1

Crafting an Image of Unity: The New York Federal Procession, 1788

On July 23, 1788 at ten o’clock in the morning, thousands of people processed through

New York City in celebration of the ratification of the Constitution of the United States by ten

states. While New York State would not ratify the document until three days later on July 26,

1788, the Committee of Arrangements, a planning group under the influence of the Federalist

Party, “found it impossible any longer to oppose the patriotic ardor of their fellow citizens,” and

elected to stage the New York Federal Procession.1 The procession was a carefully crafted

spectacle designed by New York Federalists to display a homogeneously pro-Constitution image

of New York State. A cohesive program of imagery and ephemeral architecture produced for the

Procession in support of the Constitution obscured political tensions and worked to promote

Federalist ideology as a source of unity.

This unified, pro-Constitution image was expressly designed to occlude the political

reality in New York State. In April and May of 1788, just months before the procession, forty-six

of the sixty-five delegates elected to vote at the New York State Constitutional Convention were

Antifederalists, categorically opposed to the ratification of the constitution, particularly without

amendments.2 In spite of this lack of public favor, or perhaps in response to it, New York

Federalists began planning a celebration in honor of the ratification of the Constitution by nine

states.3 Widespread participation was an essential component of this endeavor, as was the

publication of accounts of the event in a number of readily accessible newspapers throughout the

1 Noah Webster, “Description of the New York City Federal Procession,” New York Daily Advertiser, 2 August 1788, in The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, ed. John P. Kaminski et al. (Madison: 2 David E. Narrett, “A Zeal for Liberty: The Antifederalist Case Against the Constitution in New York,” New York History 69, no. 3 (July 1988): 288. 3 Please note that New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify on June 21, 1788, this news reached New York City on June 25, 1788; Federalists immediately began planning a procession in celebration. While Virginia ratified on June 25, 1788, news did not reach New York until July 2, 1788. Therefore, during the early planning stages, the procession was to celebrate the ratification of nine states, it was expanded to ten some days later. See John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladin, Richard Leffler, and Charles H. Schoenleber, eds., The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (Madison: Wisconsin Historical Society Press, 2009) 21: 1584.

2

region. Published imagery reinforced the message of Constitutional unity heralded by banners

and ephemeral architecture used during the procession which depicted Federalist ideology as

patriotic while any opposition to the Constitution was categorically anti-American.

This cohesive visual program opens an avenue for the interpretation of the use of

spectacle in the Early Republic as a potent social tool.4 While scholars have considered

individual components of the procession imagery and the larger political landscape of New York

State, this paper analyzes visual imagery and ephemeral architecture produced for the procession

as a unified whole.5 Significantly, Laura Rigal’s analysis of the Grand Federal Procession, held

in Philadelphia the same year, serves as a model for thematic analysis of a variety of artistic

media in the context of the Early Republic.6 Considering imagery and ephemeral architecture in

the context of the violent debate over the Constitution in New York State illuminates the

significance of spectacle and imagery as persuasive tools.

The primary component of the New York Federal Procession, a linear procession, was

modeled on previous celebrations of the ratification of the Constitution, the first of which

occurred in Boston where artisans were said to have spontaneously joined together to celebrate

the victory of the Federalists and the Constitution.7 Like its predecessors, the New York

procession included representatives of many of the city’s craftsmen, from brewers and inspectors 4 The political motives of the procession are largely overlooked in the earliest accounts of the event which document rather than interpret. Martha J. Lamb, History of the City of New York: Its Origin, Rise and Progress (New York and Chicago: A. S. Barnes, 1887), 2: 321-328. Sarah H. Simpson. “The Federal Procession in the City of New York,” New York Historical Society Quarterly 9 (1925): 39-57. Whitfield J. Bell, “The Federal Processions of 1788,” New York Historical Society Quarterly 46 (1962): 5-40. 5 Thomas J. Schlereth, “The New York Artisan in the Early Republic: A Portrait from Graphic Evidence, 1787-1853,” Material Culture 20, no. 1 (Spring 1988): 1-31. Roberta J. M. Olson, Drawn by New York: Six Centuries of Watercolors and Drawings at the New-York Historical Society (New York: New-York Historical Society, 2008), 62-63. Richard J. Koke, American Landscape and Genre Paintings in the New-York Historical Society: A Catalogue of the Collection, Including Historical, Narrative, and Marine Art (New York: New-York Historical Society, 1982), 2: 78. 6 Laura Rigal, “‘Raising the Roof’: Authors, Spectators and Artisans in the Grand Federal Procession of 1788,” Theatre Journal 48, no. 3 (October 1996): 253-277. 7 Jürgen Heideking, “The Federal Procession of 1788 and the Origins of American Civil Religion,” Soundings 77, no. 3 (Fall/Winter 1994): 370.

3

of flour to chocolate-makers and tallow-chandlers. The majority of these groups carried banners

inscribed with pro-union and pro-Constitution imagery. For example, the flag carried by the

pewterers combined references to the theme of the day, unity, with a representation of their craft

(Fig. 1). Within the banner itself, a painted American flag with thirteen stars and thirteen stripes

flies over the pewterers’ crest and the phrase “Solid and Pure.” Although symbols and text

asserting American unity are depicted above representations of the pewter’s craft, the crest and

genre scene dominate the flag. While Sean Wilentz argues that Republican imagery and

depictions of craft often vied for space on banners produced for federal processions during the

late 1780s, this banner illustrates the importance of craft in the Early Republic.8 The size of the

tankards and teapot, depicted at a larger scale than other elements of the banner suggest the flag

is an advertisement for the pewterer’s wares in addition to a political statement. The large crest,

which features a worm used for distilling, provides a link between the pewterers and the

economy of the Early Republic.9 Adjacent to the crest, the unframed depiction of four pewterers

at work on the right side of the flag is candid and expresses the apprenticeship system employed

by American pewterers.10 This imagery would have been particularly important because, unlike

many other trades, pewterers could not demonstrate their work on a float during the procession.

The text printed about the workshop scene reads;

The Federal plan most solid and secure, Americans their freedom will ensure; All arts shall flourish in Columbia’s land, And all her Sons join as one social band.11

8 Wilentz, “Artisan Republican Festivals and the Rise of Class Conflict in New York City, 1788-1837,” in Working-Class America: Essays on Labor, Community, and American Society, ed. Michael H. Frisch and Daniel J. Walkowitz (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1983), 49. 9 Charles F. Montgomery, A History of American Pewter (New York: Praeger, 1973), 20. 10 Ibid., 25-27. 11 Noah Webster, “Description of the New York City Federal Procession,” 1650.

4

The pewterers’ flag references hopes for economic prosperity, reiterating the advertising function

of the banner and expressing the pewterer’s expectations for the Constitution as a source of

economic gain. The text, promising that arts will, “flourish in Columbia’s land,” refers to the fact

that many New York artisans supported the Constitution because it would establish tariff

protection from foreign competition.12 Therefore, it is probable that while many craftsmen did

support the Federalist Party, their support was motivated by the potential for economic gain

rather than a profound belief in the value of the unity under a strong Constitution. Additionally,

in reasserting their role as artisans, the pewterers employed this public venue to depict, both

through imagery and text, the complexity and necessity of their work.

Text and imagery like that displayed by the pewterers is representative of what David

Waldstreicher, a scholar of American nationalism and festivals, describes as a fusion of a more

general patriotic sentiment with the political rhetoric of the Federalists.13 This politicization of

patriotism is particularly significant because it worked to exclude Antifederalist ideology from

the realm of the patriotic. The use of the word “Federal” was laced with political connotations,

referencing the raging debate between the preservation of close control over the actions of the

government (Antifederalists) and a framework of representation (Federalists).14

This tension is particularly significant because, unlike earlier federal processions, the

New York festivities took place before the state ratified the Constitution. The role of the New

York Federal Procession as a persuasive tool is evident in a letter from Richard Platt, the

Chairman of the Committee of Arrangements, to the delegates of the Constitutional Convention

meeting in Poughkeepsie to conduct New York’s ratification vote. He praises the behavior of the

12 Wilentz, “Artisan Republican Festivals and the Rise of Class Conflict in New York City, 1788-1837,” 55. 13 David Waldstreicher, In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes: The Making of American Nationalism, 1766-1820 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 55. 14 David Wootton, The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003), xx.

5

participants and spectators, noting, “not a single Person appeared intoxicated; nor a single

offense given, or injury done to any One. The Citizens at large are too sensibly impress’d [sic]

with the importance of the cause they have espoused to suffer it to be disgraced by any act of

violence, or even illiberality.”15 For Platt, this report of good behavior served as evidence for

public support of the Constitution and the unity of the city and state. Furthermore, the lack of

violence would have been particularly significant considering a riot in Albany on July 4, 1788

following a celebration of independence.16 Platt sent this letter to New York delegates the day of

the procession, reaffirming the propagandistic intentions of the Federalist Committee of

Arrangements in his zeal to report on the positive aspects of the festivities.

After the procession completed the designed route, participants arrived at the home of

Nicholas Bayard who had donated the use of a field for the celebratory dinner. The banquet

pavilion was the only ephemeral architecture created for the procession (Fig. 2). Designed by

Pierre Charles L’Enfant, this structure physically expressed the Federalist belief in unity

achieved through the Constitution. As depicted in David Grim’s watercolor, ten dining tables

radiated from a central hub which was topped with a dome crowned by an allegorical figure of

Fame holding a trumpet and a standard proclaiming “Independence, Alliance with France,

Peace” (Fig. 3).17 The radiating spoke pattern foreshadows L’Enfant’s later designs for the city

of Washington D. C. and suggests unity and connectedness.18 The size of the pavilion, reportedly

large enough to seat all 5,000 participants also reinforced the Federalist message of unity. On

15 Richard Platt to the Delegates of the City and County of New York in Convention, New York, 23 July 1788, in Kaminski et al., 21: 1603. 16 Federalists and Antifederalists clashed, “stones, clubs and bricks were used on both sides.” While all injured parties recovered, rioters broke all of the windows at the home of a Mr. Hilton, an Antifederalist, causing significant damage. “Extract from a letter from Albany, July 6,” New-York Journal, 14 July 1788. 17 Noah Webster, “Description of the New York City Federal Procession,” 1657. 18 Roberta J. M. Olson, Drawn by New York: Six Centuries of Watercolors and Drawings at the New-York Historical Society (New York: New-York Historical Society, 2008), 63.

6

either side of the central domed structure, the flags of France, Spain, Sweden, Prussia, Holland,

and Morocco expressed unity, not just nationally, but with international allies.

Grim’s watercolor, believed to be the only image of the banquet pavilion, was produced

for exclusively private use and served no official function.19 Significantly, Grim did not produce

his drawings for financial gain, rather, he worked as a tavern keeper and merchant.20 While his

personal political leanings are not documented, his status as a merchant suggests his solidarity

with the craftsmen and mechanics who participated in the procession. It is likely that Grim’s

rendition of the pavilion was produced for his personal amusement after the 1788 procession

based on his memory of the event. Additionally, the folds in the paper of the diagram suggest

that Grim’s watercolor was not preserved as a work of art. Due to the fact that not other

renditions of the pavilion exist, one may not comment on its accuracy, however, in producing

diagrams after the political heat of the moment had passed, Grim would have had little

motivation to manipulate his image. While the only figures in the image are soldiers loading

cannons, likely a reference to the Revolutionary War, one can imagine Grim’s tables filled with

mechanics and craftsmen dining after the lengthy procession. As a visual document, Grim’s

watercolor depicts the Federalist Party’s use of architecture as an expression of unity working in

concert with other imagery associated with the procession.

The official account of the procession, written by staunch Federalist Noah Webster, was

published in newspapers throughout the region.21 According to Webster, the feeling of unity

expressed by L’Enfant’s design for the banquet pavilion prevailed as the procession returned to

its starting point to conclude the day’s festivities. He interprets the lack of violence, especially

19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 62. 21 Webster’s account was published throughout the region, for a comprehensive listing of known reprintings, see Kaminsky et al., 21:1631.

7

due to the heightened emotions of the crowd and participants, as a sign of the success of the

procession. Webster observed:

But what most excited surprize [sic] . . . was, to see a numberless multitude, in view of a tempting collation, not only adhering to every rule of decorum, unawed by a single bayonet or espontoon.—But tho’ under the influence of public passions, verging to enthusiasm, peaceably, at an early hour, retiring without a single instance of rudeness or intemperance.22

Webster’s assertions of the orderliness and conviviality of all participants addresses the crux of

the Federalist’s manipulation of spectacle as a tool for public persuasion. Webster waxes on the

success of the procession, the unity of the city, and the universal support for Federalist ideology

and the Constitution, reinforcing the ideology expressed in visual imagery and ephemeral

architecture. Furthermore, the majority of newspaper accounts describe both the procession and

the Constitution favorably which is unsurprising given that the majority of publishers in New

York supported Federalist ideals.23 The Federalist sentiment expressed in accounts of this nature

was only amplified when New York Federalists received word that delegates in Poughkeepsie

ratified the Constitution on July 26, 1788. This news prompted the addition of New York as the

eleventh column in the metaphorical federal edifice.

The image of the federal edifice was first published in the Massachusetts Centinel, with

five pillars, on January 16, 1788.24 On August 2, 1788, the Centinel published a now iconic

illustration, adding New York as the eleventh pillar of the firm structure of the federal edifice

(Fig. 4). This image presents an image of unity that interprets the ratification by all thirteen states

as positive and inevitable. The caption near the leaning, yet largely intact, North Carolina pillar

reads “Rise it will,” an assertion of the unity that will undoubtedly accompany the

22 Noah Webster, “Description of the New York City Federal Procession,” 1658. 23 The majority of the editors of the six newspapers in New York at the time of the 1788 New York Federal Procession had personal Federalist sympathies. See Marcus Daniel, Scandal and Civility: Journalism and the Birth of American Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 20. 24 Kaminski et al., 23: 2453.

8

implementation of the Constitution. Additionally, the text associated with the Rhode Island pillar

reads, “The foundation good—it may yet be SAVED,” casting the Constitution as restorative. As

a shelter for freedom, agriculture, commerce, and religion, the federal edifice was presented as a

visualization of the Federalist conceptualization of the Constitution. The addition of New York, a

site of much debate between the Federalists and Antifederalists both visually and historically

cemented the Constitution.

While the majority of publishers in the region printed Federalist materials and positive

accounts of the New York Federal Procession and subsequent ratification of the Constitution,

Antifederalist New York printer Thomas Greenleaf published a negative review of the

procession. While Greenleaf was the only New York printer that did not participate in the

procession, his Antifederalist ideology was aligned with the sentiment of much of New York

State and exemplifies political tension concerning the Constitution.25 On July 24, 1788,

Greenleaf published a short account of the procession which read,

Yesterday the GRAND PROCESSION ‘in honor of the Constitution of the United States,’ paraded to and fro, and walked up and down, in this city, to the novel entertainment of all classes of people. The procession made a very pompous appearance, and was conducted in a regular and decent manner . . . Some of the flags were well executed, and others (it is supposed through haste) as badly; and the designs were generally ingenious . . . The poor antis [antifederalists] generally minded their own business at home others, who were spectators at an awful distance, looked as sour as the Devil. As for the feds, they rejoiced in different degrees—there was the ha, ha, ha! And the he, he, he!26

In spite of his Antifederalist affiliation, Greenleaf’s account is quite balanced. He praises

elements of the procession he found notable while criticizing elements he found wanting.

Negative commentary of the procession, however, was not tolerated. The New York Packet

described Greenleaf’s commentary as a “despicable attempt . . . to ridicule the Procession,

25 Daniel, 20. 26 Thomas Greenleaf, New York Journal, 24 July 1788, in Kaminski et al., 21: 1615-1616.

9

[which] discovers the baseness of a little mind, a sterile brain, and the miserable, illiberal, and

vulgar arts, which are put in execution, to support a bad cause.”27 The New Haven Gazette

reprinted the portions of Greenleaf’s commentary it found reprehensible, particularly his remark

about the potter’s float and his acknowledgment that the Antifederalists were not celebrating

with the same zeal as Federalists.28 Greenleaf’s printing references the political discord which

was completely overlooked or avoided in other publications.29

While the New York Federal Procession and the associated imagery and ephemeral

architecture relentlessly promoted an image of unity under the Constitution, events after New

York’s ratification of the Constitution exemplify not only a lack of unity, but deep political

tension. On July 26, 1788, a mob of Federalists broke into Greenleaf’s shop, broke his windows

and destroyed his press and type. An anonymous author wrote to the editor of the New York

Packet explaining the attack on Greenleaf’s shop as the direct result of his comments against the

potter’s float during the procession.30 While the author condemns the use of violence, he places

the blame for the incident on Greenleaf’s publication of negative comments regarding the

procession which the former describes as “absurd.” Several weeks later, Greenleaf responded in

his paper, the New York Journal. He describes the destruction of his shop and equipment as

punishment for, “No other crime than that of having ACTED THE PART OF AN

INDEPENDENT CITIZEN, by admitting political pieces into his paper, which were opposed to

the general sentiments of the inhabitants of the city, upon the momentous subject of the new

constitution.”31 While Greenleaf’s charge against the Federalists for suppressing his freedom of

27 Report, New York Packet, 25 July 1788, in Kaminski et al., 21: 1617. 28 Report, New Haven Gazette, 31 July 1788, in, Kaminski et al., 21: 1618. 29 Daniel, 20. 30 “Excerpt of a Letter from New-York, July 28” New York Packet, 30 July 1788, in, Kaminski et al., 21: 1617. 31 Thomas Greenleaf, “To the PUBLIC,” New York Journal, 7 August 1788, in Kaminski et al., 23: 2409. Emphasis is Greenleaf’s.

10

speech points to Federalists efforts to obscure alternative political views, a letter from an

anonymous gentleman succinctly describes the political tensions in New York City, “It is

impossible for me to give you any adequate idea of the situation we are in at present in this

city . . . not a word can transpire here, unless to gratify a red-hot federal faction.”32 In light of the

attack on Greenleaf’s shop and the imagery of unity created by the New York Federal

Procession, this assessment points to the Federalist domination of political expression.

The violence against Greenleaf is evidence of tension between Federalists and

Antifederalists after the New York Federal Procession asserted the unity of New York under the

Constitution. Considering the riot in Albany, in addition to ongoing debates between the two

parties, and the attack on Greenleaf’s shop as bookends; the procession clearly worked to

obscure political tension in favor of political homogeneity. In the context of this conflict, the

unflagging symbolic representations of unity under the Constitution designed for the procession

clearly expressed Federalist desires rather than political reality. Through imagery and ephemeral

architecture, the organizers of the New York Federal Procession crafted a cohesive program that

supported their political goals. This imagined unity disregarded the political views of many and

was primarily a vehicle for the creation of an image of unity and prosperity designed to suit a

Federalist, pro-Constitution agenda rather than a celebratory outlet for a united public.

32 “Extract of a letter from a gentlemen in New-York, to his friend in this city, July 31,” Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 7 August 1788, in Kaminski et al., 23: 2411.

11

Selected Bibliography

Heideking, Jürgen. “The Federal Procession of 1788 and the Origins of American Civil Religion.” Soundings 77, no. 3 (Fall/Winter 1994): 367-387.

Kammen, Michael G. Colonial New York: A History, 1975.Reprint, New York: Oxford

University Press, 1996. Kaminski, John P, Gaspare J. Saladin, Richard Leffler, and Charles H. Schoenleber, eds. The

Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. 26 vols. Madison: Wisconsin Historical Society Press, 2009.

Klein, Milton M. “Mythologizing the U.S. Constitution.” Soundings 78, no. 1 (Spring 1995):

169-187. Koke, Richard J. American Landscape and Genre Paintings in the New-York Historical Society:

A Catalogue of the Collection, Including Historical, Narrative, and Marine Art, 2 vols. New York: New-York Historical Society, 1982.

Narrett, David E. “A Zeal for Liberty: The Antifederalist Case Against the Constitution in New

York.” New York History 69, no. 3 (July 1988): 284-317. Olson, Roberta J. M. Drawn by New York: Six Centuries of Watercolors and Drawings at the

New-York Historical Society. With Alexandra Mazzitelli. New York: New-York Historical Society, 2008.

Rigal, Laura. “‘Raising the Roof’: Authors, Spectators and Artisans in the Grand Federal

Procession of 1788.” Theatre Journal 48, no. 3 (October 1996): 253-277. Robertson, Andrew W. “Look on this Picture . . . And on This!” Nationalism, Localism, and

Partisan Images of Otherness in the United States, 1787-1820.” American Historical Review 106, no. 4 (October 2001): 1263-1280.

Waldstreicher, David. In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes: The Making of American Nationalism,

1766-1820. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. ———. “Rites of Rebellion, Rites of Assent: Celebrations, Print Culture, and the Origins of

American Nationalism.” Journal of American History 82, no. 1 (June 1995): 37-61. Wilentz, Sean. “Artisan Republican Festivals and the Rise of Class Conflict in New York City,

1788-1837.” In Working-Class America: Essays on Labor, Community, and American Society. Edited by Michael H. Frisch and Daniel J. Walkowitz, 37-77. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1983.

12

Figures

Figure 1. Pewterer’s Banner, ca. 1788, New York Historical Society Museum

Figure 2. David Grim (1737-1826), Federal Banquet Pavilion in 1788, New York City, after 1788, watercolor, graphite, and black ink on paper, 9 5/8 x 15 7/16 inches, New York Historical Society Museum

13

Figure 3. David Grim (1737-1826), detail, Federal Banquet Pavilion in 1788, New York City, after 1788, watercolor, graphite, and black ink on paper, New York Historical Society Museum

Figure 4. Artist Unknown, “On the Erection of the Eleventh Pillar” August 2, 1788 Massachusetts Centienel, Boston, Massachusetts, Woodcut, New York Historical Society Library