Road to Ratification: Massachusetts

By the time of the Massachusetts Ratification, the Constitution had been approved by 5 states with little to no serious opposition. While there was disapproval for portions and elements of the Constitution, particularly in Pennsylvania, the Federalists (as supporters of the Constitution began to call themselves) being of better learning and smoother oration than most opponents, had managed to shut down the opposition both rhetorically and procedurally.

The People of Massachusetts, however, would not suffer to be spoken down too. Home of the of the Boston Tea Party and hot bed of Revolution, Massachusetts was (and still is) a proud state. The towns of the state had a century of self governance to guide them. When the state of Massachusetts was ratifying its own constitution, unlike many other states, it was compelled to send the document out to the individual towns for approval. Those towns not only roundly rejected the first draft, but many sent in their reasonings for rejection as well. On top of that, one of the major animuses for the drawing of the Constitution was to help prevent and (if needed) subdue episodes like Shay’s Rebellion. How would the very rebels and those sympathetic to their aims accept a government drawn up by their political enemies?

It was clear that the average townsman of Massachusetts considered himself more than qualified to stand up to the “natural betters” who so often supported Ratification. Not merely to assert their preferences on a simply yay or nay, but to give substantial arguments and provide nuanced counterpoints and adjustments. It was at Massachusetts’s Convention that the full gamut of what is now called Anti-Federal argument first took hold.

Heavy complaints were levied against weak level of representation against the House of Representatives (one per 30,000), the long terms of the President and Senate (four and six years), the dangerous authority of Congress to decide “the time and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives,” the inability of the House of Representatives to vote on treaties, the lack of a Bill of Rights and the outright ban on Test Acts allowing a person of any religion to hold office federally and at the state level. Above all, however, the most hated of all the new powers granted to the federal government were its “unlimited power of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts and excises.”

The power of unlimited tax, in conjunction with all the other centralizing aspects of the government, confirmed the fears of a majority of delegates. Where the Federalists saw an “energetic” government capable of securing prosperity and establishing the United States as a world power, their opponents saw a great “Leviathan.” A beast who would swallow whole the “poor illiterate people,” and backslide the free peoples of the United States back to the despotism of King George and Parliament. So deep were the antipathies to the Constitution that no less than Revolutionary War hero Samuel Adams came out as fully against the Constitution. Only the blatant reprimand of some his constituents managed to quiet him slightly.

For a nearly a full month the delegates argued back and forth, but it the efforts of the Federalists seemed hopeless. The opposition was firmly entrenched. Not enough of them could be persuaded to vote yes on the merits of the Constitution. And so, the Federalists, unable to win on the arguments, moved to politics. Outside the bounds of the convention, in a legendary account, Federalists moved to cut a deal with the wildly popular governor: John Hancock.

Governor Hancock was the consummate politician, renowned for his ability to delay a decision on any matter until he came up on the winning side. And the most recent group of Massachusetts citizens who had benefitted from his tactical decision making? Former Shay rebels and their sympathizers who made up a large fraction of the opponents to the Constitution.

From the moment the Constitution had gone public, Governor Hancock, as per usual, had kept his opinions on the matter perfectly secret. The Federalists hoped to leverage his indecision in their favor. The plan was to have Hancock offer a compromise position in the last days of the convention; if the Constitution was ratified, then at the very first Congress of the United States, Massachusetts federal representatives would be instructed to bring up a series of amendments for consideration. If the vote could be scheduled soon after Hancock made the proposal, it was hoped that his popularity, the conciliatory nature of the proposal, and the general disarray of the opposition, could peel off enough votes to form a majority.

John Hancock would not give up his political capital for free, however. In exchange for his support of unconditional ratification of the Constitution, his political opponents in local politics, nearly all of whom were Federalists, would be forced to support him in the next gubernatorial election. It was a brutal bargain, but the Federalists were desperate and Hancock held all the power.

This was a sea change in Federalist tactics. In all five previous Ratification conventions, the Federalists had argued strictly against amendments as they feared any dispute on the viability of the Constitution would sink its chances. Not only that, but on a practical basis, the Federalists, many of whom had attended the Constitutional Convention, knew exactly how brutal the arguments over even the smallest phrase could be. Amendments could open up a potential nightmare scenario of never ending debates over minutia destroying any chance of national unity. Anti-amendment rhetoric had been used to convince otherwise moderate opponents into voting yes. Better to accept an imperfect document than the obviously doomed Articles of Confederation. Now pro-amendment rhetoric was being deployed to convince moderates into voting yes. Accept an imperfect document now and fix it later, instead of continuing on with the doomed Articles of Confederation.

The Federalists were desperate, but their ploy worked, if by the slimmest of margins. Massachusetts would vote to unconditionally ratify the Constitution by 187 votes to 168 against. A margin of 19.

The decision by the Massachusetts Federalists to allow amendments fundamentally altered the course of the history of the United States. In all subsequent ratification debates, amendments would now be routinely brought up and discussed and several other states would come to submit amendments for the 1st Federal Congress to discuss and approve. That 1st Congress would honor the wishes of the several states and submit twelve amendments to the states for ratification. Ten of those amendments would be accepted and become the supreme law of the land in those early years: The Bill of Rights.

In the 21st Century, when citizens of the United States speak of the Constitution, they generally refer to the Bill of Rights. None truly question notions such as the term length of Senators or Congressional authority to oversee elections. But questions are raised every day on what is and isn’t a Constitutional Right and their limits or lack thereof.

In a fit of historic irony, the most ardent supporters of the Constitution in 2022, can thank the most dogged opponents of the Constitution in 1788.

Going even further, the Bill of Rights and in particular the 1st Amendment, became a benchmark for what a liberal and free government should aspire to have. Without an American champion, what would be the state of freedom of speech, religion, assembly and press worldwide in the 21st Century? The development of human rights would then have to rely on much shakier European foundation.

The liberty and freedom of billions of people may perhaps owe their existence to a backroom deal struck in 1788 Boston, Massachusetts.