Jealousy of federal
General Thompson

scheme was entirely too expensive. officials was strong in some minds. took the Rev. Mr. West to task for intimating that the officers of the general government might be "good men." He could not conceive such a thing to be possible, and besides a clergyman was entirely out of order in attributing such traits to any persons. The doctrine of total depravity was much preferable. As for himself, he believed that mankind was "reprobate and deceitful" and was growing worse and worse day after day." He could prove it, too, and that from the Old Testament, and might do so before he sat down.

Some others had more faith in human nature and would put some confidence in our future rulers, but Abraham White was not one of these. He was jealous of rulers generally, and "would not trust a 'flock of Moseses.'" He was confident of the soundness of his opinions and would give Mr. Parsons ten guineas if he could refute them. Mr. Singletary also had a jealous streak in his nature. He hated the Constitution because of the friends which it had made, and feared the oppression of a future Congress. "These lawyers and men of learning, and moneyed men," he said, "that talk so finely, and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor, illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get into Congress themselves; they expect to be the managers of this Constitution, and get all the power and all the money into their own hands, and then they will swallow up all us little folks, like the great Leviathan, Mr. President; yes, just as the whale swallowed up Jonah." He not only said this, but threatened to say more on a future occasion.

The next speaker was Jonathan Smith, another farmer, but a man of very different type. Mr. Smith, in his plain, blunt way, made what was probably the most effective speech of the entire convention. All the eloquence of Patrick Henry and Fisher Ames could not compare with it in telling effect. "I am a plain man," he said, "and get my living

by the plough. I am not used to speak in public, but I beg your leave to say a few words to my fellow ploughjoggers in this house. I have lived in a part of the country where I have known the worth of good government by the want of it." He then proceeded to describe the turbulent scenes which had recently been enacted in the western part of the State. Some of the members of the late army of Daniel Shays were evidently rather sensitive on this subject, and Mr. Smith was interrupted and called to order. Mr. Kingsley wanted to know what the history of last winter had to do with the Constitution anyway, but Samuel Adams and others came to the rescue and insisted that Mr. Smith be allowed to "go on in his own way." He then continued:

"I am going, Mr. President, to show you, my brother farmers, what were the effects of anarchy, that you may see the reasons why I wish for good government. People, I say, took up arms; and then, if you went to speak to them, you had the musket of death presented to your breast. They would rob you of your property; threaten to burn your houses; oblige you to be on your guard night and day; alarms spread from town to town; families were broken up; the tender mother would cry, 'O, my son is among them! What shall I do for my child!' Some were taken captive, children taken out of their schools, and carried away. Then we should hear of an action, and the poor prisoners were set in the front, to be killed by their own friends. How dreadful, how distressing was this! Our distress was so great that we should have been glad to snatch at anything that looked like a government. Had any person, that was able to protect us, come and set up his standard, we should all have flocked to it, even if it had been a monarch.

"Now, Mr. President, when I saw this Constitution, I found that it was a cure for these disorders. It was just such a thing as we wanted. I got a copy of it and read it over and over. I had been member of the Convention to form our own State constitution, and had learnt something of the checks and balances of power, and I found them all

here. I did not go to any lawyer, to ask his opinion; we have no lawyer in our town, and we do well enough without. I formed my own opinion, and was pleased with this Constitution. My honorable old daddy there (pointing to Mr. Singletary) won't think that I expect to be a Congressman, and swallow up the liberties of the people. I never had any post, nor do I want one. But I don't think the worse of the Constitution because lawyers, and men of learning, and moneyed men, are fond of it. I don't suspect that they want to get into Congress and abuse their power. I am not of such a jealous make. They that are honest men themselves are not apt to suspect other people. I don't know why our constituents have not a good right to be as jealous of us as we seem to be of Congress; and I think those gentlemen, who are so very suspicious that as soon as a man gets into power he turns rogue, had better look at home. . Some gentlemen think that our liberty and property are not safe in the hands of moneyed men, and men of learning. I am not of that mind. "Brother farmers, let us suppose a case, now: Suppose you had a farm of fifty acres, and your title was disputed, and there was a farm of five thousand acres joined to you, that belonged to a man of learning, and his title was involved in the same difficulty; would you not be glad to have him for your friend, rather than to stand alone in the dispute? Well, the case is the same. These lawyers, these moneyed men, these men of learning, are all embarked in the same cause with us, and we must all swim or sink together; and shall we throw the Constitution overboard because it does not please us alike? Suppose two or three of you had been at the pains to break up a piece of rough land, and sow it with wheat; would you let it lie waste because you could not agree what sort of a fence to make? Would it not be better to put up a fence that did not please every one's fancy, rather than not fence it at all, or keep disputing about it until the wild beasts came in and devoured it? Some gentlemen say, Don't be in a hurry; take time to consider,

I say, Take things in There is a time to sow

and don't take a leap in the dark. time; gather fruit when it is ripe. and a time to reap; we sowed our seed when we sent men to the federal convention; now is the harvest, now is the time to reap the fruit of our labor; and if we won't do it now, I am afraid we never shall have another opportunity." These simple, homely phrases of the farmer from the Berkshire Hills should live as long as the Constitution endures. The Federalists had the better of the debates from the start, but did not seem to be gaining any votes. On several occasions the anti-Federalists attempted to bring the matter to a close. Confident of their strength, Mr. Nasson moved, on January 24th, that the convention reconsider its determination to discuss the Constitution clause by clause, and throw the whole matter open to debate. Samuel Adams, who had remained silent up to this time, opposed the motion. He said that he had his "difficulties and doubts" regarding some parts of the proposed Constitution and wished for the fullest possible discussion. His view prevailed and the motion was lost. On another occasion, Mr. Thompson wanted to adjourn "to see what our sister States will do," but the suggestion met with little favor.

It became evident to the friends of the Constitution, in the latter part of January, that they would not be able to secure its ratification without suggesting a series of amendments. They felt that in the simple proposition of ratification there was a majority against them, but they were inclined to think that the amendments would convert enough “honest doubters" to give them the desired majority. In this they were not deceived. Governor John Hancock, chairman of the convention, was selected as the proper man to propose the compromise. He was a man of a great deal of influence, and his attitude toward the Constitution was a matter of doubt. In submitting the document to the legislature, he had used ambiguous language, and in other ways had refused to take a stand one way or the other. Up to January 30th he had not appeared in the convention.

Gout

was the alleged cause of his absence. His sincerity in the matter has been questioned. John Adams had remarked some time before that Hancock was invariably afflicted with this convenient and aristocratic malady whenever there was an unpopular or an unpleasant duty to perform. A short time before this, Rufus King had written that Hancock's health would permit of his presence in the convention "as soon as the majority is exhibited on either side." Hancock's contemporaries were rather severe in their strictures upon the indecision of his character. He does, in fact, seem strangely out of place in the midst of the Puritan austerity of his time. The gold braid, fine laces, and silver spangles of his gorgeous raiment do not harmonize with the sombreness of his surroundings. He has undoubtedly been misrepresented in many instances, but in this case he seems not to have acted from disinterested motives. The stand which he took in the convention in favor of the ratification of the Constitution and of the suggestion of amendments was the result of a political bargain, whereby he was to receive the assistance of ex-Governor Bowdoin's friends in furthering his political ambitions. These ambitions, too, were not humble. He wished to be continued as governor, had a longing for the vice-presidency, and even aspired to the presidency. However this may be, Governor Hancock appeared in the convention on January 30th for the first time, when the session was three-fourths spent, and suggested on the following day that in connection with the ratification of the Constitution certain amendments be recommended, the adoption of which would remove the objections on the part of many of the members. Samuel Adams was the first to speak. His attitude was pivotal. He endorsed the "conciliatory proposition" of Governor Hancock, and urged that it be duly considered. The proposition submitted by Hancock was prepared by Parsons, King, and Sedgwick, and was consequently endorsed by Bowdoin and other Federalist leaders. The most violent of the antiFederalists looked askance at the proposal.