The Violent Peak of Anti-Federalism: The Riot in Carlisle, the Motives of the Mob, and Opposition to the Constitution in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania

Introduction

In its issue of Wednesday, July 11, 1787, the weekly Carlisle Gazette recapped the central Pennsylvanian town’s July 4^th celebrations. The newspaper proudly proclaimed the “ardor of 1775 revived,” and it included a list of the order of toasts at a prominent festive banquet, which acknowledged the more important proceedings ongoing in the eastern part of the state: first toast to “the land we live in”; second, to “the Federal Convention”; third, “Congress”; and fourth, “George Washington.”^[1] Before the year was out, some in Carlisle would find another reason to celebrate – this time in support of the state’s ratification of the work produced by General Washington and the Convention in Philadelphia; however, that celebration would lead to ardor of a different, more combative, sort.

On December 26, 1787, an angry group disrupted a planned Federalist rally and, on the following day, hung in effigy two prominent defenders of the Constitution. This paper discusses the context and, to the extent possible, details of the Anti-Federalist riot in Carlisle, which is considered to be the most violent response to the new plan of government.^[2] More specifically, this paper seeks to understand the particular brand of Anti-Federalism exemplified by the rioters, and to understand why they acted as they did. It has been said that the winners write history, and, with regard to the Constitution, this seems to be the case: Americans tend to know more about the Federalist arguments in support of the Constitution.^[3] This paper focuses on the opposing arguments of Anti-Federalism. By studying an isolated, granulated example of apparent Anti-Federalism, the intent is to find some truths – or, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, “morsels of genuine history” – regarding the opposition to the Constitution.

This paper will attempt to show that, while the riot itself and the political environment inhabited by the rioters ensured that many potential, interlocking, and conflicting factors were likely at play, the rioter’s Anti-Federalism can be seen as most heavily founded upon a love of liberty, or, more specifically, the human elements that underscored such an interest in liberty and fear for its loss.

In order to uncover the Anti-Federalist motivations and notions of the rioters, this paper examines the many contextual layers involved with this event. This is particularly important because none of the rioters left written accounts of their reasoning. To try to understand which tenets of Anti-Federalism were valued by the rioters, the paper reviews Anti-Federalism as it may have impacted the actors, such as the noteworthy representative of this town’s Anti-Federalists, Robert Whitehill; the few statements made by area Anti-Federalists regarding the Constitution and its principles; the Anti-Federalist ideas and publications that the rioters may have encountered prior to their actions; and also the Anti-Federalist leanings that may have resulted from factors such as demographics, location, religion, economics, class, and state politics. Aspects of the riot itself are also studied for hints of Anti-Federalism, to include why it occurred in Carlisle, why it chose two particular citizens to hang in effigy, and how the area responded to the event.

In order to properly understand all of these layers of Anti-Federalism that may have contributed to the actions of the rioters, research for this paper involved a review of material on a wide variety of related topics, to include the scant, but useful, scholarship pertaining specifically to the riot; scholarship on Anti-Federalism in general and, more directly, in Pennsylvania; histories of Carlisle and Pennsylvania; biographies of some of the prominently involved individuals; collections of primary texts, such as newspaper essays and government documents; as well as a review of what may have been the most significant debate-inducer, the Carlisle Gazette, which serves as the main primary source.

The Riot

In her recent work on the ratification debates, historian Pauline Maier devotes a sentence to a summary of this riot, stating that “[o]n the day after Christmas a mob opposed to the Constitution broke up a celebration of ratification…and the next day burned in effigy Chief Justice Thomas McKean and James Wilson.”^[4] The search for additional details about the event is immediately complicated due to the partisan nature of the three contemporary summaries of the event in the Carlisle Gazette; the first account proclaimed to be based on eyewitness accounts held by one John Agnew, an attorney with admitted Federalist leanings; the second account, by “One of the People,” disputes the first summary and is rife with barbs aimed at Federalists; and the final account, by “Another of the People,” offers a return volley from the pro-Constitution ranks.^[5] Regardless of where truth may exist in these summaries, scholars of the mob and riot have apparently accepted the accounts as their work includes details that can be found in these articles.

As the story goes, a group of people in Carlisle decided to celebrate some aspect of ratification of the Constitution on December 26, 1787. All who wished to celebrate began to congregate on the public square after the ringing of a bell at five o’clock and the sound of a drum beat. The celebration was to involve a bonfire and the firing of a cannon, which had been hauled from a nearby tavern.^[6] One historian states that the Federalists meant to shoot the cannon 13 times in hopes of unanimous ratification.^[7] The celebration quickly was cut short when another group of citizens confronted the revelers. Accounts state that the group decidedly against the celebration was made of persons carrying bludgeons and other violent objects. Sharp words were exchanged with Major James Armstrong Wilson, who had been leading the celebration, and a street fight ensued, which ended the celebration for the day.^[8] Some state that these “Anti-Federalists” were angered by threats that un-illuminated windows would be broken,^[9] while others say that the opposing group’s argument was based on the fact that the Constitution supporters had not held a town meeting to gain approval for such use of the square and cannon.^[10] The apparent tossing of a copy of the Constitution into the bonfire may signify yet another motivation, aimed straight at the new form of government.^[11]

The Federalists were not to be denied, and the following day they reconvened at the courthouse where, while armed with muskets, they successfully fired the cannon, lit a bonfire, and read the Constitution by its light. The opposition was not quick enough to stop the celebration; however, it followed with a public event of its own: hanging in effigy McKean and Wilson (no relation to the Major).^[12]

The following month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered Sheriff Leeper to bring the rioters to justice.^[13] This sparked a political organizing action^[14] that reached out within Cumberland County and to neighboring counties in support of the rioters.^[15] On March 1, 1788, militia from the area marched into town, took control of the courthouse, and sang an Anti-Federalist number, “A Federal Joy.”^[16] No violence occurred, but on the same day those rioters who had been jailed were released, apparently to ease rising tensions.^[17] Eight weeks after the first of March, noted Carlisle Federalist John Montgomery stated that “all was quiet in the frontier town.”^[18]

The Setting

Located in the Cumberland Valley, the “frontier town” of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, served as a crossroads between the port of Philadelphia and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.^[19] The consideration of a locale in the geographic middle of the state as a “frontier town” sheds light on the stage of development of Pennsylvania during this period. In fact, the Carlisle Gazette, which was founded just several years before in 1785, was the first newspaper of the state’s interior.^[20] Carlisle was first settled and inhabited by Scots-Irish, who were still the most prevalent ethnic group and were largely Presbyterian.^[21] Immigrants continued to flow into the western counties of Pennsylvania, and “insider-outsider dynamics” were at play in Carlisle as early as the 1760s.^[22]

Carlisle was the county seat of Cumberland County, which is one of the Pennsylvania counties west of the Susquehanna River. The inland counties had long been neglected by the Pennsylvania Assembly and had only recently gained greater political footing. For years, the assembly had neglected to provide funds for defense against Indians.^[23] That issue was satisfied in 1756, but it illustrated a larger problem that existed until the new 1776 state constitution: under-representation of the western counties. Before then, the three original counties, with about half of the population, held 26 votes in the Assembly, while the inland counties cast only ten votes.^[24] Regardless of their level of satisfaction with the state government, though, Cumberland County residents were decidedly pro-independence from Great Britain. During the American Revolution, unlike most Scots-Irish towns further east in Pennsylvania, the “leading men” of Carlisle, and not just the middling and lowering sorts, remained “firmly committed to the cause.”^[25]

However, in the midst of a seemingly unifying struggle for independence, the 1776 constitution caused a deep divide within Pennsylvania, between those who favored the new system (Constitutionalists) and those who opposed (Republicans). The new Constitution was extremely democratic, and, as Gordon Wood writes, “where radical Whig thought found its fullest expression.”^[26] This system of government “suited well the tastes of the rural people, particularly those in Cumberland County.”^[27] However, by 1786, the Constitutionalists had lost power to the Republicans, who were growing in power within the state.^[28] With the arrival of the new Constitution, it has often been written that Constitutionalists became synonymous with Anti-Federalists, while Republicans became Federalists.^[29] Thus, as it pertains to our study, Cumberland County was by all accounts solidly Anti-Federalist.^[30]

The Context

Pennsylvania was the first battleground between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Constitution had been developed, discussed, and drafted in Philadelphia from late spring to early fall of 1787.^[31] With the state’s assembly meeting in the same building as the Federal Convention, Pennsylvania, not surprisingly, became the first state to receive a copy of the new plan of government, which occurred in September 1787.^[32] Due to an impending close of session, the Republican majority used strong-arm tactics to ensure a quorum, and then voted to hold a state convention to begin in November 1787.^[33]

On the way to the state convention, the Federalists, it has been claimed, continued to use questionable tactics to ensure victory. Pennsylvania’s Federalists actively attempted to stifle opposition, for example, by ensuring that newspapers did not print content unfavorable to the Constitution.^[34] Such tactics reached Carlisle, or at least its newspaper, which was decidedly Federalist in tone. From September 1787 through November 1787, the Carlisle Gazette printed 16 articles and items Federalist in tone, while it printed only three that were Anti-Federalist.^[35] One historian cites a claim that copies of the Constitution never made it to the Pennsylvania backcountry.^[36] This cannot be said for Cumberland County – or at least its seat, Carlisle; on September 26, 1787, the Gazette published the Constitution in its entirety, adding a unique postscript for General Washington’s cover letter to Congress.

Once the delegates had been chosen and the state convention convened, it quickly became apparent that the outcome would not be in question. Delegates were elected during a time of “rising Republican support,”^[37] and approximately two-thirds of the delegates were openly in favor of the Constitution. However, many caustic debates occurred, which occasionally spread to the pages of newspapers. One of the prominent critics of the Constitution during the convention was Robert Whitehill, who was a delegate from Cumberland County. In fact, he emerged as one of only three main opponents to the new plan. The convention concluded in late December 1787, and news of the final debates reached Carlisle only on the date of the initial riot, December 26^th, when the Carlisle Gazette printed two column’s worth of convention summary and Franklin’s concluding speech. Perhaps ominously, with the evening’s events in mind, it also printed in that issue the first sections of the “The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania and their Constituents.”^[38]

The Argument: “Anti-Federalism”

By the time the Pennsylvania convention’s minority voiced the reasons for its opposition to the Constitution, it was already apparent that “Anti-Federalism” was more of a collection of arguments against the new plan rather than a structured, integrated alternative for a system of government. Even before the Federal Convention adjourned, differences had emerged among its leading critics of the Constitution. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts wanted the sitting Congress to approve the new plan, while the Governor of Virginia, Edmund Randolph, believed that that the new Constitution should be “transmitted through the medium of congress and state legislatures to state conventions.”^[39] Randolph’s compatriot, George Mason, alternatively was ready to consent as long as a bill of rights, or “some general principles,” was added to the proposed document.^[40]

Around the time of the Carlisle riot, “Publius,” the most famous defender of the Constitution, humorously criticized the many discordant strains of Anti-Federalist complaints. In Federalist No. 38, while using the famous patient analogy, Hamilton purposefully lists in rambling fashion the voiced Anti-Federalist “remedies” and illustrates their conflicting and contradictory nature.^[41] In fact, the views of the opposition were so varied that historian Pauline Maier suggested that the term “Anti-Federalist” was an over-simplification.^[42] Herbert Storing writes of a tension at “the very heart” of Anti-Federalism, and he speaks of the “heterogeneity” of its arguments.^[43]

With such variety, it is difficult to expect a monolithic “Anti-Federalism” to emerge, even among a small group of rioters. Yet it is important to attempt to identify why these citizens were against the Constitution, particularly because their brand of Anti-Federalism sparked such a violent action.

“Anti-Federalism” of the Rioters

As stated previously, none of the rioters offered much to posterity in the way of written accounts of the incident, or their motivations preceding it. Scholars, though, have pieced together some information about this group of citizens. Terry Bouton writes that “the vast majority of the rioters were from the middling sort.”^[44] The group consisted of one judge and one tailor, with the rest being yeoman farmers.^[45] These farmers were “literate, land-owning yeomen who possessed above-average taxable property in Cumberland County.”^[46]

A statement by one of these rioters, though, provides perhaps some insight into the group’s Anti-Federalism. The tailor, William Petrikin, authored a statement about “this detestable [sic] Fedrall   conspiracy.”^[47] He is quoted as offering this comment during the February 1788 efforts to support the rioters who had been thrown in jail. Given the context, it is unclear, unfortunately, what Federalist action he considers to be the “conspiracy”: the jailing of some of the rioters, the attempted ratification celebrations that he and his band disrupted, the manner in which Federalists in Pennsylvania ensured the state’s ratification of the Constitution, or the new plan of government itself. More helpfully, Petrikin’s use of the word “conspiracy” may illustrate two aspects of the Anti-Federalism of at least one rioter: an acknowledgement that the Federalists were occupying the contemporary corridors of power, and a concurrent belief that those men were willing to exploit such positions, in secretive, domineering, and extralegal ways. By painting Federalists with such monstrosity of character, it is not too far a leap to envision a willingness to violently confront a perceived inhumane opponent.

Beyond the rioter’s own word, we also have a contemporary account from the other side of the political divide. John Montgomery, a Carlisle Federalist, wrote of the militia members who arrived in Carlisle to free the jailed rioters. Montgomery wrote that these Anti-Federalists believed that elite Federalists “are enemies to equal liberty, and that they are in favor of the Constitution, because they expect to be enabled under it to make dependents of the farmers, who will be reduced to a sort of vassalage.”^[48] Granted, Montgomery was speaking not of the rioters but of their liberators, but one would presume a common interest in such action being taken to the aid of another. Particularly noteworthy is the farmer’s viewpoint, which coincides with the fact that the majority of the rioters were of such ilk. One sees a concern that the new Constitution will be so unfavorable to agricultural interests, as to leave them in an almost feudal arrangement with the mercantile east, whence came the new plan. One author quotes Henry Adams, who wrote that the “Federal Constitution found no admirers among the agricultural population, where the necessity of police and authority was little felt (and) a strong government was an object of terror.”^[49] The concerns for “equal” liberty are also noteworthy, since they suggest a reference to Pennsylvania’s radical 1776 constitution, and a belief that those opposed (i.e. the Republicans/Federals) may be for liberty, but not enough of it. Much as with the search for quotes from those involved in the riot, though, the statements from the contemporary observers, though useful, are also small in number.

“Anti-Federalism” of their Representative

If the rioters did not speak often for themselves, perhaps our understanding of the components of their Anti-Federalism can be enhanced by a review of the person who spoke for them politically, Robert Whitehill. He, as previously stated, was one of the giants on display during the Pennsylvania state ratifying convention. He hailed from East Pennsborough Township, which along with Carlisle was located in Cumberland County.^[50] Whitehill was immensely popular amongst his constituents in the county, with his opponent in the convention-delegate elections receiving only 20 votes.^[51] He had been influential for years in state politics as a Constitutionalist, and he had helped write the 1776 state constitution.^[52]

Whitehill, it has been stated, was “inveterately suspicious of all things Philadelphia.”^[53] But his opposition to the new Constitution had less to do with the location of its inception, and more to do with its apparent conflict with the state’s constitution. Indeed, after the Convention leaked a copy of the Constitution to the Pennsylvania State Assembly, Whitehill’s first review of the document “found everywhere provision antithetical to the concept of government embodied in the [state constitution].”^[54] Having authored the state’s document, it is understandable how opposed to the federal plan Whitehill would be if he viewed it as “antithetical.”

In addition to a difference of opinion on governmental structure, Whitehill also seemed to harbor distaste for certain character traits he believed evident in his rival Federalists. During the state convention, Whitehill said sarcastically that he hoped James Wilson “with his superior talents and information [might] cast a ray of wisdom to illuminate the darkness of our doubt and guide us.”^[55] Beyond offering a different type of government, Federalists, Whitehill believed, condescended arrogantly to the opposition while doing so.

Whitehill was concerned gravely with the people’s liberty, and he worried about what he believed to be the augmentative nature of power.^[56] Toward the end of the state ratifying convention, he mellowed a bit and proposed a list of amendments that he believed would help protect the rights and liberties of citizens if and when the new plan was ratified.^[57]  Interestingly, though, this proponent of the people did not appreciate “We the People.”^[58] Whitehill also believed in state sovereignty, and his amendments sought to protect it.

Whitehill’s Anti-Federalist viewpoints, then, can be distilled into the following summation: he believed in the radical democracy of the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution, he believed in state sovereignty to protect such a constitution, he believed a strong government would inevitably encroach on the people’s liberties, and he believed the proposed Constitution created a strong government that contradicted his state’s constitution.

As to whether Whitehill’s sentiments coincided with those of the rioters, a scholar on Whitehill has written that the delegate’s amendments “epitomized the fears of the frontier.”^[59] This suggests that Whitehill’s concerns for personal rights and state sovereignty were shared in the Pennsylvania frontier, although it does not guarantee a direct link. More promisingly in search of such a link, Whitehill and his brethren began to “stir up feelings of terror” following the states ratification.^[60] It is therefore likely that Whitehill’s views on the Constitution were further circulated within Cumberland County, making it more likely that those views would have been shared with those who were involved in the late-December incident. 

“Anti-Federalism” of their Peers

Another angle from which to approach the Anti-Federalist sentiment of those involved in the riot is to review such feelings among their peers in the Carlisle area. The most immediate and useful peer is “One of the People,” who wrote the sympathetic essay about the incident for the Carlisle Gazette. “One…” disputes that the Constitution-celebrants were “friends of government,” as they had been described previously: “Pray, what government do they befriend? They are determined enemies to the government of Pennsylvania, to the Confederation of the United States, and to every government that ever existed in the world (despotism excepted).”^[61]

This belief that the Constitution would create too strong a government is echoed in other writings of this category. In early 1788, citizens of Carlisle and Cumberland County twice wrote published addresses to the minority of the state convention, thanking them for their work. In each case, the addresses demonstrate a concern about an all-powerful government and its effect on liberty. One address refers to the Constitution as “that instrument of oppression, injustice, and tyranny” and to the proposed government as “the engine of slavery.”^[62]

Both addresses hint at fears of an aristocracy. One speaks of “bloody and almost imperceptible transitions from freedom to slavery… (as) the immediate consequence of the aspiring ambition of a few great men… (and) encroachments of the nobles.”^[63] It refers to the Constitution as an “aristocratic delusion.”^[64] The other displays a vulnerable awareness of class differences within the state, when the authors show a delight in their believe that “a very few country farmers and mechanics nonplus[sed] the great rabbis and doctors of the schools.”^[65]

These fears with regard to the strength of the proposed government were evident in Cumberland County before the riot. A petition signed by citizens of the county that was delivered to the sitting state convention echoes Mr. Whitehill’s desire for a bill of rights to protect individuals against the perceived power of the central government. Whether the Constitution should contain such a bill was the most important issue discussed during these ratification debates.^[66] Interestingly, when explaining their desire for a bill of rights, the signers of the petition list only two explicitly: freedom of the press and jury trials in civil cases.^[67] By highlighting two of the numerous proposed amendments, these Anti-Federalists perhaps demonstrate a system of values that would have influenced prioritization of local Anti-Federalists.

Perhaps most alarming and most relevant in these peer-written documents, the authors of the “Address to the Minority of the State Convention of Pennsylvania” write that “[d]iscontent, indignation, and revenge already begin to be visible on every patriotic countenance” and that “little less than the lives of their betrayers will satiate their revenge.”^[68] If this was the temperature of most Anti-Federalists around Carlisle in December 1787, then maybe the celebrants were lucky to escape the mob as they did.

“Anti-Federalism” of their Papers

It would also behoove us to review potential written sources of Anti-Federalist thought that those who participated in the riot may have accessed prior to the incident. There is a chance that such writings could have influenced, and even motivated, these actions.

The primary source of information in Cumberland County at the time was the Carlisle Gazette. This paper, as stated, was under Federalist ownership, and it published mostly positive articles with regard to the Federal Convention and, later, the Constitution. In fact, only three Anti-Federalist essays were published prior to the riot: “Centinel I,” “Old Whig II,” and “Philadelphiensis I.” Although few in number, these essays are essential to our understanding of local Anti-Federalism in Carlisle.

The first “Centinel” essay was also the first Anti-Federalist tract to be published in the Gazette, which occurred on October 24, 1787.^[69] Based on the date of the riot, citizens of Carlisle could conceivably have read the first five offerings of the series, but this was the only one published by the local newspaper. The immediate arguments of this essay are in keeping with sentiments mentioned above: “Centinel” mentions “liberties” in the first sentence, and he immediately begins to cite the Pennsylvania state constitution.^[70] Significantly, you see that this particular brand of Anti-Federalism does not compare the proposed Constitution to the Articles of Confederation, but instead compares it directly with the state constitution. This betrays not only a pride in the state’s system of government, which was still under the democratic 1776 constitution, but also a fear that the Constitution would overrun it. “Centinel” also hints at a cabal of the “artful and designing” Federalists.^[71] One wonders whether the tailor Petrikin had perhaps encountered this essay prior to his quote about a “Fedrall conspiracy.” The concern of aristocracy is also present (“wealthy and ambitious who, in every community, think they have a right to lord it over their fellow creatures”^[72]), as is support for radical democracy (“republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided”^[73]).

More generally, with the suspected author of “Centinel” being Samuel Bryan,^[74] who was the son of Whitehill’s political ally Judge George Bryan, had such an authorship been suspected at the time, then one would imagine that Carlisle Anti-Federalists would respond strongly to an offering with such a connection to their leader.

The following week the Gazette published the second essay of the “Old Whig.” This work primarily addresses the widely circulated State House Yard Speech, given by James Wilson.^[75] Although his fame and influence perhaps already suggested him as a subject for effigy, there remains a possibility that this essay could have played a small role in that decision by the Anti-Federalist mob in Carlisle. This essay is much more tempered than the first of “Centinel,” although its more reasoned subject still may have added the proverbial fuel to the fire of local Anti-Federalists. “Old Whig” asks “Where then is the restraint? How are Congress bound down to the powers expressly given?”^[76] Here again we see a worry that the proposed government will encroach upon the Pennsylvanian state government, so revered by some of its citizens.

On December 5, 1787, the Gazette published the third of the Anti-Federalist essays that it presented prior to the riot. This essay, the first by recent Irish immigrant Benjamin Workman who used the pseudonym “Philadelphiensis,”^[77] demonstrates a strong fear of monarchy. He writes in jest “how I anticipate the brilliancy of the American court! … off with your hats you poltroons, here is the president….”^[78] This fear of monarchy would play to the insecurities noted above that caused the Cumberland County Anti-Federalists to view the often-eastern Federalists as condescending, bookish snobs with tyrannical designs. By comparison with “Centinel I,” though, one can see the divergent aspects of Anti-Federalism, for Bryan thought the president would be a “mere pageant of state.”^[79]

Had any of the rioters read the Gazette on the day of the incident, they would have encountered a fresh piece of Anti-Federalist reasoning, with the paper printing its first part of the “Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania to Their Constituents.”^[80] Early on in the text, the minority proclaims that “the majority of the legislature of this commonwealth were [sic] at that time under the influence of the members from the city of Philadelphia.”^[81] This would offer reinforcement to the prevalent view that not only were there drastic differences between the east and west of the state, but that decisions were being made in the east under the influence of the eastern interests. As George Graham writes, crucial to the “Dissent” was the issue of representation, and the feeling that the state’s ratifying convention – and possibly the Federal Convention – was not a work of the people.^[82] A feeling of angry disenfranchisement could also have been on the minds of those who broke up the Federalist celebration later that day.

“Anti-Federalism” of their Situation

To come to a greater understanding of the factors of Cumberland County Anti-Federalism, the context of the riot and the rioter’s environment is reviewed. Governor John Penn once said that “every man in Cumberland County is a rioter,” and he based this on the fact that the county was predominantly populated by the “seething Scots-Irish.”^[83] To accept such careless demographic stereotyping would be to cut this study short. Demographics, though, played a role in some of the other dynamics involved.

A significant factor within the state was the tension between the more settled eastern counties and the expanding territories of the west. Based on the history of Pennsylvania politics, both sides of the east-west divide managed to feel disenfranchised and resented the other for it.^[84] Traditionally, the western portions of the state supported Constitutionalist initiatives, and, leading up to the Federal Convention, Pennsylvania’s Federalist delegate Governeur Morris worried about the “cold and sower [sic] temper of the back countries.”^[85] More to the point on why the “back countries” may have coldly received the Constitution, Charles Nisbet, the president of Carlisle’s Dickinson College, wrote that “the counties on this side of the Susquehanna are averse because they think the Constitution would take away what they falsely call liberty.”^[86] Regardless of whether Carlisle’s Anti-Federalists correctly understood liberty, Nisbet’s quote suggests that the concept carried great weight with the demographic.

While differences within the geographic poles of the state existed, it cannot be considered a primary factor in Anti-Federalism. First, the simple fact that a ratification celebration occurred in Carlisle indicates that opposition to the Constitution was not unanimous west of the Susquehanna River. Moreover, Jackson Turner Main is quoted as contending that the Federalist – Anti-Federalist split was “not regional but subregional.”^[87] Carlisle historian Judith Ridner supports this division in writing that the Scots-Irish of Carlisle divided early along commercial and agricultural interests.^[88] Indeed, apprehensions of the new plan of government were less prevalent in the towns, “where economic growth would carry the artisan along with his employers.”^[89] When describing Constitutionalists, Graham subtly indicates the same separation when saying that “the representatives of the rural west” and not simply the west “spoke in the voice of radical democracy.”^[90] Noted early American historian Woody Holton locates a fitting example of the rural west of Pennsylvania, and illustrates how it differs from even the towns of the west, such as Carlisle. Holton quotes a farmer from nearby Bedford County, who worries that the large size of counties means that only townsfolk will be known enough to be elected as representatives: “a County is too large a Bound,” Herman Husband said, “a few men…who are generally known throughout (and) generally the most unsuitable, they being chiefly tavern-keepers, merchants, etc. in the County towns, with the Officers, Lawyers, etc.”^[91] Such a town-country divide would explain why the vast majority of rioters in Carlisle were yeoman farmers.

Historian Saul Cornell writes that the ratification debates were a “conflict between the lawyer’s constitution, conceived in a world of leather-bound treatises, and the people’s constitution, which existed in a world of anonymous newspaper essays and tavern conversations.”^[92] This suggests a class divide existed that may have fueled Anti-Federalist anger. Indeed, it has been written that Carlisle’s Anti-Federalists “feared that an evolving American aristocracy was undermining republican liberty.”^[93] At the same time, though, an observer must acknowledge that the group of rioters included a tailor and a judge. Some scholars have found, though, that the Anti-Federalism of the “middling and lower sorts” involves certain distinct traits.  Unlike elite Anti-Federalists, many thought the problem of the American government was not too much democracy, but too little,^[94] which would be in line with Constitutionalist thinking in Pennsylvania. Also, the motives of the non-elite Anti-Federalists “took on more ideological forms…(to include) the broader principles of liberty and democracy that they held dear.”^[95]

Underwriting and perhaps influenced by all of these divides was the state of Pennsylvania politics during this period, with citizens hotly aligned to either the Constitutionalist or Republican camp. Even though the revolution had ended, radicals and conservatives still fought for control of the state government.^[96] From the Constitutionalist – or Anti-Federalist – side, much of the argument centered around a contention that the other side had put on airs. Wood states that the Constitutionalists attacked the Republicans as “aristocratic” for attacking the 1776 state constitution.^[97] Bernard Bailyn writes that a central philosophy of Pennsylvania’s system under that plan was that “above all, let the organization of government be simple.”^[98] In this context, such a viewpoint can be extended to Anti-Federalist suspicions of this new, more complicated “lawyer’s” Constitution. Such speculation on the influence of state politics is important, as statements confirm its relevance to the incident. Some of the jailed rioters refused parole, and, in giving a reason, stated they were unfairly accused and prosecuted “to gratify party spite.”^[99] It is evident that in acting as Anti-Federalists, these rioters would have carried over any lingering animosities they may have harbored as Constitutionalists.

“Anti-Federalism” of the Riot: The Effigies

Turning from the actors to the action, a review of some of the details of the riot also assist in shedding light on the type of Anti-Federalism that was present during the event. One aspect of this event that seems to have been overlooked by scholars is why the rioters chose Wilson and McKean as the persons to hang in effigy. If it is explained at all, it is said that they were two prominent Federalists.^[100] But that alone does not explain the reasoning. Further examination brings us closer to the type of Anti-Federalism displayed in Carlisle.

The most prominent Federalist of the day was George Washington. In the July 4^th celebrations, as noted by the Gazette, he was the first individual to be toasted, and it was known that he presided at the Federal Convention. It could be argued that General Washington would be pardoned based on his heroics during the war, but, regardless, the next most prominent Federalist also was not selected by the Carlisle rioters. A biographer of James Wilson asserts that his subject had only the second-most influence on the Constitution, falling behind another Virginian, James Madison.^[101] So why not Madison? It is clear that the debate over the federal Constitution was viewed through the prism of state politics. Time and again, as illustrated above, Pennsylvania’s Anti-Federalists clung to their beloved state constitution and viewed the new plan of government as a direct competitor. Moreover, this likely reflected a more localized viewpoint in general during that era, where state sovereignty was still viewed as potentially ultimate.

Yet even if we focus on Pennsylvania, Wilson and McKean are not the obvious choices for the effigies. Along with Washington, the other heavyweight at the Federal Convention was Pennsylvania’s Benjamin Franklin. Franklin’s concluding speech at the Convention – favorable to the Constitution – had been printed in the Gazette in the fall of 1787. A clue as to why he was spared may be seen in the scholarship of Brunhouse, who writes that Anti-Federalists believed that the whole of the Pennsylvania delegation to the Federal Convention, except Franklin, “represented urban finance and commerce.”^[102] Here again we see the distrust between the agricultural and commercial sectors.

With this, one can begin to see the motivation for choosing James Wilson as a subject. Wilson initially had settled as a lawyer in Carlisle;^[103] however, he later moved to Philadelphia and increasingly “identified with the eastern and mercantile elite.”^[104] Yet, in this crowd, he was not alone and perhaps not most prominent. Owen Ireland writes that, for Anti-Federalists such as “Centinel,” aristocrats were men like Wilson and Robert Morris.^[105] With Wilson “hanged,” and Morris spared, the Anti-Federalist fear of and resentment toward aristocracy could not have been the sole rationale.

Maier writes that Wilson, McKean, and Benjamin Rush were the most prominent defenders of the Constitution in Pennsylvania.^[106] Here we see McKean and Wilson grouped together, yet the question remains as to why Rush also would not have been chosen: perhaps simply a lack of material? A closer look at the personalities and personal histories of Wilson and McKean identifies a common thread that Rush lacked.

Wilson and McKean were seen in similar fashion by Anti-Federalists. Wilson’s State House Yard Speech became the “official Federalist position” early in the national ratification process,^[107] and this made him a “particularly important target of the Anti-Federalists.”^[108] Likewise, McKean has also been called the “central target” of Anti-Federalists, due to perceived misrepresentation of their interests during the Federal Convention, misrepresentation of Anti-Federalist viewpoints, and a condescending disposition.^[109] The Anti-Federalist leaders of the state convention accused McKean of affecting a “magisterial air,”^[110] while Wilson was criticized for his “lofty carriage.”^[111] While Wilson abandoned Carlisle for Philadelphia, in the early 1780s, McKean left the Constitutionalist camp and began siding with Republicans. By the time of the state ratifying convention, he was one of the main defenders of the Constitution, and he had been receiving petty harassment for years.^[112] Thus, both Wilson and McKean were perceived by Anti-Federalists as aristocratic, and both were thought to be turncoats – Wilson from western Pennsylvania to the east; McKean from the Constitutionalists to the Republicans.

“Anti-Federalism” of the Riot: The Aftermath

Much of what occurred in the early months of 1788 following the incident has already been examined, to include essays in the Gazette, a statement by one of the rioters, and a review of the militia’s belligerent role in obtaining the prisoners’ release in early March. However, one aspect of the aftermath provides us with yet another view of the type of Anti-Federalism that swirled around this riot and mob. 

When it was learned that rioters were going to be arrested in January, word began to circulate throughout Carlisle, Cumberland County, and the neighboring counties. This spread of information is consistent with the Anti-Federalist majority that inhabited the surrounding area, and it shows a confidence that justice was on the side of the rioters – or, if not justice, then the will of the majority. What is particularly interesting about this organizing is its connection to the recent American past. Scholar Terry Bouton provides an insightful analysis on how this action mirrored that which occurred during the American Revolution.

As the Anti-Federalists rode on horseback throughout the region to drum up support, they referred to themselves as “express riders,” which references a term used by the famous Paul Revere. Additionally, to help disseminate the news, these citizens set up “correspondence committees” – again, using the language of the 1770s.^[113] As Bouton so brilliantly points out, these organizers saw themselves as “defending the Revolution.”^[114] They were not simply trying to free prisoners who had been arrested for a riot. They believed that they were actively trying to continue the fight to ensure what they perceived to be the fruits of independence.

“Anti-Federalism” of the Riot: The Location

Another aspect that has received limited research is why the only violent Anti-Federalist opposition occurred in Carlisle, PA. This paper has attempted to understand the Anti-Federalism that existed in that area at the time of the riot, but it by no means assumes that such Anti-Federalism was a unique strand.

There had been ratification celebrations in other Pennsylvania towns, including Philadelphia, Lancaster York, Easton, and even further west in Chambersburg,^[115] which is also located in the Cumberland Valley. One author claims that a riot occurred in Carlisle because of the degree to which denizens opposed the Constitution: “so strongly did the county support the Anti-Federalists that the attempt…to celebrate publicly…incited a street fight.”^[116] This perspective almost blames the Federalists for daring to celebrate in such an Anti-Federalist stronghold. And perhaps there is some truth to this: perhaps of all locations of attempted celebrations, this was the most ominously situated. Another author claims that a riot occurred in Carlisle because of its status as a “town in-between,” which was “a divided, contentious, and violent place.”^[117] Certainly a crossroads would bring together disparate elements, but this seems to drift towards geographic determinism.

Alas, no particular aspect of Carlisle appears to have fated such an incident to occur on its streets, and the riot seems in no way to have been inevitable. The location of historical events forces us to confront all of the myriad agents that move history forward. Not only is the Anti-Federalism of a particular person or group an amorphous, conflicted, difficult concept to grasp, but the catalysts for an action can range from human passion to fortune to a number of other interacting elements.

Conclusion

The riot in Carlisle was an isolated, relatively quick incident, occurring within the span of 24 hours, yet the Anti-Federalism of its actors has proven difficult to understand. Scholars have tended to choose a particular impetus for the event, using one reason or another; claiming that it was a result of demographics, or location, or religion, or politics. Yet as we have seen, this incident cuts across easy descriptions and definitions. Not all of the rioters were farmers, so one cannot so easily presume a town-country conflict. Also, with one of the rioters being a judge and another being a town merchant, one cannot confidently cite class differential as the catalyst. Additionally, a factor such as state political animosity that would make Pennsylvania a prime setting for such a riot does not explain why it happened in the particular town of Carlisle. Even within Pennsylvania and acknowledging its east-west tension, Carlisle was not the only town west of the Susquehanna, and it was not the only such town that hosted a ratification celebration. An attempt to explain why the riot occurred in Carlisle as opposed to elsewhere forces us to acknowledge that such events occur, in large part, due to an interaction of an innumerable amount of factors. One small factor that could have been involved and about which we likely will never know is the weather. What was December 26^th like in Carlisle? Had the weather been different, would the groups have acted in different fashion? Speculation on such a detail is pointless, but it does point to some of the more fluid motives that did indeed influence the rioters’ Anti-Federalism: the passions.

While reading the biased contemporary accounts of the riot, and in reviewing the scattered Anti-Federalists offerings in the contemporary Carlisle Gazette, one often sees the mixture of fear, anger, and pride. A type of one-upsmanship is on display; a chest-thumping bravado^[118] that seeks to answer the questions: Who is braver? Who is more patriotic? Who is more creditable? Who is more “American”? The Anti-Federalist tracts asked and answered these questions confidently, and, in doing so, suggested that they viewed the opposition as an “other.” Far from a mere disagreement, the street fighters in Carlisle were contesting who deserved to carry on the banner of the American Revolution. In that regard, it is quite possible that a major factor in the Anti-Federalist resentment that led to incident was spawned by beliefs that not only were the Constitution’s opponents in a great majority, but also that it was a righteous majority.

One word, though, keeps popping up in all of the statements and writings of the Anti-Federalists in this context: liberty. It is true that an almost equal attention was paid to the threat of an aristocracy; however, these fears were secondary, for these Anti-Federalists were worried about an aristocracy for the simple reason that such a cabal could steal some of their liberty.

Some ironies do exist, though, with regard to the Cumberland County Anti-Federalist’s apparent love of liberty. They chose to hang in effigy as an aristocratic usurper James Wilson, who has been described as the “most democratic man in America.”^[119] Indeed, Wilson went so far as to propose in the Federal Convention that, at least in theory, the president be elected by the people.^[120] Also dripping with irony was the riot itself. Major Wilson apparently accused the mob of  hypocrisy, with the apparent lovers of liberty not tolerating a free demonstration of joy.^[121]

Yet, the proof is in the pudding. Even in deriding the rioters, Major Wilson illuminates the foundation of their Anti-Federalism; the word “liberty” was always on their lips. These ironies do show, however, that their grasp of liberty perhaps was not of the nuanced, philosophical nature. Instead, when these Anti-Federalists spoke of liberty, they really were referring to the control of their own lives; the freedom to live as they pleased, away from the reach of Philadelphia, and under the expansive democracy of the Pennsylvania constitution instead of the suspicious new plan of national government.