3.9: Mercy Otis Warren and Patrick Henry: Anti-Federalist Antagonists of Constitutional Ratification

It’s tough to say what most history classrooms emphasize when they cover Constitutional ratification, but our focus will be on its opponents...those individuals who heard about, and often read the results, of what happened in Philadelphia in summer 1787 and were displeased with what they saw.  Keep in mind that the document that emerged from Philadelphia still needed the blessing of the states, hence the process of ratification, so this is what our focus will be today.  In this episode of History: Beyond the Textbook, our last in our arc on transition during this time period, we’ll highlight Mercy Otis Warren and Patrick Henry: the Anti-Federalist Antagonists of Constitutional Ratification.

Key People
Mercy Otis Warren
Patrick Henry
John Adams
Abigail Adams
George Washington
James Madison
George Mason

Key Events/Ideas
Ratification of the U.S. Constitution
Virginia Resolves
Observations on the New Constitution 

The third season of History: Beyond the Textbook focuses on the stories of individuals who shaped "America's Crucial Years" of 1783-1790, and runs from October 8-December 24. Catch up on Season One, "America's Colonial Era," and Season Two, "America's Revolution," wherever you listen to your podcasts!

Feel free to contact us with feedback or questions by clicking the "Send Us a Text" link or email us at: hbttpodcast@gmail.com

Transcript

It’s tough to say what most history classrooms emphasize when they cover ratification: some stress the importance of the Federalist Papers, the 85 essays that were a collaboration between Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison and made a case for the Constitution.  Others may dive into the promise of the Federalists, who wanted the Constitution, to include a Bill of Rights should their opposition Anti-Federalists agree to ratification.  Regardless of methodology, most accounts end the same way: the document was ratified by all thirteen states and thus became the “supreme land of the land.”  We won’t dispute this fact, but we wish to put the focus on that opposition bloc: those individuals who heard about, and often read the results, of what happened in Philadelphia in summer 1787 and were displeased with what they saw.  Keep in mind that the document that emerged from Philadelphia still needed the blessing of the states, hence the process of ratification, so this is what our focus will be today.  In this episode of History: Beyond the Textbook, our last in our arc on transition during this time period, we’ll highlight Mercy Otis Warren and Patrick Henry: the Anti-Federalist Antagonists of Constitutional Ratification.

Act I: The Process
One of the many issues with the Articles of Confederation was the provision that required unanimous consent to amend any part of the document: this meant that twelve states could agree on something but if one state, such as Rhode Island, didn’t agree, then everything fell apart.  As part of the ratification process, the delegates in Philadelphia agreed that only nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify the Constitution before it reached the status of “supreme law of the land.”  As to how this would occur, the convention directly sent a copy of the Constitution to each state and requested that a special ratification convention be held in each.  Sending a copy to each state legislature helped present the appearance of complete unity in Philadelphia, as if the delegates were saying “We all agree with the wording of this document, what about you?”  It was believed that only six states would send men to their state capitals that held clear Federalist leanings: that phrase Federalist is actually one of the earliest forms of national public relations in the young nation’s history. Those in favor of the Constitution labeled themselves as Federalists, leaving the opposition to begrudgingly accept the moniker of “Anti-Federalists,” even though what they truly wanted was more state sovereignty and a national government that more closely resembled that which existed under the Articles.  They also began to win the propaganda battle by virtue of control of the press: over 85% of the nation’s mass-circulated publications leaned pro-Federalist, so the information available to the public was skewed in favor of the Constitution.  Despite these disadvantages, the Anti-Federalists would employ eloquence, Revolutionary ideology, and old-fashioned bare-knuckle politics to make their case to the people.

Act II: Warren’s Pen
Admittedly, we could have easily covered Mercy Otis Warren on the show last season as part of America’s Revolution, but her willingness to bluntly speak her mind amidst the debates raging over the Constitution made her inclusion in this season way too good of an opportunity to pass up.

This is not the first time we have referenced Warren on the podcast; back in season 2, we touched upon her unique friendship with Abigail Adams and their willingness to openly discuss revolutionary politics and ideals.  It stands to reason, then, that our background would focus heavily on this time frame.  Born in 1728, Mercy Otis was the third-born child in a Massachusetts family of 13; similar to Abigail Adams, she couldn’t speak of much of a formal education, but was exceptionally well-read and paid close attention to the tutoring provided to her older brothers, Joseph and James.  She married James Warren at the outset of the French and Indian War in 1754 and would raise her five children at their farm in Plymouth.  It was here that she would continue her self-styled education by reading all manner of literature and become absorbed in the Revolutionary politics that consumed her father, brother, and husband, even continuing her brother’s correspondence when mental illness prevented him from doing so.  She began her literary career as a playwright and initially rose to prominence, anonymously, by composing a satire, The Adultuer, that poked fun at Thomas Hutchinson, that reluctant Loyalist we became familiar with last season.  In fact, the Otis’s and Hutchinson's waged a quasi-war for political supremacy in Massachusetts leading up to the war, so her work carried a personal bent.  She became renowned among prominent Patriots in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party when she anonymously published a poem entitled The Squabble of the Sea Nymphs, or the Sacrifice of the Tuscaroroes.  Warren was actually encouraged to do so by family friend Samuel Adams, who visited the Warren homestead frequently and whose role in the Tea Party was implied in a preface to the poem.  “Anonymous” is a theme of Warren’s work that we have emphasized because, similar to early editions of Common Sense, it would have been most unwise to identify oneself as the author of works that mocked and scorned the British, so official credit would have to wait.  She was also a woman writing incendiary material, providing another reason to withhold her name.

As war drew closer, Mercy Otis Warren and her family were certainly affected and stood firmly on the Patriot side since their home was frequently a meeting point for the Sons of Liberty.  The meetings that Warren herself hosted in Plymouth are also credited with laying the groundwork for the Committees of Correspondence.  After Lexington and Concord, Boston lay under siege, so her husband wrote a letter to Continental Congressman John Adams urging that peaceful overtures to King and Parliament would not do, and only a complete political break from England would suffice.  However, the learned Mercy would not sit idly by and remain silent, for she would admin this letter,  “It is time to leap into the theatre to unlock the bars, and open every gate that impedes the rise and growth of the American republic.”  With her husband otherwise occupied politically via his service in the Massachusetts government, Warren managed the affairs of her homestead and her husband, serving as his secretary; apparently, he greatly encouraged her writing, going as far as to call her “The Scribbler.”  She would also continue to correspond not only with Abigail Adams during the war, but also with Abigail’s husband, John: John knew that Warren was collecting any and all correspondence in the hope of writing a history of the current conflict, so he encouraged this process and hoped that his place within it would be prominent.  We’ve referenced writing and correspondence frequently because, above all else, Mercy Otis Warren was just that: a writer, and this, combined with her political ideals, would lead to her taking up her pen once more on the topic of Constitutional ratification.

Act III: Henry’s Oratory
All told, Patrick Henry’s career can probably be summed up by three quotations: “Give me liberty or give me death,” “If this be treason, make the most of it,” and “I smell a rat.” Okay, the last one is actually “I smelt a rat,” but you get the idea.  He was one of the loudest voices against ratification, and he hailed from the largest state, so it's time to meet his acquaintance.

Born in 1736 to a Scottish immigrant, Patrick Henry’s education mainly consisted of at-home tutoring from his father, and studying on his own since higher education wasn’t an option financially or logistically.  The law became his chosen field, and if you’re thinking, “Didn’t our two figures from last week learn the law on their own, and is this a pattern,” the answers would be “yes,” and “the law was a common profession for the leaders of the Revolutionary generation.”  He was fairly well-known by the time of the Stamp Act because he had served as a lawyer in what became known as the Parson’s Case.  To sum up what happened, the case centered around payment for Virginia clergy of the Anglican Church, of which Henry was a member.  A law in 1748 stipulated that Anglican clergy would be paid an annual salary of 17,280 pounds of tobacco every year: why tobacco?  Well, it was king in Virginia, the economy basically revolved around it, and hard currency was in short supply, so…tobacco it was!  Ten years after this law was passed, a massive drought dramatically increased the price of tobacco due to decreased supply, so a statute called the Two Penny Act was passed which placed the price of one pound of tobacco at two pence, higher than usual.  This, combined with the pause on payment in tobacco, affected the salaries of the clergy, and one even traveled to England to get the Privy Council to set the law aside: they did.  Patrick Henry enters the fray because the county in which this case, a case which sought to award clergymen for damages lost because of the law, was heard, hired him for the defense, and he blasted the clergy for having the audacity to bring about the suit in the first place. However, he went even further by berating the English monarchy, claiming that by overturning the Two Penny Act, the king “...degenerates into a tyrant, and forfeits all rights to his subjects’ obedience.”  Little wonder that he was appointed to the House of Burgesses shortly thereafter.

The young lawyer-turned-politician really started to make a name for himself when his rhetoric helped form the basis of protest against Parliamentary actions.  He stood in the House of Burgesses for less than two weeks when he introduced a series of measures known as the Virginia Resolves that would have responded to the Stamp Act.  A good number of the representatives had already gone home when they were passed, but their contents were printed for any interested parties to read.  Basically, they reiterated the point of “no taxation without representation,” but the divisiveness between young upstarts like Henry and the “old guard” representatives meant that Henry would have to defend his resolves.  His persuasive oratory was littered with historical allusions and was considered so inflammatory that he was instructed to tone it down, which he did… bu tnot before he was publicly accused of treason by one of his political opponents, and he responded with the infamous, “If this be treason, make the most of it!”  His speeches continued to make waves, and much as Samuel Adams became the symbol of the pre-Revolution era, Patrick Henry became something of the voice of this same era.  He would travel with George Waashington as they each took their seats in the First Continental Congress, and he attended the Second Virginia Convention that sought to ratify the work of that Congress.  This was the occasion when Patrick Henry equated England’s actions to an attempt to enslave the colonies and declared, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”  This was March 1775, one month before the first shots were fired at Lexington and Concord, and Patrick Henry had already uttered two of the three quotes with which he is most widely associated.

Ironic that Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams would both play large roles before the Revolution, and posterity makes it seem as though they both disappeared once the actual fighting began, although this wasn’t necessarily the case with Henry.  He would technically serve as an officer in a Virginia Regiment that was part of the Continental Army, but his time was spent mainly recruiting men and he never saw combat.  Fittingly, he served in political roles for the remainder of the war and rarely outside the friendly confines of Virginia, using his talents as Virginia Governor to attempt to recruit men for the Continental Army, yet even Henry’s infamous oratory couldn’t overcome the allure of semi-committal militia service.  He would serve three consecutive terms, running unopposed for each re-election, but would continue his service in state government after he was succeeded by Thomas Jefferson.  As a portend of things to come, Patrick Henry would find himself on the opposing side of James Madison on state issues in the post-war years.  One major dispute was a proposal that would have required a portion of all taxes to be distributed towards a Christian organization, which Madison was steadfastly against.  It might seem like somewhat of a reversal of his attitude towards Christianity given his role in the Parson’s Case.  However Patrick Henry is considered a populist politician who was generally an accurate judge of the will of the people…but he misfired on this particular bill by including a tax in his proposal.  Madison ended up leading the charge to defeat this motion using researched and reasoned arguments, and the two would square off again in a few short years over the ratification of the Constitution: Madison would once again utilize his traditional logical, deductive reasoning, while Patrick Henry would continue to use passionate oratory in stating his case.

Act IV: Opposition
So we’ve reached the point where we look at ratifying the Constitution, meaning that at least nine states need to sign off on the document to make it official.  We know that those who supported it got out in front of the debate and labeled themselves “Federalists,” while their opponents were stuck with the moniker of “Anti-Federalists.”  It was not only the political fate of the nation that hung in the balance, but also its ideological fate: Federalists were said to be operating based on the “Spirit of ‘87,” the year in which the Constitution was written.  Their belief was that the new Constitution, with its checks and balances, separation of powers, and stronger national government, was the logical culmination of the Revolution because it involved the creation of a wholly new system that was decidedly American.  On the flip side, the Anti-Federalists invoked the “Spirit of ‘76” which placed the Declaration of Independence as the primary vehicle of Revolutionary ideology.  Their feeling was that any type of stronger national government was a mischaracterization of what had been won in the war and that the decentralized nature of the Articles of Confederation was a better legacy of the political break with England.  It’s worth noting that it’s not as if the Anti-Federalists didn’t recognize the flaws with that system, but they wanted to improve upon that framework as opposed to what really happened in Philadelphia.

First up, Mercy Otis Warren.  Deliberations at the Philadelphia Convention were kept secret to allow for open and candid debate minus outside influences, which is why Madison’s notes on said debates are considered so valuable.  When word of the end result did become public, it set off a metaphorical firestorm that included a mixture of outrage, joy, and phenomenal prose and oratory.  Warren fell on the side of the Anti-Federalists when she analyzed the Constitution, and she used her well-worn pen to make her thoughts clear.  Massachusetts was one of the most hotly-contested states and since it's not an exaggeration to say that her words inspired a good number of Patriots, those words might yet again inspire those whom she considered to be the true Patriots.  This was the late 1780’s, and Mercy Otis Warren was a woman, so her words would still require anonymous publication, but using the pseudonym A Columbia Patriot, she published Observations on the New Constitution in 1788.  She set up her argument with the following words which are worth listening to in full, “But the revolutions in principle which time produces among mankind, frequently exhibits the most mortifying instances of human weakness; and this alone can account for the extraordinary appearance of a few names, once distinguished in the honourable walks of patriotism, but now found in the list of the Massachusetts assent to the ratification of a Constitution, which, by the undefined meaning of some parts, and the ambiguities of expression in others, is dangerously adapted to the purposes of an immediate aristocratic tyranny; that from the difficulty, if not impracticability of its operation, must soon terminate in the most uncontrouled despotism. …”  She sought to take the Federalists to task, explaining that she feared the Constitution would lead to a standing army that would invite conflict at best, and oppress the people at worst.  She also lamented the lack of a Bill of Rights, which was not originally included because Federalists felt it was unnecessary; that, and the delegates were tired, and wanted to go home.  Her words would lead to the splintering in the long-standing relationship between her and the Adams family as she believed he and his political associates sought to use the new framework for personal gain and vanity.  Nevertheless, Massachusetts became the sixth state to ratify the Constitution by a 19-vote margin, thanks in part to the votes of delegates such as Benjamin Lincoln from episode 3.6.  Defeated, yet still determined, Mercy Otis Warren would attach her name to the 1790 work Poems, Dramatic and Miscellaneous, thereby shedding her anonymity.  She continued to work on that history of the American Revolution that she began work on during the war, publishing it in 1805, and if her relationship with Adams was fractured during the ratification debate, this book destroyed it as she completely minimized his role in the conflict.  He never forgave her, and even though it didn’t sell all that well, she continued to break ground by writing and speaking her mind until her death in 1814.

As for Patrick Henry?  He refused to attend the Philadelphia Convention, claiming that he “smelt a rat.”  ANd the Virginia Ratifying Convention was one of the last that would occur, giving hope to men like James Madison and George Washington that the Virginia delegates would feel the pressure and sense of the moment to be that magic ninth state to ratify.  Ultimately, New Hampshire would beat them to the punch by eight days, but Patrick Henry and his primary antagonist, James Madison, put on a proverbial show for the ages.  As Patrick Henry was probably the most well-known politician of the time, it gave his side an edge: it also helped that the respected George Mason placed himself firmly on the “Anti” side, severing his long-standing friendship with George Washington in the process.  Henry’s first speech focused on the perceived illegalities of the results of the Philadelphia Convention which, as we know, was only supposed to make changes to the Articles of Confederation.  He also attempted to justify the continued use of the same Articles, claiming that it had performed the function that was its intention: winning the war, securing the new nation, and providing the states with the flexibility to govern themselves as they saw fit.  James Madison promptly rose and began his rebuttal of each argument.  This was more or less how the convention played out: Patrick Henry sought to base his attacks on the Constitution using passion, rhetoric, and outright fear of where this government could lead: Madison based his responses on his patented logic and research.  The debate became so heated that Madison actually took ill and was bedridden for a portion of the convention, a time in which Henry used to disparage the Federalists as acting only in their own self-interest.  He also dove into the muck with his assertion that under the Constitution, the government would abolish slavery…only he delivered this portion of the speech using unflattering terminology.  Such was the fear-mongering that Henry used…but he was unbelievably effective.  Eventually, Henry was astute enough to understand that he was on the losing side, so he shifted gears, with some help from Mason: he turned the convention into more of a debate on the necessity of a Bill of Rights.  As Henry spoke near the end of the convention, Henry shouted, “We have it in our power to secure the happiness of one half of the human race!”  As he finished these words, a massive thunderstorm boomed outside, almost as if nature had provided the exclamation point to the forceful rhetoric of Patrick Henry’s storied political career.  However, it would not be the exclamation that Henry wanted: the vote was 89 in favor of ratification, 79 against.  New York voted to ratify one month later by a three vote margin, while North Carolina delayed their vote until November: upholding their reputation as “Rhogues Island,” Rhode Island would not ratify until the following May, when Washington had already been sworn in as President.  Henry’s popularity would continue in his native Virginia, and in a stunning twist, he ended up embracing Federalist policies, while Madison would switch to the other side.  He died in June 1799, months before Washington, leaving behind a legacy of persuasive oratory, and serving as a model for politicians seeking to hone their skills and convince the masses that their opinion is correct.

Next up, we shift gears and focus on the concept of “continuity and change.”  What does that mean…well, we’ll find out next episode we look at emerging American culture during this era.  Next week on History: Beyond the Textbook, we look at Charles Wilson Peale and William Hill Brown: the Curator and the Novelist of America’s Crucial Years.