1999 Commonwealth.max


1999 Commonwealth.max

Before the Constitution: 
Interest Groups from 1763-1789 

James Yoho 
Wilkes University 

The movement for American independence from Great Britain was closely 
associated with interest group acth'ity, and cannot wholly be understood without 
reference to the phenomenon. This association is documented with reference to a 
consistent definition of "interest group." Lesser known is the role that interest 
groups played in the movement to adopt a new constitution. Still, this paper ar­
gues, the growth of interest group activity during this era seemingly would have 
happened, although perhap.s to a le8ser extent, eoen without these movements. 

The year 1763 often is cited as a landmark in the political develop­
ment of what eventually beeame the United States of America, and rightly 
so: it is the year that Parlian!ent first began to playa significant role in 
the management of the American colonies. Among the many well-known 
repercussions of Parliament's colonial policies is the resistance created 
in America by the Sugar Act of 1764 and, especially, the Stamp Act of. 
1765. These were important preludes to the break with Great Britain that 
was formalized a decade later. 

It already has been aptly noted that the movement for American inde­
pendence from Great Britain significantly stimulated organizational ac­
tivity here and - as will be shown in this study - much of this was 
intel'f'st group activity,! a topiC' whiC'h has been hardly touched upon for 
this period (the most notable exception, by far, is Olson 1992). Although it 
is difficult to consider the other events of that time in America without at 
least some reference to the pervasive movement for mdependence, it seems 
clear that some of this increase in organizational activity would have oc­
curred anyway, later if not sooner. After all, interest group activity in 
America already had been steadily growing for nearly three centuries. 

For example, it seems likely that science would have continued to 
develop in lhi:ll Age of Enlightt:!IUllt:!nt ClIld lead to a certain amount of 
associated organizational activity even without the movement for inde­
pendence. American doctors would have gotten around to organizing 
permanent medical societies sooner or later. The Royal College of Physi­
cians, which had 228 American members in 1770, already had been in 
existence since 1660 (Cassedy 1976). One was attempted in America as 
early as 1735, in Boston, but did not survive. Additional attempts were 
made, successively, in New Haven, New York, Charleston, Connecticut, 
Massachusetts, Philadelphia, and New Haven again before one lasted: it 
was formed in 1766 in New Jersey (McDaniel 1959, 133-137; Marks and 

1 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Beatty 1973,194-197; Burns 1976,288-289; Shryock 1960,31-32; Bates 
1958,16-18). The Revolutionary War (1775-1783) generally acted to in­
hibit this sort of organizational development, as no new societies were 
successfully organized until after the end of the war (Shryock 1960,31; 
Bates 1958,16-17; McDaniel 1959, 136-137). 

These medical societies were involved in interest group activity. The 
medical society formed in Charleston in 1755 convinced the legislature 
to enact a fee schedule, which created so much controversy that the soci­
ety dissolved (Marks and Beatty 1973,195). Before they folded, both the 
Connecticut (1763) and the second New Haven society (1766-1769) lob­
bied the assembly, unsuccessfully; for physician licensing (Starr 1982,44; 
Hindle 1956,112). The New Jersey Medical Society, already a pioneer, was 
more successful with its own effort of this sort: in 1772 it convinced the 
colonial assembly to license physicians (Marks and Beatty 1973,197-198; 
McDaniel 1959, 136; Shryock 1960, 32-33). The Massachusetts Medical 
Society went one better: the charter that it obtained from the legislature 
in 1781 accorded licensing authority to the society (Cash 1980,69-100; 
Whitehill 1976,162; Starr 1982,46). 

IL also seemsinevllable lhal acllvlly by learned socielles woulJ have 
increased in any case. The colonies' first scientific organization, the Ameri­
can Philosophical Society, emerged in 1766 from extended inactivity. This 
emergence was mostly due to its new rivalry with the newly-founded 
American Society for Promoting Useful Knowledge, formed that same 
year by Philadelphians interested in irnpwved agricultural melhods and 
the promotion of domestic manufactures and internal improvements. 
Even before the merger of these organizations in 1769 (Hindle 1956,127-
138; Bates 1958,6-8), the Philosophical Society convinced the colonial leg­
islature to again fund observations of the transit of Venus, this one oc­
CUlTing in 1769 (Dates 1958,134-135,150-152).' The rejuvenaled organiza­
tion mounted at least three additional successful lobbying efforts in the 
Pennsylvania assembly in the next few years: to appropriate 1,000 pounds 
sterling for silk production in 1771, to grant 300 pounds sterling to the 
development of a planetarium by David Rittenhouse in 1771, and to ap­
point Rittenhouse as the colony'S Public Astronomer in 1775 - the last 
of which was postponed in the wake of the British-American skirmish in 
Lexington (Bridenbaugh 1955,413; Hindle 1956,140-141,167-170,201-202). 

A second learned society, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 
was founded in Boston in 1780. It, too, was politically connected: its or­
ganizer was John Adams, who convinced the Continental Congress in 
1776 to encourage each state to establish such a society. His first organi­
zational task was to lobby for a charter from the Massachusetts legisla­
ture; the first president, James Bowdoin, later was elected governor (Ford 
1904-1937, VoL 4,224; Bates 1958,9-11; Whitehil11976, 151-154). 

2 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Other philosophical societies were just as politically connected: one 
formed in New York in 1784 elected the state's governor as its first presi­
dent and anothe:t;. formed in Connecticut in 1786, elected the lieutenant 
governor as its president and held meetings at the same time and place 
as the assembly (Hindle 1956, 273-274). 

The formation of the first permanent American agricultural societies, 
in both Charleston and Philadelphia in 1785, was long overdue: they had 
been forming in Europe since 1723 (True 1929, 6-8; Boorstin 1958,264; 
Jameson 1940,51). These organizations had few farmers (Rossiter 
1976,279,284-285), but they had plenty of politically-connected members. 
The tirst 12 officers ot the Charleston sociery included a future Chief Jus­
tice of the u.s. Supreme Court, five members of Congress, four governors, 
and a signer of th" Declaration of Tnd"pendence. The first president of the 
Philadelphia society served two terms as mayor; by 1794, the society was 
lobbying the state legislature to charter a state society (True 1929,7-8). 

That the competition all)ong the land speculation companies which 
had hardly yet begun - would have continued in any case seems clear, 
too; even the French and Indian War (1754-1763) and King George III's 
1763 proclamation that purported to limit the westward spread of coloni­
zation caused only a pause. Even as they struggled to obtain as much 
land as pu:ssible, the land-speculation interest groups also began to reach 
for such collateral projects as the construction of canals, for example, the 
efforts by the Ohio Company as early as 1762 to promote a canal for the 
Potomac River (Dorfman 1947, Vol. 1)24-125; Woodward 1926,396; Ferling 
1988,333; Nute 1923A98). This project would prove to have particular sig­
nificance for the substance - and very existence - of the U.S. Constitu­
tion, as well as lead to the siting of what now is Washington, D.C. 

The issue that led to the most Signatures on any petition submitted to 
the New Jersey assembly during the colonial era is one that could occur 
in any era: in 1774, 2,686 signed petitions offering one view or another 
on a scandal involving public funds and the East Jersey treasurer (Purvis 
1986)83). 

StilI, the movement for independence left an undeniable mark on the 
American interest group system no less than on other aspects of the po­
litical system. For example, it is an indication of how much political ac­
tivity generally increased dttring just the start of this era that petitions to 
the New Jersey legislature increased from 76 a year to 187 between 1763 
and 1768 (Batinski 1987,7,185)87).3 

Early Resistance to London's New Colonial Policies 

Tn 1711:i, whilf' Parliamf'nt Rtill was mnRidering the Sugar Act, the mer­
chants of Massachusetts formed the Society for Encouraging Trade and 
Commerce, which spent the next five years lobbying against various trade 

3 



1999 Commonwealth.max

acts (Pole 1%6,6:;; Andrews 191/, 59·61; Schlesinger 195/,59·60). The 
merchants of New York and Philadelphia organized against the Sugar 
Act early the next year (Srh10singPT 19.57,hO-hl; Harrington 19h4):PO-::l21). 
A popular campaign was commenced to boycott the British goods that 
were covered by the law; through hundreds of interest groups this cam­
paign would be waged, off and on, for an entire generation. 

None of this compares, however, to the American reaction to the Stamp 
Act of 17h5. HnndrerlR of orgl'l1'1b:ationl'l, mostly local, arol'lP thro1lghout 
the colonies. They were loosely associated; many of them called them­
selves the Sons of Liberty. These interest groups employed a variety of 
tactics, including petitions, demonstrations, and mobs (Morgan and Mor­
gan 1962, 157-262; Conser 1986,22-88; Cilje 1987,44-52). Suddenly, peti­
tion campaigns pnmmpassed whole colonies (Batinski 1987,186). 

The first interest groups of note comprised of women also were formed 
during this period: the Daughters of Liberty and, later, the Anti-Tea 
Leagues concentrated on the boyc9tt of British imports (Hymowitz and 
Weissman 1978,26-27; Evans 1989, 49).4 Even the Stamp Act Congress of 
17h5, to which nine colonial assemblies sent delegates to organize fur­
ther resistance to the Stamp Act (see Morgan and Morgan 1962,137·148), 
qualifies as interest group activity because the assemblies were acting 
well beyond the scope of the govermnental authority granted to them." 
In any case, intercolonial interest group organization would undoubt­
edly have been furthered by the congress of the Sons of Liberty that was 
proposed by the New York chapter. The congress was cancelled when 
the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766 (Decker 1964,67-68; Starr 1991,232). 

Despile the repeal, Parliament was determined 10 assert lis authorlly 
over the colonies, which some leaders of the American resistance well 
knew and planned to counter (Walsh 1959,40; Morgan and Morgan 
1962,359-360). To a significant extent, the colonials' efforts took the form 
of interest group activity. For example, when the government in London 
dissolved the Massachusetts and Virginia assemblies in 1768, interest 
groups stepped into the breach by starting colony-wide organizations 
that, in effect, replaced the assemblies by providing a unified - albeit 
unofficial- voice (Morgan 1956,45-46, 49; Brown 1970, 29-31). 

America was soon rife with interest groups, and they diverted much 
of the effort that once was directed toward London - but with more 
success - to the colonial assemblies (Olson 1992,58-166). The same in­

. terest groups that dominated before 1763, business and churches, con­
tinued to lead in their level of organization. 

Merchants tended to organize at the local level, including formation 
of the first Chambers of Commerce, in New York City in 1768 and Charles­
ton in 1773. Both engaged in interest group activity from the outset, one 
of the stated goals of the New York chamber being "procuring such laws 

4 



1999 Commonwealth.max

and regulations as may be found necessary for the benefit of trade in 
general" (Stevens 1971,3-73; Cherington 1976,491; Harrington 1964,285-
287; Briuenbaugh 1.955,287-288; Schleisinger 1957,1.16, 296-297; Davis 1.917, 
Vol.1,102; Egnal1988,185,265-266; Sellers 1934,73). 

Churches were more likely to organize on a broader scale, typified by 
the corresponding committees established by dissenters after 1769 
(Kammen 1975,289; Olson 1992,162-163; Brown 1970,45-46). There also 
were some new pitfalls: an annual convention for dissenters proposed 
for 1766 was nixed lest it too much resemble the Stamp Act Congress and 
thus alienate British supporters (Morgan 1962,244-245; Bonomi 1986,207). 

The occasional cancellation aside, business and church interest groups 
now were more inclined to adopt the tactics of forming coalitions with 
other interest groups and appe<iling to the general public (Olson 1992,164). 
In this, they were adjusting to the reality of what was a new interest 
group system in America, one that often required the cultivation of pub-
lic opinion for success. ( 

Historian Alison G. Olson refers to relatively informal mass-member­
ship interest groups that specialize in political action that is centered on 
a" cause" and feel free to openly criticize the government as "public opin­
ion lobbies," an apt term. Her contention that public opinion lobbies were 
first developed by British pOlitician-journalist John Wilkes in the late 1760s 
(see Olson 1992,136,143-146) is inaccurate, however, because the interest 
groups that arose in Ameri.ca durine the Stamp Act controversy of 176!'i-
1766 and persisted even after repeal fit this description exactly; Olson 
herself seems to acknowledge this elsewhere (see Olson 1992,165).6 Pub­
lic opinion lobbies may well have existed even in Britain earlier than 
Olson suggests; Wilkes became a hero to groups like the Sons of Liberty 
long before his return to England from exile in 1768 precisely because he 
had so agitated public opinion against the government from 1762·1764. 

As Olson notes, the propriety of public opinion lobbies, which, after 
all, had a purely political purpo~e, and their tactics were the tJubjeci. of 
some controversy. The questions served to disrupt some of the London 
lobbies that dealt with Anglo-American matters (and which might have 
helped soothe the proverbial waters of the Atlantic) by plunging them 
into internal disputes about tactics (Olson 1982,22,32-41; Olson 
1983,384,386-388; Olson 1992,136,143-153). Even as this controversy de­
veloped, Samuel Adams and Arthur Lee speculated in 1771 that a system 
of allied societies could be developed at the local, colonial, and intercolo­
nial levels that could associate itself with Wilkes' Bill of Rights Society 
(Cushing 1906, Vol. 2, 234; Henderson 1974,16-17), thus creating, in effect, 
an Anglo American public opinion lobby. As Adams began to develop 
these societies, while Lee worked in London as the lobbyist for Massachu­
setts, he avoided the controversy associated with use of the name "Bill of 

5 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Rights Society" by adopting a name with which Americans already had 
become comfortable: committees of correspondence (Brown 1970,45-48). 

The Rebellion Matures 

The evolution of the movement for resisting London's colonial trade 
and taxation policies into one for American independence presents in­
creasingly thorny definitional problems. Although obviously the colo­
nial assemblies and towns were governmental in nature and thufl would 
ordinarily be excluqed from classification as interest groups, they acted 
well outside of the authority conferred by the British government when 
taking such actions as organizing intercolonial committees of correspon­
dence (1772-74) or convening the First Continental Congress (1774). 

Of course, the question of how much autonomy the colonies had was 
the very essence of their ongoing dispute with the British government, 
and eventually the colonists attempted to resolve the impasse by claim­
ing lolal autonomy. Prior to this, however, the coloniet; ::;tayed ju::;t thGtt 
way; that is, within the British domain, even if only just within it. Thus, 
the extralegal actions of the colonial assemblies and towns - that is, those 
not authorized by the British government - were interest group activity 
up to the point that the revolutionary governments were established.7 

This classification rationale also disposes of the question of the status 
of the various committees of safety (or inspection), which were charged 
in 1774 by the First Continental Congress with enforcing nonimporta­
tion and, in the process, effectively assumed many governmental func­
tions; the committees were interest groups, too. 

Definitional problems aside, there now was more organized political 
activity of an indisputably private nature afoot than ever before; the 
American interest group system never lost the pattern of steady - some­
times even prodigious - growth that was initially spurred by 
Parliament's consideration of the Sugar Act in 1763. A particular notori­
ety is attributed to the interest group that held the Boston Tea Party of 
1773 (which provoked London into a showdown) by scholar Karl 
Schriftgiesser, who called it "the first pressure group in this country to 
attain immortality." 

One of the ironies of the era is that as the rebels assumed more and 
more governmental authority. they inevitably became the targets of in­
terest group pressure, and with the emergence of a nascent nationality 
immediately came interest group activity to match. Consider, for example, 
the experience of the Massachusetts delegates to the First Continental 
Congress, who were lobbied thrice while en route to Philadelphia: by 
merchants, a local committee of correspondence, and the resistance co­
ordinating committee of New York City (Schlesinger 1957,405-407; 
Montross 1950, 31). While the Congress was still in session, the delega-

6 



1999 Commonwealth.max

tion was lobbied once again: a committee of interest group representa-' 
tives from several colonies headed by Baptist minister Isaac Backus of 
Massachusetts obtained an audience. The committee initially intended 
to lobby the entire Congress, but decided against it on the advice of John 
Adams. The sophistication of the committee's organization went beyond 
crossing colonial boundaries: it was not only intercolonial - it was also 
interdenominational (Hovey 1972, 203-213; Mecklin 1934, 202-205; Douglass 
1965,140-141; McLoughlin 1967,128-133; McLoughlin 1979,Vol. 2,912-913). 
Disappointed with the results of their lobbying effort, in 1775 the Hap­
tists contemplated a "Continental Congress of Baptists" and, in 1776, one 
of all C'hri!':tian denomination,; (MrT.onghlin 19117,1:\7-138). 

" 

State Campaigns After the Declaration 

The former colonies - now states - had no sooner set up their own 
government shop than interest groups began to lobby them. 

The most impressive interest group campaign at the state level in the 
early independence era was ,commenced in Virginia in 1776. The cam­
paign attempted to capitalize on the recent break with England by pro­
posing the dlt;establishment of the Church of England and the reduction 
of restrictions on dissenting religious sects. Over the years, those sects, 
and the interest groups that they formed, had been increasingly asser-' 
tive. For example, in 1772 they killed a toleration bill before the Virginia 
assembly because it would prohibit evening meetings (Lingley 1910,190-
197; James 1971,29-67; Bailey 1979,150-152). 

The cornerstone of the effort in 1776 was the submission of petitions to 
the House of Delegates seeking disestablishment. The most impressive of 
these, which was from the Baptists, was 200 feet long and had 10,000 sig­
natures (Little 1938,489; James 1971,68-75; Singleton 1985,158-161; Bailey 
1979,153; Mecklin 1934,264-268; Ryland 1955,99-101). A Presbyterian pe­
tition that was presented to the assembly may have been drafted by James 
Madison, a new member of the Virginia assembly who was already in the 
forefront on the issue (Ketcham 1990,71-76; Brant 1941,293-298). The An­
glicans were slow to react, and eventually mounted only a relatively weak 
counter-effort (James 1971,75-78; Bailey 1979,153). By 1779 this neglect 
would prove to be fatal to continuing the establishment. 

The dissenter interest groups pressured the legislature in the ensuing 
years for additional measures, such as a successful effort to obtain recog­
nition of marriages performed by dissenting ministers (James 1971,84-
100,112-121; Bailey 1979,53-154; Mecklin 1934,2118-271). Thf>~e matters 
came to a head in 1784 when a bill providing for a tax on Virginians for 
the support of the former Church of England, now the Episcopal Church, 
seemed likely to clear the House of Delegates following a petition cam­
paign on its behalf; no opposing petitions had been received. When it 

7 



1999 Commonwealth.max

decided to postpone final action until the next year, the House invited 
Virginians to express their sentiments on the matter (Singleton 1985,157-
166; Brant 1948,322-323,343-347; James 1971, 122-133; Bailey 1979,153-154; 
Mecklln1934,271-278). 

The opponents of the measure took this opportunity to organize their 
own petition campaign. Madison, back in the state legislature after a stint 
in Congress, drafted the best known of these petitions, his "Memorial 
and Remonstrance." It was printed in newspapers across Virginia and 
contributed tu ,tIl eventual disparity in the signatures 011 petitions pre­
sented to the state legislature of about 11,000 to 1,200 in favor of Madison's 
coalition. The momentum of the campaign was enough to defeat the gen­
eral assessment bill and then some; Madison also austed off and passed 
the bill for religious liberty that was drafted in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, 
who now was in France (Hutchinsun1962-, Vo1.8,295-298; Bailey 1979,154-
158; Lingley 1910,190-211; Singleton 1985,166-168; Pfeffer 1988,283-312). 

Another impressive early interest group campaign at the state level 
was the continuation of the debt relief movement centered in western 
Massachusetts, which grew out of various conventions first held in 1774 
to protest against the British. The cuurt~' rule in uebl cullectiUlL cunlin­
ued to be the target of protests utilizing such tactics as interstate conven­
tions, petitions, and mobs following the conversion of Massachusetts into 
a sovereign state in 1775-1776. This effort was sustained until early 1787, 
when it erupted into a full-fledged revolutionary movement in which 
1,100 armed men, mu!:!tly farmer!:!, assaulted the slale arsenal and were 
routed by the state militia. This was Shays' Rebellion. 

Lobbying Congress 

During this era there were two particularly significant interest group 
campaigrl.s to influence the Continent!'!l COnerf'ilFL 

Land Speculation Companies 
In its initial phase, the first of thf'flP two campaigns involved land 

speculation companies, often with overlapping investors and claims, that 
were intent upon establishing their ownership of land on the western 
trontier, especially in the Ohio River Valley. Their political difficulties 
stemmed from the refusal of the State of Virginia, which claimed juris­
diction over the land under the terms of iffl colonial charter and had the 
strongest jUrisdictional claim of any state, to recognize their titles. The 
land companies were not outside their element when it came to politics, 

.. however, for their very origins were in lobbying campaigns. 
A group of political entrepreneurs that included Benjamin Franklin 

and his son, William, formed three ovprlapping organizations in 1763: 
traders, or their successors in interest, who claimed losses from Indian 
raids during the recent wars and were eventually organized as the Suf-

S 



1999 Commonwealth.max

fering Traders and the Illinois and India.na l;md ('ompanif>s.After lohhy­
ing in London produced neither monetary compensation nor land grants 
from the Crown (Abernethy 1959,22-33; Lewis 1941,19-59; Philbrick 
1965,28(35), the two land companies made large land "purchases" from 
Native American tribes. 

In 1768 thf> Indiana Co. npgotiah,d a treaty with the Six Nations of 
the Iroquois to receive, as compensation for losses suffered by traders at 
the hands of other tribes led by Pontiac, nearly two million acres of land 
south of the Ohio River in what now is West Virginia. This eventually 
became associated with a larger claim that included this same land that 
was assf>:rtpd hy thp V,mdalia Co., ali'lo known as thp Walpole or Grand 
Ohio Co., which had successfully lobbied the Crown for a grant of land 
that included that claimed by the Indiana Co. The claims of the Vandalia 
Co. effectively collapsed with the break between Great Britain and the 
United States (Livermore 1968,113-115; Lewis 1941,59-154; Abernethy 
19."i9/l6-5R; Bailey 1939,233-249). 

The Illinois Co. purchased two tracts of land from the Illinois tribe 
along the Mississippi River and north of the Ohio in 1773 (Abernethy 
1959,28-30,118; Philbrick 1965,16,28,42). A later spin-off of this group was 
the Wabash Co., which purchased lands to the east in 1775 from Native 
Americans. When the Illinois and Wabash companies merged in 1779, 
together they laid claim to some 60 million acres (Smith 1956,160; 
Abernethy 1959, 93-194, 202; Philbrick 1965,42). 

Thus, with the break of 1775-1776 it was a natural step for these cum­
panies to begin to lobby the Continental Congress. The investors of the 
Illinois, Wabash, and Indiana companies were a veritable who's-who of 
political influentials in the "landless" states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
and New Jersey, plus a few others. This was due, in part, to such tactics 
as the gift of stock made i111775 by the Illinois Co. to nine congressional 
delegates (Abernethy 1959,121-122). The Illinois-Wabash Co. set aside 12 
per cent of its shares "for purposes most conducive to the [company's] 
general interest" (Smith 1956,160). 

Not surprisinglYi the investors in one or more of these companies soon 
included such political luminaries as Charles Carroll of Maryland (Con­
gress, 1776-1778); Samuel Chase of Maryland (Congress, 1774-1778, 1784, 
1785); Silas Deane of Connecticut (Congress, 1774-1776); Benjamin 
Franklin of Pennsylvania (Congress, 1775); his son, William Franklin of 
New Jersey (governor, 1763-1776); Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania (Con­
gress, 1774-1775); Conrad Gerard (French minister to the U.S., 1778-1779); 
Patrick Henry of Virginia (Congress, 1774-1776, governor, 1776-1779, 1784-
1786); Thomas Johnson of Maryland (Congress, 1774-1777, governor, 1777-
1779); William Johnson of New York (superintendent of Indian affairs, 
1755-1774); Henry Moore of New York (governor, 1765-1769); Robert 

9 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Morris of Pennsylvania (Congress, 1776-1778, congressional superinten­
dent of finance, 1781-1784); William Paca of Maryland (Congress, 1774-
1779, governor 1782-1785); George Ross of PelIDsylvania (Congress, 1774-
1777)i James Smith of Pennsylvania (Congress, 1776-1778)i Samuel 
Wharton of Delaware (Congress, 1782-1783); Thomas Wharton of Penn­
sylvania (state council president, 1776-1777); and James Wilson of Penn­
sylvania (Congress, 1775-1777, 1782, 1783, 1785-1787). And these were· 
only the investors who had been made public (Jensen 1940, 211-212; Jensen 
1939,325i Jensen 1936,38-39i Abernethy 1959,29-30, 121-122,142,193-
194,210-211). While serving in Congress, Wilson took a fee in 1776 to ren­
der an opinion that was favorable to the Indiana CO.'s title claims. He 
became president of the Illinois-Wabash Co. in l 1780 (Jensen 1939,327; 
Abernethy 1959,143-144,154; Smith 1956,160). 

When he returned from London and entered Congress in 1775, Ben­
jamin Franklin proposed a draft of confederation that implied congres­
sional jurisdiction over the western lands. However, Virginia and the other 
"landed" states, with the assistal,1ce of New England, were able to pre­
vent the inclusion of a congressional jurisdiction provision in the draft of 
the Articles of Confederation that was submitted to the states in late 1777. 

By 1779, however, the leaders of Maryland, the only state that had not 
ratified the Articles, were making clear their willingness to hold out in­
definitely unless Virginia relinquished jurisdiction over its western lands. 
The Virginia assembly, which had been receiving (and ignoring) peti­
tions from the Illinois, Wabash, and Indiana companies since 1776, then 
invited them to present their case at a joint session. Before the hearing, 
the Indiana Co. was careful to first spread some stock and legal retainers 
among such prominent Virginians as Edmund Randolph (attorney gen­
eral, 1776-86; Congress, 1779-82; governor, 1786-88) and William Grayson 
(state assembly; 1784-85 and 1788, Congress, 1785-1787). (Jensen 1940,206-
208; Lewis 1941,199-216) 

However, this strategy was not successful. After the hearings, the leg­
islature declared invalid all land titles based on purchases from Indians. 
To stave off ruin, the Indiana Co. tried, but failed, to get a consolation 
grant of land similar to that given earlier to the Henderson Co. by Vir­
ginia and North Carolina. The legislature also declared invalid all land 
grants made by the Crown, which finally ruined whatever hopes were 
left for the old Ohio Co. under its grant of 1749. George Mason, a mem­
ber of the assembly who doubled as the lobbyist for the Ohio Co., was 
unable to obtain even a hearing for the company, which claimed much of 
the same land as the Indiana Co. but had never been able to perfect its 
title through the required surveys. However, Mason did present the case 
against the Indiana Co. in the assembly, sponsored the land legislation 
adopted by the assembly that year, and was the primary author of 

10 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Virginia's subsequent complementary proposal to Congress for resolv­
ing the western land problem. The Ohio Co.' s old political rival, the Loyal 
Co., benefited the most from Virginia's policies and also had lobbyists 
who were active before the state assembly during the critical decisions of 
1779 (Rowland 1964, Vol. 1,333-336; Rutland 1970, Vol. 2,549-550; Brant 
1948,92-93; Lewis 1941,217-218; Sosin 1967,153-158; Jensen 1940,208-209; 
Abernethy 1959, 217-229; Bailey 1939,253-279; James 1959,165-170). Vir­
ginia moved immediately to open a land office to accommodate western 
land purchases, which set the stage for a renewal of the lobbying cam­
paigns directed at Congress. 

The British invasion of the lower Atlantic coast in 1780 imparted fresh 
incentive to resolve the standoff. In 1781, it finally was agreed that Mary­
land would ratify the Articles and Virginia would cede its lands north 
and west of the Ohio River. However, Virginia retained the conditions 
that it had attached to its earlier cession, one of which was that the land 
would be under the control 9£ Congress and used to create new states 
rather than to add to the territory of existing states. Another condition 
wa" that the titles from Indian purchasP" hp rlpcJared void, which cleared 
the way for confirmation of the titles of the competing Virginia specula­
tors. This delayed acceptance of the cession by Congress and set off a 
flurry of petitions to that body. As historian Irving Brant has noted, this 
was "a notice of congressional jurisdiction in Western affairs." 

Although the land speculation companies were hardly the only fac­
tor accounting for the congressional politics of the time, even on the west­
ern lands, B their lobbying was significant enough that in 1782 Arthur Lee 
of Virginia wrote to fellow congresslumtl uelegate Samuel Adams of 
Masschusetts that /I these Agents [of land companies] are using every art 
to seduce us and to sow dissention among the States, I think they are 
more dangerous than the Enemy's Arms" (Burnett 1963, Vol. 6,331). 

Another indication of the new authority of Congress over western lands 
was the submission in 1782 of the boundary dispute between I'ermsylva­
nia and Connecticut that underlay the Wyoming Valley land title disputes 
to a court convened under Article IX of the Articles of Confederation, 
which was the only case ever decided under this provision for resolving 
disputes between states (Boyd and Taylor 1930-1971, Vo1.7,xx-xxxiii). The 
extent to which the State of Cormecticut's position on the matter was tied 
to that of land speculators is reflected in the payment by the Susquehannah 
and Delaware land companies of half of the state's legal costs in the mat­
ter and their hiring as their own agents the same men who represented 
the state government in the litigation. Wilson, of the Illinois-Wabash Co., 
was om' of the attorneys hired to represent the State of Pennsylvania (Boyd 
and Taylor 1930-1971, Vol. 7,xi,35-136; Smith 1956,171-177). Jurisdiction 
over the disputed area was awarded to Pennsylvania by the Article IX 

11 



1999 Commonwealth.max

court. However, many of the Wyoming Valley settlers who had bought 
land from the Susquehannah Company still refused to move, and much 
blood was shed. Pennsylvania finally put the matter to rest in 1787 by 
confirming those titles on lands settled prior to 1782. 

Acceptance by Congress of the land cessions of the landed states, which 
was essentially on the terms proposed by Virginia, did not come until 
1783. While acceptance resolved many of the land title controversies, it 
also crf'atf'd a Vilst nationHI dOID<lin that was at the disposition of Con­
gress and initiated the second phase of the land speculators' lobbying of 
Congress, which involved competing for grants from Congress. 

Investors immediately began to form new land companies to capital­
ize on these opportunities,the most successful of which was the Ohio 
Company of Associates. One of the first acts of the company after it!'! or­
ganizational meeting in 1786 was to hire Samuel Holden Parsons to lobby 
Congress for a western land purchase on favorable terms. Parsons was 
ineffective, but his replacement, Maryasseh Cutler, was quite successful. 

Cutler allied himself with William Duel', a former member of Con­
gress (1777-78) who was the secretary of the U.S. treasury board. Cutler 
and Duer became so optimistic about their lobbying prospects that in­
stead of the original objective, congressional agreement to sell 1.5 mil­
lion acres at the statutOl"Y price of $1 each, Lhey suught Lo buy 5 million 
acres at $.67 each for the Ohio Company of Associates in what is now 
southeastern Ohio plus an option on another 3.5 million acres at the same 
price for yet another new group of investors. A Congress that was hun­
gry for capital agreed, and even allowed the Ohio Company of Associ­
ates to pay only ha1£ of thc purchasc price down and the other half when 
the land survey was completed. Additionally; payment could be made 
in government securities worth about 12 per cent of face value (Myers 
1983,107-110; Davis 1917, Vol. 1,130-138; Belote 1971,12-21; Cutler and 
Cutler 1888, Vol. 1,228-242,292-305; Roseboom 1976, Vol. 5,43-144). 

The terms of this deal were worked out at the same time as the details 
of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, described by historian Richard B. 
Morris as "the most important piece of legislation ever enacted by the 
Congress of the Confederation." Cutler drafted much of the ordinance, 
perhaps including its prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Territory 
(Finkelman 1989,8-71; C":lltl/"T and ClItle.r 1 R88, VoL 1,242,292-305). 

In order to gain a key ally, Cutler also successfully proposed that 
Arthur st. Clair, the president of Congress, be named as the first gover­
nor of the new Ohio Territory (Davis 1917, Vol. 1,134; Cutler and Cutler 
1888, Vol. 1,288,301; Morris 1987,229). 

Public Creditors 

From the time that he was appointed as the superintendent of finance 

12 



1999 Commonwealth.max

by Congress in 1781, Robert Morris was determineu to raise money for 
the war effort. First he stopped paying interest on loans to Congress and 
salary to the soldiers of the Continental Army at least partly because he 
hoped that this would build enough public support to bring about an 
increase in public revenue (Morris 1987,41; Ferguson 1961,140-143,149). 
When that did not succeed, in 1782 he organizeu a l:UIIlIIlittee of public 
creditors in Philadelphia that was assigned the task of circulating in all 
of the Rtates written materials that advocated lobbying for public rev­
enue increases. Organized activity by public creditors then occurred in 
New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and, most notably; New York. 
The New York group, which was organi:l:eu by Alexamlel' Harnilton, 
among others, resolved to promote conventions of public creditors in 
each of the counties of the state, in each of the states, and nationally. 
However, these conventions were never organized (Ferguson and 
Catanzariti 1973, Vol. 5,47,200,357,398-399,483-484,495,514,548-549,588-
589,598, Vol. 6,xxix, xxxvii,36,4(8-51,53-54,56,62,82, 235,603-604,657,695-
697, and Vol. 7,xxvii-xxx, xxxv,142-146,332, 366,413-414,417-
418,426,468,513; Ver Steeg 1954,156,172; Ferguson 196U48-152; Jensen 
1950, pp.66-67; Syrett and others 1961-1987, Vol. 3,71-177,290-293; 
McDonald 1982,44; Gerlach 1987,483-484). 

This omission may have been due to the sudden presentation of what 
appeared to be a better opportunity: a deputation of army officers came 
to Congress with a threatening petition demanding financial relief. This 
was by no means the first lobbying effort by army officers: an organiza­
tion formed by virtually all of the generals had successfully petitioned 
Congress in 1779-80 £01' half-pay for life for all officers who finished out 
the war (Myers 1983,3-5). 

Hamilton, who had just entered Congress, and Gouverneur Morris, a 
former member of Congress (1777-78) who now Was the assistant con­
gressional superintendent of finance, worked to coordinate the officers' 
lobbying with that of thc other publie creditors' groups (Henderson 
1974,332-334; Ferguson 196U57-160; Miller 1959,92-97; Myers 1983,6-10; 
McDonald 1982,44-47; Skeen 1974,274-275;Kohn 1970)93-194). Soon the 
officers threatened to refuse to disband, the war now being all but over. 
In a private letter, Gouverneur Morris wrote: 

The army have swords in their hands. You know enough of man­
kind to know much more than I have said and possibly much more 
than they themselves yet think of ... although I think it probable that 
much of convulsion will ensue, yet it must terminate in giving the 
government that power without which government is but a name .. 
. On the wisdom of the present moment depends more than is easily 
imagined and when I look round for the actors let us change the 
subject (Morris 1980,485-486). 

13 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Commander-in-chiefWashington had been slow to learn of the threat, 
which he believed had been "managed with great Art." He attended the 
famous meetin.g of the officers at Newburgh, N.Y., in early 1783 despite 
his lack of an invitation and quieted the scheme with a simple but 
devastatingly effective emotional appeal (Fitzpatrick 1931, Vol. 26,216-
217; Kohn 1970,202-212; Myers 1983,2,10-13; Flexner 1965,500-508; Flexner 
1969,234-235), 

A month after the showdown at Newburgh, and just before the army 
disbanded, many of the same officers organized the Society of the Cin­
cinnati, a national officers' organization whose activities were to include 
lobbying for the compensation of the war's veterans, Washington was 
selected as its first president. Two months later, Congress was petitioned, 
unsuccessfully, to grant western lands to the recent war's officers by 285 
officers; 87 per cent of them became members of the Society, By the end 
of 1783, the Society had organized chapters in all 13 states (Myers 1983,15-
19,25,31-34), I 

In the Society of the Cincinnati, the United States had its first national 
interest group of any permanence. It was, essentially, the only national 
organization of any type other than Congress (McDonald 1965,33; Myers 
1983,ix,92; Flexner 1969, 66). 

The Society immediately proved to be controversial, both externally 
and internally. Public meetings that criticized the Society and its potential 
influence occurred in Connecticut and Rhode Tsland and criticism was 
heard in several state legislatures Uensen 1950,262-264; Myers 1983,50-52).9 
At the Society's first national convention, in Philadelphia in 1784, Wash­
ington proposed seven changes to the Society's constitution, including a 
deletion of all references to political activity, However, the titular ban on 
political activity often was ignored and the changes were not ratified by 
the state chapters until 16 years later (Ferling 1988,348-349j Myers 1983,58-
63,77-81), The extent ofthe political connections of the Society's 2,300 mem­
bers Is evIdent in thIs statistic; they compdsed 21 of lhe 55 delegates who 
attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (Myers 1983,97), 

The Push for a National Commerce Power 

The movement that resulted in the adoption of the u.s, Constitution 
was fueled, in significant part, by interest groups that came forward to 
press for the adoption of a national power over commerce. 

In 1784 a Philadelphia merchants' committee led by Tench Coxe be­
gan to organize a statewide chamber of commerce and a national cam­
paign to promote business, One of its first efforts was to convince both 
the Pennsylvania assembly and a congressional committee formed at the 
group's request to endorse greater congressional power over navigation 
and foreign trade, When Congress moved from Trenton to New York 

14 



1999 Commonwealth.max

City in early 1785, it was met by an address from "thf' Artificers, Trades­
men, and Mecharucks of the city" and two petitions from the local Cham­
ber of Commerce requesting such a measure. In response to the petition, 
the assembly enuoTl:Jeu the idea. The participants in a Boston merchants' 
group elected John Hancock, recently the governor, as its chair and agreed 
to organize the rest of the state behind the cause and petition Congrf'ss. 
There also was a second Boston group, the Association of Tradesmen 
and Manufacturers of the Town of Boston, which began to contact simi­
lar ur~GI.nlzations in other citiet;; am;wers were received from Newport, 
New Haven/ New London" Hartford, Baltimore/ and Charleston. The 
dlarleston Chamber of Commerce soon received communications on 
the issue from both the New York Chamber of Commerce and the Boston 
merchants' group, following which it endorsed the idea and sent a peti­
tion to the state legislature (Crosskey an.d Jeffrey 1980,166-183,203-205,237; 
Morris 1946, 203-204; Morris 1987,151; McDonald 1992,378; Kornblith 
1988,355; Cooke 1978,2-74; Beard 1986,40-41; Steffen 1984,82-84). 

There was other interest greJUp activity that took a less direct route and 
that arguably had as much eventual effect on the form and nature of Ameri­
can national government. Upon Washington's resignation as commander­
in-chief of the Continental Army, he resumed a private life which included 
the promotion of his long-standing dream to build a canal on the Potomac 
River that would link the drainage of the Chesapeake Bay with that of the 
Ohio River. In 1785 he successfully lobbied the legislatures of Maryland 
and Virginia to grant a charter to the Potomac Canal Co., of which he 
became the first president. He served as either the company's president 
or board chairman until his death in 1799 (Ambler 1936,187-190; Wood­
ward 1926/396-397; Dorfman IY47/ Vol. I, 248-251; Ferling 1988,333-334; 
Flexner 1969,73-77; Brant 1948, 365-374; Bacon-Foster 1912/33-60). 

At the suggestion of Washington/ Thomas Jefferson, and Madison, 
the state legislatures of Maryland and Virginia called a convention in the 
spring of 1785 to discuss how they might share the Potomac River and 
Chesapeake Bay. Washington capitalized on confusion concerning the 
arrangements for the meeting to score a lobbyist's coup: he convinced 
the delegates to make use of his estate at Mount Vernon. Later/ the df'l­
egates cooperatively endorsed the proposed Potomac canal in their re­
port on the convention to their legislatures. The convention was impor­
tant to the movement £01' it llatiullal t:ummerce power because the par­
ticipants agreed to meet again/ following which the Maryland legisla­
ture decided to also invite the other two states whose participation in a 
Potomac canal would be deSirable/ Pennsylvania and Delaware (Hendrie!< 
1937,11-13,50-54; Rowland 1964/ Vol. 2, 81-82; Crosskey and Jeffrey 
1980,219221,225~229i Dorfman 1941, 248-251; Flexner 1969/73-77,89-90; 
Jackson and Twohig 1976-1979, Vol. 4)07-108/140; Ketcham 1990)69-170; 

15 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Brant 1948,365-376). The Virginia legislature then topped even that, ex­
tending invitations to all 13 states to what became known as the An­
napolis Convention of 1786, whose delegates convinced the Continental 
Congress to convene the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. It i~ for Utis, 
as well as its support of interstate commercial cooperation, that the re­
port of the Mount Vernon Convention, shaped significantly by Washing­
ton, one of the first "super-lobbyists," has been termed by Burton J. 
Hendrick as "next to the Constitution itself, the most historic paper in 
our constitutional history."lo 

The push for the Annapolis Convention was fueled in Virginia later 
that year by additional interest group pressures there for a national com­
merce power. In November 1785 alone, the state assembly received five 
petitions supporting such a measure After the Constitution was submit­
ted to the states in 1787, interest groups such as these were important 
supporters of ratification (Crosskey and Jeffrey 1980,221-222). 

Interest Groups and the Constitutional Convention 
I 

The relative lack of interest group pressures at the constitutional con­
vention of 1787 is due, in large part, to the secretive nature of the pro­
ceedings, and that appears to have been much the purpose of the se­
(,1'P(T Judging by the apparent relative lack of interest group influence at 
the convention, the attempt to insulate the delegates was about as suc­
cessful as could have been hoped. 

Of course, virtually all of the delegates to the convention had interest 
group affiliations of one sort or anothel~ and most had several. However, 
thpy do not appear to have overtly injected these affiliations into their 
roles as delegates; if they did, no documentary record appears to have 
been left. Even Charles A. Beard, who made his famous argument in 
1913 that the delegates were primarily influenced in their decisions by 
their comparative knowledge of and affection for realty versus personal­
ity, did not describe any organizational activity by the delegates (Beard 
1992,73-151).11 

Even the Society of the Cincinnati, with its 21 members among the del­
egates to the convention, was mentioned only twice on the record, and at 
the time the Society was holding its second national convention elsewhere 
in Philadelphia. Recognizing the delicacy of the situation, Washington did 
not participate in the Society's meeting despite being its preSident, limit­
ing himself to a single dinner with its members. The Cincinnati who were 
delegates to the constitutional convention did not vote there as a bloc 
(Daves 1925, Vol. 1; Myers 1983,91-100; Farrand 1937, Vol. 2,114,119).12 

Although it is common to assert the effect that Shays' Rebellion (1786-
87) had on the convention, this effect did not ensue from any direct at­
tempt to influence the delegates. 

16 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Thf> only general category of interest group that made anything re­
sembling a concerted effort to lobby the constitutional convention was 
the anti-slavery societies, and they were decidedly ineffective despite 
having influential members of their own among the delegates. 

Standing abolitionist societies were just beginning to appear on the 
political scene. The first of these displayed what may almost be termed 
the classic American pattern: the Pennsylvania Abolition Society was 
organized in Philadelphia (in 1774, and reorganized in 1787) and Ben­
jamin Franklin was its preSident; Benjamin Rush and Coxe also were 
officers. It soon convinced the state legislature to move toward the gradual 
emancipation of slaves. The second such group, the New York Society 
for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, was formed in 1785 with John 
Jay as its president and Alexander Hamilton its secretary. The group lob­
bied the state legislature, unsuccessfully for many years, for abolition 
Gensen 1950, pp.135-136; Zilversmit 1967,125,147-151,159-163; Syrett and 
others 1961-1987, Vol. 3,597,604,654; Van Doren 1938,774-775; Cooke 
1978,92-93; Bruns 1977,84-385,504-506,512-515). 

Of course, opposition to abolition was even stronger in the South than 
in J:'ennsylvania or New York. In Virginia, a 1782 statute permitting manu­
mission in some circumstances and petitions for emancipation submit­
ted hy Methodists to the Virginia assembly in 1784-85 prompted an im­
pressive backlash in 1785 in the form of proslavery petitions with 1,244 
signatures (Schmidt and Wilhelm 1973,133-146; Morris 1987,181; Bailey 
1939,123-124; runs 1977,506-507). 

The explosiveness of the issue was offered by Franklin and Hamilton, 
both of whom were delegates, to explain why they squelched the lobby­
ing efforts of the abolition societies of which they were officers. When 
Franklin, who, at that point, had only lent the considerable prestige of 
his name to the society without actively participating, was asked by the 
Pennsylvania society to present to the convention a petition to abolish 
the slave trade, he suggested that it be let to "lie over for the present." 
While temporarily away from the convention in New York, Hamilton 
persuaded the society there to forego submitting an antislavery petition 
that Jay had drafted (Dillon 1974,15-17; Zilversmit 1967,166; Drake 
1950)01-102; Morris 1987,181; Cooke 1978,93)10; Morris 1985,192-194; 
Finkelman 1987,188-226). 

There may well have been more interest group lobbying at the con­
vention than can easily be detailed. For example, Coxe lobbied the del­
egates to support a strong national power over commerce even while 
leading the formation of the Pennsylvania Society for the Encourage: 
ment of Manufactures and the Useful Arts, the functions of which in­
cluded lobbying. Coxe also demonstrates that organizational affiliations 
can work both ways: he also lobbied the delegates against the presenta-

17 



1999 Commonwealth.max

tion of the antislavery petition of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society of 
which he, too, was an officer (Coxe 1982,33-62; Cooke 1978,92-93,102-
108,110). One interest group lobbyist who did make an appearance in 
that capacity was Manasseh Cutler of the Ohio Company of Associates, 
who still was orchestrating his congressional triumph in New York (Cut­
ler and Cutler 1888, Vol. 1,253-254,267-270; Van Doren 1948, 128-131; 
Morris 1985,192). 

The Ratification Campaign 

The news blackout that was imposed by the Philadelphia convention 
of 1787 began to show holes even before adjournment in September. Re­
ports of the proceedings leaked by the allies of New York Gov. George 
Clinton led to the publication of various newspaper articles that criti­
cized the proposed constitution even while it still was being wdHen. After 
adjournment but before the delegates dispersed, some of the supporters 
of ratification began to confer concerning a coordinated strategy; 13 thus 
launching what became one of the most Significant interest group cam­
paigns in American history. 

Disputes about the nature of the oIlSdIliz;ation fOfmeu by the feueral­
ists to advocate ratification usually focus on whether it was a political 
party. However, the federalists were not a political party, as no "Federal­
ist" candidates were nominated for either the state ratifying conventions 
or any other public office. The candidates in the popular elections for the 
state ratifying conventions often inuicateu where they stood on ratifica­
tion, but they did not claim to be the candidate of a political party. 

Neither can the federalist organization have been a precursor of po­
litical parties, since a legislative bloc did not play an important role in it. 
For example, of the authors of The Federalist - Madison, Hamilton, and, 
until he took ill, Jay - only Mauison was even alllelllbel' uf a legislature, 
having been returned to Congress in late 1786. Madison's work for the 
federalists was outside the scope of his duties as a delegate to Congress, 
which merely submitted the proposed Constitution to the states for rati­
fication without an endorsement and met only occasionally while the 
federalist braintrust operateu. Neither was this work within the scope of 
the duties of Hamilton and Madison as delegates to the constitutional 
convention, which had adjourned. Nor was it within the scope of being a 
delegate to a state ratifying convention, as which they all served; the 
elections for the conventions had not yet been held. 

Scholarly recognition of the feuerallsls as an interest group is rare. A 
dear explanation of the basis of the classification is even more rare. David 
B. Truman, for example, seems to base it on the federalists' work in the 
state ratifying conventions. However, the ratifying convention delegates 
were public officials and so this particular portion of the ratification cam-

18 



1999 Commonwealth.max

paiQ1l waS public activity, that is, it was not interest group activity. 
In any case, while in New York City during the fall and winter of 

1787-1788, thp supporters of ratification mpt rpgnlarly Together, they acted 
as a national coordinating committee for the pro-ratification forces, pass­
ing on all sorts of information, including their suggestions for strategy. 
In order to marshal the arguments for ratification, Jay, Hamilton, and 
Madison wrote the series of newspaper pieces that became, collectively, 
The Federalist. Madison, of course, wrote Federalist 10, the first imporhmt 
discussion of American interest groups. 14 The more interesting aspects of 
the federalist organization include a pony express between Poughkeepsie, 
the site of the New York convention and f):amilton's coordinating ef­
forts, and other convention sites (Jensen and others 1976, Vol. 
10,1572,1672-1675,1723-1725). 

The antifederalists also formed a national interest group, coordinated 
on Clinton's behalf by John Lamb, an organizer of the Sons of Liberty in 
New York a quarter-century earlier and a gent:!HII Juring the War uf In-

I 
dependence (Leake 1971,304-336; McDonald 1965,213,222,224-226; Boyd 
1979,128; Ross 1933,555-556; Main 1964,221,226,235-236,244,252; Jensen 
and others 1976, Vol. 9,788-793,811-829,845-846, and Vol. 10,1547n,1572, 
1589-1590, 1630). The antifederaIists had their own pony express system 
(Jensen and others 1976, Vol. 9,845-846, and Vol. 10,1589n). 

Interest groups were active during the popular elections for the state 
ratifying conventions. For example, Madison left New York in order to 
campaign for election as a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention 
after learning that his old supporters, the Baptists of Orange County, 
were upset that the proposed constitution neglected to guarantee rcIi 
gious liberty. On his way home, he visited John Leland, a prominent Bap­
tist minister who had petitioned against ratification. Although Leland 
and the Virginia Baptist organization remained opponents of ratification, 
he was converted enough by Madison to withdraw himself as a candi­
date and endorse Madison (Hutchinson and others 1962-, Vol. 10,515-
516,540-542; Ketcham 1990,250-251; Ryland 1955,133-134; Mecklin 
1934,150-158; Jensen and others 1976, Vol. 8,424-427, and Vol. 9,596n). 
The mechanics' association of Baltimore successfully supported a feder­
alist candidate there (Steffen 1984,90-92). 

Predictably; various group petitions were sent to the conventions in 
New Jersey (McDonald 1992,123), Delaware (Jensen and others 1976, Vol. 
3,107-108), and Pennsylvania (Jensen and others 1976, Vol. 2,298-299,309-
311,316-319). Group petitiQll~ supporting ratification were sent to the state 
assembly in Delaware (Jensen and others 1976, Vol. 3,54-55) and New 
Jersey (Jensen and others 1976, Vol. 3,135-137) before there even was a 
chance to organize the ratifying convention. 

Ad hoc citizens' groups were formed. In Massachusetts, a mass federal-

19 



1999 Commonwealth.max

ist rally was staged in BostuIl fUf the sole purpuse uf gaining the endorse­
ment of Samuel Adams, who was a delegate, and Boston's tradesmen en­
dorsed the Constitution in a mass meeting (Wright 1961.174; McDonald 
1965,216; Jensen and others 1976, Vol. 15,289-295. In Pennsylvania, several 
local antifederalist societies were formed, and Coxe, James Wilson, and 
Rush {oImed the fedefali1:it cuunlillaLillg committee (Cuoke 1978, 111; Jensen 
and others 1976, Vol. 2,306-309,695-696). In Virginia, a federalist society 
was formed in Berkeley County (Jensen and others 1976, Vol. 8,3,22).15 

Standing organizations of one sort or anothe! also debated or ex­
pounded upon the merits of the proposed Constitution. In Connecticut, 
the Congregational clel'gy uf New Havell Cuunty endursed the Consti­
tution (Jensen and others 1976, VoL 3,351.) In Virginia, the issue was dis­
cussed by the aforementioned Baptists, the Union Society of Richmond, 
the Danville (Ken.) Political Club, the "court party" of Danville (Ken.), 
Washington County's Society of Western Gentlemen, and the Political 
Society of Richmond (Jensen and others 1976, Vol. 8,3,170-173,292,408-

I 
417,433-436,472-474,VoL 9,769~779, and VoL 15,561-562). In North Caro-
lina, a Baptist minister denounced the Constitution to his congregation 
(McDonald 1992,311). In New Jersey, the Newark Society for Promoting 
Useful Knowledge endorsed it (Jensen and others 1976, VoL 3,135). In 
Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Baptists' Association endorsed ill too 
(Jensen and others 1976, VoL 8,374-375). 

The other means by which interest groups communicated their views 
on the proposed Constitution were varied. Of course, everywhere there 
were pamphlets and newspaper articles. In New Hampshire, federalist 
riders were dispatched to the remote corners to promote ratification 
(McDonald 1965,220). In New York, antifederalists conducted effigy pa­
rades (Gilje 1987, 97). 

There also was violence. In New York, 18 were injured when rival 
parades of federalists and antifederalists in Albany came to blows (Miller 
1959,212). In Pennsylvania, a federalist crowd literally dragged two as 
sembly delegates into session at Philadelphia in order to obtain a quo­
rum for the purpose of organizing the elections for the ratification con­
vention, a mob threw stones through the windows of a Philadelphia board­
ing house that was popular with antifederalist delegates, and there were 
eight reported fatalities from a battle between the two sides in Washing­
ton County (Van Doren 1948,180,182; Beard 1992,231-232; Cooke 1978)51; 
McDonald 1992,164; Jensen and others 1976, Vol. 2, 104)10n,713n). 
Even adjournment by a state's ratifying convention did not necessarily 
end the interest group activity there. In PetU1sylvania, petitions with 6,005-
signatures were presented to thf' f'ltatf' jpeislature requesting that the rati­
fying convention: s approval of the Constitution be reversed and the state's 
delegates to the Congress be instructed to resist its adoption. The feder-

20 



1999 Commonwealth.max

alists, apparently happy enuu!5h with the conventiun's actiun, !5athered 
only 31 opposing signatures (Boyd 1979,123-137; Jensen and others 1976, 
Vol. 2,709-725; Morris 1987,302). In North Carolina, ratification support­
ers who were disappointed with the first convention's rejection of the 
Constitution started a successful statewide petition campaign to convince 
the legislature to call a secuml cunventiun (McDuIlald 1992,312). 

Conclusion 

The ambiguity of the authority of Parliament to adopt and enforce 
the colonial policies that proved to be so unpopular in America spurred 
many Americans to form and join interest groups in unprecedented nUlll­
bers during the first part of the 1763-89 period. 

The asseltion of a new domestic constitutional authority to replace 
that which was denied to the British also stimulated interest group activ­
ity. Suddenly, there were new possibilities to be achieved through inter­
est group inilialives such as increased religious libelty and land owner­
ship. Land speculation, especially, served to affect the new constitutional 
arrangements by fueling the competition for authority between the states 
and Congress. 

The western land cessions notwithstanding, the national constitutionaL 
authority over commerce remained so weak that many interests associ­
ated with commerce agitated on behalf of an improvement, leading to 
the drafting and ratification of the Constitution itself. 

Even as the constitutional arrangements were being shuffled, there 
was a corresponding rearrangement of nonpolitical organizational rela­
tionships. In part this resulted from the split between America and Brit­
ain, as the various trans-Atlantic organizational partnerships necessar­
ily were reconfigured during the war. It also resulted from a significant 
increase during the period of the tendency to form organizations of all 
types; in this sense, what occurred was not so much a rearrangement as 
it was a blossoming of general organizational activity. 

Notes 

1. Definition of the term "interest group" has been imprecise and incon­
sistent among all branches of the social sciences. It is defined here as a 
private organization that seeks to influence governmental policy but does 
not nominate candidates for public office-i.e., is not a political party. 
See Yoho 1998. 
2. it was from the platform built by the Society to observe the transit that 
the Declaration of Independence was first read in public, seven years 
later (Hindle 1956, p. 233). 
3. Of course, not all petitions are from interest groups. 
4. For an interesting discussion of the class patterns of participation in 

21 



1999 Commonwealth.max

these organizations, see Hoff 1991, p. 51. 
5. At the peak of the resistance to the Stamp Act, the authority of those 
colonial institutions of government that were acting under authority from 
London-e.g., the governors and councils-was all but extingUished. 
6. In fairness, Olson might be read as meaning to say that Wilkes created 
only the first public opinion lobbies in Britain, as distinct from America. 
7. Revolutionary state governments were not formed in some of the colo­
lues until 1777. 
8. The other factors included the interest of the "landless" states in using 
the western lands to raise revenue and for grants to their military officers. 
9. It is a Inisconception that the Tammany Sodrty, oreanized in New 
York City in 1787, was intended to counteract the Cincinnati (Myers 1983, 
p. 192; Mushkat 1971, pp. 8-11). 
10. The text of the report is in Conway 1963, pp. 11-15. 
11. Of course, Beard's evidence, which he described as "frankly frag­
mentary/' has been persuasively refuted by, in particular, Forrest 
McDonald in We the People. McDonald notes that, contrary to many char­
acterizations of his work, Beard" carefully and explicitly denied that he 
was charging the members of the Convention with writing the Constitu­
tion for their personal benefit" (McDonald 1992, p. 6n). 
12. The context of the references to the Society was whether its members 
would dominate a popular election for the American preSidency. 
13. A good account of the early organization of the federalists is in 
Ketcham 1990, pp. 232-239. 
14. As to what Madison thought of interest groups, see Yoho 1995. 
15. This meeting is distinguished from seven others held by the free­
holders of other towns and counties for sud, purposes as inslructing 
their delegates; these were arguably official assemblies of local voters 
rather than meetings of interest groups. 

References 

Abf'rnf'thy; Thom.,,~ P 19.'i9. Western Lan.ds and the American Renolution. New York 
Russell and Russell. 

Ambler, Charles H. 1936. George Washington and the West Chapel Hill, NC: 
University of North Carolina Press, 

Andrews, Charles M.1917. The Boston Merchants and the Non-Importation Movement 
New York: Russell and Russell. 

Bacon-Foster, Corrao 1972. Early Chapters on the Development oj the Patomac Route 
to the West Washington, DC: Columbia Historical Society 

Bailey; Kenneth P. 1939. The Ohio Company of Virginia and the Westward Movement, 
1748-1792: A Chapter in the History of the Colonial Frontier Glendale, CA: Arthur 
H. Clark. 

Bailey, Raymond C. 1979. Popular Influence upon Public PoliClf: Petitioning in 
Eighteenth Century Virginia Westport, CT: Greenwood. 

Bates, Ralph. 1958. Scientific Societies in the United States New York: Columbia 
University Prf'As. 

22 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Batinski, Michael C. 1987. The New Jersey Assembly, 1738-1775: The Makin;;; of a 
Legislative Community Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 

Beard, Charles A. 1992. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United 
States New York: Free Press. 

Belote, Theodore T. 1971. The Scioto Speculation and the French Settlement at Gallipolis 
B. Franklin. 

Bonomi, Patricia. 1986. Under the Cope of HeaVCI2: Religion, Socief:y, and Politics in 
Colonial America New York: Oxford University Press. 

Boorstin, DanielJ. 1958. The Americans: The Colonial Experience New York: Random 
Huu:5e. 

Boyd, JulianP., and Robert J. Taylor, editors. 1930-1971. The Susquehannah Company 
Papers Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 11 vols. 

Boyd, Steven R1979. N Antifederalists and the Acceptance of the Constitution: 
Pel1l1sylvania, 1787-1792." Publius, 9 

Brant, Irving. 1941. James Madison: The Virginia Revolutionist Indianapolis: 
Bobbs-Merrill. 

_____ . 1948. James Madison: The Nationalist, 1780-1787 Indianapolis: 
Bobbs-MerrilL 

Bridenbaugh, Carl. 1955. Cities in Revolt: Urban Life in America, 1743-1776 New 
York: Knopf. 

Drown, Rid,ard D. 1970. Revolutionary Politics in Mussuc;husetts: The Boston 
Committee of Correspondence and the Towns, 1772-1774 Cambridge, MA: Harvard 
University, 1970. 

Bruns, Roger, editor. 19'/'/. Am 1 Not a Man and II Brother: The Antislavery Crusade 
of Revolutionary America, 1688-1788 New York: Chelsea House. 

Burnett, Edmund c., ed. 1963. Letters of Members of the Continental Congress 
Glouchester, MA: Peter Smith, 8 vols. 

Burns, Chester R 1976. "Medical Societies." In Louise Bibelof Ketz, editor, 
Dictionary of American History, Rev. Ed., Vol. 4 Nf'w York: Scribner's. 

Cash, Philip. 1980. "The Professionalization of Boston Medicine, 1760-1803." In 
Eric H. Christianson, and J. Worth Estes, eds., Medicine in Colonial Massachusetts 
Boston: Colonial Society of MosGachusctts. 

Cassedy, James H. 1976. "Medicine and the Learned Society in the United States, 
1660-1850." In Alexandra Oleson and Sanborn Brown, editors, The Pursuit of 
Knowledge in the Eurly American Republic: American SCientific Societies from 
Colonial Times to the Civil War Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Cherington, Paul T. 1976. "Chambers of Commerce." In Louise Bibelof Ketz, 
editor, Dictionary of American History, Rev. Ed. New York: Scribner's. Vol. 1. 

Conser, Walter H" Jr. 1986. "The Stamp Act Resistance." In Conser, et al. Eds. 
Resistance, Politics, and the American Struggle for Independence, 1765-1775 
Boulder, CO: Riel1l1er. 

Conway; Martha Bell, editor. 1963. The Compacts of Virginia Richmond, VA: 
Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Cooke, Jacob E. 1978. Tench Coxe and the Early Republic Chapel Hill, NC: University 
of North Carolina Press. ~ 

Coxe, Tench. 1982. "Address to an Assembly Convened to Establish a Sudety 
for the Encouragement of Manufactures and the Useful Arts." In Michael 
Brewster Folsom and Steven D. Lubar, Eds. The Philosophy of Manufactures: 

23 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Earll! Debates over Industrialization in the United States Boston, MA: 
Mas~achusetts Institute of Technology. 

Crosskey, William w., and William Jeffrey, Jr. 1980. The Political Background of the 
Fedel'al Convention Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Cushing, Harry Alonzo, editor. 1906. The Writings of Samuel Adams New York: 
Putnam. 4 vols. 

Cutler, William P., amI Julia P. Cu.ll.,r. 1888. The Life, Jour/'utb, uwl CU1Te~pumlence 
of the Rev. Manasseh Cutle1~ LL.D. Cincinnati: Clarke, 2 vols. 

Daves, John c., editor. 1925. Proceedings of the General Society of the Cincinnati, 
1781-1884 Society of the Cincinnati. 

Davis, Joseph S. 1917. Essays in the Earlier History of American Corporations 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2 vols. 

Deckel~ Malcom. 1964. Brink of Revolution: New York in Crisis, 1765-1776 Argosy 
Antiquarian. 

Dillon, Merton L 1974. The Abolitionists: The Gl'owth of a Dissenting Mino1'ity 
New York: W.W. Norton. 

Dorfman, Joseph. 1947. The Economic Mind in American Civilization: 1606-1865 
New YOlk Vlklng Press. 2 vols. 

Douglass, Elisha P. 1965. Rebels and Democrats: The Struggle for Equal Political 
Rights and Majority Rule During the American Revolution Chicago: Quadrangle 
Hooks. 

Drake, Thomas E. 1950. Quakers and Slavery in America New Haven, CT: Yale 
University Press. 

Egnal, Marc. 1988. AMighty Empire: The Origins of the American Revolution Ithaca, 
NY: Cornell University Press. 

Evans, Sara M. 1989. Born For Liberty: A History o/Women in America New York: 
Free Press. 

Farrand, Max. 1937. The Records of the Federal Convention 0/1787, Rev. Ed. New 
Haven, CT: Yale University. 1 vols. 

Ferguson, E. James. 1961. The Power of the Purse: A History of American Public 
Finance, 1776-1790 Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 

____ and John Catanzariti, editors. 1973. The Puper~ vf Rubert Murri~; 
1781-1784 Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 8 vols. 

Ferling, John E. 1988. The First of Men: A Life of George Washington Knoxville: 
University of Tennessee Press. 

Finkelman, Paul. 1987. "Slavery and the Constitutional Convention: Making a 
Covenant with Death." In Richard Beeman, Stephen Botein, and Edward C. 
Carter II, Eds. Beyond Confederation: Origins of the Constitution and American 
National Identity Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 

____ . 1989. "Slavery and Bondage in the 'Empire ofT .ib<>rty" Tn Frf'df'rkk 
D. Williams, editor, The Northwest Ordinance: Essays On Its Formulation, 
Provisions, and LegacyEast LanSing, MI: Michigan State University . 

.. FiLzpdlllck, Jolm c., editor. 1931. The Writings afGeorge Washington Washington, 
DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 39 vols. 

Flexner, James T. 1965. George Washington in the American Revolution (1775-1783) 
Hoston: Little, Brown, 1965. 

____ . 1969. George Washington and the New Nation (1783-1793) Boston: 
Little, Brown. 

24 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Ford, Worthington c., editor. 1904-1937. Journals oj the Continental Congress 
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904-1937,34 vols. 

Gerlach, Don R. 1987. Pl'oud Patriot: Philip Schuyler and the War of Independence, 
1775-1783 Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. 

Gilje, Paul A. 1987. The Road to Moboctacy: Popular Disorder in New York City, 
1763-1834 Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 

Harrington, ViIginia D. 1964. The New YOll Merchant on the Eve of the Revolution 
Glouchester, MA: Peter Smith. 

Hendrick, Burton}. 1937. Bulwark of the Republic: A Biography of the Constitution 
Boston: Little, Brown. 

Henderson, H. James. 1974. Party Politics in the Continental Congress New York: 
McGraw-Hill. 

Hindle, Brooke. 1956. The Pursuit of Science in Revolutionary America, 1735-1789 
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 

Hoff, Joan. 1991. Law, Gender, and Injustice: A Legal History oj U.S. Women New 
York: New York University Press. 

HoveYi Alvah. 1972. A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Backus, A.M. 
New York: Da Capo. 

Hutchinson, William, et aI. Eds. 1962-. The Papers of James Madison Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press, and Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia 
Press, 1962, 17 vols. 

Hymowitz, Carol, and Michaele Weissman. 1978. A History of Women in America 
New York: Bantam. 

Jackson, DunalU, anu Durothy Twuhig, ",<1:;. 1976-79. The Diarie, uf Geur:5e 
Washington Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 6 vals. 

James, Alfred P. 1959. The Ohio Company: Its Inner History Pittsburgh: University 
of Pittsburgh Press. 

James, Charles F. 1971. Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in 
Virginia New York: Da Capo. 

Jameson, J. Franklin. 1940. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement 
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Tensen, Merrill. 1936. "The Cession of the Old Northwest." Mississippi Valley 
Historical Review, 23:27-48 

__ ~_. 1939. "The Creation of the National Domain, 1781-1784." Mississippi 
Vulll':1j Historiml Re7Jiew, 26:32.3-342 

__________ . 1940. The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the 
Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774-1781 Madison, 
WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 

____ . 1950. The New Nation: A History of the United States During the 
Confederation, 1781-1789 New York: Knopf. 

____ . 1976, ",uitur. The Ducumentary Hi,tvry uf the Rutifh:utivfl vf lhe 
Constitution Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 16 vols. 

Kammen, Michael G. 1975. Colonial New York: A History New York: Scribner's. 
Ketcham, Kalph. 19':1U. James Madison: A Biography Charlottesveille, VA: University 

of Virginia Press. 
Kohn, Richard H. 1970. "Inside History of the Newburgh Conspiracy: America 

and the Coup d'Etat." William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 27:187-220 
Kornblith, Gary J. 1988. "'Cementing the Mechanic Interest: Origins of the 

25 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Providence Association of Mechanics and Manufacturers," Journal of the Early 
Republic, 1:\:355-31:\1:\ 

Leake, Isaac Q. 1971. Memoir of the Life and Times of General John Lamb New York: 
DaCapo. 

Lewis, George E. 1941. The Indiana Company Glendale, CA: Clark. 
Lingley, Charles R. 1910. The Transition in Virginia from Colony to Commonwealth 

New York Columbia University. 
Little, Lewis Peyton. 1938. Imprisoned Preachers and Religious Liberty in Virginia 

Lynchburg,I1A:Bell. 
Livermore, Shaw. 1968. rarly American Land Companies: Their Influence all Corporate 

Development London: Octagon. 
Main, Jackson Turner. 1964. The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788 

ducago: Quadrangle. 
Marks, Geoffrey, and Beatty, William K. 1973. The Story of Medicine in America 

New York: Scribner's. 
McDaniel, W.B. 1959. U A Brief Sketch of the Rise of American Medical Societies." 

In Felix Marti-Ibanez, ed. History of American Medicine MD Publications. 
Mrnnn"lcl, Fnrrr'Rt. 19iiii. P Plurilms Unum: ThP. Pm'matilln Ilf thP. Ameriran Republic, 

1776-1790 Indianapolis: Liberty Press. 
____ . 1982. Alexander Hamilton: A Biography New York: Norton. 
____ . 1992. We the People: The Ecol1omic Origins of the Constitution New 

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 
McLoughlin, William G. 1967. Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition 

Boston: Little, Brown. 
_____ ., editor. 1979. The Diary of Isaac Backus Providence, RI: Brown 

University; 3 vols. 
Mecklin, John M. 1934. The Story of American Dissent New York: Harcourt, Brace. 
Miller, Jolm C. 1959. Alexander Hamilton and the Growth of the New Nation New 

York: Harper and Row. 
Montross, Lynn. 1950. The Reluctant Rebels: The Stan; of the Continental Congress, 

1774-1779 New York: Harper and Brothers. 
Morgan, Edmund S. 1956. The Birth of the Republic, 1763-1789 Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press. 
____ . 1962. The Gentle Puritan: A Life of Ezra Stiles, 1727-1795 New Haven, 

CT: Yale University Press. 
____ ., and Helen M. Morgan. 1962. The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to 

Revolution, Rev. Ed. London: Collier. 
Morris, H.ichard 1:$. 1~46. Government and Labor m Early America New York: Harper 

and Row. 
____ ., editor. 1980. John Jay: The Winning of the Peace--Unpublished Papers, 

1780-1784 New York: Harper and Row. 
_____ . 1985. Witnesses at the Creation: Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and the 

rllnqtituti()11 New York: Plume. 
____ . 1987. The Forging of the Union: 1781-1789 New York: Harper and 

Row. 
Mushknt, Jerome. 1971. Tammany: The Evolution of a Political Machine, 1789-1865 

Syracuse, NY: Sy.racuse University Press. 
Myers, Minor, Jr. 1983. Liberty Without Anarchy: A History of the Society of the 

26 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Cincinnati Chal'lulle~ville, VA University of Virginia Press. 
Nute, Grace 1., editor. 1923. "Washington and the Potomac: Manuscripts of the 

Minnesota Historical Society." American Historical Review, 28:705-722. 
Olson, Alison G. 1982. "The London Mercantile Lobby and the Coming of the 

American Revolution." Journal of American History, 69:21-41. 
_____ 1983, "The Virginia Merchants of London: A Study in 

Eighteenth-Century Interest-Group Politics," William and Man) Quarterly, 3rd 
Series, 40:363-388. 

____ . 1992. Making the Empire Work: London and Ameri~an Tnterest Groups, 
1690-1790 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Pfeffer, Leo. 1988. "Madison's 'Detached Memoranda: Then and Now." In 
Merrill D. Peterson and Robert C. Vaughn, Eds. The Vil'ginia Statute for Religious 
Freedom: Its Evolution and Consequences in American History New York: 
Cambridge University Press. 

Philbrick, J:irancis S. 1965. The Rise of the West, 1754-1830 New York: Harper and 
Row. 

Pole, J.R. 1966. Political Representation in England and the Origins of the American 
Republic New York: St. Martill's. 

Purvis, Thomas 1. 1986. Proprietors, Patronage, and Paper Money: Legislative Politics 
ill New Jp.r.qey, 17o.~-1776 New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 

Roseboom, Eugene H. 1976. "Ohio Company of Associates." In Louise Bibelof 
Ketz, Ed. Dictionary of American History, Rev. Ed. New York: Scribner's, VoL 5. 

Ross, Frank Edward. 1933. "Lamb, John." In Dumas Malone, Ed. Dictionary of 
American Biography New York: Scribner's, VoL 10. 

Rossiter, Margaret W. 1976. "The Organization of Agricultural Improvement in 
the United States, 1785-1865." In Alexandra Ole~un ami Sanborn Brown, Eds. 
The Pursuit of Knowledge in the Early American Republic: American Scientific 
Societies from Colonial Times to the Civil War Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 
University Press. 

Rowland, Kate Mason. 1964. The Life of George Mason, 1725-1792 New York: 
Putnam's, 2 vols. 

Rutland, Robert A.e Ed. 1970. The Papers Chapel Hill, NC: University of North 
Carolina Press, 3 vols. 

Ryland, Garnett. 1955. The Baptists of Virginia, 1699-1926 Rkhmond: Baptist Board 
of Missions and Education. 

Schlesinger, Arthur M., Sr. 1957. The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution 
New York Ungar. 

Schmidt, Fredrika T., and Barbara R. Wilhelm. 1973. "Early Pro-Slavery Petitions 
in Virginia." William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 30:133-146. 

Sellers, Leila. 1~34. Charleston Business on the Eve of the Revolution Chapel Hill, 
NC: University of North Carolina Press. 

Shryock, Richard H. 1960. Medicine and Society in America, 1660-1860 New York: 
New York University Press. 

Singleton, MarvinK 1985. "Colonial Virginia as First Amendment Matrix: Henry, 
Madison, and Assessment Establishment." In Robert S. Alley, Ed, Tames 
Madison on Religious Liberty Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. 

Skeen, C. Edward. 1974. "The Newburgh Conspiracy Reconsidered." William 
and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 31:273-298. 

27 



1999 Commonwealth.max

Smith, Charles P. 1956. James Wilson: founding rathel, 1742-1798 Chapel Hill, 
NC: University of North Carolina Press. 

Sosin, Jack M. 1967. The Revolutionary Frontier: 1763-1783 New York: Holt, 
Rinehart, and Wilson. 

Starr, Paul. 1982. The Social Transformation of American Medicine New York: Basic 
Books. 

Starr, Rebecca K. 1991. "Political mobilization, 1765-1776." In Jack P. Greene 
and J.R. Pole, Eds., The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution 
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. 

Steffen, Charles G. 1984. The Mechanics of Baltimore: Workers and Politics in the 
Age of Revolution, 1763-1812 Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. 

Stevens, John A., editor. 1971. Colonial Records of the New Yprk Chamber of Commerce 
B. Franklin. 

Syrett, Harold c., and others. 1961-1987. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton New 
York: Columbia University Press, 27 vols. 

True, Alfred C. 1929. A History of Agricultural Education in the United States 
Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Office. 

Van Doren, CarL 1938. Benjamin Frankljn New York: Penguin. 
____ . 1948. The Great Rehearsal: The Story oj the Making and RatifiJing of the 

Constitution of the United States (New York: Viking) 
Ver Steeg, Clarence 1. 1954. Robert Morris: Revolutionary Financier Philadelphia: 

University of Pennsylvania Press. 
Walsh, Richard. 1959. Charleston's SOI1S ofLiberhf A Study of the Artisans, 1763-1789 

Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. 
Whitehill, Walter M. 1976. "Early Learned Societies in Boston and Vicinity." In 

Alexandra Oleson and Sanborn Brown, Eds. The Pursuit of Knowledge in the 
Early American Republic: American Scientific Societies from Colonial Times to the 
Civil War Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Woodward, W.E. 1926. George Washington: The Image and the Man New York: 
Boni and Liveright. 

Wright, Esmond. 1961. Fabric ojFreedom, 1763-1800 New York: Hill and Wang. 
Yoho, James. 1995. "Madison on the Beneficial Effects of Interest Groups: What 

Was Left Unsaid in Federalist 10." Polity, 27:587-605. 
____ . 1998. "The Evolution of a Better Definition of 'Interest Group' and 

Its Synonyms." The Social Science Journal, 35:231-243. 
Zilversmit, Arthur. 1967. The First Emancipation: The Abolition of Slavery in the 

North Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

28