Jose Nino, Abbeville Institute:
When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, North Carolina elected Willie Jones as a delegate, but he declined to accept his seat, recognizing that the gathering intended to create a centralized government that would diminish state sovereignty.
A wealthy planter, radical Jeffersonian, and the foremost Anti-Federalist leader in North Carolina, Jones is remembered chiefly for blocking his state’s ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 and helping force the adoption of the Bill of Rights….
Once committed to independence, Jones became one of North Carolina’s most powerful revolutionary figures. Royal Governor Josiah Martin noted that Jones was “one of the loudest voices encouraging secession from Britain and the establishment of an independent state,” per the North Carolina History Project. He was elected to all five of North Carolina’s Provincial Congresses, served as President of the Council of Safety in 1776—which briefly made him the de facto head of state until Richard Caswell was elected the first governor— served as a member of the commission that drafted North Carolina’s first state constitution, served as Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the southern colonies, and represented the state in the Continental Congress in 1780. He also fought militarily as a lieutenant colonel under General Nathanael Greene, leading 300 men in the pursuit of Lord Cornwallis.
During the Fifth Provincial Congress, Jones served on the commission that drafted the state’s first constitution and its accompanying declaration of rights, successfully navigating a compromise that established a highly democratic, powerful legislature…
Jones’ most enduring political act was his leadership of the opposition to the U.S. Constitution’s ratification. When elected as a delegate to the Federal Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, he declined to accept his seat, telling Governor Caswell that he did not “think it will be in my power to attend there at the Time appointed”—a telling sign of his skepticism toward the entire project of constitutional consolidation. Recognizing that the convention intended to create a powerful centralized government that would diminish state sovereignty, Jones assumed the role of field marshal for the Anti-Federalist forces in North Carolina.
Jones’s critique of the Constitution was rooted in a distinct political philosophy regarding republican governance and civic virtue. He believed that true civic virtue and self-governing liberty could only survive where citizens held direct, face-to-face relationships with their representatives. He saw the Constitution as a dangerous instrument of centralization that would transfer sovereign authority from the states to a distant, powerful federal government.
He argued that only the states, not the federal government, should have the power to tax citizens directly. He believed the federal government should not control the time, place, or manner of elections, fearing manipulation to favor wealthy gentry. Jones feared the Constitution permitted the creation of a permanent standing army, which he viewed as a tool of tyranny. In addition, he was alarmed by the prospect of a Supreme Court empowered to overrule state court decisions. He worried the federal government would regulate the economy to benefit a small class of commercial and mercantile interests over common citizens. Most critically, Jones demanded an enumerated declaration of individual rights before any ratification could proceed.
Jones articulated a philosophy rooted in the belief that small republics best protect individual liberty, that genuine civic community and self-governance could only flourish at the state and local level, not in a vast, consolidated national government. As political scientist Herbert J. Storing characterized Anti-Federalists broadly in What the Anti-Federalists Were For, Jones believed that “the American polity had to be a moral community if it was to be anything, and that the seat of that community must be the hearts of the people”…
At the Hillsborough Convention in July 1788, where Anti-Federalists held a commanding majority, Jones coordinated the opposition. He largely remained silent on the convention floor, allowing Samuel Spencer to act as the primary debater, while he focused on keeping the Anti-Federalist delegates united. Despite a vigorous campaign by Federalist leaders such as James Iredell and William R. Davie, the Hillsborough Convention voted 184 to 84 to neither ratify nor reject the Constitution. Federalist Archibald MacLaine later lamented, “We might have carried our point… but for Willie Jones.”
Jones’s famous declaration captured his stance perfectly: “I would rather be eighteen years out of the Union than adopt it in its present defective state.” North Carolina remained outside the Union for over a year. The Hillsborough holdout achieved its primary goal. Faced with resistance from North Carolina and Rhode Island, the first United States Congress drafted the federal Bill of Rights and submitted it to the states for ratification. North Carolina’s refusal to ratify directly pressured the First Congress to act. When Congress passed the Bill of Rights in 1789, North Carolina ratified the Constitution at Fayetteville by a vote of 195 to 77. Jones, realizing the Federalists now had the votes, did not attend the 1789 Fayetteville convention and quietly withdrew from politics.
The Anti-Federalists’ pressure across all 13 states, with Jones as one of its key orchestrators, compelled James Madison to draft the first ten amendments. The freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, protection from unreasonable searches, and the reservation of unenumerated powers to the states under the Tenth Amendment all owe a direct debt to Anti-Federalist insistence.
In 1791, Jones was appointed to the state commission tasked with selecting the permanent site for North Carolina’s new capital, within ten miles of Isaac Hunter’s tavern in Wake County. Thanks to his efforts in purchasing and plotting the land, he is historically recognized as the “real founder of Raleigh”…
He understood what most politicians today have forgotten, that centralized power is the enemy of liberty, and that the closer the government remains to the people it governs, the more accountable it will be. His insistence on a Bill of Rights before ratification was not a mere act of obstruction but a principled stand that secured the freedoms Americans now take for granted.
That was interesting, TC. Jones was a significant figure in North Carolina’s revolutionary history. And we have him to thank for the bill of rights.
It’s quite a story, Fred. And he had the foresight to see how things were going to degenerate over the long run under the Constitution that was adopted.
Thanks for this featuring of important founding father Willie [pronounced ‘Wiley’; he was named for a Rev. Willie] Jones.
It is really too bad that Jones, Richard Caswell, Robt. Yates of NY, and other libertarian founders (who could have) did not participate in that conspiracy behind locked doors in Philadelphia in the Summer of 1787. They could have improved the Constitution in the direction of guarding state autonomy and individual liberty. George Mason’s requirement of 2/3 majority to regulate commerce might have survived, which could have prevented the Tariff of Abominations, Lincoln’s War, and Obamacare.
They were also unfortunately conspicuously absent in the 1st couple of year of the Federal govt’s life, resulting in a more limited Bill of Rights from Madison (who at that point was a nationalist).
When Willie Jones wrote North Carolina’s Constitution in 1776, he started with a Bill of Rights.
I think the quote “the American polity had to be a moral community if it was to be anything, and that the seat of that community must be the hearts of the people” is from Storing rather than Jones.” Not because Jones as a Deist wouldn’t be concerned about morality, but because there are just so few surviving quotes from him.
It seems, J. Sobran, that the 10th Amendment should have been enough to prevent what Jones feared. But obviously it wasn’t, in part because of language in other parts of the document that left an opening to those desiring centralized power. And when I say “language”, I mean things that were not stated, as well as things that were stated.
Indeed, Triad. Language that tied the Federal government’s hands more lucidly would have made it a much stronger document.
Yet as we’ve seen during Lincoln’s War, WWI, Covid, & even the Quasi-war with France in the 1790s, the weasels who gain power find a way to ignore the Constitution wholesale. In these instances, “emergency” was seen to over-ride the written law, even as the whole point of a constitution is to guard against the government doing what is expedient.
But there was not even the emergency excused for the many, many acts of war by the US since WWII without a Declaration of War as required by the Constitution. They’ll pretend that trying to destroy a nation of 93 million souls–to send it back to the Stone Age–isn’t a war, but just an excursion. No lie can be too bald-faced when you have power and the Mockingbird media.
J. Sobran, the issue of leaders ignoring the plain language of the Constitution, and getting away with it, is yet another issue– but as you point out, it is a very big one. It is extremely commonplace, unfortunately. Why bother having a constitution if you are not going to obey it, and follow it?