; ■ L IBRAHY OF THE U N IVE.R5ITY Of ILLINOIS 974.8 T49r 1950 a cot). 2 ILL. HIST. SURVEY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://archive.org/details/republicansfederOOtink The Republicans and Federalists in Pennsylvania 1790-1801 a -&cm ^asajs^ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION HARRISBURG • 1950 THOMAS MIFFLIN From the Collections of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania The Republicans and Federalists in Pennsylvania 1790-1801 A Study in National Stimulus and Local Response By HARRY MARLIN TINKCOM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION HARRISBURG . 1950 THE PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION Charles J. Biddle, Chairman Frances Dorrance A. Atwater Kent, Jr. Thomas Murphy John W. Oliver Edgar T. Stevenson Charles G. Webb Richard Norris Williams, 2d Francis B. Haas, ex officio Superintendent of Public Instruction Donald A. Cadzow, Executive Director Sylvester K. Stevens, State Historian TRUSTEES— EX OFFICIO James H. Duff, Governor of the Commonwealth Weldon B. Heyburn, Auditor General Charles R. Barber, State Treasurer 11 cf/y,a FOREWORD The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission is pleased to add this volume to its series of studies on the political history of the Commonwealth. In 1942 the Pennsylvania Historical Commission* published The Counter- Revolution in Pennsylvania, 1776-1790, by Robert L. Brunhouse. This earlier volume and the present work are the result of research completed at the University of Pennsylvania, under the direction of Dr. Roy F. Nichols, outstanding authority in the field of political history. A third volume covering succeeding years is already scheduled for publication. The Commission, therefore, is continuing the policy of publishing such noteworthy contributions to Pennsylvania history, which might not otherwise find their way into print. Unfortunately, it is not the common practice today to publish doctoral dissertations. Many splendid contributions to history gather dust in manuscript form on the library shelves of the particular university where they were com- pleted. It has been a policy of the Commission for some years to rescue certain distinguished works of this character from possible oblivion and to present them as additions to the historical literature of the Com- monwealth. This plan, the Commission believes, has been greeted with enthusiasm by all students of Pennsylvania history. As a result of this program, many glaring gaps in the story of Pennsylvania's development are being filled. Through the generosity of the Governor of the Commonwealth, James H. Duff, and of the General Assembly, this particular Commission was the recipient of unusually liberal appropriations for historical research and publications. This publication is one of several which will con- tinue to appear, and which were made possible by these appropriations. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission is grateful to the Governor, to the members of the General Assembly, and to the people of the Commonwealth, who have combined to make possible this and other worthy additions to the growing number of books and research projects which add to our store of knowledge about Penn- sylvania's past. Charles J. Biddle, Chairman Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission February 2, 1950 * The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission was created in 1945 by- combining and consolidating the functions of the State Museum, the State Archives, and the former Pennsylvania Historical Commission. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter P"g e Foreword iii Preface vii Section I POLITICAL NEBULAE, 1790-1792 I. Revolutions and Constitutions, 1776-1790 1 II. The State and the Union, 1790 19 III. Compromise Confirmed, 1790 33 IV. Congressional Elections of 1791 and 1792 45 Section II NATIONAL STIMULUS AND LOCAL RESPONSE, 1793-1795 V. Events and Opinions 75 VI. Whiskey and Politics 91 VII. Presque Isle 113 VIII. Political Opinions and Elections, 1793-1795 135 Section III THE TRIUMPH OF REPUBLICANISM, 1796-1801 IX. Signs of a Rising Republicanism 159 X. Elections, Issues and Labels 175 XL Party Growth in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, 1795-1798 199 XII. Republican Victory 215 XIII. Victory Affirmed and Reaffirmed 243 XIV. McKean and the Patronage Power 263 XV. Conclusion 269 Notes 275 Bibliography 329 Index 339 v PREFACE The evolutionary development of Pennsylvania's political parties dur- ing the first twelve years of the Federal period was characterized pri- marily by the State's intensive reaction to national and international issues. Prior to the formation of the Federal government political con- troversy stemmed principally from the remarkable Constitution of 1776; but with the appearance of the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution of 1790 a realignment of affiliations and a ^inter- pretation of ideologies were made necessary. It was in this latter year that the shifting political structure was remarked upon by numerous contemporary politicians. They were convinced that the old patterns had changed and that the operation of new and powerful stimuli would greatly alter current alignments and give a new direction to po- litical forces. They were right. Future partisan organizations would find their raison d'etre in the necessity of expressing opinions arising from action taken by the national administrations. The amorphousness of party groupings was well illustrated by the election of Thomas Mifflin to the governorship in 1790. With the de- struction of the Constitution of 1776 the old Constitutionalist and Anti-Constitutionalist groups had lost their chief cohesive impellant. Mifflin, who had been popular with both factions, was elected as a com- promise governor by an overwhelming majority. The old lines were rapidly disappearing. During the next eight years the cumulative effect of state and na- tional forces produced two determined political groups known as the Republican and Federalist parties. By 1798 the existence of these or- ganizations was recognized by outstanding leaders such as Thomas Jefferson, William Duane, Thomas Mifflin and Thomas McKean. It was in 1799 that the Republicans, through superior organization and effective exploitation of unpopular Federalist legislation — particularly the direct property tax — were enabled to elect Thomas McKean to the governorship. In the following two years this victory was affirmed and emphatically reaffirmed. By 1801 the Republicans were in complete control of the State. With deep gratitude I wish to thank the following institutions whose collections I utilized in the preparation of this volume: the Western Pennsylvania Historical Society, the Darlington Memorial Library of the University of Pittsburgh, the Library Company of Philadelphia, the American Philosophical Society, the Pennsylvania State Library, the University of Pennsylvania Library, Girard College, the Free Library of Philadelphia, the Library of Congress and the New-York Historical So- ciety. The staffs of these institutions were unfailingly courteous and helpful in making available the sources under their care. To the Director and staff of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania a special note of appreciation. My path to the riches in that institution •• vn was often straightened and smoothed by those ever-cooperative staff members who assisted my research with knowledge, wisdom and kind- ness. With pleasure I acknowledge a debt of gratitude to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, whose financial assistance made the publication of this volume possible; to Dr. S. K. Stevens for read- ing the manuscript, and to Mr. Donald Kent and Mrs. Elva Hamilton for excellent editorial advice and assistance. Finally, I should like to express my deepest thanks to Professor Roy F. Nichols of the University of Pennsylvania for aid and encourage- ment, always freely given. Harry M. Tinkcom. vm SECTION I POLITICAL NEBULAE, 1790-1792 I will not pretend to define or describe an Aristocrat, a Democrat, a Jacobin, a Sans-culot, a Frenchman, an Anarchist, a Revolutionist, a Leveller, a Disorganiser, a Regicide, a Liberticide, etc. etc. etc. or even a Federal, an Antifederal, or a Friend of Government; for I am utterly unable to fix their boundary lines, or trace their shades of difference; and I make perpetual blunders when I attempt to apply them to my neighbors . . . All I can find out with certainty on this subject is, that whatever the true meaning of these names may be, the most hotheaded, the most ignorant, the most interested, and those who have been suddenly raised from indigence to opulence, are the most ready to apply them. . . . ... if a man be a good citizen, a good American, a good Republican, working his farm, supporting his family, obeying the laws, paying his taxes, and drinking his glass of whisky in good humor with all the world, should he be hunted down as Aristocrat, or sneered at as a Tory, or kicked out of company as a Jacobin, or have some of these hard favoured Isms thrown at his head if he cannot subscribe to the infallibility of his opponent? Thomas Cooper CHAPTER I REVOLUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONS, 1776-1790 In 1790, Pennsylvania produced a Constitution that terminated more than fourteen years of struggle between the State's liberal and con- servative elements. Destined to last for almost half a century, this Constitution put a documentary period to years of bitter strife and experiment. It concluded a political era and defined the total of the democratic processes that characterized the State in its most critical and formative years. But in its solemn and precise phraseology there is little indication of the turmoil and experimentation that preceded the convention which brought it into existence. In its almost com- placent definition of what was considered proper and just government there is no hint of the wrangles and broils which made such a calm exposition possible. For during this formative period, from the Dec- laration of Independence to 1790, the democratic elements, after pro- claiming the remarkably advanced Constitution of 1776 and an ultra- democratic conception of representative government, had seen their power and influence gradually whittled away by the conservative inter- ests. Yet the Constitution of 1790, whose very existence was a result of a conservative victory, was not, in the light of historical evaluation or contemporary judgment, regarded as a seriously retrogressive or reac- tionary document. In view of these considerations it is obvious that an understanding of the Constitution of 1790 — and more important still, a knowledge of the political atmosphere it expressed — must be dependent on a general review of the circumstances which produced it. These were an out- growth of the organic instrument which it replaced, the Constitution of 1776. The Constitution of 1776 That revolutionary document was born of numerous quarrels and conflicting opinions, and their sources can be traced back to the char- ter under which Pennsylvania operated when under the control of William Penn. In the early assemblies many bitter controversies arose over the question of just representation for all parts of the colony. When the population expanded beyond Philadelphia and its imme- diate environs, many of the inhabitants of that area evinced a strong [1] I REPUBLICANS AND FEDERALISTS desire to continue their control of the government. Since this could best be effected by controlling representation in the General Assembly, the Philadelphia group consistently apportioned the representatives in a manner that would best perpetuate its dominance. Their success is attested to by the fact that as late as 1764, when Pennsylvania had eight counties and thirty-six members in the Assembly, the little sec- tion in the southeastern part of the State, comprising the counties of Philadelphia, Bucks and Chester, had twenty-six of them. By the year 1776, these three counties, with only about one- third of the population, had twenty-four members in the Assembly in comparison to a total of fourteen for the counties to the westward. 1 In addition to the com- plaint of under representation the westerners also suffered restrictions which disfranchised large numbers of potential voters. This narrow suffrage, however, was imposed not only on those residing beyond the orbit of Philadelphia's control but upon the city itself. On the basis of population Philadelphia had only one-quarter of the representation to which it was entitled. A great many people failed to meet a voting qualification requiring the ownership of fifty acres or fifty pounds. Further, naturalization rules excluded many of German descent. 2 This accumulation of combustibles of a sectional, cultural and political nature generated a body of protest that needed only a spark to set it aflame. This was provided by the American Revolution. When the conflict with Britain began the eastern aristocratic group, still exercising a control far out of proportion to its numbers, found its supremacy challenged by a combination of western farmers and Philadelphia artisans and mechanics. They were aided and strength- ened by many able members of the middle class who saw an opportu- nity to participate more actively in the government and to bring the colony squarely into the fight against the mother country. To both of these aims the conservative Assembly was flatly opposed, and the battle was joined. In 1776, after insistent pressure, the con- servatives reluctantly permitted an extension in general representation which increased the number in that body by seventeen. Now with a total membership of fifty-eight the eastern section was represented by thirty members and the western counties by twenty-eight. 3 But this concession was unsatisfactory to the liberals. As the struggle over the control of Pennsylvania continued it became so intense that placed against the wider background of the fight for independence it took on all the aspects of a "revolution within a revo- lution." 4 Indeed, it has been said that the grievances of the Pennsyl- REVOLUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONS 5 vania patriots against the English were of less importance to them than their complaints against the eastern aristocracy. 5 At a critical time — the State had remained conservative in an elec- tion of May 1, 1776 — the Second Continental Congress provided an opportunity for the liberals to make another attempt. On May 10, of that year Congress recommended the creation of new state govern- ments. Losing no time, the Philadelphia City Committee set in mo- tion a series of events which resulted in a general conference at Phila- delphia on June 18, 1776. Here arrangements were made for a Provin- cial Convention in which each county and the city of Philadelphia would be represented by an equal number of elected delegates. The Convention met on July 15, 1776, and although created to form a Constitution it assumed complete control of the State in spite of the Assembly. This latter body, now rendered impotent by the Revolu- tionary Convention, met for the last time on September 26. 6 When the Provincial Convention finished its work it proclaimed a Constitution which was to remain the organic law of Pennsylvania un- til 1790. As a revolutionary instrument it broke with the past and made Pennsylvania one of the most democratic of all the states. Fear- ing the power of a governor its framers made no provisions for such an office. Instead, an Executive Council was created with a president as the presiding officer. The supreme legislative power resided in an Assembly whose members were selected by an electorate no longer hampered by property qualifications. Assemblymen could be voted for by any tax-paying freeman who had reached the age of twenty-one and had lived in the State one year. All counties were entitled to legisla- tive representation according to the number of taxable residents therein. The loyalty and good faith of the legislators were to be assured by the application of oaths of allegiance which required them to swear or affirm a belief in one God and acknowledge the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Further, all State officeholders had to swear or affirm faithfulness to the Commonwealth and declare that they would "not directly or indirectly do any act or thing prejudicial or injurious to the constitution or government thereof, as established by the convention." 7 The Constitution also introduced a new and unusual body known as the Council of Censors. This Council, whose members were to be elected every seven years, was charged with the responsibility of keep- ing the Constitution inviolate and determining whether or not it should be amended. Provision was made for a declaration of rights which 4 REPUBLICANS AND FEDERALISTS guaranteed free and equal elections, trial by jury, freedom of speech and press, and right of assembly. Since the new Constitution was a radical innovation and a frank at- tempt to efface the past, it was only natural that it should arouse a storm of opposition from the conservative groups which had so long administered the government. They saw it for what it was intended to be, an instrument of protest and revolt; they knew its guarantee of greater and fuller representation for the segments of the population hitherto politically underprivileged would threaten, even destroy their dominance; they feared it as a charter of privilege to the uneducated and lowly born; they were afraid that it would unleash forces which would overthrow the comfortable status quo and expose Pennsylvania to the ravages of mob violence and internecine strife. So, despite the threat of the British invasion, they fought the new order with such vigor and unrelenting bitterness that Congress had to intervene twice to preserve order. The hatreds engendered in that strife were long remembered, and for years after the disappointed British had retired to their island the memories of that conflict still inflamed the passions and played no un- important part in determining political behavior. Fundamentally, it was a fight between classes, between the "haves and have nots"; the mechanics, artisans and farmers against the aristocracy. 8 Struggle to Abolish the Constitution In the quarrel over the Constitution and the governmental acts of the group that sponsored it and conducted the State's affairs, it was al- most inevitable that factions would arise to give strength and force to those who supported opposing ideologies and methods. Logically enough, those who favored the Constitution became known as Constitu- tionalists and those who opposed it were labelled Anti-Constitutional- ists, although members of the latter group generally preferred to call themselves Republicans. The principal leaders of the Constitutionalists were the forceful George Bryan, Timothy Matlack, Benjamin Franklin, and two politi- cally astute westerners, William Findley and John Smilie. On the op- posing side were such capable and influential figures as George Clymer, James Wilson, Robert Morris and Thomas Mifflin. The political struggle that ensued during the fourteen years after 1776 was centered primarily around the revolutionary Constitution. Several objections were voiced against it: the people had not ratified REVOLUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONS 5 it, there was no check on the unicameral legislature, and it demanded that officeholders take an oath to support the government. Many attempts were made to discard it, but they all met with failure until 1790. One of the most serious and interesting efforts was made in 1783-84 when the Council of Censors met. That "singular Political body," as William Findley termed it, 9 was created by the provincial Convention to determine every seven years whether or not the Consti- tution had been preserved and to inquire into the performance of the legislative and executive branches of the government. If this body decided that the Constitution required amendment it could, by a two- thirds vote, call a constitutional convention. Any amendments it pro- posed had to be announced at least six months before the election of a convention. The Council's membership, selected by a popular vote, was composed of two men from each county and from the city of Philadelphia. 10 This was democratic innovation to an advanced de- gree, for it submitted directly to elected representatives, and not to an appointed body of judges, the privilege of evaluating and interpreting the organic law. Both contesting factions were looking forward with great expecta- tions to the meeting of the Council in 1783, for it was recognized that the constitutional question was reaching a crisis. 11 When the Censors met in November, it was soon evident that the Anti-Constitutionalists had a majority. Subsequent record votes revealed this to be a majority of three, but slight as it was it enabled them to select Frederick A. Muhlenberg as chairman and to dominate the various committees dur- ing the first session. On January 2, 1784, a committee, heavily weighted with Anti- Constitutionalists, reported that some parts of the Constitution re- quired amendment. A resolution favoring the report was passed by a vote of twelve to ten and a committee composed of Arthur St. Clair, Thomas Fitzsimons, Samuel Miles, Thomas Hartley and John Arndt was appointed to list the articles in need of alteration. 12 The recommendations of this committee practically demolished the Constitution of 1776. The Council of Censors was to be abolished, the Executive Council replaced by a governor, and the unicameral legis- lature discarded in favor of a legislative council and assembly. It was recommended that representation in the Assembly should be based on the number of taxables: 1250 for each assemblyman and 2500 for each member of the legislative council. Further, the committee sug- gested that the legislative council of twenty-nine members be elected in 6 REPUBLICANS AND FEDERALISTS such a proportion that the five newer counties of Bedford, Northumber- land, Westmoreland, Washington and Fayette would have four mem- bers and the other sections of the State twenty-five. This representa- tion proposal was a direct blow at the less populous counties, for under the existing constitution each county, despite its population, had one representative in the Executive Council of thirteen. To this report the minority entered a vigorous dissent, but since it was obvious that a two-thirds vote (the fraction necessary to call a convention) could not be obtained, the Republicans ended the dead- lock in January, 1784, by adjourning the meetings until the following June. It was their hope that in the intervening months the citizens would convince the Constitutionalist Censors of the error of their position. But when the Council reconvened in June, 1784, it was found that the situation which had prevailed during the first session had been re- versed. Because of a resignation and a death among the Republicans their opponents had acquired two new members. These, in addition to the presence of two others who had not attended regularly in the pre- ceding session, gave them a fairly consistent majority of fourteen to nine. Now the dominant group, the Constitutionalists experienced no trouble in finding that the Constitution, although not a perfect instru- ment, was a valuable and worthy document. The Censors finally con- cluded their labors on September 16, 1784, by resolving that there was "no absolute necessity to call a convention to alter [,] explain or amend the Constitution." 13 Although the Constitutionalists had won their fight in the Council of Censors, they were to experience several defeats in the Assembly during the next five years, as a brief review will indicate. During the fight for independence the Constitutionalists had kept Pennsylvania true to the patriot cause. Faced by the British army and obstructed by Tories and lukewarm patriots, they fully appreciated the significance of Franklin's apt observation on the choice of hanging together or separately. To avert the latter, they enacted laws designed to unify their efforts which, when the war ended, were declared ex- treme by an ever increasing number of persons. The test laws fell within this category. Calculated to disfranchise those considered not in complete accord with the revolutionary government they excluded, at least according to the Anti-Constitutionalists, almost one-half of the people from the rights of full citizenship. 14 After the Revolution several REVOLUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONS 7 attempts were made to abolish them. Then after their strictures had gradually been mitigated over a period of years, they were eliminated in 1789, when the oath of allegiance to the State was abandoned. It was a defeat for the Constitutionalists but not a serious one, for by that time the question was almost a dead issue. They were also defeated in the Assembly on the bank issue in 1787, when, by a vote of thirty-five to twenty-eight, they failed to prevent the rechartering of the Bank of North America. 15 A far more serious setback occurred when the Constitutionalists failed to prevent the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Just nine days after that document had been submitted to the public in September, 1787, the Assembly called for a ratifying convention by a vote of forty-three to nineteen. But before all the necessary arrange- ments could be made nineteen Constitutionalists absented themselves from the Assembly, thus preventing a quorum. As the session was about to end an Anti-Constitutionalist mob captured two of the ab- sent members and forced them into the Assembly hall. As a result of this kidnapping a quorum was secured and a date set for the open- ing of the ratifying convention. At the election for delegates to the convention the Constitutionalists lost again by a large majority, and the ratification of the Federal document (without a bill of rights) was a foregone conclusion. 16 But the final and most decisive defeat of the Constitutionalists oc- curred when the Assembly decided to ignore the Council of Censors and call a constitutional convention. By 1789, the conservatives had un- questionable control of the Assembly, and they planned to exploit their numerical superiority to accomplish an object for which they had long contended. On March 24, 1789, a series of resolutions were passed by a vote of forty-one to seventeen. These repeated many old charges and declared that the people of the State had a right to alter the organic law by any means they thought desirable and proper. 17 In other words, if the people wished a change it merely remained for them to so notify the assemblymen during the summer recess and the legislators would promptly call a convention. That such action was unconstitutional the minority did not have to point out. Everyone knew it, and the Executive Council by a close vote refused to agree to the unlawful action. When the Assembly met again in September, 1789, the Anti- Constitutionalists announced that while mingling with their constitu- ents during the summer they had learned that the people wanted a 8 REPUBLICANS AND FEDERALISTS convention. Their opponents, of course, denied this. Not more than one-seventh of the people, they said, had approved of the resolutions of the preceding session. 18 Nevertheless, those who were determined to destroy the Constitution would not be balked, and capitalizing upon their majority they passed resolutions which called for a convention, the members of which were to be elected in the same manner as the assemblymen. It was to meet in the following November. The above succession of Constitutionalist defeats would seem to in- dicate that the group had lost its force and strength. But such a con- clusion would be superficial. It should be pointed out that many of the setbacks suffered by the party of William Findley and George Bryan had been reversals on policies that were born during Revolu- tionary days. The war was over and the motives prompting many of these policies had disappeared. Further, the Anti-Constitutionalists did not have such a complete superiority in the State as Assembly votes indicated. In fact, as late as 1787, Thomas McKean reckoned the two chief opposing groups to be almost equal in numbers. 19 Grant- ing that McKean's estimate was reasonably correct, it is clear that the Anti-Constitutionalists could not be so contemptuous of their op- ponents as to disregard them totally when the proposed convention would meet to create a new constitution. In addition, they must have realized that the groups for and against the ratification of the United States Constitution had been "almost equally balanced." 20 Constitutional Convention of 1790 When the Constitutional Convention met at Philadelphia on Novem- ber 24, 1789, it numbered among its members some of the most dis- tinguished men of the times. It was probably the most capable and talented body of Pennsylvanians that had ever been gathered together to perform a public function. The electorate had shown wisdom in its selection of some of the best political and legal talent, from both fac- tions, that the State afforded, and that was considerable. The con- servatives were well represented by James Wilson, William Lewis, Thomas McKean and Samuel Sitgreaves. The Constitutionalists had chosen some of their best leaders in the persons of William Findley, John Smilie and Albert Gallatin. Many of these leaders had played a prominent part in the State's history. Wilson, a member of the Federal Constitutional Convention and acknowledged to be one of the ablest lawyers in the country, lent to the discussions a profound body of legal knowledge. Lewis, a lawyer REVOLUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONS V of wide reputation and a former member of the Assembly, took a promi- nent part in the debates. Sitgreaves and Gallatin were young men, and the latter had yet to demonstrate fully his outstanding ability as a political organizer and debater. Thomas McKean had already distin- guished himself as a jurist and leader. As one of Delaware's repre- sentatives he had served with enthusiasm in the Stamp Act Congress and in the First Continental Congress. He was returned to Congress from Delaware again in 1775, despite the fact that he had, in the mean- time, moved to Philadelphia. 21 Although disapproving of the Consti- tution of 1776, he had refused to join many Pennsylvania lawyers in boycotting the Constitutionalist government and had been made Chief Justice of the State. Strongly in favor of the Federal Constitution, he was now to work assiduously to revise the State document. The chief figure in the Constitutionalist ranks was William Findley, from Westmoreland County. Born in Ulster, he had arrived in Penn- sylvania in 1763. After a varied career as teacher, soldier in the Revo- lution and farmer, he had been elected a member of the Council of Censors in 1783. This was the first public body in whose work he had participated and he regarded it as the best possible training school for political affairs. 22 With ability unusual in one so inexperienced, he was of material aid in opposing the conservatives' demand for a convention. His constituents later rewarded him by sending him to the Assembly, where he developed into an able spokesman for his section. The Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia on November 24, 1789, but as no quorum was available it adjourned until the following day. Then enough members answered the roll call to begin the busi- ness at hand. The temper of the delegates was signified in their selec- tion of Thomas Mifflin as president. 23 Although they may have been inclined to honor him as President of the Executive Council, their choice indicates the spirit of cooperation that generally marked the proceedings of the convention in the days that followed. Mifflin, an amiable, fair and tolerant man could be depended upon to conduct matters in an impartial manner. As to his political affiliations, there was some doubt about them even then. By 1789, the strongly pervasive influence of the United States Government was beginning to make itself felt in the State's councils, and Mifflin, although listed on the side of those who opposed the Constitution of 1776, was suspected of having been at odds with Washington during the Revolution. His selection, therefore, as presiding officer of the Convention, could not have been displeasing to those who voiced apprehensions as to the real 10 REPUBLICANS AND FEDERALISTS nature and interest of the national administration. As presiding officer he was permitted to speak and vote in the committee of the whole, "yet his voice was seldom heard. His suffrages were always on the popular side." 24 Alexander Graydon, a delegate, declared that "a panic terror of the power of the Union under the new Constitution prevailed in the con- vention." 25 The "consolidation" of national government dismayed "many federalists no less than . . . the anti-federalists," and much en- ergy was expended there to discover methods whereby to resist its "encroachments." The compelling presence then of a superimposed authority on the functions of a State government that at various times had been almost unaware of the existence of an impotent Con- gress, constituted a determining factor that cannot be ignored in evalu- ating the convention's work. The calmness with which the delegates began their labors was in sharp contrast to the acrimony and bitterness that had characterized the steps taken to bring them together. However, in the western counties especially, some men were of the opinion that since the con- vention had been called hastily and unconstitutionally, no delegates should be elected. Albert Gallatin had been one of those most ac- tively engaged in preventing the sending of delegations from the four western counties. But ironically enough he himself had been chosen by Fayette County. 26 The Convention had been in session only a short time when it be- came clear that the Constitutionalists were not going to resort to ob- structionist tactics, as they had when the Assembly called for a con- vention to ratify the Federal Constitution. Instead, they participated wholeheartedly in the proceedings. Why did they now cooperate so effectively? According to Alexander Graydon, a staunch conservative, the repu- diation of the Constitutionalists had resulted in their discomfiture, and their acquiescence was purely a matter of necessity. As a result, he thought, they had worked diligently in the election for delegates so as to insure as large a representation as possible. And in numbers their membership was "not very inferior to that of their adversaries." 27 Graydon further attributed their cooperation to the fact that their opposition to the Federal Constitution had resulted in the complete defeat of the Constitutionalist party and had attached to it the stigma of anti-federalism, an embarrassment they were wisely trying to live down in order to restore their former prestige. REVOLUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONS 11 There is much to be said for the validity of Graydon's analysis of the Constitutionalists' position, and especially pertinent was his ref- erence to the near equality of representation. But if they displayed a conciliatory attitude, so did their Republican opponents. They, too, must have realized that their position was not impregnable and their continued supremacy uncertain. As a matter of fact, Thomas Fitz- simons, member of Congress from Philadelphia and one of their most important leaders, believed that they could not long maintain control of the State. 28 Perhaps it was that conviction, as much as anything else, that inclined him toward the advisability of seeking an accom- modation with the opposing group on the Constitutional issue. Shortly before the Assembly met in September, 1789 — the Assembly which had called the Convention — he had written Benjamin Rush that a "change of Government" would redound not to the Republican party alone but to both "partys." Therefore he had proposed that George Bryan, firm champion of the document of 1776, "should be consulted and his assistance required to bring it about." 29 So, although the conservatives had a majority, it was not of suffi- cient numerical strength to permit them to ride roughshod over their opponents, even if there had been complete unanimity in their ranks as to the desirability of such methods. Had it been their intention to exploit their present supremacy in the State by reverting to outmoded colonial concepts of government, the battle would have been fierce indeed. But they were too wise and sensible to do so. The lessons learned in the Revolution and in the years following that struggle were too emphatic to be ignored. To have turned back the clock would have been to flout reality; and no one could deny that men like Wilson, McKean and Mifflin were realists. Fundamentally then, the stage was set for constructive compromise. It was merely a matter of recognizing that fact and acting accordingly. The man who had the good sense to analyze properly the general senti- ment was shrewd William Findley. During the first days of the Con- vention he sat quietly by and listened to speeches that were strongly motivated by old factional quarrels and jealousies. After much profit- less time had been spent in inveighing against and roundly damning the Constitution, Findley decided to act. Selecting James Wilson as the ablest member of the conservative group (and as it turned out he could have made no better choice) he took him aside to talk matters over. He began the discussion by assuring Wilson that he had never approved of the principles of the Constitution and that all his friends 12 REPUBLICANS AND FEDERALISTS knew it. He had supported it only through the dictates of expediency. But intemperate denunciation of the document, he told the great jurist, would only "irritate the Spirit of party and make things worse instead of better." 30 Many men had favored the colonial charter because the Colony had been prosperous under it, but many more had an attach- ment for the present instrument because it had "carried them through the war." These men, he advised, should be instructed, not irritated. Wilson agreed and asked Findley to make suggestions as to the best procedure to follow. The latter had a ready answer: amendatory resolu- tions should be presented before the Convention as a basis of discus- sion, but in the resultant debates the Constitution should be handled "with a delicacy approaching to reverence." Wilson again approved and declared that he would support such resolutions. But would Findley present them? Findley declined but offered to prepare the way for their reception by addressing the Convention. He thought this would "go further to reconcile the parties" than for him to offer the resolutions personally. 31 Findley was as good as his word. In a long address he reviewed the Constitution, pointing out its excellences as well as its defects. How- ever good in theory, it was no longer supported in confidence by the people. It had been a storm center for many years; it had often been violated and subjected to revision by the election of the Convention. He was certain, therefore, that "it was vain to think of restoring its energy without essential alterations." Findley was pleased with the effect of his speech and thought it had "the greatest influence in reconciling parties of any I ever made." To its conciliatory tone he attributed the promptness with which the Con- vention agreed to a two-house legislature, veto power for the State's chief executive and a more independent judiciary. 32 In preparing the rules of the Convention it had been decided to con- sider the various subjects to be discussed in the committee of the whole so as to allow greater freedom of debate. Thomas McKean was made chairman of this committee, a position he held until he resigned it on January 30, 1790. The delegates were forbidden to speak more than twice before the general Convention unless special permission to speak oftener had been secured. 33 On December 10, 1789, William Lewis had moved that a committee of nine members be chosen by ballot to prepare a draft of a "proposed" constitution. 34 Then Findley, ever aware of the problem of representa- tion, moved to postpone consideration of Lewis' resolution in order to REVOLUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONS 13 introduce one which would determine voting qualifications for both branches of the legislature. This was a delicate issue, but the Con- vention neatly side-stepped it for the moment by refusing to postpone by a vote of thirty-four to twenty-nine. They also decided to elect the drafting committee later. On that same day, a busy one indeed, the Convention in a series of important resolutions and votes laid the groundwork of a new Consti- tution. By a vote of fifty-six to five it was determined that Pennsyl- vania should have a legislature of more than one branch. Further, it was unanimously resolved that the chief executive authority should be vested in one person. Only four men opposed the granting of veto power to the executive. A majority of fifty-six to eight approved a resolution which permitted certain members of the judiciary to hold commission during good behavior "and be independent as to their salaries." 35 All members favored a more accurate definition of that section of the existing Constitution known as the "declaration of rights." Thus it was determined along what lines the Constitution should be revised. The celerity with which these points were disposed of spoke well for the conciliatory efforts of Findley and Wilson. Both men kept their promises to each other and supported the resolutions previously agreed to. These resolutions were prepared and offered by Wilson at the in- sistence of Findley and others because "Wilson had prepared a draft of a constitution." 36 On December 11, 1789, when the Convention elected the committee of nine to bring in a constitutional draft, it was found that Findley had won every vote but his own. Other prominent figures selected were Alexander Addison, William Lewis and, of course, James Wilson. The committee lost no time in setting to work, and although its members often disagreed on details, progress was steady and continu- ous. It reported on December 21, 1789, and again two days later. From this time on to February 5, 1790, its proposals were considered in the committee of the whole. The question of representation brought a sharp division of opinion. Section Four recommended limiting the membership of the House of Representatives to no less than sixty and no more than one hundred. Gallatin, seconded by Findley, tried to increase the latter figure by twenty, but this motion was decisively defeated. McKean, who had resigned as chairman of the committee of the whole in order to par- ticipate more freely in the debate, wanted to lower the minimum 14 REPUBLICANS AND FEDERALISTS House membership from sixty to forty-five. When the qualifications of members in the House were being discussed Samuel Ogden offered an amendment to a resolution which would have limited membership to those who held a freehold estate to the value of one hundred pounds. Apparently he lacked support for this amendment, for he withdrew it the day after it was offered. 37 On the question of representation in Congress, Gallatin offered a reso- lution which, if accepted, would have saved future Assemblies much trouble. On February 1, 1790, he moved that the State be divided into districts for the purpose of electing national representatives. But for some unexplained reason he withdrew his motion the next day. On the subject of the Governor's authority Findley attempted to have that official share his power with a council. The vote on this question marked the final defeat of the issue which he had championed in the drafting committee. He attributed his failure to the disgust, shared even by the old Whigs, with which the Executive Council was regarded. In addition he was thwarted by the generally held belief in the personal responsibility of a chief executive. James Ross was the only man who had assisted him in the committee debate on the matter. 38 . Although Ross sided with his western colleague on the desirability of curtailing the Governor's powers, he was in complete opposition to him on the method of selecting State Senators. This issue had also caused considerable difficulty in the drafting committee, and when the committee reported to the Convention it recommended that State Sen- ators should be elected by the lower house. Then occurred the great- est storm of the entire Convention. William Lewis maintained that a Senate elected by the Representa- tives would be wiser, more respectable than one chosen by the elec- torate. He was opposed by Wilson, who urged that Senators should be selected in the same manner as Representatives, except that they should be fewer in number and thus responsible to larger areas. The opposition said that the real purpose of a divided legislature was to permit the two houses to correct each other; if they were both selected in almost the same manner their homogeneity would defeat that pur- pose. To this objection Wilson replied that since the terms varied in length each house would develop a separate individuality. Alexander Graydon remarked that much heat was engendered in the debating because the opposing principles of aristocracy and democracy were evident in the decisions. Wilson, "hitherto deemed an aristocrat, REVOLUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONS IS a monarchist and a despot, as all the Federalists were, found his ad- herents on this occasion, with a few exceptions, on the democratic or anti-federal side of the house." 39 The proponents of popular election of Senators won, and Graydon gave Wilson chief credit for that victory. Russel J. Ferguson is in com- plete disagreement with this. He says that "Gallatin led the opposi- tion to this proposal [that Senators be elected by the House of Repre- sentatives] and urged that State Senators be chosen by popular vote, and he was successful in having his idea accepted." 40 Unsuccessful in their scheme to take the selection of Senators out of hands of the voters, the ultra-conservatives attempted to apportion the number of Senators from any one district according to a combination of wealth and population. In short, the wealth of the district would, along with its number of inhabitants, determine its representation in the Senate. Obviously such a plan would favor the eastern sections of the State. This proposal also failed in the Convention. Graydon, although a confirmed federalist, disapproved of "so invidious and sordid a prin- ciple." While the Convention was in session he jotted down some obser- vations that seem to be at variance with the popular conception of an eighteenth-century federalist's views. "Whatever advantages may, for a time, be given to the poor by a state of turbulence and confusion, as soon as order is restored, the predominance of wealth returns. It seems unnecessary to protect local wealth. It is not probable, that the local distinctions now prevailing will continue, but rather that wealthy individuals will make common cause." 41 McKean, who at this time certainly gave no indication of his later democratic protestations, desired to prevent any man from becoming a Senator unless he owned personal property to the value of five hun- dred pounds or possessed at least five hundred acres of land. 42 Until February 5, 1790, the committee of the whole worked steadily on the proposals that had been presented by the drafting committee. Then it declared that a plan of government had been prepared. This was presented to the general Convention where it was discussed in minute detail. After many votes on phraseology the Convention an- nounced that the document was ready for submission to the people. On February 26, 1790, it adjourned, after deciding to meet again in five months. In the meantime the people would have an opportunity to express their views on the Constitution. The Convention reconvened on August 9, 1790. Apparently the Constitution had not created much of a stir, for the only group request 16 REPUBLICANS AND FEDERALISTS to alter the document came from the Quakers. They objected to pay- ing a sum of money in lieu of serving in the armed forces. Their request was refused. With that exception apparently no serious protests had been made to the proposed Constitution. For after again considering it section by section and clause by clause, no fundamental changes were made by the Convention. After ordering the document to be en- grossed the group rose sine die on September 2, 1790. Pennsylvania's new organic law created a government that was vastly different from that provided by the outmoded document of 1776. Full legislative power was vested in a legislature composed of a Sen- ate and a House of Representatives. Members of the former, repre- sentative of districts, were to serve a four-year term, and those of the latter were to be elected annually from the counties and the city of Philadelphia. Supreme executive authority resided in a popularly elected Governor who, in addition to holding a veto power over the legislature and large appointive privileges, was commander-in-chief of the armed forces when they were not in the service of the United States. Given a three-year term, he could not serve more than nine of any twelve years. Liberal franchise privileges allowed any white free- man to vote who had resided in the Commonwealth for two years pre- ceding an election and paid State or county taxes assessed at least six months before exercising the suffrage. A judiciary system was estab- lished which permitted judges of the supreme and common pleas courts to hold office during good behavior. Article IX, consisting of twenty-six sections, carefully outlined a bill of rights. 43 The Constitution also contained a schedule of operation to ease the transition from the old order to the new. All laws not inconsistent with the new instrument of government were to remain in force; the president and the Executive Council were to hold office until Decem- ber, 1790; with the exception of judges, who were to serve out their commissions, all officials appointed by the executive authority were to function only until September 1, 1791, unless their commissions ex- pired or they were reappointed by the Governor; until a new enumera- tion could be made the same number of Representatives was to be elected "as is now prescribed by law." Special provisions were made for the election of the first Senate. 44 That the Pennsylvania Constitution owed much to the Federal plan of government cannot be doubted. Not only did they reveal similarity in general outline and philosophy, but they both owed their very existence to a conflict of opposing circumstances and ideologies that REVOLUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONS 17 could be resolved only by compromise and adjustment. In the contests between those who held liberal as opposed to conservative views on governmental principles both sides were forced to grant concessions. The result was a liberal document. Indeed it has been called "the most liberal of all state governments which used the national Constitu- tion" as its model. 45 And it in turn served as a guide for other constitu- tional conventions. For example, nearly three-fourths of the provi- sions of the Kentucky Constitution of 1792 "were taken directly from the Pennsylvania Constitution. . . ." 4