Ipswich High School - Tiger Yearbook (Ipswich, MA)

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

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 23 text:

was pointed out that slav e trade could no longer exist after 1808, there was no more objection to al- lowing it to exist for the next twenty years as provided. Finally after all this momentous and significant discussion, the Con- stitution was presented to our Massachusetts Convention for rati- fication on February 6, 1788. The vote was carried by the very small majority of 19, there being 187 votes for it and 168 against it. You may wonder why the Constitution was accepted without a Bill of Rights; it was agreed among the delegates that they could prepare amendments to submit to Congress immediately after the ratification of the Constitution by nine states. Each of the four Ipswich delegates cast their votes in favor of the Constitu- tion. Let us just stop to think for a moment how important these four votes were to the ratification of the Constitution in Massachusetts, there being such a small majority. It is of great significance that John Han- cock and Samuel Adams were influ- enced enough by the debate to vote in favor of the new government. In turn, their votes influenced many other delegates to vote in favor of the Constitution — delegates not only from our state but from neigh- boring states also, when the Consti- tution was presented to them for ratification. Massachusetts was now the sixth state to ratify our Consti- tution, and it is a well-known fact that had our state voted against it, so great was the influence of Massa- chusetts at that time that we should in all probability be living now un- der a different form of government. Thus, as we have seen, our Con- stitution because of its elastic clause has stood the tests of West- ward Expansion, the Civil War, the Reconstruction period, “big busi- ness” development, currency prob- lems, tariff, the World War, humani- tarian movements, and the New Deal. It is the belief of the majority that our Constitution is flexible enough to undergo any strain in the future, but the sentiment that our Constitution will not stand any more amending and that there is strong need for re- form is growing daily. In closing I would urge that before we listen to the would-be reformers, sincere and otherwise, we remember the words of Mr. Charles H. Cole- man in his article “The Constitution Up To Date”: “The virtue of oper- ating under a written charter is demonstrated when we realize that our government is one of the oldest in the world, despite our comparative youth as a nation. Nearly every im- portant country in the world has un- dergone a change in its form of gov- ernment since 1789, usually by a revolutionary process. This country survived its only revolutionary at- tack (the Civil War), and the method of peaceful development involving constitutional changes when needed is firmly established as the American method.” We must also bear in mind that the Constitution was made by 21