University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
The History Collection

Page View

Jensen, Merrill (ed.) / Ratification of the Constitution by the states: Delaware, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut
(1978)

IV. The election of convention delegates, 12 November 1787,   pp. 405-455


Page 453

IV. COMMENTARIES ON ELECTIONS
on either side but "Firebrands, Arrows, and Death." I am    alarmed
at the consequence of its being either received or rejected; the ma-
jority will not be sufficiently large on either side for a subject of such
vast consequence. The members of state Convention in Litchfield are
avowedly in favor of it. The yeas and nays in several adjacent towns
were taken, and a great majority against it, and members appointed
accordingly.2 In short we are much divided; anarchy, I am afraid,
is approaching. But why should we be anxiously troubled? "What-
ever is is right." What would it avail us if we knew what our situa-
tion would be; it could neither alleviate nor mitigate our sufferings.
The most influential characters in New York are against the Con-
stitution.
1. RC, Archives of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, Episcopal Diocesan
House, Hartford. Baldwin dated this letter "Novmr. 1787," but evidently it was
written on the 13th. Baldwin, an Anglican minister, served at St. Michael's Parish,
Litchfield, from 1785 to 1793. Bronson was an Anglican deacon in Strafford, Ver-
mont.
2. The Litchfield County delegates voted twenty-six to nine in favor of ratification.
Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. to Jeremiah Wadsworth
Lebanon, 17 November (excerpt)l
I thank you for the information in your last. I am much pleased
with the complexion of the election. We have some doubtful char-
acters this way, but in general I believe Federal. Colonel [Eliphalet]
Dyer and [Jedidiah] Elderkin, I am told, have their objections. Our
friend Moses [Cleaveland] is from Canterbury with a Mr. [Asa]
Witter. Plainfield, I am   informed, has good men.2     Lisbon have
[elec] ted their Parson [Andrew] Lee. Preston would have [elected?]
Parson [Levi] Hart, but he refused.3 Colchester, you know, [have?]
elected Parson [Robert] Robbins. It seems you are to have a [synod?]
of Bishops, our brother [William] W [illia] ms says very improperly.4
I tell him the clergy are interested, as well as other men, if not so
much for themselves, at least for their posterity, [with?] conse-
quences of a well-regulated government-and I would proscribe no
set of [ men? ].
Montville it would seem don't trust their Black Prince or his son5
-a Mr. [Joshua] Raymond, [Jr.] (a Federal man) represents that
town. [Jeremiah] Halsey and a Mr. Wheeler Coit from Preston.
You query whether Suffield can elect on an adjourned day. I
think clearly not-no more than representatives can be chosen on
any other than the stated freeman's meeting days.6
My brother W [illia] ms, I think, will find himself on very [trickle?]
ground. Among other objections, the consolidating idea has catched
his noddle. He is afraid of being swallowed up at one gulp.
453


Go up to Top of Page