If the orientation of the state federalists was significantly different from those of other groups in the Convention, it should be possible to find a distinctive pattern in their voting. Aside from the remarks they made, which may be subject to interpretation, such a pattern of voting would be objective evidence of a special orientation.
A basic obstacle to the search for such a pattern lies in the fact that votes were recorded for states, rarely for individuals. Only from Connecticut were all the delegates state federalists, but the group also had control of the delegations of South Carolina and, usually, North Carolina. Many more votes, however, were taken on issues relating to the southern economy and southern apprehensions about a northern majority than on state-federalist issues, which strongly differentiated the group into northern and southern wings. So the search is unavoidably simplified to the question of whether Connecticut voted in a distinctive way.
Previous researchers using quantitative methods have found the state to be something of a maverick. Forrest McDonald, employing a percentage-of- agreement method, said that " Maryland and Connecticut acted as two lone wolves," and S. Sidney Ulmer, using Elementary Factor Analysis, suggested