common man" against the wealthy eastern aristocrats. 12 •This view is also embodied in the work of Russell J. Ferguson. 13 Further, Gordon Wood detected deep social and economic divisions in the community from the Revolution to the ratification debates. Resent- ment and social antagonisms were magnified in this period because 7' — — "new men Smilie among them "picked up the pieces of political power" inthe Revolutionary upheaval and resisted efforts ofolder elites toregain primacy inthe politicalarena. Newcomers topolitics stressed egalitarian and democratic social and political values, and refused to defer to the judgment of their "betters." 14 •Other historians emphasized the deep divisions inPennsylvania based onclass, occupation, and sectional distinctions. Robert Brunhouse conceptualized the era inthis manner. 15 Jackson T.Main sorted out the Pennsylvania Constitutionalists and Republicans from1776 to 1787, and identified Constitutionalists as smaller property owners inrural agricul- tural and western areas ofthe state. They were more likely tobe Scotch- Irish Presbyterians and their stands on political issues were "localist." They supported the Pennsylvania Constitution of1776 and were more 10 Forrest McDonald, We the People: the Economic Origins of the Constitution (Chi- cago: 1958), 163-182,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congressmen 1788-1838
    8th Congress U. S. Congressional Election 12 October 1802 1803-1805 Name Party Vote Name Party Vote 1st District (3 elected): 4th District (2 elected): 11th District: Joseph Clay Dem-Rep 4,363 John A. Hanna Dem-Rep 6,110 John B. Lucas Dem-Rep 2,168 Jacob Richards Dem-Rep 4,316 David Bard Dem-Rep 5,970 John Wilkins Federalist 1,624 Michael Leib Dem-Rep 3,980 David Mitchell Dem-Rep 28 Alexander Foster Federalist 638 George Latimer Federalist 2,895 5th District: Peter Brown Federalist 2,875 Andrew Gregg Dem-Rep 4,258 Jonas Preston Federalist 2,847 Elisha Gordon Federalist 304 6th District: John Stewart Dem-Rep 2,285 2nd District (3 elected): John Edie Federalist 1,748 Robert Brown Dem-Rep 11,456 7th District: Isaac Van Horne Dem-Rep 10,697 John Rea Dem-Rep 2,173 Frederick Conrad Dem-Rep 6,205 Henry Woods Federalist 941 Samuel Sitgreaves Federalist 3,939 John McLene Dem-Rep 147 Nathaniel B. Borleau Federalist 1,682 Lord Butler Federalist 781 8th District: William Findley Dem-Rep 1,531 3rd District (3 elected): Jacob Painter Dem-Rep 1,312 John Whitehill Dem-Rep 9,396 Special Election Isaac Anderson Dem-Rep 9,365 9th District: 2 November 1804 Joseph Hiester Dem-Rep 9,236 John Smilie Dem-Rep 2,718 10th District: Jacob Bower Federalist 4,932 10th District: John Hoge Federalist 477 Joseph Hemphill Federalist 4,853 William Hoge Dem-Rep 2,300 Aaron Lyle Dem-Rep 439 Thomas Boude Federalist 4,829 Resigned 15 October 1804.
    [Show full text]
  • THE Whiskey Insurrection of 1794 Long Has Been Regarded As One of the Decisive Events in Early American History
    THE WHISKEY INSURRECTION: A RE-EVALUATION By JACOB E. COOKE* THE Whiskey Insurrection of 1794 long has been regarded as one of the decisive events in early American history. But on the question of why it was significant there has been a century and a half of disagreement. Fortunately for the historian, how- ever, there have not been many interpretations; indeed, there have been only two. And, as anyone would guess, these have been the Federalist and the anti-Federalist, the Hamiltonian and the Jeffersonian. It is not the purpose of this paper to describe the fluctuating historical reputations of Jefferson and Hamilton; at one period of time (say, *the Jacksonian era) Jefferson was in the ascendancy; at another time (say, the post-Civil War period) Hamilton crowded Jefferson out of the American historical hall of fame. But for the past half-century and longer, the interpretation that our historians have given to the American past has been predi- cated on a Jeffersonian bias, and the Whiskey Insurrection is no exception. The generally accepted interpretation of the Whiskey Insur- rection reads something like this: In March, 1791, under the prodding of Alexander Hamilton and against the opposition of the Westerners and some Southerners, Congress levied an excise tax on whiskey. This measure was an integral part of Hamilton's financial plan, a plan which was designed to soak the farmer and to spare the rich. There was sporadic opposition to the excise in several parts of the country, but the seat of opposition was in the four western counties of Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • Origins of Federal Common Law: Part Two*
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 133 JULY 1985 No. 6 ORIGINS OF FEDERAL COMMON LAW: PART TWO* STEWART JAYt Thomas Jefferson wrote Edmund Randolph in August 1799 of the need "to portray at full length the consequences of this new doctrine, that the common law is the law of the US, & that their courts have, of course, jurisdiction co-extensive with that law, that is to say, general over all cases & persons." 1 Closing the letter in the next line, he re- marked, "But, great heavens! Who could have conceived in 1789 that within ten years we should have to combat such wind-mills." 2 Some- what more than a year later, John Marshall commented in a private correspondence: In political controversy it often happens that the precise opinion of the adversary is not understood, & that we are at much labor to disprove propositions which have never been maintained. A stronger evidence of this cannot I think be given than the manner in which the references to the com- mon law have been treated.' © Copyright 1985 by Stewart Jay. All rights reserved. * Part One of this essay appears at 133 U. PA. L. REv. 1003 (1985) [hereinafter cited as Jay, Part One]. t Associate Professor of Law, University of Washington. 1 Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph (Aug. 23, 1799), reprinted in 9 THE WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 76 (P. Ford ed. 1905). 2 Id. at 76-77. " Letter from John Marshall to St. George Tucker (Nov. 27, 1800), reprinted in Appendix A, infra.
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA Historical Journal
    UCLA UCLA Historical Journal Title Banking and Market Culture in Pennsylvania during the 1780s Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5b91m4nj Journal UCLA Historical Journal, 11(0) ISSN 0276-864X Author Eicholz, Hans L. Publication Date 1991 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Banking and Market Culture in Pennsylvania during the 1780s Hans L. Eicholz When analyzing the major transformations in American polit- ical ideology during the early national period, historians have generally portrayed a struggle between a community-oriented con- servative tradition and more "modern" notions that stress the ac- ceptance of interest-based politics, competitive economic individu- alism, and material prosperity. Currently this transformation is presented in terms of classical versus liberal republicanism, with the differences between them located in a fundamental disagree- ment over the legitimacy of self-interest in public life.^ While conceived in new terms, the desire to distinguish the heralds of modernity from a conservative old guard has existed as long as American political theory itself. It is the contention of this paper that such a framework is basically misguided. An examination of America's first major banking controversy reveals that both the merchants who supported the Bank of North America and the farmers who opposed it shared a common belief in the benefits of a competitive market economy of self-interested individuals. Where they disagreed was over the proper credit arrangements necessary to facilitate economic growth. It is a distortion of the early na- tional period to locate the origins of modern politics in any one group.
    [Show full text]
  • The Second Amendment in Action
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 76 Issue 1 Symposium on the Second Amendment: Article 4 Fresh Looks October 2000 The Second Amendment in Action Michael A. Bellesiles Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael A. Bellesiles, The Second Amendment in Action, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 61 (2000). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN ACTION MICHAEL A. BELLESILES* INTRODUCTION What follows may be entirely irrelevant. There are those who argue that historical inquiry offers nothing to our understanding of the Second Amendment. This postmodernist position is well represented by Charlton Heston, who has dismissed historical scholarship as not in the least bit relevant and called for historians to stop wasting their time in the archives.1 Akhil Amar recently stated that current understandings of the original meaning of the Second Amendment "might be false as a matter of historical fact but [are] nonetheless true as a matter of constitutional law."' 2 William Van Alstyne insists that historical research into the context of the Second Amendment "doesn't seem to me to make a very great deal of difference against the background of Bunker Hill, and the minutemen, and the imagery that this is the nature of things."3 Postmodernism denies the value and even the validity of historical context, emphasizing instead language and image; truth itself is a rhetorical social construct, it is the critic's representation of the past that matters.
    [Show full text]
  • April5, 1821, in the 80Th Year, of His Age
    240 Life and Times of William Findley LIFE AND TIMES OF WILLIAMFINDLEY ROBERT M. EWING* In a neglected spot in what is known as Unity burial ground in Westmoreland County, can be seen a modest tombstone bearing this inscription: The Venerable William Findley Departed this life, April5, 1821, In the 80th year, Of his age. There is nothing in this to indicate that William Find- ley was a commanding figure in Western Pennsylvania; nothing to indicate that he performed an active part in na- tional affairs covering a long period of time. We shall endeavor to show him to you as not only a prominent man locally, but one who served his country in its national councils for a longer period than ordinarily fell to the lot of men in his day, or falls to the lot of men in more recent times; and shall show you, perhaps, that his record as a man of standing and influence has not been handed down to posterity with the same zeal as that of men less worthy. His life was a busy one. The records show that as a public man, he was a schoolmaster; a member of the Cum- berland County Committee of Observation; elected but de- clined to serve as a member of the Pennsylvania Constitu- tional Convention of 1776; served on the County Board of Assessors in Cumberland County and aided in levying the first taxes under the Constitution of 1776. He was captain of a company in the Eighth Battal- ion Cumberland County Associators and was in active ser- vice ;was member of the Pennsylvania Convention that rat- ified the Federal Constitution of 1787.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper Money, Debt Relief, and the Ratification of the Constitution
    Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons Faculty Scholarship 2014 The Anti-Federalists’ Toughest Challenge: Paper Money, Debt Relief, and the Ratification of the Constitution George Van Cleve Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation George Van Cleve, The Anti-Federalists’ Toughest Challenge: Paper Money, Debt Relief, and the Ratification of the Constitution, 34 J. Early Republic 529 (2014). https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty/823 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Anti-Federalists’ Toughest Challenge Paper Money, Debt Relief, and the Ratification of the Constitution GEORGE WILLIAM VAN CLEVE During the mid-1780s many American states actively man- aged their economies in the face of widespread financial and social insta- bility following the Revolutionary War. Seven states authorized paper money emissions, and there were unsuccessful efforts to obtain them in others. Several states adopted extensive debtor-relief measures. Some historians of these state anti-recession measures conclude that such efforts to fight deflation, increase money circulation, and protect debtors were beneficial for various reasons. But despite that, the Constitution, as contemporaries understood it, abrogated state powers to issue paper money or provide debtor relief such as property tender laws in Article I, Section 10. Terry Bouton writes that Section 10 ‘‘left a host of popular policies in ruins—all in less than fifty words.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania Assembly, Friday, 28 September 1787
    The Pennsylvania Assembly, Friday, 28 September 1787 · · · · · · · On CALLING a CONVENTION GEORGE CLYMER: The House cannot, sir, have forgotten a business of the highest magnitude, which was recommended to their attention by the Federal Convention, and I am persuaded they will readily concur in taking the necessary measures for calling a convention of the citizens of Pennsylvania, to deliberate upon that plan of government which has been presented to this House; for which reason I shall submit the following resolutions. “Whereas the Convention of deputies from the several states composing the Union, lately held in this city, have published a Constitution for the future government of the United States, to be submitted to conventions of deputies chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification, and whereas it is the sense of great numbers of the good people of this state, already signified in petitions and declarations to this House, that the earliest steps should be taken to assemble a convention within the state, for the purpose of deliberating and determining on the said Constitution. “Resolved, That it be recommended to such inhabitants of the state as are entitled to vote for representatives to the General Assembly, that they choose suitable persons to serve as deputies in a state convention, for the purpose herein before mentioned; that is, for the city of Philadelphia and the counties respectively, the same number of deputies that each is entitled to, of representatives in the General Assembly. “Resolved, That the elections for deputies as aforesaid be held at the several places in the said city and counties, as is fixed by law for holding the elections of representatives to the General Assembly, and that the same be conducted by the officers who conduct the said elections of representatives, and agreeably to the rules and regulations thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Not Another Constitutional Law Course: a Proposal to Teach a Course on the Constitution
    Florida International University College of Law eCollections Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1991 Not Another Constitutional Law Course: A Proposal to Teach a Course on the Constitution Thomas E. Baker Florida International University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Thomas E. Baker, Not Another Constitutional Law Course: A Proposal to Teach a Course on the Constitution , 76 Iowa L. Rev. 739 (1991). Available at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/173 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Not Another Constitutional Law Course: A Proposal to Teach a Course on the Constitutiont Thomas E. Baker* and James E. Viator** Justice Douglas once railed against law review writing in which "the views presented are those of special pleaders who fail to disclose that they are not scholars but rather people with axes to grind."l Not so here. Authors ofcourse materials, even casebook authors, package their biases in subtle but effective ways, through their selection, organization, and empha­ sis of materials. By this essay, which is based on the preface to our multilithed course materials, we mean to disclose our own biases to our students and readers. This is the basic question we consider at the outset: How is a course on the.Constitution different from a'course on constitutional law? Our course, "The Framers' Constitution," is about the history and theory of the t ©1991 Thomas E.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Commander-In-Chief Power
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2008 On the Commander-In-Chief Power David Luban Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 1026302 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/598 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1026302 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 477-571 (2008) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons ON THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF POWER ∗ DAVID LUBAN BRADBURY: Obviously, the Hamdan decision, Senator, does implicitly recognize that we’re in a war, that the President’s war powers were triggered by the attacks on the country, and that [the] law of war paradigm applies. That’s what the whole case was about. LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong? BRADBURY: It’s under the law of war that we . LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong? BRADBURY: . hold the President is always right, Senator. —exchange between a U.S. Senator and a Justice Department 1 lawyer ∗ University Professor and Professor of Law and Philosophy, Georgetown University. I owe thanks to John Partridge and Sebastian Kaplan-Sears for excellent research assistance; to Greg Reichberg, Bill Mengel, and Tim Sellers for clarifying several points of American, Roman, and military history; to Marty Lederman for innumerable helpful and critical conversations; and to Vicki Jackson, Paul Kahn, Larry Solum, and Amy Sepinwall for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distinguished Life of Hugh Henry Brackenridge ..By Richard R
    The Distinguished Life of Hugh Henry Brackenridge ..by Richard R. Gideon In July of 1794 a powerfully built Scottish immigrant made his way from Pittsburgh to attend a meeting at Mingo Creek, Pennsylvania. His objective was to become a moderating voice of reason in a room filled with budding revolutionaries. In later years historians would record this meeting as one of a series of acts collectively known as the Whiskey Insurrection or Whiskey Rebellion, the first real test of the authority of the newly created Federal government. The Scotsman’s name was Hugh Henry Brackenridge, a self-made man and product of early American intellectualism. Among his friends were James Madison, William Bradford and Philip Freneau, the latter a collaborator on a book called "Father Bombo's Pilgrimage to Mecca in Arabia" and a patriotic poem called ``The Rising Glory of America.'' Father Bombo, a satire based on a feud between rival clubs at Princeton University, is now recognized as the first novel written in America. In later life Brackenridge would write his masterpiece, a work called "Modern Chivalry." Described as a comic narrative, a combination of Don Quixote and Tom Jones, Modern Chivalry became a staple of 19th Century American literature. Mark Twain called the book "a classic." But then literature was only one area of accomplishment for the Honorable Mr. Brackenridge. Beginnings Hugh Henry Brackenridge was born in Scotland in 1748. His parents immigrated to York County, Pennsylvania, when Hugh was five years old. Unlike many a poor farmer’s son, Hugh was a natural scholar. He received his early education in part from the local country school, but mainly from a Presbyterian clergyman of the region who tutored him in Latin and Greek.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Beard Versus the Founding
    W7 l91 6 CHARLES BEARD VERSUS THE FOUNDING FATHERS: PROPERTY CONCEPTS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of North Texas in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS By Rhonda J. Breaux, B.A. Denton, Texas May, 1992 Breaux, Rhonda J., Charles Beard versus the Founding Fathers: Property Concepts in the Eighteenth Centuy Master of Arts (History), August, 1992, 134 pp., 36 titles. This thesis deals with the role of property in the formation of the American Constitution and government. Charles Beard's views on property are compared with writings from the eighteenth century. Beard's writings on property and his critics are examined in the first two chapters. Then, the thesis's two historical contexts are evaluated. Concentrating on the Enclosure Acts, the fourth chapter looks at the importance of land to the former Englishmen. The eighteenth century view of property is the focus of the fifth section. The last chapter contrasts the two different views of property. Beard believed that the Constitution was a conservative document that protected the property of the few over the many. The Founding Fathers actually included liberal protections for property in the eighteenth century. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter I. CHARLES BEARD'S VIEWS ON PROPERTY: REALTY VERSUS PERSONALTY ........................ 1 II. CRITICS OF CHARLES BEARD: ROBERT E. BROWN, FORREST MCDONALD, AND RICHARD HOFSTADTER....---------- ................ 23 III. THE TWO HISTORICAL CONTEXTS..... ................. 33 IV. THE IMPORTANCE OF LAND: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH ENCLOSURE ACTS.--................54 V. EIGHTEENTH CENTURY VIEWS OF PROPERTY..............76 VI.
    [Show full text]