Raising the Eleventh Pillar
The Ratification Debate of 1788

With an exception or two, you were elected to the state ratifying convention on an Antifederalist ticket from an Antifederalist-leaning county, and so technically you are an Antifederalist delegate. But only technically, because unlike real Antifederalists, you have little appetite for the fight with Federalists and are desperate to keep New York in the union. Outright rejection of the Constitution is almost unthinkable.

What would that mean? The old union under the Articles of Confederation cannot be expected to continue, not after the authority of its Congress has been defied. And a new union without New York would fast become an enemy of the state. New York has many natural assets, but these assets would turn to liabilities if the state were left to fend for itself.

Consider: (1) New York has the country's best harbor, (2) the Hudson River connects the north of the state with the south, (3) ample land awaits settlement in the west, (4) the war debt is small and can be discharged with the sale of western lands, and (5) imposts pay most of the taxes. But outside of union, the seaport is defenseless in case of war; the Hudson River is a door left open for invasion from Canada; the northwestern part of the state is still occupied by the British; the territory of Vermont is threatening rebellion; and no other state will likely ally with New York in a separate confederation, because the state's immediate neighbors have ratified already.

You thus belong to a subgroup of the Antifederalists that wants to ratify but is not especially happy with the Constitution as presented. Perhaps amendments are the answer; perhaps a second convention. On the other hand, perhaps asking for too much and pushing too hard will cause the Constitution to unravel and the union to dissolve. You don't really know, which is why you are undecided, a Moderate.

What is it that Moderates are expected to do? Listen and learn more than declaim and persuade. Moderates do not give speeches at the podium; they do though join in debate, and they do vote. Indeed, the votes of Moderates might well decide the issue. The issue is representation, by which is meant the qualities, responsibilities, and checks on members of Congress, representatives and senators alike.

The Federalists have in mind a representative who, while tied to the people by way of election, is otherwise fairly independent. This independence Federalists prize because it allows the representative to look at problems from a national perspective. The Antifederalists, though not indifferent to the importance of talent, are worried about the purposes to which this talent might be put. They want the representative tied to the electorate in as many ways as possible.

You, a Moderate, are free to go in either direction depending on how convincing a case is made by the parties. How you decide — should you all decide the same — will almost certainly determine the outcome.

Upon receiving your factional role sheet, you will meet to elect two heads, one to serve as liaison to the Federalist faction, the other as liaison to the Antifederalist faction. (Alternatively, your instructor might make the decisions by distributing individual delegate roles identified as liaisons.) The first responsibility of the liaisons is to recruit support for their adopted factions from among the Moderate contingent. The liaisons are working against each other and, if equally effective, will cause the Moderates to divide in two. The liaisons' second responsibility is to persuade their recruits to join in the debates that follow formal speechmaking, with questions, comments, or declarations supportive of their respective sides.

Those who speak in debate, whether for or against a provision, have their vote doubled for that one provision. Individual Moderates can therefore exercise considerable influence simply by choosing to participate.

You Moderates are free agents, which means that speaking and voting with Federalists or Antifederalists on one provision does not obligate you to speak and vote with them on any other. It might rather be your purpose to put together a blend of Federalist and Antifederalist elements.

Moderates fear being left out of the union; but they fear even more the dismemberment of the state. That could happen if the final package of provisions is ruled more Antifederalist than Federalist in character — which could provoke the Federalist leader, Chancellor Robert Livingston, to threaten the secession of New York, Richmond, Kings, and Westchester counties. Consider whether this threat is a bluff, and respond as you see fit.

Also, Moderates represent Antifederalist counties whose constituents likely will be displeased if the convention approves a package of provisions rated more Federalist than Antifederalist. Before that could happen, Governor Clinton might threaten to call for a second constitutional convention. You too welcome amendments — but unlike the hardliners, you fear the consequences of a ratification effort that fails. You are free to judge whether the governor's maneuver is a case of bomb throwing by a sore loser or a case of turning a sow's ear into a silk purse.

In preparation for the game, Moderates are to complete a take-home, open-book exam, based on Gordon Wood's The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (University of North Carolina Press, 1969), pp. 483–99, 506–18; game book p. 105. The exam is more a study guide than a test, though your instructor might wish to count it as part of the course grade. Return the exam promptly so your instructor can grade it and assign bonus votes to the winner(s), good throughout the game.

The other core text selections, all of which should be read, advocate either Federalist or Antifederalist positions. Expounding the Federalist position are Edmund Burke, "Publius," and — at the New York convention — Alexander Hamilton and Robert Livingston. Taking the Antifederalist side are "The Federal Farmer," "Brutus," and — at the convention — Melancton Smith and Gilbert Livingston.

To assist with the work of persuasion, the Federalist liaison should read An Address to the People of the State of New York, by "A Citizen of New York" (generally understood to be John Jay); while the Antifederalist liaison should read An Address to the People of the State of New York, by "A Plebeian" (possibly Melancton Smith).

Excerpts from these identically titled essays can be found in Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds., The Founders' Constitution, vol. 1 (University of Chicago Press/Liberty Fund, 1987), pp. 233–35 and 180–81, respectively; also available online at press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders.

When using the online version, click "Contents," then under Major Themes click "Union" for A Citizen of New York (no. 22) and "Deficiencies of the Confederation" for A Plebeian (no. 26).

The essays do not address the issue of representation. They offer practical reasons for ratifying the Constitution now and as is (A Citizen) or for addressing problems at the socioeconomic level first, before venturing radical alterations of the form of government (A Plebeian).