Volume 4, Chapter 47, Struggles Over Other State Governments
If radicalism was to have its greatest triumph in Pennsylvania, this was not to be matched in Massachusetts, the birthplace of American radicalism.
As we have seen, Massachusetts had taken a considerable turn rightward after the Revolutionary War began.
For one thing, it could for a while fall back on its old charter rather than having to precipitate
a bitter internal struggle to dislodge a Britain-oriented assembly, as happened in Pennsylvania.
For another, its major radical leaders had either shifted sharply rightward, John Adams
and Hancock, or else lost their sharpness of purpose, Sam Adams.
But even so, the Adamses remained the bulwark and focus of the Decentralist and Left faction
in the Continental Congress.
Only the Berkshire Constitutionalist in far western Massachusetts had developed a domestic
radicalism comparable to the dominant Pennsylvania Left.
In some respects, the Berkshire Constitutionalist surpassed them.
As Berkshire and Hampshire counties in western Massachusetts continued to live in a state
of quasi-anarchy, however, pressure began to erupt throughout the state in the fall
of 1776 for a regularized constitution, especially after independence had been declared. The
old existing charter was now an anachronistic reminder of British rule. Massachusetts radicalism
and began to emerge again as Concord, Boston and numerous Worcester towns joined to urge
a constitutional convention unmistakably separate from the regular legislature.
Many towns also pioneered in another vital democratic innovation, the right of the people
themselves to vote in a referendum on any constitution that the legislature or a special
convention might adopt.
The Massachusetts General Court, however, backed by the majority of the towns, turned
down a move to allow the people to elect a constitutional convention, and formed itself
into a convention to write a constitution for the new state.
In the considerable newspaper discussion in the summer of 1777, regarding the form that
the new constitution should take, two different points of view were taken by Cletus and by
by Faithful Friend.
On the left, Pletus urged a government that is easy, simple and cheap, and thus elective
in all branches, having a unicameral legislature and based on universal manhood suffrage.
He attacked the conservative tendency to reintroduce the British political system without Great
Britain.
We debase ourselves in reintroducing the worst parts of British rule. The plain question
is, are we fighting and lavishing our blood and treasure to establish the freest and best
government on earth, or are we about to set up a formidable court interest? The origin
and essence of government is in the people. Therefore, let us keep the staff in our own
on Hands. Faithful friend, in Frank Rebuttal, took up the traditional conservative theme
of total distrust of the people and of the justice, or the capacity of individuals to
run their own lives. Instead, such power must be surrendered into the hands of a ruling
oligarchy, who apparently suffer from no such incapacity, and who would presumably be checked
sufficiently by periodic elections. Thus, the stuff of power never was nor never can
be in the nature of things in the people's hands. As a people, we have no power in our
hands. We can safely exercise, but of choosing our guardians once a year. We are not fighting
for this or that form of government, but to be free from arbitrary power, and the iron
The Constitution reported by the General Court in the spring of 1778, after a sharp struggle, was shaped by such conservatives as Robert Treat Payne, Thomas Cushing and John Adams.
It was a highly conservative document, and was angrily rejected by the towns of Massachusetts,
voting under universal manhood suffrage by an overwhelming majority of 5 to 1.
Boston rejected the Constitution by a similar majority.
The towns of Lexington, Concord and Beverly demanded a special constitutional convention,
and Lexington, Westminster, Brookline, Lennox and other towns made it clear that they would reject any constitution that did not have a Bill of Rights.
The town of Mendon in Worcester County in the interior of the state was typical in its libertarian objections to the Constitution.
It attacked the heavy property qualification for voting for governor or upper house,
House, the veto power of the small upper house over the lower, the absolute power of the
governor to command the militia, and the continuation of the congregational establishment in the
state. The nearby town of Sutton also attacked the absence of provisions against legislative
corruption and the absence of any provision for abolishing slavery. Sutton also urged
and a popular referendum voting on all legislation and extending the vote to Negroes.
As might be expected, the most radically libertarian rebuffs to the proposed Constitution of 1778
came from Berkshire and Hampshire counties.
Thus, the town meeting of Greenwich, Hampshire, rejected the Constitution because it replaced
popular rule by oligarchy.
It entirely divests the good people of this state of many of the privileges which God in nature has given them, and which has been so much contended for, and gives away that power to a few individuals which ought forever to remain with the people inviolate.
Specifically, Greenwich denounced the powers of the governor and the upper house and called for a unicameral, annually elected assembly, the election of the civil and military officers by the people, and the annual election of all judges and officers of each town and county by the voters of the respective areas.
When the Constitution of 1778 was thus overwhelmingly rejected, the conservatives were content to peg along on to the old charter, but the Berkshire constitutionalists persisted in refusing to recognize this regime and in keeping the county courts closed until a constitution should be established.
They even threatened to secede from Massachusetts. When the General Court tried to reopen the
Berkshire Courts itself in the spring of 1779, a determined crowd prevented the judges from
holding court, successfully defying the state of Massachusetts. Thus, by 1779, conservatives
and radicals in Massachusetts were still locked in an inconclusive struggle. Neither had yet
triumphed and a state constitution had not yet been adopted.
The radical principles of the Pennsylvania Constitution proved to be far more influential
in Vermont, a state precariously and uniquely emerging in rebellion against conservative
New York, one of the United States of America.
At the west side town of Dorset at the end of July 1776, Articles of Association had
been approved, declaring loyalty to the newly proclaimed United States, but indicating
that the Grant lands were a separate district, unenthusiastic about being incorporated into
New York.
The Articles were approved by the separate Grant towns east and west of the Green Mountains,
And the New York State Convention resumed New York's old harassment of the grant settlers,
insisting on rent payments to the New York land grantees.
In response to this renewed threat, delegates from 44 towns, east side and west side, met
together for the first time at Dorset on September 25.
They boldly declared the grants a separate district and abolished any New York laws still
and organized a militia under this grant land convention. The grant lands were to be a separate state. A committee was appointed to ask Congress for admission to the Confederation. At the same time, a covenant was proposed to be signed by all adult males in Vermont, reciting the grievances against New York and pledging loyalty to this convention.
Approval and endorsement of the Covenant by Westsiders was almost unanimous. On the East side, a majority of the citizens had approved. Hence, another meeting of the Vermont Convention in mid-January 1777 proclaimed to the Grant lands a new and separate state, named New Connecticut. The Convention drew up a Declaration of Independence modeled after that of the United States, except that New York's
State, rather than King George, was the major target. It also proclaimed the vital principle
that unorganized territories be permitted to form their own governments. Protest against
independence emerged from the leaders of the long-time pro-New York towns in the southeast
corner of New Connecticut. But even Brattleboro, at the center of the protest, found that its
This pro-New York Committee of Safety could not muster a quorum and was falling into disuse
and that pro-independence insurgents had seized the town jail and forced the New York appointed
sheriff to resign.
New York further alienated Vermonters by reconfirming all royal land grants in its new state constitution.
At this point, Dr. Thomas Young, one of the authors of the Pennsylvania Constitution,
began to bombard the grateful new Connecticut leaders with letters and suggestions for a
constitution.
In particular, he sent them as a model a copy of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
He even persuaded them to change the name of the new state to Vermont in commemoration
of the Green Mountains.
In the summer of 1777, undaunted by Congress's refusal to recognize its independence, Vermont
adopted a constitution modeled after that of Pennsylvania.
As might be expected from this highly democratic and individualistic state, lacking the incubus
of a landed or financial oligarchy, the constitution was far more radical than even its model.
It included two great milestones. In its Bill of Rights was contained the outright abolition of slavery, the first such state action, as well as the abolition of all adult bondage, including indentured service.
The other breakthrough was the establishment of universal manhood suffrage, another first.
On the other hand, the most illiberal feature of the Vermont Constitution was its insistence on a Protestant test oath for holding public office.
Boldly but precariously, Vermont, not recognized or admitted by Congress, was now an independent republic.
Menaced by Burgoyne's army and by New York's covetousness, Little Vermont soon was rent from within.
The turbulent East Side towns were split into five brawling factions.
The Vermont Group, loyal to the New State.
The York Party of the extreme South East, agitating for acquisition by New York.
The New Hampshire Party, encouraged by New Hampshire President Mechek Weir.
Weir, a pro-Massachusetts group headed by Charles Phelps of Marlboro, and the Imaginative
College Party, which owed ideological allegiance to Dartmouth's college radicals John Wheelock
and Basiliel Woodward.
The Dartmouth group urged the split of Eastern Vermont and Western New Hampshire from their
respective states, and their union into a new state centering on the Upper Connecticut
River.
Actually, this was quite a sensible plan, as East Side Vermont had geographically more
in common with Western New Hampshire than it had with West Side Vermont.
Soon, the New Hampshire and college parties formed an alliance, a coalition precipitated
by a petition from 16 Western New Hampshire towns rebelling against taxes and conscription
directed from Portsmouth and the Eastern towns.
They asked to be included in Vermont, and the East Side towns greeted their request
with enthusiasm, threatening to secede from Vermont and form the new College State if
Vermont refused admission to these western New Hampshire towns.
The West Side leaders, fearing a loss of their power and the enmity of New Hampshire, managed
to stall the Vermont Assembly's acceptance.
By June 1778, however, the several Vermont towns voted overwhelmingly to admit the New
Hampshire petitioners, and to the plaudits of a jubilant east side, the 16 river towns
were admitted to Vermont.
At the same time, a convention at Brattleboro of southeastern Vermont towns compounded the
New Republic's Problems by proclaiming their refusal to obey Vermont law and their adherence
to New York. New Hampshire now threatened war and immediately petitioned Congress to
take action against Vermont and her own seceding towns. Justice was certainly on the side of
allowing the western New Hampshire River towns to join Vermont, but the big battalions were
were on the side of the New Hampshire State. Colonel Ethan Allen, newly released from an
English prison, was quickly sent to Congress and persuaded it to delay judgment. The great
confrontation on this issue came at the October 1778 meeting of the Vermont General Assembly.
A furious struggle ensued between the West Side leadership, which warned that the entire
Our United States would crush Vermont unless the New Hampshire towns were relinquished,
and the Eastsiders and the towns themselves, which bravely clung to the union of both banks
of the Connecticut River. The Westsiders won at the last minute, ejecting the river towns
from Vermont, at which the great bulk of the Eastsiders walked out and threatened secession
to form the college state.
Radicalism was also triumphant in Georgia, where it was led by artisans and others in
the Liberty Society of Savannah, by back country farmers and by such wealthy planters as Button
Gwinnett, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
The temporary constitution of April 1776 was succeeded by a similar permanent constitution
The Legislature was unicameral and any hint of executive or oligarchic judicial rule was systematically checked in advance.
A governor and council were chosen by the legislature for brief terms and had no veto power and negligible executive power.
The judges were to be chosen by the legislature and were removable at any time. Court fees were strictly limited.
An important libertarian and democratic feature of the Georgia Constitution was the elevation of the powers of juries.
Special jurors were to be judges of law as well as of fact, and were to exercise judicial review on interpreting the Constitution.
In this way, judicial oligarchies would be kept strictly subordinate to the cross-section of the people embodied in the juries.
and the juries entail in primogeniture those hallmarks of feudalism were abolished and
nearly all local officials were to be elected by the local communities themselves.
Here was a radical constitution to rank with Pennsylvania and Vermont.
A conservative element was the restoration of a property qualification for voting amounting
According to a valuation of 10 pounds with higher qualifications for representatives.
With respect to religion, voting was limited to Protestants.
The Anglican church was disestablished and clergymen were barred from being members of
the legislature.
Voting was established by secret ballot and legislative representation was to be by population.
No longer would Savannah and the coast be allowed to dominate the back country.
During the winter of 1776-77, the conservative South Carolina legislature, apparently eager
to scotch Georgian radicalism, proposed a merger between the two states, but the Georgians
angrily refused.
South Carolina came under an ultra-conservative constitution of March 1776 under the aegis
of the large planter aristocracy.
The conservative Rutledge's and Henry Lauren's were the effective rulers of the new state.
The radicals, led by Christopher Gadsden and William Henry Drayton, led a drive for reform
This new constitution was considerably more liberal. The president lost his veto power, the upper house was now elective, and suffrage was extended to those owning property equivalent in value to 50 acres of land.
However, property qualifications for office holding remained enormous, and apportionment still weighed heavily in favor of the low country planters.
In an important liberal step, the Anglican church was disestablished and all sects declared equal before the law.
But, on the other hand, Protestantism in general was declared the official religion of the state, and churches were subject to state control.
The ultra-conservative President John Rutledge tried to veto the new constitution, but he
was forced to retire from his post.
The radicals were unexpectedly deprived of political victory when Gadsden abandoned the
radical camp in exchange for the vice presidency and later the lieutenant governorship of the
Allowing Rutledge to return in late 1778 to be the first governor under the new Constitution.
Gadsden's split with his mass base became apparent when he extended the deadline for taking the mass test oath of loyalty to the American cause.
The radical mechanics of Charleston had zealously been imposing the oath and causing the departure of many Tories into English territory.
The Radical Mechanics rioted against him in early June 1778, and from then on, the spokesmen for radicalism were the leaders of the June riot, Dr. John Budd, the lawyer Henry Perrineau and the lawyer and merchant Joshua Ward.
In North Carolina, a furious struggle in April 1776 between radicals and conservatives over a constitution had resulted in deadlock.
The elections of October were fought furiously and riots abounded in the back country.
The best known leaders of the state, such as Gabriel Johnston and William Hooper, were firmly in the conservative camp.
John Adams' ultra-conservative Thoughts on Government was widely circulated in the state and became the handbook of the conservative cause.
Hooper attacked democracy and called for the near perfection of the British Constitution, under which the selected few could rule.
Hooper was livid about the Pennsylvania Constitution and the danger of a similar document emerging in North Carolina.
Typical expressions of radical sentiment were the instructions to the convention delegates by Mecklenburg and Orange counties, widely separated back country districts.
The Mecklenburg instructions were written by John M. Alexander and Waitstill Avery, drafters of the seminal Mecklenburg Resolves of 1775.
The Orange instructions were drafted by Thomas Burke.
These instructions made clear that supreme power belongs to the people and that any representatives have only strictly subordinate and inferior power.
Mecklenburg asked its representatives to be as democratic and anti-aristocratic as possible.
The radical program favored separation of powers, but not the atoms in separation of creating agencies unaccountable to the electorate.
The radical means were such devices as the abolition of plural office-holding, frequent elections, unicameralism or popular election of any upper house, local election of county officials and so forth.
In short, the checks and separations were to be exercised by the people themselves, not by a newly created autarkic organ of government.
Other prominent radical leaders were Thomas Person, a wealthy landowner and former regulator leader of Granville County in the interior,
John Penn, also of Granville County, and Willie Jones of Halifax County, one of the wealthiest men in the state.
On the other hand, Willie's brother, Allen, also a wealthy landowner, was one of the leaders of the right wing.
The newly elected Provincial Congress of North Carolina finally passed a constitution on
December 18, 1776, that embodied a compromise between right and left forces.
The legislature was to be bicameral, but both houses and the governor were to be elected
by the people.
The executive, furthermore, had little power.
Many court judges were to be elected by the people of the counties themselves, all taxpayers
could vote for the assembly, and all householders paid poll taxes.
Qualifications for the Senate were a bit more restrictive, 50-acre freeholders, but not
substantially so.
Plural office-holding was abolished, ensuring a democratic separation of power, and entails
and Imprisonment for Debt were abolished.
And even though only Protestants could hold public office, the Anglican Church was disestablished
and no other put in its place.
On the other hand, property qualifications for becoming representatives or senators were
substantial and quite large for the office of governor.
Human Action continued to discriminate against populous towns and counties, that is, largely
against the Piedmont in favor of the Tidewater areas. Justices of the peace, the keystone
of despotic local oligarchies in the South, continued to be appointed by the governor
and were exempt from the laws against plural office-holding. Also appointed by the state
were local sheriffs, coroners and constables, so the local courthouse rings continued in
business.
The radicals headed by Willie Jones in person soon proved able, for the most part, to control
the new North Carolina legislature, and Thomas Person continually urged lower taxes and a
lower salary for the governor.
The tightly-knit Maryland Oligarchy passed a highly conservative state constitution in
November 1776, but with some concessions to the radicals in the western part of the state.
The high property qualifications were made very slightly lower than before.
Property requirements for the top officeholders were, of course, much higher than that.
The Anglican Church was disestablished, although room was left for a general tax for support
of all Protestant sects. Other liberal provisions were strong prohibitions against plural office
holding by members of the legislature, election of sheriffs by the people of the counties
themselves, rotation in office, and an end to poll taxes. A new and extremely conservative
The alternative way of selecting the Senate, however, was instigated by Charles Carroll of Carrollton.
The members were to be chosen for five-year terms by an elected electoral college who would choose 15 senators from among themselves.
Interim vacancies would be filled by the Senate itself. Thus the Senate was to be virtually unchecked by popular control.
This reactionary measure drew the later praise of such presumably moderate conservatives as Jefferson and Madison, as well as from such ultra-conservatives as Alexander Hamilton.
It influenced the U.S. Constitution in the indirect election of senators, and perhaps in the Presidential Electoral College as well.
Agitation from the western counties and from Anne Arundel County near Baltimore for liberalized suffrage, the latter for votes to all native-born freemen, was beaten back, ensuring unshaken control of the state by the oligarchy.
Moves for local election of militia officers by their men and for local elections of justices of the peace and county clerks were also defeated.
Neighbouring Delaware also came under the control of the conservative forces, although its constitution, passed in September 1776, was moderately conservative and undistinctive.
Independence advocate Caesar Rodney, the man who saved the day for Delaware's vote on independence, was defeated as delegate to the Constitutional Convention, at which the lead was taken by the opponent of independence, George Reid.
The Constitution established a powerful council as upper house with the right to veto legislation.
A privy council was to be elected by the legislature to advise the similarly elected president
of the state.
A Christian test oath was required of all legislators, but any religious establishment
was forbidden and clergymen were barred from civil office.
The further importation of slaves was also forbidden.
The most distinctive feature of Delaware's constitution was its formulation by a special
constitutional convention, separate from the ordinary legislature.
Delaware was the first state to adopt this procedure of making constitutions.
In New Hampshire, the radicals, predominant in the western towns, objected bitterly to
to the conservative temporary constitution of early 1776 and agitated for a new constitution.
The abolition of property qualifications and of the upper house veto and provision for
fair proportionate representation, lower taxation and a bill of rights were some of their demands.
We have seen that these western towns decided to secede and join Vermont, only to be finally
rebuffed.
Radical polity in New Hampshire was seen in the unique provision of election of delegates
to the Continental Congress by the voters themselves rather than by the legislature.
Finally in 1778, a convention was called and a constitution proposed the following year,
But the provision that three-fourths of the voters had to ratify the new constitution
ensured its defeat.