Breaking News: Critical speech from New York ratification convention discovered in Albany
John P. Kaminski, PhD and Adam P. Levinson, Esq.
For the past 237 years, historians have debated which were the most important events during the campaign to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Among the most consequential speeches from 1787 to 1788 were James Wilson’s address at the Pennsylvania State House Yard,[1] John Hancock’s speech proposing recommendatory amendments at the Massachusetts ratification convention,[2] and Edmund Randolph’s speech at the Virginia ratification convention announcing his reasons for supporting ratification even though he had refused to sign the Constitution in Philadelphia.[3] We are excited to report that undated notes to a speech by Melancton Smith were recently uncovered in Albany. As described below, Smith’s previously unreported speech is arguably comparable to these critical moments, if not more historic.
Over seventy percent of the delegates elected to the New York ratification convention in Poughkeepsie were Antifederalists. In no other state had Federalists faced worse odds. Indeed, when Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison decided to write The Federalist, they fully understood the uphill battle looming in New York.[4] Not surprisingly, the New York ratification convention would become the longest state ratification convention lasting from mid-June to late July.
Melancton Smith served as the Antifederalist floor manager and led the debate against Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and the outnumbered Federalists. Although the plainspoken Smith lacked the rhetorical skills of the leading Federalists, he was “a man of remarkable simplicity, and of the most gentle, liberal, and amiable disposition.”[5] He was also well prepared for the Convention as Governor Clinton’s loyal lieutenant and the author of sixteen influential essays signed by Brutus and a pamphlet signed by Plebeian.
Soon after New York’s convention assembled, the New Hampshire convention ratified the Constitution, crossing the required nine state threshold. It had little effect on the New York Antifederalists who adamantly insisted that the new government under the Constitution could not function effectively without New York and Virginia. Two weeks later, when Smith learned on 2 July that Virigina had become the tenth state to ratify, he understood that the landscape had changed. Now, it seemed that New York might be isolated outside the new Union. On July 23, Smith announced that he would be pivoting to support an unconditional ratification. He did so “in full confidence” that a Bill of Rights and structural amendments to the Constitution would be considered by the first Federal Congress. By abandoning his prior outspoken opposition to an unamended Constitution, Smith provides an example of a profile in courage, acting in the national interest, at what would prove to be great personal cost.
After Smith endorsed an unconditional ratification he became a pariah for many stalwart Antifederalists. Although he served in Congress from 1785 to 1787, he would never again be elected to national office. According to some Antifederalists, Smith “[i]njured the cause of our country more than any Federalist.”[6] Antifederalist observers noted that “[s]ome detest Smith as much as Hamilton.”[7] While Hamilton’s brilliance and elegant speeches at the New York convention were widely hailed by his peers, Smith’s newly “discovered” speech was certainly more impactful.[8]
Smith’s extensive handwritten speech is over twenty pages long and has been carefully transcribed. While speeches during the first two weeks of the convention were actively reported by the press, by mid-July detailed records become more sparse. Thankfully this discovery allows readers to better understand Smith’s thinking as he attempted to convince enough of his Antifederalist fellow delegates to join him in gaining a slim majority in ratifying the Constitution by a vote of 30 – 27.
In beautifully written prose, Smith asked whether New York will join “the great American family”[9] or “shall we withdraw ourselves from it and seek our fortunes separately.” Smith argued that New York should take its place in the “family mansion” “with brotherly kindness and confidence,” relying on “common interests and common prudence” to obtain an improved Constitution. Smith explained that he “did not approve the building as it stands,” but admitted that the “whole is made of good materials.” Remaining in his metaphors, and keeping his sense of humor, Smith observed that the Constitution covered too much ground yet “leaves too little room for the outhouses [i.e., the states] which are equally necessary to the prosperity of the farm.”
While he was a dedicated Antifederalist, Smith recognized that “[i]n the short period of nine months” the constitution has been adopted by ten of the thirteen States. Smith was concerned by the danger that New York City and the southern counties might secede if the state rejected ratification. Smith took solace in the fact that the union was supported by “many wise good men, men who have given the fullest evidence of their love of their country.” For Smith, the goal of amending the Constitution could best be obtained after aligning with other states who were also recommending amendments. The speech concludes with the observation that America was witnessing “one of the most astonishing events in the history of humane affairs.”
The manuscript copy of Smith’s speech was not found in Melancton Smith’s Papers and is likely an early draft. The manuscript also invites inquiry about the behind-the-scenes discussions taking place during the final week of the New York convention. As yet unanswered questions include when Smith wrote the speech and whether he did so alone? It is clear, for example, that Smith engaged in robust correspondence with trusted Antifederalists in New York and other states.[10] Might he have shared a draft of the speech with Antifederalist colleagues? One might also ask why Smith didn’t provide a copy of the speech to the press for publication, among other tantalizing questions under investigation.
Earlier this year, fourteen pages of Melancton Smith’s personal notes of the debates in Poughkeepsie were transcribed and published for the first time. Smith’s convention notes had been held in private hands after being sold at auction at Sotheby’s in 2017. The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution recently transcribed Smith’s crucial July speech discovered in Albany, along with his personal convention notes. Historians are invited to dive into these previously unknown primary sources evidencing a seminal moment in American history. In the weeks to follow, we look forward to releasing additional scholarship on this and related topics, including the authorship of the letters of the Antifederalist Federal Farmer and Brutus, which newly compiled evidence suggests were written by Elbridge Gerry and Melancton Smith.
For a preview of the scholarship involving the authorship of the Federal Farmer, see https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/04/01/identifying-the-federal-farmer-unravelling-the-mystery-of-an-antifederalist-treasure/ and https://www.statutesandstories.com/blog_html/mystery-solved-antifederalist-elbridge-gerry-was-the-federal-farmer/
Footnotes:
[1] DHRC, 2:167 (6 October 1787)
[2] DHRC, 6:1383 (31 January 1788)
[3] DHRC, 10:1484-1488 (6 June 1788)
[4] Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution (Simon & Schuster, 2010), 344.
[5] Linda Grant De Pauw, The Eleventh Pillar: New York and the Federal Convention (Cornell University Press, 1966), 199.
[6] Abraham G. Lansing to Abraham Yates, Jr. (20 July 1788), DHRC, 21:1330.
[7] De Witt Clinton Journal (18 July 1788), DHRC, 23:2232.
[8] Smith himself recognized Hamilton’s rhetorical skills admitting during the debate that, “[t]he honorable Gentleman from New York [City] in particular who has so elaborately on two successive days argued in favour of the Clause has talents capable of reasoning plausibly on either side of any political question—his remarks are ingenuous, and his manner engaging—But still no reasoning Can change the nature of things or make truth falsehood.”
[9] George Washington would use the same phrase when he congratulated Rhode Island after it ratified the Constitution GW when Rhode Island ratified in 1790. DHRC, 26:1009.
[10] DHRC, 21:1308; 22:2015; 28:214.