Hancock no opposition to his reelection and, in addition,nthe possibihty that he might (if George Washington werenunavailable) become President of the United States. Hancocknappears to have become a good Federalist in no time atnall. His true motives and perceptions in these rapid developmentsnremain a mystery at the heart of the Massachusettsnconvention. Clearly he knew that the tradesmen andnmechanics agreed with the merchants and gentry of thenpopulous areas of the state; and he must have realized thatnthe Articles would be revised or replaced, one way ornanother. Therefore, taking nine amendments authored bynParsons and King (a distillate of the most valid Anti-nFederalist objections to the Constitution), Hancock, onnJanuary 31, came to the floor of the convention and movednthe 20-plus votes needed to ensure ratification: moved themnby reserving powers not expressly delegated; by providingnone representative to every 30,000 persons; by restrainingnthe authority of Congress to supervise elections; by outlawingndirect taxes unless the impost and excise are insufficient;nby forbidding favorable treatment to a particular companynof merchants; by withdrawing federal judicial authority overndisputes of a certain size between citizens of two differentnstates; by providing for trial by jury in civil cases, whenndesired; by guaranteeing grand jury indictments as a preconditionnfor a certain order of trials; and by strengtheningnthe prohibition against titles of nobility.nAfter this surprise, Samuel Adams (with only a moment’sndeviation) decided to support the Constitution himselfnThereafter the convention concluded swiftly—by a vote ofn187 to 168—to the great satisfaction of those Federalistnmanagers who had done such a good job in counting thenhouse. Writing to his old friend Washington, GeneralnBenjamin Lincoln, one of his state’s most substantialncitizens, observed, “Considering the great disorders whichntook place in the State the last winter, and considering thengreat influence that the spirit which then reigned has hadnsince, and considering, also, that when we came together anvery decided majority of the Convention were againstnadopting the Constitution, we have got through the businessnpretty well.”nAfter having followed it all the way back to its colonialnsources in Massachusetts politics and then forward from itsnopening salvos through the drama of resolution by craftynstage managers in a flamboyant deus ex machina, it remainsnfor me to say something about the ethos, the special flavornof ratification in Massachusetts, of the human ingredientsnwhich brought the Commonwealth out of its jealouslynguarded particularity by an appeal to its own intellectualninheritance: by persuading grandsons of the Puritans thatnthe best way to preserve their little world was by subsumingnfor it a place in the Union. After ratification, many of thenMassachusetts Anti-Federalists promised before they left fornhome to urge their neighbors to give the new Constitution anfair trial. Though accustomed to having their say and tonbeing consulted in the public business, the ordinary citizensnof Zion represented by so many plain men who had in mostncases come there to prevent deception through hasty ratifyingnwere justified in feeling, once the convention wasnconcluded, that a thorough ventilation of the issues hadnoccurred. And with that ventilation, as the Federalistsnwould have insisted, an even more thorough examinationnof many nonissues which were injected into the debates bynthe spirit of excessive political distrust—a danger of whichnthe Reverend Mr. Thacher had warned pointedly in hisnmemorable address.nBecause of Shays’ Rebellion and because of the notoriousnsensitivity of the Massachusetts electorate, the educated andnpowerful men of the seacoast, the professions and commercialntowns were patient in answering their Anti-Federalistnadversaries when these little-known but emphatic speakersnconjured up dreadful possibilities and “worst-possible-case”nscenarios based upon a strange reading of the most innocuousncomponents of the Constitution. What was the newngovernment going to do with the 10 square miles of thenfederal district? What engines of war and hosts of mercenariesnmight be assembled there in a plot against the liberties ofnthe people? And if General Benjamin Lincoln and GovernornJames Bowdoin had been hard on poor fellows whonneglected to pay their tax, what would the gathered power,nthe standing army of a national government, do in the samencause—especially if their taxes were going to redeem at 100ncents on the dollar government notes which its friendsn(inside traders) had acquired at a fraction of that price? Tonthe uninitiated, it would seem that the Massachusettsnconvention spent an inordinate amount of time talkingnabout annual elections, far too much energy in worryingnabout how Congress might use its power to cancel thenability of Massachusetts to govern itself And there wasnsome excited talk about slavery and the absence of anreligious test for office, issues discussed below. But seen as anwhole, the proceedings of this convention, held under thesentrying circumstances, seem to me quite amiable, with onlynhere and there the edges of acrimony in sight. All of thenmembers of the convention are aware that they have beenngiven a part in a momentous occasion, and they do notnwaste many of the theatrical opportunities provided fornthem on this stage of history. It is difficult to imagine anmore rhetorically self-conscious assembly. Even the plainestnmember does his best to argue from authority, adnvericundium. Sometimes they even mention with surprisenhow well they speak. And the danger of being subjected tonan apostrophe is apparent from every quarter of the house.nWe hear of how Mr. Thomas Dawes makes only a “shortnexordium” to his remarks; of how Mr. Barrell of York isn”sensible” of how “little” he must appear “in the eyes ofnthose giants in rhetoric, who have exhibited such a pompousndisplay of declamation”; and of how the HonorablenAmos Singletary is suspicious of the arts of “these lawyers,nthe men of learning, and moneyed men, that talk so finely,nand gloss over matters so smoothly to make us poor illiteratenpeople swallow down the pill.” This sort of complaintnagainst rhetoric is proof positive that the Anti-Federalistsnhad a lively rhetoric of their own, a populist idiom whichnthey used to considerable effect when not attempting tonimitate and better the Federalists at their own game.nBut what may surprise us most about this ratifyingnconvention is not the rhetoric of its members but thenlanguage itself, the shifting levels of discourse, the aptnallusion, the mixture of homely materials with elevatednconcerns and definitions, and the unmistakable personalndynamic of a society with a very well-developed sense ofnitself As we would expect, adversions to the Holy ScripturennnDECEMBER 19871 2n