Ipswich High School - Tiger Yearbook (Ipswich, MA)

Page 20 text:

tion in September, 1787. Much de- structive criticism, implying that measures had been adopted by the Federal Convention which would benefit the few at the expense of the many, had been spread abroad on account of the secrecy which had surrounded the meetings of the Constitutional Convention ; because of this, many of the delegates to the State Conventions for ratification were doubtful as to the advisability of supporting the document. The staunch refusal of Patrick Henry to attend the Philadelphia Convention certainly made an im- pression. His first speech at the Virginia Convention for ratification in which he said, “This Constitution is said to have beautiful features, but when I come to examine those features, they appear horribly frightful” reveals his utter antipathy towards the whole matter. Richard Henry Lee, who firmly believed in the Articles of Confederation and who felt that the secrecy of the delegates had been a screen to hide despicable dealings against the pub- lic, stated that “probably not one man in ten thousand in the United States, till within these ten or twelve days, had any idea that the old ship was to be destroyed.” El- bridge Gerry from our own state of Massachusetts also refused to sign the document. We must not, however, assume that the Constitution had no sup- porters. On the contrary it had Alexander Hamilton, who was, by far, its greatest and strongest sup- porter. Single-handed he forced the state of New York into ratification, first, by relating in glowing and alluring terms dreams of a bright future under this new government, and secondly, by giving a gloomy picture of the consequences if the Constitution were not adopted. George Washington, himself, al- though reluctant to express his sen- timents, very forcibly backed our Constitution. John Jay, Robert Livingston, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris were also among the nineteen indefatigable support- ers. Let us consider for a moment what was taking place in Ipswich during this period. Ipswich, which had developed a fairly large tex- tile industry at that time and which was situated between Boston and Newburyport, the two important business and banking centers in 1788, was in favor of the Constitu- tion. But, of course, Elbridge Gerry’s refusal to sign the Consti- tution had, no doubt, influenced a great many. His reasons for oppo- sition, stated in his own words, are as follows: “My principal objec- tions to the plan are that there is no adequate provision for a repre- sentation of the people — that they have no security for the right of election — that some of the powers of the legislature are ambiguous, and others indefinite and dangerous — that the executive is blended with, and will have an undue influ- 18

Page 19 text:

SLOWLY, WITH MAJESTIC STRIDE Slowly, with majestic stride, Orange robes around him drawn, The ageless sun ascends the sky, And makes announcement of the dawn. A thousand beams before him dance, heralds of the Day, Like dusty fingers reaching out to wipe the Dark away. Then, gayly i as the sun they see Fairies dance out to sip The dew that Mother Nature leaves in every flower-cup. Lilting bird calls fill the lane, While down beside the lake Familiar echoes ring again. All the world’s awake ! Across the sunny fields we roam. Knee-deep in flowers ; Then rest on the brook’s cool, mossy bank, During the noonday hours. Through the heat of afternoon muffled sounds arise And on the gentle, scented breeze are carried to the skies. Slowly, down the western sky With fading light he creeps, The last glow flickers, fades, and dies ; Now he sleeps. In heaven’s vault of midnight blue Small clouds chase a star; The slender, crescent moon is new and glimmers from afar; A bell tolls in the dusky gloom; A bird calls clear and sweet; The tired earth gives one last sigh ; All the world’s asleep! Ursula Lombard, ’38. Graduation Essays The Constitution — Yesterday and Today by Theresa de Grandpre J UST as we today are in a state of financial stress, commercial oppression, political confusion, and moderate disputation over the arguments for the strengthening of our Constitution, so was our coun- try in very much the same state of depression and argumentation over the adoption and ratification of the Constitution one hundred and fifty years ago. The Constitutional Con- vention had been held in Philadel- phia in May, 1787. After weeks of long and tedious work and hours of bitter and sincere debate, the Constitution had been adopted by the Convention that framed it and was sent to the states for ratifica- 17

Page 21 text:

ence over the legislature — that the judicial department will be oppres- sive — and that the system is with- out the security of a bill of rights. These are objections which are not local but apply equally to all the states.” Gerry made the fact known that although he maintained good reasons for refusing to sign the Constitution, he would not fail to support it if it were ratified. Copies of Elbridge Gerry’s objections were sent to all the towns of Massachu- setts for discussion. Several meet- ings were held in Ipswich for the purpose of discussing the Constitu- tion and Elbridge Gerry’s objec- tions to it. At the meeting when the question came up as to whether or not to discuss Gerry’s objections, it was moved that they be set aside, a fact which might further imply that Ipswich supported the Consti- tution. A last meeting was called on December 3, 1787, at which four members were chosen to attend the state convention for ratification at Boston. The four members were Hon. Michael Farley, John Choate, Esq., Daniel Noyes, Esq., and Col. Jonathan Cogswell. The cries of Andros’s Rebellion were undoubt- edly still ringing in the ears of our Ipswich delegates, causing them to feel the need for a strong central government. The Massachusetts Convention for ratification opened on the sec- ond Wednesday of January, 1788, with 355 delegates present. The citizens of Massachusetts were en- tirely ignorant of what the result of their Convention might be. Let us study for a moment the body politic of the Convention. On the one hand, there were many sup- porters. Nathaniel Gorham from Charlestown, Caleb Strong from Northampton, and Rufus King from Newburyport, all of whom had been members of the Federal Convention, were present to defend the Consti- tution. James Bowdoin, a former governor of Massachusetts, gave his assistance principally in the de- fense of the power vested in Con- gress under the new Constitution. Mr. Choate, one of our own Ipswich delegates, stoutly defended the same article of the document for a new government. In one of his speeches Mr. Choate stated that since the trust delegated to Con- gress was that it should “provide for the common defense and pro- mote the general welfare,” it should, therefore, be vested with the unlimited power of taxation in order to prosecute its object. He next contended that “Congress was the power of the people concentred to a point; that, as all power is lodged in them, this power ought to be supreme.” He lastly showed the necessity of its being so, not only for our common defense, but for our advantage in settling commercial treaties, domestic and foreign. Of the twenty-four clergymen present at the Massachusetts Convention seventeen later voted for the Con- stitution. It is of interest to some 19