Dr. Wilson's History Blog

Whose Constitution Is It Anyway?

A Ratification Hearing

When members of the Connecticut Ratification Convention got together in 1788, each one of them made their decision to ratify the Constitution based on how it affected the 13 states, their town, and their own lives. Each delegate had to balance his individual needs with the needs of what he thought of as the common good.

The Constitution was written in a time period where there were few democracies and women and African Americans had few political rights.  After fighting a war against a strong central government, the states were wary of an executive branch that was too strong and a national government with too much power.  Citizens worried about the following issues:

• Issue 1:  Representation for each state
• Issue 2: Federalism, represented in issues of slavery, taxation
• Issue 3:   Religious tests, virtuous representatives
• Issue 4:  Corruption: fear of rule by the mob, rule by aristocracy; need for checks on power
• Issue 5:  The issues of Civic virtue, minority rights and factions found in Federalist 10, 51 http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=10&page=transcript#no-51

In this exercise, we will have a panel of the three Connecticut men who were at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  They want to hear your concerns about this new Constitution.

• Oiver Ellsworth
• Roger Sherman
• William Samuel Johnson

There are 12 people who will attend the hearing.  Each person will testify.  Ellsworth, Sherman, or Johnson will respond to their concerns.

Each person who comes to the public hearing

• Will know the nuts and bolts of the Constitution.
• Will speak on at least one of the five issues.
• Will ally with another at the hearing who will support that issue
• Will dissent on one issue and find an ally in dissent.

Day 1:  Background on the Constitutional Convention; receive roles and begin to fill out role cards; Read Federalist 10 for homework

Day 2:  Fill out role cards, using the Constitution and the websites suggested.  Make alliances and prepare your questions.

Day 3:  Role-play.  Homework:  Blog your reflection on this public hearing using the following prompts: Students will reflect in their journal on

• • Who holds power in this government and at what level
  • Relative power of men, women, African Americans
  • Rights guaranteed to individuals
  • Which issue will lead to the most difficulty by 1850

  ROLES

1. Oliver Ellsworth – Sarah A & Chris W// Tessa G & Luke
2. Roger Sherman – Angelica &Teddy// Chloe & Justin
3. William Samuel Johnson -Emily & Mike//Mohammed & Leah

1.  Lemuel Haynes   Ellis / Jeremiah

2.  Sarah Pierce Colleen / Cara

3.  William Williams Dennis & Elmedin//Mark

4.  General Samuel Holden Parsons  Kyle / Nolan & Juan

5.  Capt. Ephraim Carpenter  Michelle// Jacob D

6.  Noah Webster Caroline//Mike F

7.  Oliver Wolcott Chris M & Milo //David &Matt J

8.  Amasa Learned Katie M//Jake K & Becky

9.  Samuel Huntington Tessa & Vicky//Colin

10.  Sam Huntington – enslaved to #9 Katie N// Charlotte

11.  James Wadsworth Brendon & Sam//Christian & John R

12.  Jeremiah Wadsworth Callan & Alaina// Amanda & Nick V

The ROLES

1. William Samuel Johnson, Stratford (1727-1819), Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

You attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  You were educated at Yale College and Oxford Law School and people in the state respect you for that.  You are a lawyer. You served in Connecticut’s State Assembly, at the Stamp Act Congress, and in the Continental Congress.

Some citizens might question your patriotism, as you did not join the move for independence until 1780.  In fact you opposed independence and were jailed in 1779 for writing to the British. You belonged to the Church of England, and, you believed that a bishop here appointed by the King would help unify the colonies. When you were released from jail, probably because your administrative abilities were needed in the state, you became a patriot.

You were a delegate to the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia.  You helped to incorporate the Great Compromise into the new Constitution, allowing what you believe is fair representation for the 13 states. (Issue 1)

You believe we need a strong central government with power to enforce laws directly upon individuals, rather than having to operate via state governments. You believe the country is floundering because there is no single monetary system. (Issue 2) You believe people who care more about their selfish needs than about the common good control the state governments.

You and your colleagues forged a government that will deal effectively with the present crisis of disunity, regional jealousies, and military weakness, and ensure that the people are properly represented at the same time. With all your renowned eloquence you listen patiently to the petitions of the people.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_connecticut.html

2.  Roger Sherman, New Haven  (b. 1721-1793) Lawyer and politician

You were originally trained as a shoemaker. You educated yourself to be a surveyor, then a merchant, and then a lawyer, and you were successful at all of them. You have been a member of the House of Representatives of Connecticut, a justice of the Superior Court, mayor of New Haven, member of the Continental Congress, and you signed the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation.  The existence of the new Constitution is due largely to your efforts in putting together the Great Compromise, which solved the problem of how big and small states would be represented in the national legislature. You held more state and national offices than anyone in the nation, You know the details of the new Constitution better than anyone.

Originally, you were not very enthusiastic about being a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention.  You believed states should be sovereign and you thought a new Constitution might dissolve states rights, with its emphasis on nationalism. (Issue 2) However, you knew Congress did not have the power to levy taxes for the support of the new nation.  You knew that some states would not be willing to consider national laws and treaties to be apply to them. Also, you knew about many other problems like the currency crisis, and the trade duties between the states. You are sure that this new federal government is a representative republic, even though it is a more powerful central government.

Your job on the panel is to define the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances that will insure that there a new tyranny will not emerge. You need to refer to actual sections in the Constitution to make your points about provisions for impeachment, veto power, and the independent judiciary. (Issue 4) You will reassure questioners that every branch of the government gets its power either directly or indirectly from the people. ((Issue 1)

Reassure people that the new government will not be too strong. The people will not lose any power or rights. The powers of the national Congress will be taken from the state assemblies, not from individuals and they have already given up those powers. In the hands of the national government these powers will be more useful to secure the rights and property of the people who, in the end, control the central government themselves.

You will have to be careful about the issue of state bonds.  You own many of them and you stand to benefit from a federal government, which will assume these debts.  You argue that this will be as relief for the states.

For those who oppose the Constitution, remind them that this new government is a republic.  This new government will ensure their liberties in a way more thorough than the states alone or the government under the Articles of Confederation.

At the Constitutional Convention, you separate yourself from New England delegates to join with delegates from the south to form an alliance to preserve slavery.  In each of the three provisions about slavery in the Constitution, the Connecticut delegates sided with the south:

1. three-fifths compromise
2. right to retrieve fugitive slaves from free states
3. not ending the slave trade for 20 years

On August 22, 1787, Sherman said that he disapproved of the slave trade, but believed taht “as the states were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good did not require that it be taken from them, and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of government, he thought it best to leave the matter as we find it.”

For Sherman, this may have been a political trade, particularly with John Rutledge of South Caroline\a.  Southern states voted for issues of interest to Connecticut.  The Constitution banned federal taxes on exports, protected Connecticut’s claim to the Western Reserve in Ohio/

See Joel Lang, “Chapter Three:  The Sins of Our Fathers,” 9/29/2002 Hartford Courant, http://www.courant.com/hc-sherman.artsep29,0,5999205.story?page=2.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_connecticut.html

3.  Oliver Ellsworth, Windsor  (1745-1807), Member of Connecticut’s Superior Court

http://www.ctdar.org/OEH/efamily.html

You are a former member of the Continental Congress (1777-1784), member of Connecticut’s delegation to the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, and member of the Superior Court of Connecticut. You graduated from Princeton, where you were trained to be a minister.  With the Stamp Act and its effects, by 1766, you had lined up against Parliamentary taxation.

You were involved with the first draft of the Constitution, and in shaping its style and language and were known for being eloquent.

You are the Constitution’s biggest cheerleader. You are opposed to a religious test because you believe it can be tyrannical. (Issue 3)  You believe you can convince the farmers who fear the power of a national government that this government has checks on its power and is the best for Connecticut and for them. (Issue 4)

On the issue of slavery Ellsworth argued that “The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the states themselves.”  He, like Sherman believed that slavery would end on its own.

You believe that the federal government needs to have more strength for our national defense.  You believe it will help to keep peace between the states and help to support the small states from being controlled by the big ones.

Here are some excerpts from speeches you have prepared for the debates in Hartford:

A union is necessary for the purposes of a national defence. United, we are strong; divided we are weak. It is easy for hostile nations to sweep off a number of separate states, one after another. Witness the states in the neighborhood of ancient Rome. They were successively subdued by that ambitious city, which they might have conquered with the utmost ease, if they had been united. . .We must unite, in order to preserve peace among ourselves. If we be divided, what is to prevent wars from breaking out among the states? States, as well as individuals, are subject to ambition, to avarice, to those jarring passions which disturb the peace of society. What is to check these? If there be a parental hand over the whole, this and nothing else, can restrain the unruly conduct of the members. (Issue 2)

Union is necessary to preserve commutative justice between the states. If divided, what is to prevent the large states from oppressing the small? What is to defend us from the ambition and rapacity of New York, when she has spread over the vast territory which she claims and holds? Do we not already see in her the seeds of an overbearing ambition?… New Jersey and Delaware have seen this, and have adopted the Constitution unanimously. (Issue 2)

Our being tributaries to our sister states is in consequence of the want of a federal system. The state of New York raises 60 or £80,000 a year by impost. Connecticut consumes about one third of the goods upon which this impost is laid, and consequently pays one third of this sum to New York. If we import by the medium of Massachusetts, she has an impost, and to her we pay a tribute. If this is done when we have the shadow of a national government, what shall we not suffer when even that shadow is gone! (Issue 2)

If we go on as we have done, what is to become of the foreign debt? Will sovereign nations forgive us this debt, because we neglect to pay? or will they levy it by reprisals as the laws of nations authorize them? Will our weakness induce Spain to relinquish the exclusive navigation of the Mississippi, or the territory, which she claims on the east side of that river? Will our weakness induce the British to give up the northern posts? If a war breaks out, and our situation invites our enemies to make war, how are we to defend ourselves? Has government the means to enlist a man or buy an ox? Or shall we rally the remainder of our old army? The European nations I believe to be not friendly to us. They are pleased to see us disconnected from Great Britain; they are pleased to see us disunited among ourselves. If we continue so, how easy it is for them to canton us out among them, as they did the kingdom of Poland!…. (Issue 2)

[On the power of Congress to lay taxes]

Mr. President, this is a most important clause in the Constitution; and the gentlemen do well to offer all the objections which they have against it….There are three objections against this clause – first, that it is too extensive, as it extends to all the objects of taxation; secondly, that it is partial; thirdly, that Congress ought not to have power to lay taxes at all. (Issue 2)

….It does not say that Congress shall have all these sources of revenue, and the states none. All, excepting the impost, still lie open to the states. This state owes a debt; it must provide for the payment of it. So do all the other states. This will not escape the attention of Congress…. They will not take away that which is necessary for the states. They are the head, and will take care that the members do not perish. The state debt, which now lies heavy upon us, arose from the want of powers in the federal system. Give the necessary powers to the national government, and the state will not be again necessitated to involve itself in debt for its defence in war….A government which can command but half its resources is like a man with but one arm to defend himself.

….I ask, sir, if ever there were a government without the power of the sword and the purse? This is not a new-coined phrase; but it is misapplied: it belongs to quite another subject. It was brought into use in Great Britain, where they have a king vested with hereditary power. Here, say they, it is dangerous to place the power of the sword and the purse in the hands of one man, who claims an authority independent of the people: therefore we will have a Parliament. But the king and Parliament together, the supreme power of the nation, – they have the sword and the purse. And they must have both; else, how could the country be defended? For the sword without the purse is of no effect: it is a sword in the scabbard. But does it follow, because it is dangerous to give the power of the sword and purse to an hereditary prince, who is independent of the people, that therefore it is dangerous to give it to the Parliament – to Congress, which is your Parliament – to men appointed by yourselves, and dependent upon yourselves? This argument amounts to this: you must cut a man in two in the middle, to prevent his hurting himself. (Issue 4)

….In republics, it is a fundamental principle that the majority govern, and that the minority comply with the general voice. How contrary, then, to republican principles, how humiliating, is our present situation! A single state can rise up, and put a veto upon the most important public measures. We have seen this actually take place. A single state has controlled the general voice of the Union; a minority, a very small minority, has governed us. So far is this from being consistent with republican principles, that it is, in effect, the worst species of monarchy. (ISSUE 2)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_connecticut.html

The petitioners:

1. Lemuel Haynes, a free black man born in the west division of Hartford. You support abolishing slavery and believe there should be a mention of slavery in the Constitution, more than just the ending of the slave trade.  You are a minister, but you do not support a religious test.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2p29.html.

2. Sarah Pierce (1767-1852) – teacher, educator, founder of one of the earliest schools for girls in the United States – you are thinking of developing a female academy (1792-1833) with its belief that women and men were intellectually equal.  Your philosophy focused on educating children in Christianity, morality, education and character. You would argue that there is not a need for religious tests for office holders because women will be educated to raise virtuous citizens.  Litchfield Historical Society website; http://www.litchfieldhistoricalsociety.org/history/histfemacademy.html and http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/interpret/exhibits/kelley/kelley3t.jpg.

3. William Williams of Lebanon is a highly respected gentleman in the state.  You are a delegate fearful of a monarchy and you believe there must be a religious test to insure that men of good character are elected to office. Oliver Ellsworth responds to you about this issue. (Issue 3)

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/williams.htm

You oppose the Society of Cincinnati, a group of Continental Officer who believe that they should receive full pay for five years for their military leadership in the Revolutionary War.  Under the Articles of Confederation, representatives voted for this, but never had the funds to pay for it. You do not support commutation and you believe it will establish an aristocracy here, much like that in England.  Let’s face it, those who were Continental Officers were already wealthy.  And who would pay for this?  The small farmers who this Constitution is going to squash.  You represent these small farmers.  (Issue 4)

You believe there should be a religious test.

4. General Samuel Holden Parsons from Middleton was a strong supporter of the Constitution.  He was a close follower of Oliver Ellsworth. He believes that the federal government should be able to collect taxes and should fulfill its promise to the Continental Officers who were promised full pay for five years. He believes a strong national republic will be morel likely to attract talented men to serve.  They will get there through their merit, not through inherited wealth.

5. Captain Ephraim Carpenter of Lebanon and your town has asked you to vote no on the Constitution. You don’t want power of the purse and the power of the sword in the same branch of government.  The tax system works more favorably for the south because they are exporters.  (Issue 2) You think the government will become a tyranny.  You believe that wealthy merchants, land speculators and Cincinnati aristocrats, who are all supporting the Constitution, will ratify it because it will help them most and help the average farmer the least.  (Issue 4)

6. Noah Webster – a person who wanted the federal government to be stronger – At 27, in 1785, Webster argued in his Sketches in American Policy, that the United States needed a strong central government.  He believed that with the Articles of Confederation that there was too much power in the hands of the states because one state could veto a law and control all other states.  He believed that the federal government should outlaw slavery and insure that the federal government provide public schooling for all.  He did not believe that there should be a religious test.  He wanted representatives elected b y the citizens, not by the state legislature.  He believed representatives should be elected every year, but should have a term limit of three years. (check out Article 4 at http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/webster.html)

7. Oliver Wolcott of Litchfield is the Lt. Governor of the State. You graduated from Yale and have been an elected official, a judge, and you were an officer in the American Revolution.  You signed the Declaration of Independence. You support a strong national government.  But, you fear the state governments will fade away.  You like the new Constitution because you see that people are directly electing their representatives in the House of Representatives, if not in the Senate and the Presidency.  You believe the central government needs to be strong to establish order and unity, particularly in light of the latest rebellion in Massachusetts led by Daniel Shays. You fear the mob. You are worried that your state bonds will not be paid off.  You also worry that the government will become tyrannical.  (Issue 4). People in this country are knowledgeable and understand what liberty is and so we don’t need to worry about one religious group oppressing another.  A religious test would be a sign of oppression. (Issue 3)

8. Amasa Learned of New London is a wealthy merchant.  You graduated from Yale in 1772 and married into a rich and powerful family.  Your career in business and politics has led you to be wealthy.  You are a strong supporter of the Constitution, especially the commerce clause in Article I, section 8 and 9.  It will be to your benefit to have Congress regulating interstate trade, not taxing exports.  (Issue 2)

9. Samuel Huntington, of Norwich present Governor of Connecticut – you support the Constitution.  You are a slaveholder and own the slave Sam Huntington who is presently the black Governor of the state. You support putting the power to tax, make treaties, declare war and regulate commerce in the hands of a national government.  You believe that the national government should pay its war debts and those of the states.  You believe that this new order will likely destroy aristocracy, not promote it.  This new government will give more power to farmers.  You know that the citizens in this new government must be well educated and clear thinking.  You are not worried about a Bill of Rights, but instead you believe that because the power in government comes from the people, there is no need to worry about the Bill of Rights. http://www.cslib.org/gov/HuntingtonS.htm.

10. Sam Huntington, of Norwich; slave to Governor Samuel Huntington who served as black Governor at the same time; See http://www.cslib.org/gov/blackgov.htm; http://www.hartford-hwp.com/HBHP/exhibit/03/1.html. You are most interested in the two sections of the Constitution that relate to slavery:  ending the slave trade, and representation for slaves.

11. James Wadsworth of Durham (1730-1817) is Comptroller of the state and a militia officer.  You are politically powerful.  You were a General in Connecticut’s militia.  You believe that your town’s interests and the interests of farming communities would be overlooked by this new government that you think will be controlled by the merchants.  You are suspicious of a greater concentration of power in the national government.  You believe one of the reasons for this new Constitution is to make it easier for the federal government to raise taxes.  You fear the main reason for this is to be able to pay Continental Officer half pay for five years.  You believe that this will lead to an aristocracy as most of these Continental Officers are already of above average wealth.  You are a supporter of the common farmer, and you do not believe they will act like “a mob.”  You believe the Congress will misuse its power to tax imports and that this power will favor the southern states.  You think the army will have too much power.  You do not want a standing army.  Uniting the “power of the purse” with the “power of the sword” could lead to tyranny.

12. Jeremiah Wadsworth (1743-1804) of Hartford – You are probably the wealthiest man in Hartford, having earned a lot of money during the war through the arms trade.  You supplied the Continental Army with arms from foreign merchants.  During the Revolution you were deeply involved in privateering, shipbuilding and supplying the military and trading with the West Indies. Most wealth from the West Indies came in the form of slaves.  You got a good commission for their risks.  You owned slaves – as many as 9 at one time.  You owned Peleg Nott and his family.  Peleg became the black governor of Connecticut in the late 18^th century.  At one time you owned a 6,600 acre plantation in South Carolina with 129 slaves.  You were a strong advocate of the federal government assuming the debts of the states.  You had a real interest in this because you speculated and bought others bonds when they seemed worthless.  General Washington stayed with you during his trips to Hartford during the war. http://www.ctheritage.org/encyclopedia/ct1763_1818/wadsworth.htm, http://www.connecticutsar.org/patriots/wadsworth_jeremiah.htm. http://www.courant.com/hc-sherman.artsep29,0,5999205.story.

http://www.courant.com/hc-sherman.artsep29,0,5999205.story?page=2.

Role Card for Constitutional Convention Public Hearing

Name                                                   Lifespan                      Age in 1788

Hometown                                                      Federalist or Anti-Federalist (circle one)

Circle the 2 issues that are most important to you in ratifying the Constitution.  Star your main issue.

• Issue 1:  Representation for each state
• Issue 2:  Federalism, represented in issue of slavery, taxation
• Issue 3:  Religious tests, virtuous representatives
• Issue 4:  Corruption: fear of rule by the mob, rule by aristocracy; need for checks on power
• Issue 5:  An enumeration of rights in the Constitution; individual rights

Article and passage of Constitution to which you refer on your main issue:

Your argument to Sherman, Ellsworth, and Johnson

How will the Constitution help or hurt you as an individual in 1788?

List 2 allies and explain your alliance.

1.

2.

List 2 enemies and explain your enmity.

1.

2.

Who do you think will benefit the most and the least from this Constitution?

Which constitutional issue do you predict will lead to the most difficulty for the nation over the next 50 years?