In general, if the second and third teams are impressive, we know that the first team must be excellent. Those studying the U.S. Constitution tend to focus on the first team – such as James Madison, often hailed as the “Father of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton, one of the drafters of the Constitution, and James Wilson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. However, this does not give us a full picture of how outstanding the founding fathers were.
One way to understand this is to analyze the qualities of the politicians from various states who did not attend the 1787 Federal Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. One method is to read the records of the state ratifying conventions.
In these state conventions, we find many members of the first team, including Madison, Hamilton, and Wilson. We also find famous second-team members like John Marshall from Virginia (later Chief Justice of the United States) and Thomas McKean from Pennsylvania (the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania at the time).
And of course, there is Jonathan Smith from Massachusetts, representing the third team, who is the focus of this article.
In general, delegates from rural western Massachusetts, especially farmers, were skeptical of the new Constitution. After all, the new Constitution was drafted and supported by lawyers and other affluent citizens. At the Massachusetts Convention, main opponents, like Amos Singletary from the town of Sutton, took full advantage of these dissenting voices.
Jonathan Smith, a farmer from western Massachusetts, from Lanesborough in Berkshire County near the New York border, stood out as someone who supported the Constitution and took on the task of rallying his fellow western Massachusetts farmers.
On January 25, 1788, Smith delivered his first convention speech. The focus of the speech was to reflect on the 1786 Shays’ Rebellion. He believed that Americans needed a strong central government to protect them from further turmoil.
Today, the development of federal institutions has far exceeded the original limits of the Constitution, becoming prone to abuse of power, and sometimes corruption. It is worth noting that Smith’s speech was delivered against the backdrop of a time when there was not a strong enough government, and the people’s rebellion overthrew tyranny, leading to a society on the brink of collapse.
We know Smith’s speech was highly effective because records show that several other delegates also supported his views.
Many people may confuse Jonathan Smith with John Smith, the founder of Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in America. Jonathan Smith was born around 1740, making him about 47 at the time of the Federal Convention. He served as a militia colonel during the Revolutionary War, with some records referring to him as “Col. Smith.” He evidently participated in the Battle of Long Island in 1776. Little is known about his life, other than public knowledge that he was married and had at least two sons. He passed away in 1802 at the age of 62.
Smith portrayed himself as a humble farmer, a “ploughjogger,” in his speech. While he was indeed a farmer, his identity went far beyond that.
Smith served six one-year terms as a representative in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and one term in the State Senate. From 1779 to 1780, he attended the convention that drafted the Massachusetts Constitution as a delegate.
He said, “I never held any office, nor do I want or wish for one.” He could say this because legislative seats were not considered offices or “posts” at the time.
Smith’s speech aimed to sound plain and straightforward. However, upon closer inspection, we can see that he had read Cicero. Cicero was a renowned Roman politician, philosopher, and one of the greatest orators of his time. Smith’s speech was structured following the classical Roman rhetorical style.
In accordance with Roman tradition, the speech began with an introduction, aimed at leaving a good first impression on the audience. This was followed by narration, outlining key facts, confirmation where Smith presented his central point. Next came refutation, where he responded to opponents. The speech concluded with an ending, meant to reinforce his viewpoint.
I will reproduce Smith’s speech from the convention shorthand reporter’s records. I have marked the introduction, narration, confirmation, refutation, and ending, among other elements.
It is noteworthy that to captivate the audience, Smith employed various techniques in his speech: a simple attitude, humor, gentle sarcasm, compassion, fear, everyday examples familiar to any farmer, and borrowing a phrase from the Bible in his closing remarks.
During the speech, he also timely addressed the class envy that opponents of the Constitution tried to incite.
Opponents attempted to disrupt Smith’s speech by frequently interrupting him (indicated by ellipses “…”) in an effort to throw off his rhythm. However, this tactic did not succeed.
I recommend that readers try reading this fascinating speech out loud. When teaching constitutional history at a law school, I would have a student publicly recite it to the rest of the class. By the end, the audience was always moved, with tears shed in the classroom.
It should be noted that at that time, Jonathan Smith was not even a member of the first team of the founding fathers.
Let us not delay any longer and appreciate his inspiring speech.
[Translation ends here]
Note: For more background information about the author and the original article, please refer to the source mentioned at the end of the original article.