George Mason

Ratification battle[edit]

Broadwater notes, "given the difficulty of the task he had set for himself, his stubborn independence, and his lack, by 1787, of any concern for his own political future, it is not surprising that he left Philadelphia at odds with the great majority of his fellow delegates".^[112] Madison recorded that Mason, believing that the convention had given his proposals short shrift in a hurry to complete its work, began his journey back to Virginia "in an exceeding ill humor".^[113] Mason biographer Helen Hill Miller notes that before Mason returned to Gunston Hall, he was injured in body as well as spirit after an accident on the road.^[114] Word of Mason's opposition stance had reached Fairfax County even before the convention ended; most local sentiment was in favor of the document. Washington made a statement urging ratification but otherwise remained silent, knowing he would almost certainly be the first president. Mason sent Washington a copy of his objections,^[115] but Washington believed that the choice was ratification or disaster.^[116]


The constitution was to be ratified by state conventions, with nine approvals necessary for it to come into force. In practice, opposition by large states such as New York or Virginia would make it hard for the new government to function.^[117] Mason remained a member of the House of Delegates, and in late October 1787, the legislature called a convention for June 1788; in language crafted by John Marshall, it decreed that the Virginia Ratifying Convention would be allowed "free and ample discussion".^[118] Mason was less influential in his final session in the House of Delegates because of his strong opposition to ratification, and his age (61) may also have caused him to be less effective.^[119]


As smaller states ratified the constitution in late 1787 and early 1788, there was an immense quantity of pamphlets and other written matter for and against approval. Most prominent in support were the pamphlets later collected as The Federalist, written by Madison and two New Yorkers, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay; Mason's objections were widely cited by opponents.^[120] Mason had begun his Objections to this Constitution of Government in Philadelphia; in October 1787, it was published, though without his permission. Madison complained that Mason had gone beyond the reasons for opposing he had stated in convention, but Broadwater suggested the major difference was one of tone, since the written work dismissed as useless the constitution and the proposed federal government. Nevertheless, both Lee and Mason believed that if proper amendments were made, the constitution would be a fine instrument of governance.^[121] The Objections were widely cited in opposition to ratification,^[120] and Mason was criticized for placing his own name on it, at a time when political tracts were signed, if at all, with pen names such as Junius, so that the author's reputation would not influence the debate. Despite this, Mason's Objections were among the most influential Anti-Federalist works, and its opening line, "There is no Declaration of Rights", likely their most effective slogan.^[122]


Virginians were reluctant to believe that greatly respected figures such as Washington and Franklin would be complicit in setting up a tyrannical system. ^[123] There were broad attacks on Mason; the New Haven Gazette suggested that he had not done much for his country during the war, in marked contrast to Washington.^[120] Oliver Ellsworth blamed the Virginia opposition on the Lee family, who had long had tensions with the Washington family, and on "the madness of Mason".^[124] Tarter, in his American National Biography article on Mason, wrote that "the rigidity of [Mason's] views and his increasingly belligerent personality produced an intolerance and intemperance in his behavior that surprised and angered Madison, with whom he had worked closely at the beginning of the convention, and Washington, who privately condemned Mason's actions during the ratification struggle."^[5]


In Richmond from October 1787 until January 1788 representing Fairfax County in the House of Delegates, Mason faced difficulties in winning election to the ratifying convention from his home county, since most Fairfax freeholders were Federalist, and local courthouse politics put him at odds with many in Alexandria. The statute governing elections to the convention in Richmond allowed Mason to seek election where he owned property, and he sought election in Stafford County. He assured voters that he did not seek disunion, but rather reform, and spoke against the unamended constitution in strong terms. George Nicholas, a Federalist friend of Mason, believed that Mason felt he could lead Virginia to gain concessions from the other states, and that he was embittered by the continuing attacks on him.^[125] On March 10, 1788, Mason finished first in the polls in Stafford County, and veteran delegate Andrew Buchanan won the other seat^[126] over Colonel Carter and William Fitzhugh. Two days later, a Richmond essayist criticized Mason and Richard Henry Lee (who did not attend) for the "barefaced impudence and folly" of public protests.^[127] Mason apparently was the only person elected to that convention for a constituency in which he did not live (although historically many of his ancestors had lived in and represented the county). Voter turnout was low, as many in remote areas without newspapers knew little about the constitution. The Federalists were believed to have a slight advantage in elected delegates; Mason thought that the convention would be unlikely to ratify the document without demanding amendments.^[125]


By the time the Richmond convention opened in June, Randolph had abandoned the Anti-Federalist cause, which damaged efforts by Mason and Henry to co-ordinate with their counterparts in New York. Mason moved that the convention consider the document clause by clause, which may have played into the hands of the Federalists, who feared what the outcome of an immediate vote might be,^[128] and who had more able leadership in Richmond, including Marshall and Madison. Nevertheless, Broadwater suggested that as most delegates had declared their views before the election, Mason's motion made little difference. Henry, far more a foe of a strong federal government than was Mason, took the lead for his side in the debate. Mason spoke several times in the discussion, on topics ranging from the pardon power (which he predicted the president would use corruptly) to the federal judiciary, which he warned would lead to suits in the federal courts by citizens against states where they did not live. John Marshall, a future Chief Justice of the United States, downplayed the concern regarding the judiciary, but Mason would later be proved correct in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which led to the passage of the Eleventh Amendment.^[129]


The federalists initially did not have a majority, with the balance held by undeclared delegates, mainly from western Virginia (today's Kentucky). The Anti-Federalists suffered repeated blows during the convention due to the defection of Randolph and as news came other states had ratified. Mason led a group of Anti-Federalists which drafted amendments: even the Federalists were open to supporting them, though the constitution's supporters wanted the document drafted in Philadelphia ratified first. ^[130]


After some of the Kentuckians had declared for ratification, the convention considered a resolution to withhold ratification pending the approval of a declaration of rights.^[130][131] Supported by Mason but opposed by Madison, Light-Horse Harry Lee, Marshall, Nicholas, Randolph and Bushrod Washington, the resolution failed, 88–80.^[131] Mason then voted in the minority as Virginia ratified the constitution on June 25, 1788 by a vote of 89–79.^[131] Following the ratification vote, Mason served on a committee chaired by George Wythe, charged with compiling a final list of recommended amendments, and Mason's draft was adopted, but for a few editorial changes. Unreconciled to the result, Mason prepared a fiery written argument, but some felt the tone too harsh and Mason agreed not to publish it.^[130]