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,