When the Constitution was signed in September of 1787 and sent to the Congress that then existed under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was instructed to send that Constitution to the states to be ratified … or not.  The message to the states was clear: Accept the Constitution or reject it, but don’t try to change it.

Several states, mostly small states, were quick to accept, in part because joining a larger union offered small states security, but also because, under the “Great Compromise” that occurred during the Constitutional Convention, every state, regardless of size and population, had equal representation in the Senate, which favored small states.  But the larger states had grave doubts, and even though Pennsylvania, a large state, quickly ratified, its pro-ratification Federalists essentially rammed the Constitution down their opponents’ throats, causing unrest and later violent dissent.

And then Massachusetts, another large and important state, took up the ratification question.  Would its citizens accept or reject the Constitution?

Naturally, Massachusetts’ Federalists wanted to accept and the Anti-Federalists to reject, but a separate faction in Massachusetts wanted to pursue a middle path.  This faction saw many glaring “deficiencies” in the proposed Constitution, including some — such as giving the new government the power to tax the people directly — that they considered dangerous. But they also knew that this Constitution fixed many of the serious problems that existed in the weak, powerless Congress under the Articles.

Continue reading →

Tom Jefferson may have penned the most famous words in American history, but the most famous penmanship in American history belongs to John Hancock, who was born this week (Jan. 12) in 1737 in Quincy, Massachusetts.  As we all know, his signature on the Declaration of Independence is so large and prominent that it is the main contributor to his lasting fame, and has even ushered him into the lexicon of American slang. To most Americans, your signature and “your John Hancock” are one and the same.

The question is, why did Hancock write his signature so prominently?  And the answer goes to the heart of what he and his fellow members of the Second Continental Congress faced in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776 when rebellion against England under King George III was all but official.  To make it official, Tom Jefferson had drafted a document that declared “these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States.”  Now all that remained was for Hancock and the others to approve the document and sign it. That would put the 13 colonies they represented at war against the world’s mightiest military power.

Facing that mighty power would be a loosely allied band of about 3 million people with no army or navy to speak of, few weapons, fewer fortifications, no access to financial resources and no allies.  In short, their cause looked hopeless, and should it fail, the British could be expected to mercilessly seek out and capture these rebel leaders (at least those who survived the war), confiscate their property, imprison their families, and ship them back to England to be hanged for treason.

Continue reading →

As most students know, the “Boston Tea Party,” which occurred this week (Dec. 16) in 1773, was a direct response to the Tea Act that the British Parliament had passed earlier that year.   But it was also in response to the series of revenue acts — Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Townshend Acts — that Britain had imposed on its American colonies since the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, a war that had cost Britain dearly. Indeed, Britain had imposed the revenue acts to help pay for that war.

That said, the Tea Act was different because its chief purpose was not to gain revenue, but to rescue the British East India Company from bankruptcy.  Parliament worried that if the East India Company failed, it might drag down the entire British economy, but many members of Parliament wanted to prevent the company’s bankruptcy also because they had personal fortunes invested in it.

Thus did the Tea Act expand the East India Company’s monopoly on selling tea to the British colonies — and at a very cheap price because the company had tons of tea sitting in its warehouses that it needed to sell.  In fact, the price was so cheap that even though Parliament imposed a small tax on the tea, it still undercut the price the American colonies currently were paying for tea, including smuggled tea, which made up the bulk of the tea they consumed.  What’s more, the East India tea was of higher quality than the smuggled tea.

Continue reading →