Page View
Jensen, Merrill (ed.) / Ratification of the Constitution by the states: Delaware, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut
3 (1978)
IV. The election of convention delegates, 12 November 1787, pp. 405-455
Page 455
IV. COMMENTARIES ON ELECTIONS alone. That will be the worst punishment you can inflict upon him, for as he is perfectly ignorant, let him continue so. [P.S.] The man6-it may be or it may not be-is deeply distressed at his being chosen a delegate. It exposes him in the extreme of being obliged to say yes or no. George is terribly mad at it and says he told their folks not to do so. It seems the new Constitution was expected to throw the state into violent [parties?] and some good was hoped from it by men of affected moderation. George has been talking very violently against the Constitution to no purpose. His brother, Hydracephalus, says nothing, but looks mad. 1. RC, Wolcott Papers, CtHi. 2. The list is not in the Wolcott Papers. 3. The delegates from Sharon and Norfolk voted against ratification. 4. Probably Caleb Baldwin, town clerk of Newtown from 1765 to 1799. Baldwin, however, was not elected to the Convention. 5. The New Haven County delegates voted thirteen to nine against ratification. 6. Probably Jedidiah Strong, who, with the elder Wolcott, was elected to the state Convention from Litchfield. Both voted for ratification. Connecticut Courant, 26 November1 A correspondent remarks that all good men must be pleased with the prospect that this state will adopt the federal government with- out altercation or the violence of party. The Convention, notwith- standing some Judases, will be composed of the most respectable men in the state-men venerable for their age and abilities, and pos- sessed of the public confidence. He remarks further that the choice of the people evinces their sense of the magnitude of the object on which the delegates are to decide, and he is happy that some of the towns have spirit enough to neglect the wrong heads that are using their influence to embarrass public measures by their narrow politics. The principal towns acted, at the election, with uncommon unanimity in favor of the Constitution. In many of them there was scarcely a dissenting voice; particularly in those where the people have the best means of information. In other towns, it is expected that positive instructions in favor of the Constitution will be given to the delegates at the annual Decem- ber meeting. 1. This item was reprinted, in whole or in part, fifteen times from New Hamp- shire to South Carolina by 14 January 1788. 455
Copyright 1978 Wisconsin Historical Society Press.| For information on re-use see: http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/Copyright