John Hancock Flips

The whole Opposition, in this commonwealth, is that cursed spirit of insurgency that prevailed last winter. – Henry Jackson [1]

Massachusetts remains divided and we understand why the two sides felt the way they did, so how did Massachusetts end up passing the ratification of the Constitution? The Constitutional Convention in Massachusetts met in Boston on January 9, 1788 and lasted until February 5, over 350 representatives would cast a vote.

Before the convention Henry Knox was hopeful for the support of the Constitution that was picking up he said “the new Constitution is received with great joy by all the commercial part of the community. The people of Boston are in raptures with it as it is.” [2]

Before the convention the Massachusetts government went out of its way to prevent any of Shays’ rebels from holding office or representing Massachusetts. However, rarely did the rural areas listen to Boston law and in one case in Rehoboth, a strong Shaysite elected official, Phanuel Bishop, was refused a seat at the state senate. So, Rehoboth in response turned him around and sent him instead to the ratifying convention. [3] In Great Barrington their Anti-Federalist representative was sent with a list of instructions that included a vote roll call so “that the world may know who are friends to the Liberties of this Commonwealth and who not.” [4] It is important to mention though not all of the poorer rural counties opposed the Federalists. Johnathan Smith was the representative from Lanesborough, in Berkshire County. He spoke directly against the rebellion, he tells his story after the rebels had been repelled from Springfield and how they “rob you of property, threaten to burn your houses; oblige you to be on your guard night and day.” [5] Good government in this case should be able to protect your property.

However, farmers like Smith were far in between. Samuel Nasson was from Sanford, York County, and quickly became an Anti-Federalist leader and when the convention opened,  he thought his side had the 48 vote majority to deny the Constitution. The Federalist who recognized their trailing vote executed the timeless classic strategy of buying time and debated the Constitution line for line over the period of two weeks. [6] As the Federalists still feared to press the vote, Rufus King who was one of the state delegates at Philadelphia Convention expressed his dismay:

Their Objections are not directed against any part of the constitution, but their Opposition seems to arise from an Opinion, that is immovable, that some injury is plotted against them, that the System is the production of the Rich, and ambitious; that they discern its operation, and the consequence will be, the establishment of two Orders in the Society, one comprehending the Opulent and Great, the other poor and illiterate [6]

The Federalist debate did little to swing the vote, they needed a saving hand from elsewhere to pass the Constitution. The saving grace would come from governor of Massachusetts, and up until that point indifferent elected chair of the convention, John Hancock. Hancock had not been a supporter of the Constitution nor were his followers and up until his flip did not even attend the convention. How the Federalists were able to change Hancock’s mind has been up for debate to historians, from bribes of money, political power in Massachusetts, to being promised a shot at the presidency have all been suggested. [7] Hancock won the hearts of Anti-Federalists by supporting the Constitution, not only had he been forgiving to the Shays’ Rebels, but he also came forward to suggest amendments to the Constitution that would curtail federal power. What also could be seen as a needed symbolic act, Hancock reduced his slave count, symbolizing his shedding of power and empathy to the rural Massachusetts farmers. [8] John Hancock attended the convention, rose from his seat and submitted his proposition and the Constitution was finally adopted by Massachusetts, ending a crisis that could have had a much larger impact if it had failed to pass. [9]

What is important to take away is the method the Federalist used to get the Constitution passed. The Federalists realized it was impossible for them to get the Anti-Federalists to see anything but red. Despite how much debate the Federalists committed to trying to prove their side it did nothing. It took someone the Anti-Federalists respected to support the Constitution and to empathize with the opposition to get the Constitution passed and avoid a possible national crisis. Next ->

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Sean Condon, Shays’s Rebellion (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2015), 128.

[2]David P. Szatmary, Shays’ Rebellion: The Making of an Agrarian Insurrection (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1980), 131.

[3]Leonard L. Richards, Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 145.

[4] Condon, 127.

[5]Ibid, 129.

[6]Richard D. Brown, “Shays’s Rebellion and the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in Massachusetts,” in Beyond Confederation: Origins of the Constitution and American National Identity, ed. Richard Beeman, Stephen Botein and Edward C. Carter II (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1987), 123-124.

[7] Richards, 149-150.

[8] Brown, 125.

[9] Charles Francis Adams, “John Hancock,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 1, no. 1 (1877): 78.