Politics in post-Revolutionary War New Hampshire were dominated by rivalry between John Langdon and Gen. John Sullivan, but there was much on which they agreed, including the need for a more energetic national government.
Langdon had been elected the second President of New Hampshire in 1785 and was succeeded by Sullivan the next year, only to be re-elected again in June 1788. Later, Sullivan was elected a second time in 1789 when Langdon was selected to represent the State in the new Senate under the Constitution and become that body’s first President Pro Tempore. However, in 1787, it was Langdon who represented New Hampshire at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and, like Sullivan, was a strong proponent of the Constitution.
On February 13, the New Hampshire ratifying convention convened at the Court House in Exeter. Although only half of the delegates were assembled on the first day, they chose as chairman Josiah Bartlett, a physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence. As a member of the Continental Congress, he had helped to draft the Articles of Confederation and was now ready to improve on that work by supporting the Constitution. The convention then appointed a committee to receive election returns and prepare rules for the convention.
The next day, more delegates arrived, bringing the assembly to about 100 as they proceeded to elect Gen. Sullivan as convention President. At the time, Sullivan was also President of New Hampshire and it was said that he accepted presidency of the convention “on the condition only that he should be allowed the privilege of a member in expressing his sentiments on any or all of the paragraphs in the discussion.” As had been the procedure in Massachusetts, the New Hampshire ratifying convention chose to proceed by examining the Constitution paragraph by paragraph and President Sullivan would have his say.
For the next seven days, delegates from throughout New Hampshire vigorously debated whether to ratify the Constitution, ploughing the same ground that had consumed their counterparts in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and other States which had decided in favor of ratification, but they left scant records of their deliberations. Letters, personal diaries, and newspaper accounts reveal that biennial elections were hotly debated as were the enumerated powers of Congress which were “also much debated,” for at least a day and a half.
The Portsmouth-based New Hampshire Spy carried summaries of the convention’s meetings. Having written reports of the convention “without taking notes at the time, and barely from memory,” the Editor “begged pardon of those gentlemen whose arguments are weakened, or stile abased, by an attempt to gratify the public.” According to the Spy, no single paragraph took up more time in the convention than that which provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States.”
Mathias Stone, a farmer and war veteran, expressed concern that “if this constitution was adopted, Congress might deprive the people of the use of the holy scriptures.” He did “not wish to connect the civil power with the ecclesiastical,” but believed this “was the only time to secure our religious rights, or it might hereafter be too late.” For Stone, men should acknowledge their “belief in the being of a God, etc.” before entering into any office of state.
The Rev. Dr. Samuel Langdon, a Congregationalist pastor, past president of Harvard College, and distant relative to John Langdon, responded to Stone. He agreed that religion should be “unconnected and detached from civil power” and then proceeded to present a brief review of history, demonstrating that connecting them had been “the cause of all the persecutions which had taken place.” The State constitution guaranteed the free exercise of religion, he added, and the proposed national Constitution “was no infringement.” He closed by declaring he was “decidedly in favor of the paragraph as it stood and considered it as one of the greatest ornaments of the new Constitution.”
On February 20, Benjamin Lincoln wrote to George Washington signaling an ominous outcome in New Hampshire. “The accounts are vague and uncertain; things do not look as well as we wish they did. Gov. Sullivan and Mr. [John] Langdon having been in opposite boxes, are in this matter united, and they are uniting their whole interest in favor of the Constitution.” Despite their efforts, however, the prospects for ratification had been eroding from the first day of the convention when the “Antis” outnumbered pro-Constitution delegates. Langdon recognized the importance of the Constitution for a stable economy and profitable commerce, but Sullivan understood the west country people and their disdain for government in general. Nevertheless, despite the prevailing pessimism, the proceedings of the convention had not been in vain; as the Spy reported, “the ground has been fairly traversed, the greatest candor observed.”
Aware that the Antis were in the majority and that a vote on the Constitution was bound to fail, on February 22 John Langdon moved that the convention adjourn to a future day. Joshua Atherton, a leader of the Antis, leaped to his feet. In a speech “of considerable length” he “pointed out all the disadvantages which he conceived would result to these states from adopting the new constitution – tyranny in the extreme and despotism with a vengeance!!! etc. etc.” A vote on ratification at this time would surely fail, as Atherton was well aware.
After considerable opposition from Atherton, Stone, and others, Langdon’s motion passed 56-51, agreeing to reconvene at Concord on the third Wednesday in June. Writing to Rufus King the next day, Langdon explained the reason for the temporary adjournment. “A number of opponents came to me and said they were convinced and should be very unhappy to vote against the Constitution,” but they had been instructed by their towns to vote against it. The postponement, vigorously opposed by the Antis,” would allow delegates whose positions had changed in favor of the Constitution time to return to their constituents and urge them to give up their instructions and permit the delegates to vote “by the dictates of their own reason.”
News of New Hampshire’s action spread quickly throughout the States with mixed reactions. Communications to Washington were generally optimistic. Among them was a letter from James Madison, writing that New Hampshire “has not rejected the Constitution but has failed to adopt it…Some of the instructed members will prevail on their towns to unfetter them and in the event, N. Hampshire will be among the adopting States.”