Ipswich High School - Tiger Yearbook (Ipswich, MA)

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

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 22 text:

of us to know that the Rowley dele- gate, Capt. Thomas Mighill, favored the Constitution. In fact, all the well-to-do, who were frightened by the insurrection of Shay’s Rebel- lion, were strongly in favor of the Constitution. They felt that until there was a strong federal govern- ment in control of domestic and foreign trade, there would be no hope for successful businesses and banking systems. In truth, all the seacoast towns from Boston to Maine that had developed their commerce, as well as their indus- tries, were for the stability and pro- tection of the Constitution. On the other hand, there was a powerful opposition to the Consti- tution. Probably the most important causes for resistance were the half- heartedness of Samuel Adams, then president of the Massachusetts Sen- ate, and John Hancock, then gov- ernor of Massachusetts and presi- dent of the Convention. As I have said before, the refusal of Elbridge Gerry to sign the document was probably next in importance. Eight- een of the men who had participated in Shay’s Rebellion were present at the Boston Convention. These dele- gates strongly opposed the Consti- tution, because they felt that under this new form of government, action against debtors and poor farmers would be more severe. Because the Province of Maine was a part of Massachusetts at that time and was hoping eventually to become an in- dependent state, her delegates op- posed the Constitution for fear that it would prevent her from gaining her independence. Another opposi- tion was the intense devotion to state’s rights and town meetings that had thrived in the hearts of the New Englanders. Every clause of the Constitution was debated at the Massachusetts Convention. One of the most im- portant subjects that called for a lengthy discussion was the absence of the Bill of Rights. No mention was made of religious freedom, free- dom of speech and of the press, rights to petition the government, or methods of punishment for crim- inal offences. Another long debate took place when the question of the election of Represen tatives for two years was brought up. All agreed with Samuel Adams that this term was too long; but when Adams asked Caleb Strong why so long a term had been decided on, he answered that a compromise had been necessary in order to please all the delegates. Adams then re- plied, “I am satisfied.” So great was the faith of the people in the judgment of the Father of the Revo- lution, that no more was said on this subject. The fact that the Consti- tution failed to provide religious tests for candidates caused much disorder at the meeting, but, strange to say, it was not the clergy who wanted these. In fact, the clergy had definitely modernized its ideas on this subject. The attack on slave trade was next; but when the fact 20