 |
| Not that George Clinton |
When
the Constitutional Convention adjourned in Philadelphia the fight to create a
unified country out of thirteen individual states was far from over. In every
state another convention was to be held where the leaders would decide whether
or not to ratify the new Constitution. Influential individuals were still rife
with fears left over from the Revolution; fear of a standing army, fear of a
strong central government and fear of loss of control. New York was not exempted
from these fears, in fact anti-federalist ideas may have been held even
stronger by members of New York’s ratification convention as they had vivid
recollections of the long British occupation of New York City and bitter fighting
in a significant portion of the state. Chief among the anti-federalists was New
York’s long time governor George Clinton.
 |
| Alexander Hamilton, Not really important to the story but his name gets the hits |
 |
| That George Clinton Yes I know I've done this joke before but its still funny damn it |
The
Constitution had many valiant defenders in New York, including Alexander
Hamilton. Hamilton was not alone in these efforts though. He was ably joined by
John Jay on the Federalist papers but on the debate floor it was Robert R.
Livingston who became a force of nature although he receives almost no credit
for his efforts.
 |
| Chancellor Robert R. Livingston Smarter than you, richer than you and he knows it. |
Livingston
had not been in Philadelphia to help draft the Constitution although his name
had been considered as a delegate. He had come to realize the importance of a
strong central government during his time in the Continental Congress and as
Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Following his time has secretary Livingston had
returned to New York to reassert himself as the Chancellor of New York, a role which
had been challenged while he was out of the state.
In
Poughkeepsie, where the ratification convention was held, Chancellor Livingston
quickly became notorious among the anti-federalists for converting their
members to the federalist cause. He was known to single out members of their
faction and take them to a tavern, sometimes with Jay or Hamilton, and ply them
with food and drink until they had converted them to the federalist side. The
anti-federalists simply had no one with the near bottomless purse of the
Chancellor who could treat delegates in that fashion.[i]
Livingston’s
influence was best shown on the floor of the debate though. He spoke frequently
in a sarcastic and condescending tone about specific tones as well as the idea
of anti-federalism in general. Melancton Smith was a frequent sparring partner
of the Chancellor’s. Smith insisted that a federal system would be dominated by
the aristocracy who would be by their very nature corrupt, or intemperate in
his words. To this the Chancellor
replied:
 |
| Melancton Smith Perhaps sparring partner is too strong, maybe verbal punching bag? |
“Will he presume to
point out to us the class of men in which intemperance is not to be found? Is
there less intemperance in feeding n beef than on turtle; or in drinking rum
than wine? I think that the gentleman does not reason from facts.”
He went on to ask, rhetorically,
who would lead the country in Smith’s world;
“But who in the name of
common sense will he have to represent us? Not the rich; for they are sheer
aristocrats. Not the learned, the wise, the virtuous for they are all
aristocrats.”[ii]
This sentiment echoed a
point he had made in an oration to the New York Society of Cincinnati on July 4,
1787 when he said;
“Can it be thought that
an enlightened people believe the science of government level to the meanest
capacity? That experience, application, genius and education are unnecessary to
those who are to frame laws for the government of the State.”[iii]
Clearly
the Chancellor favored a strong central government led by the best society had
to offer dedicated to what was best for the country as a whole. On June 24,
1788 Livingston found himself in the odd position of having to clearly explain
the role of the senate to his fellow delegates after their status came up in
the debates. He said;
“The Senate are indeed to
represent the State governments; but they are also the representatives of the
United States, and are not to consult the interest of any state alone but that
of the union.”[iv]
During the debates the Chancellor rarely let an
opportunity pass to make a point without belittling anti-federalism. Once he
compared anti-federalist arguments to “children blowing bubbles.” Later when
disputing a point started with “let us see if we cannot, from all this rubbish,
pick out something which may look like reasoning.” He could not.[v]
When many anti-federalist insisted that the individual
states should control separate military forces the Chancellor was forced to
illustrate how ridiculous that idea was;
“How is Congress to
defend us without a sword? You will also keep that. How shall it be handled?
Shall we all take hold of it? I never knew, till now, the design of a curious
image I have seen at the head of one of our newspapers. I am now convinced that
the idea was prophetic in the printer. It was a figure of thirteen hands, in an
awkward position, grasping a perpendicular sword. As the arms which supported
it were on every side, I could see no way of moving it, but by drawing it
through with the hazard of dangerously cutting their fingers.”[vi]
If anything the Chancellor seemed to enjoy the enmity he
earned from the antifederalists. When his tactics were questioned because they
seemed to arouse so much hatred toward him he reportedly said “that if he had
no wit himself, he had been the occasion of wit in others…”
Not even family was safe from the Chancellor’s barbs. When
a cousin, Gilbert Livingston, argued a point with the Chancellor, Livingston
turned to the rest of the assemblage and said;
 |
| John Jay A long time friend of the Chancellor until he wasn't but that's a story for another day |
“that my worthy kinsman
across the table, regardless of our common ancestry, and the tender ties of
blood, should join his dagger to the rest, and compel me to exclaim in the
dying words of Caesar, “And thou, too, Brutus.””[vii]
Thoroughly rebuked,
when the time came to vote on the Constitution, Gilbert voted with the
Chancellor.
New York’s delegates were still debating when word
reached them that New Hampshire had ratified the Constitution. This meant that
enough states had ratified the document that it could take effect. The
Chancellor took the floor and declared “The confederation was now dissolved.”
In short, there was no going back.
In the end it was the Chancellor’s friend (at least at
that point) John Jay who finally moved that the body vote to accept or reject
the Constitution. After a final attempt to delay by the anti-federalists the
Constitution was ratified in New York on July 26,1788.
 |
| The Chancellor can be seen in his judge's robe carefully orchestrating the hand shake between George Clinton and Alexander Hamilton |
[i]
Dangerfield, George Chancellor Robert R. Livingston
of New York, 1746-1813 p 224
[ii] The Debate on the Constitution Bernard
Bailyn ed. P777-778
[iii]
Livingston, Robert R. An Oration
Delivered Before the Society of Cincinnati at the State of New York in
Commemoration of the Fourth Day of July. p.10
[iv] The Debate Bailyn p 792
[v] The Debate Bailyn p 837
[vi]
Elliot’s Debates Volume 2 p 386.
[vii]
Elliot’s Debates Volume 2 p 394-395
No comments:
Post a Comment