Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States
by unknown · English · Gutenberg #47110 · 942,714 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States
Editor: Paul Leicester Ford
Release date: October 14, 2014 [eBook #47110]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47110
Credits: David Edwards, Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PAMPHLETS ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ***
------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s note:
Numbers in square brackets are the page numbers
in the original documents and the numbers in
parentheses are the footnote numbers.
------------------------------------------------
PAMPHLETS
on the
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
PUBLISHED DURING
ITS DISCUSSION BY THE PEOPLE
1787-1788.
EDITED
WITH NOTES AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY
BY
PAUL LEICESTER FORD.
BROOKLYN, N. Y.:
1888.
PREFACE.
The English speaking people have been a race of pamphleteers. Whenever
a question—religious, political, military or personal—has interested
the general public, it has occasioned a war of pamphlets, which,
however partisan and transitory, were in a manner photographs of the
public opinion, and as such have been used and valued by students and
publicists.
The rarity and consequent difficulty of reaching this class of
literature has been, however, a great obstacle to its use as sources
of history. The name of pamphlet tells the purpose of these little
publications. Written hurriedly, to effect a purpose for which there
is not enough time or matter for a more elaborate volume, they are
thrown by after a brief circulation and before a decade has passed, the
edition has disappeared, and if any are still in existence, they are
only to be found in the few public and private libraries which have
taken the trouble to secure these fugitive leaflets.
The recognized value of these tractates in England has led to very
extensive republications; and the _Harleian Miscellany_, the _Somers
Tracts_, the issues of the Roxburghe, Bannatyne, Maitland, Chetham,
Camden and Percy societies and the reprints of Halliwell, Collier, and
M’Culloch, not to mention many minor collections, have placed several
thousand of them within the reach of every one. But in America few
attempts have been made to collect this kind of literature—Peter Force
reprinted a series of pamphlets on the early settlement of the United
States and a work of similar scope on Canada, containing reprints
of the so called “Jesuit Relations” was printed under the patronage
of the Canadian government. John Wingate Thornton and Frank Moore
have collected a number of the patriotic sermons preached before and
during the Revolutionary war. Franklin B. Hough republished a series
of the funeral sermons and eulogies on the death of Washington, and
James Spear Loring did the same for the orations delivered in Boston
from 1770 to 1852. Samuel G. Drake reprinted a collection of tracts
relating to King Philip’s war, Joseph Sabin issued a series relating
to the propagation of the gospel among the New England Indians, and
William H. Whitmore edited, for the Prince Society, a number relating
to the governorship of Sir Edmund Andros—but these are the only
attempts worth mentioning to systematically gather these leaflets of
our history, and which have singularly neglected those bearing on
politics and government, in which we have so largely originated the
true theories and methods.
When the student or historian comes to examine the earlier pamphlet
literature of our country he encounters the greatest difficulty in
their use. The lack of communication between the colonies or states,
with its consequent localization of the pamphlet; the small edition
caused by the high price of paper, which at that time was the costly
element in the production of books; the little value attached by each
generation to the pamphlets of its own time; the subsequent wars,
with the destruction and high price of old paper that came with them,
and the general disregard of historical material that existed for
many years after the stirring times that occasioned these arguments,
have all tended to make these tracts almost impossible to consult;
and any one desiring to examine the original editions of the thirteen
pamphlets contained in this volume would be compelled to visit the
public libraries in the cities of Washington, Philadelphia, New York,
Albany and Boston, while it would take a life time of patient searching
and waiting to collect them from the second-hand booksellers and
auction-rooms, at prices that few would care to pay.
As the rarity of these pamphlets has caused their neglect, so also has
their anonymous publication. It was a time of literary masks, and
we often find, like the knights of old, that when their masks were
removed, they had concealed our ablest statesmen, one of whom wrote of
his anonymous pamphlet, “If the reasoning in the pamphlet you allude to
is just, it will have its effect on candid and discerning minds;—if
weak and inconclusive, my name cannot render it otherwise,” but it is
certain, whatever the effect at the moment, that more attention and
care would have been given these works by succeeding generations had
they borne the name of one of the makers of our nation, rather than the
pseudonymous mask which gave no clue to its authorship.
In America, we are too apt to forget the losing side of a question.
Few to-day know of the intense struggle that took place over the
ratification of our constitution, or realize that the adoption of a
government which has worked so successfully, met with the strongest
opposition from such men as Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George
Mason, George Clinton, Samuel Chase, Elbridge Gerry, Albert Gallatin,
James Monroe and others, while many equally famous were either neutral
or gave it but lukewarm support. If the great fear and prediction of
these men—that the general government would entirely subvert the state
governments, with a consequent loss of personal freedom—has not been
realized, it will nevertheless be seen in the following pages that many
of their objections were embodied in the future amendments, and the
disregard of others has occasioned some of our most serious national
questions. If this collection presents a greater number of federal
than anti-federal arguments, it is only in the proportion in which the
latter was overborne by the former, both in men and writings.
Of all these partisan writings _The Federalist_ has hitherto been
almost the only known argument of those which for nine months kept
the printers busy and the people in a turmoil, though the twenty-nine
editions of that work attest the value and interest of that class of
writings. That these essays equal that great series is not claimed, but
I believe, nevertheless, that they, by their simpler and more popular
treatment of the question, exerted quite as much influence as that
“judicious and ingenious writer,” who was “not well calculated for the
common people,” and therefore deserve in this centennial year a place
on the shelf of the publicist or student, with that “political classic”
of Hamilton, Madison and Jay.
PAUL LEICESTER FORD.
97 CLARK STREET,
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.
ERRATA.
Page 274, line 1, for mine read mind.
” 275, ” 14, ” cause read clause.
” 277, ” 8, ” Richard Harry Lee read Richard Henry Lee.
” 396, ” 28, ” la substitute /
” 407, ” 38, ” substitute /
” 409, ” 31, ” propounded read proposed.
” 409, ” 36, ” Pilsner read Pelsue.
” 412, ” 21, ” J. Lloyd read T. Lloyd.
” 424, ” 21, insert / Philadelphia: after “A Citizen of
Philadelphia.”
” 434, ” 27, for McClung read McClurg.
CONTENTS.
_Page._
GERRY, ELBRIDGE. Observations on the New Constitution, and on the
Federal and State Conventions. By a Columbian Patriot 1
WEBSTER, NOAH. An Examination into the leading principles of the
Federal Constitution. By a Citizen of America 25
JAY, JOHN. An Address to the People of the State of New York,
on the subject of the Constitution. By a Citizen of New York 67
SMITH, MELANCTHON. Address to the People of the State of New York.
By a Plebeian 88
WEBSTER, PELATIAH. The Weakness of Brutus exposed: or some
remarks in vindication of the Constitution. By a Citizen of
Philadelphia 117
COXE, TENCH. An Examination of the Constitution of the United
States of America. By an American Citizen 134
WILSON, JAMES. Speech on the Federal Constitution, delivered in
Philadelphia 155
DICKINSON, JOHN. Letters of Fabius on the Federal Constitution. 163
HANSON, ALEXANDER CONTEE. Remarks on the Proposed Plan of a
Federal Government. By Aristides 217
RANDOLPH, EDMUND. Letter on the Federal Constitution 259
LEE, RICHARD HENRY. Observations of the System of Government
proposed by the late Convention. By a Federal Farmer 277
MASON, GEORGE. Objections to the Federal Constitution 327
IREDELL, JAMES. Observations on George Mason’s Objections to the
Federal Constitution. By Marcus 333
RAMSAY, DAVID. An Address to the Freemen of South Carolina on the
Federal Constitution. By Civis 371
Bibliography of the Constitution, 1787-1788 381
Reference List to the history and literature of the Constitution,
1787-88. 427
Index 443
Observations / On the new Constitution, and on the Federal / and State
Conventions. / By a Columbian Patriot. / Sic transit gloria Americana.
/ [Boston: 1788.]
12 mo., pp. 19.
Written by Elbridge Gerry, member of the Philadelphia Convention
from Massachusetts, and one of the number who refused to sign the
Constitution, for reasons given in his letter to the presiding
officers of the Massachusetts legislature (Elliot I, 494). Gerry
made himself conspicuous in the contest in Massachusetts over the
ratification, and though not elected to the State Convention, was
requested by them to attend and answer questions. His life, by James
T. Austin, (Boston, 1828), makes no mention of this pamphlet.
“E. G. has come out as a _Columbian Patriot_—a pitiful performance.
The author sinks daily in public esteem, and his bantling goes
unnoticed.”—Rufus King to John Alsop, March 2d, 1788.
The first edition of this pamphlet was printed without a title page,
or imprint, and an examination of the Massachusetts newspapers shows
it was never for sale; making it probable that it was printed for
Gerry, and not for general circulation. Greenleaf reprinted it in
New York, for the [Anti] Federal Committee, who distributed sixteen
hundred and thirty copies to the local county committees of that
State.
“We have received yours by a Columbian Patriot—a well composed piece
but in a style too sublime and florid for the common people in this
part of the country.”—Albany Committee to N. Y. Committee, April
12th, 1788.
P. L. F.
Mankind may amuse themselves with theoretick systems of liberty, and
trace its social and moral effects on sciences, virtue, industry and
every improvement of which the human mind is capable; but we can
only discern its true value by the practical and wretched effects
of slavery; and thus dreadfully will they be realized, when the
inhabitants of the Eastern States are dragging out a miserable
existence, _only_ on the gleanings of their fields; and the Southern,
blessed with a softer and more fertile climate, are languishing in
hopeless poverty; and when asked, what is become of the flower of their
crop, and the rich produce of their farms—they may answer in the
hapless stile of the Man of _La Mancha_,—“The steward of my Lord has
seized and sent it to _Madrid_.”——Or, in the more literal language of
truth, The _exigencies_ of government require that the collectors of
the revenue should transmit it to the _Federal City_.
Animated with the firmest zeal for the interest of this country, the
peace and union of the American States, and the freedom and happiness
of a people who have made the most costly sacrifices in the cause
of liberty,—who have braved the power of Britain, weathered the
convulsions of war, and waded thro’ the blood of friends and foes to
establish their independence and to support the freedom of the human
mind; I cannot silently [2] witness this degradation without calling
on them, before they are compelled to blush at their own servitude,
and to turn back their languid eyes on their lost liberties—to
consider, that the character of nations generally changes at the
moment of revolution.——And when patriotism is discountenanced and
publick virtue becomes the ridicule of the sycophant—when every man
of liberality, firmness and penetration who cannot lick the hand
stretched out to oppress, is deemed an enemy to the State—then is the
gulph of despotism set open, and the grades to slavery, though rapid,
are scarce perceptible—then genius drags heavily its iron chain
—science is neglected, and real merit flies to the shades for security
from reproach—the mind becomes enervated, and the national character
sinks to a kind of apathy with only energy sufficient to curse the
breast that gave it milk, and as an elegant writer observes, “To bewail
every new birth as an increase of misery, under a government where the
mind is necessarily debased, and talents are seduced to become the
panegyrists of usurpation and tyranny.” He adds, “that even sedition
is not the most indubitable enemy to the publick welfare; but that
its most dreadful foe is despotism which always changes the character
of nations for the worse, and is productive of nothing but vice, that
the tyrant no longer excites to the pursuits of glory or virtue; it
is not talents, it is baseness and servility that he cherishes, and
the weight of arbitrary power destroys the spring of emulation.”(1)
If such is the influence of government on the character and manners,
and undoubtedly the observation is just, must we not subscribe to the
opinion of the celebrated _Abbé Mablé_? “That there are disagreeable
seasons in the unhappy situation of human affairs, when policy requires
both the intention and the power of doing mischief to be punished; and
when the senate proscribed the memory of _Cæsar_ they ought to have
put _Anthony_ to death, and extinguished the hopes of _Octavius_.”
Self defence is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of
society can abolish; this primæval principle, the immediate gift of
the Creator, obliges every one to remonstrate against the strides of
ambition, and a wanton lust of domination, and to resist the first
approaches of tyranny, which at this day threaten to sweep away
the rights for which the brave sons of America have fought with an
heroism scarcely paralleled even in ancient republicks. [3] It may be
repeated, they have purchased it with their blood, and have gloried
in their independence with a dignity of spirit, which has made them
the admiration of philosophy, the pride of America, and the wonder of
Europe. It has been observed, with great propriety, that “the virtues
and vices of a people when a revolution happens in their government,
are the measure of the liberty or slavery they ought to expect—An
heroic love for the publick good, a profound reverence for the laws,
a contempt of riches, and a noble haughtiness of soul, are the only
foundations of a free government.”(2) Do not their dignified principles
still exist among us? Or are they extinguished in the breasts of
Americans, whose fields have been so recently crimsoned to repel the
potent arm of a foreign Monarch, who had planted his engines of slavery
in every city, with design to erase the vestiges of freedom in this his
last asylum. It is yet to be hoped, for the honour of human nature,
that no combinations either foreign or domestick have thus darkned
this Western hemisphere.—On these shores freedom has planted her
standard, diped in the purple tide that flowed from the veins of her
martyred heroes; and here every uncorrupted American yet hopes to see
it supported by the vigour, the justice, the wisdom and unanimity of
the people, in spite of the deep-laid plots, the secret intrigues, or
the bold effrontery of those interested and avaricious adventurers for
place, who intoxicated with the ideas of distinction and preferment
have prostrated every worthy principle beneath the shrine of ambition.
Yet these are the men who tell us republicanism is dwindled into
theory—that we are incapable of enjoying our liberties—and that we
must have a master.——Let us retrospect the days of our adversity,
and recollect who were then our friends; do we find them among the
sticklers for aristocratick authority? No, they were generally the same
men who now wish to save us from the distractions of anarchy on the one
hand, and the jaws of tyranny on the other; where then were the class
who now come forth importunately urging that our political salvation
depends on the adoption of a system at which freedom spurns?—Were not
some of them hidden in the corners of obscurity, and others wrapping
themselves in the bosom of our enemies for safety? Some of them
were in the arms of infancy; and others speculating for fortune, by
sporting with public money; while a few, a very few of them [4] were
magnanimously defending their country, and raising a character, which I
pray heaven may never be sullied by aiding measures derogatory to their
former exertions. But the revolutions in principle which time produces
among mankind, frequently exhibits the most mortifying instances
of human weakness; and this alone can account for the extraordinary
appearance of a few names, once distinguished in the honourable walks
of patriotism, but now found in the list of the Massachusetts assent to
the ratification of a Constitution, which, by the undefined meaning of
some parts, and the ambiguities of expression in others, is dangerously
adapted to the purposes of an immediate _aristocratic tyranny_; that
from the difficulty, if not impracticability of its operation, must
soon terminate in the most _uncontrouled despotism_.
All writers on government agree, and the feelings of the human mind
witness the truth of these political axioms, that man is born free and
possessed of certain unalienable rights—that government is instituted
for the protection, safety and happiness of the people, and not for
the profit, honour, or private interest of any man, family, or class
of men——That the origin of all power is in the people, and that
they have an incontestible right to check the creatures of their own
creation, vested with certain powers to guard the life, liberty and
property of the community: And if certain selected bodies of men,
deputed on these principles, determine contrary to the wishes and
expectations of their constituents, the people have an undoubted right
to reject their decisions, to call for a revision of their conduct, to
depute others in their room, or if they think proper, to demand further
time for deliberation on matters of the greatest moment: it therefore
is an unwarrantable stretch of authority or influence, if any methods
are taken to preclude this peaceful and reasonable mode of enquiry
and decision. And it is with inexpressible anxiety, that many of the
best friends of the Union of the States—to the peaceable and equal
participation of the rights of nature, and to the glory and dignity of
this country, behold the insiduous arts, and the strenuous efforts of
the partisans of arbitrary power, by their vague definitions of the
best established truths, endeavoring to envelope the mind in darkness
the concomitant of slavery, and to lock the strong chains of domestic
despotism on a country, which by the most glorious and successful
struggles is but newly emancipated from the spectre of foreign
dominion.—— [5] But there are certain seasons in the course of human
affairs, when Genius, Virtue, and Patriotism, seems to nod over the
vices of the times, and perhaps never more remarkably, than at the
present period; or we should not see such a passive disposition prevail
in some, who we must candidly suppose, have liberal and enlarged
sentiments; while a supple multitude are paying a blind and idolatrous
homage to the opinions of those who by the most precipitate steps are
treading down their dear bought privileges; and who are endeavouring
by all the arts of insinuation, and influence, to betray the people
of the United States, into an acceptance of a most complicated system
of government; marked on the one side with the _dark_, _secret_ and
_profound intrigues_, of the statesman, long practised in the purlieus
of despotism; and on the other, with the ideal projects of _young
ambition_, with its wings just expanded to soar to a summit, which
imagination has painted in such gawdy colours as to intoxicate the
_inexperienced votary_, and to send _him_ rambling from State to State,
to collect materials to construct the ladder of preferment.
But as a variety of objections to the _heterogeneous phantom_, have
been repeatedly laid before the public, by men of the best abilities
and intentions; I will not expatiate long on a Republican _form_ of
government, founded on the principles of monarchy—a democratick branch
with the _features_ of aristocracy—and the extravagance of nobility
pervading the minds of many of the candidates for office, with the
poverty of peasantry hanging heavily on them, and insurmountable, from
their taste for expence, unless a general provision should be made
in the arrangement of the civil list, which may enable them with the
champions of their cause to “_sail down the new pactolean channel_.”
Some gentlemen, with laboured zeal, have spent much time in urging the
necessity of government, from the embarrassments of trade—the want
of respectability abroad and confidence of the public engagements at
home:—These are obvious truths which no one denies; and there are few
who do not unite in the general wish for the restoration of public
faith, the revival of commerce, arts, agriculture, and industry,
under a lenient, peaceable and energetick government: But the most
sagacious advocates for the party have not by fair discusion; and
rational argumentation, evinced the necessity of adopting this many
headed monster; of such motley mixture, that its enemies cannot trace a
feature of Democratick or Republican [6] extract; nor have its friends
the courage to denominate a Monarchy, an Aristocracy, or an Oligarchy,
and the favoured bantling must have passed through the short period of
its existence without a name, had not Mr. _Wilson_, in the fertility of
his genius, suggested the happy epithet of a _Federal Republic_.—But
I leave the field of general censure on the secresy of its birth, the
rapidity of its growth, and the fatal consequences of suffering it
to live to the age of maturity, and will particularize some of the
most weighty objections to its passing through this continent in a
gigantic size.—It will be allowed by every one that the fundamental
principle of a free government is the equal representation of a free
people——And I will _first_ observe with a justly celebrated writer,
“That the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the
absolute rights which were vested in them by the immediate laws of
nature, but which could not be preserved in peace, without the mutual
intercourse which is gained by the institution of friendly and social
communities.” And when society has thus deputed a certain number of
their equals to take care of their personal rights, and the interest
of the whole community, it must be considered that responsibility is
the great security of integrity and honour; and that annual election
is the basis of responsibility,—Man is not immediately corrupted, but
power without limitation, or amenability, may endanger the brightest
virtue—whereas a frequent return to the bar of their Constituents is
the strongest check against the corruptions to which men are liable,
either from the intrigues of others of more subtle genius, or the
propensities of their own hearts,—and the gentlemen who have so warmly
advocated in the late Convention of the Massachusetts, the change from
annual to biennial elections; may have been in the same predicament,
and perhaps with the same views that Mr. _Hutchinson_ once acknowledged
himself, when in a letter to _Lord Hillsborough_, he observed, “that
the grand difficulty of making a change in government against the
general bent of the people had caused him to turn his thoughts to a
variety of plans, in order to find one that might be executed in spite
of opposition,” and the first he proposed was that, “instead of annual,
the elections should be only once in three years:” but the Minister
had not the hardiness to attempt such an innovation, even in the
revision of colonial charters: nor has any one ever defended Biennial,
Triennial or Septennial Elections, either in the [7] British House of
Commons, or in the debates of Provincial assemblies, on general and
free principles: but it is unnecessary to dwell long on this article,
as the best political writers have supported the principles of annual
elections with a precision, that cannot be confuted, though they may be
darkned, by the sophistical arguments that have been thrown out with
design, to undermine all the barriers of freedom.
2. There is no security in the profered system, either for the rights
of conscience or the liberty of the Press: Despotism usually while
it is gaining ground, will suffer men to think, say, or write what
they please; but when once established, if it is thought necessary to
subserve the purposes, of arbitrary power, the most unjust restrictions
may take place in the first instance, and an _imprimator_ on the Press
in the next, may silence the complaints, and forbid the most decent
remonstrances of an injured and oppressed people.
3. There are no well defined limits of the Judiciary Powers, they seem
to be left as a boundless ocean, that has broken over the chart of
the Supreme Lawgiver, “_thus far shalt thou go and no further_,” and
as they cannot be comprehended by the clearest capacity, or the most
sagacious mind, it would be an Herculean labour to attempt to describe
the dangers with which they are replete.
4. The Executive and the Legislative are so dangerously blended as to
give just cause of alarm, and everything relative thereto, is couched
in such ambiguous terms—in such vague and indefinite expression, as
is a sufficient ground without any objection, for the reprobation of a
system, that the authors dare not hazard to a clear investigation.
5. The abolition of trial by jury in civil causes.—This mode of
trial the learned Judge Blackstone observes, “has been coeval with the
first rudiments of civil government, that property, liberty and life,
depend on maintaining in its legal force the constitutional trial by
jury.” He bids his readers pauze, and with Sir Matthew Hale observes,
how admirably this mode is adapted to the investigation of truth
beyond any other the world can produce. Even the party who have been
disposed to swallow, without examination, the proposals of the _secret
conclave_, have started on a discovery that this essential right was
curtailed; and shall a privilege, the origin of which may be traced to
our Saxon ancestors—that has been a part of the law of nations, even
in the fewdatory systems of France, [8] Germany and Italy—and from the
earliest records has been held so sacred, both in ancient and modern
Britain, that it could never be shaken by the introduction of Norman
customs, or any other conquests or change of government——shall this
inestimable privilege be relinquished in America—either thro’ the fear
of inquisition for unaccounted thousands of public monies in the hands
of some who have been officious in the fabrication of the _consolidated
system_, or from the apprehension that some future delinquent possessed
of more power than integrity, may be called to a trial by his peers in
the hour of investigation.
6. Though it has been said by Mr. _Wilson_ and many others, that a
Standing-Army is necessary for the dignity and safety of America, yet
freedom revolts at the idea, when the Divan, or the Despot, may draw
out his dragoons to suppress the murmurs of a few, who may yet cherish
those sublime principles which call forth the exertions, and lead to
the best improvements of the human mind. It is hoped this country
may yet be governed by milder methods than are usually displayed
beneath the bannerets of military law.—Standing armies have been the
nursery of vice and the bane of liberty from the Roman legions to the
establishment of the artful Ximenes, and from the ruin of the Cortes
of Spain, to the planting of the British cohorts in the capitals of
America:—By the edicts of an authority vested in the sovereign power
by the proposed constitution, the militia of the country, the bulwark
of defence, and the security of national liberty if no longer under
the controul of civil authority; but at the rescript of the Monarch,
or the aristocracy, they may either be employed to extort the enormous
sums that will be necessary to support the civil list—to maintain
the regalia of power—and the splendour of the most useless part of
the community, or they may be sent into foreign countries for the
fulfilment of treaties, stipulated by the President and two-thirds of
the Senate.
7. Notwithstanding the delusory promise to guarantee a Republican form
of government to every State in the Union—If the most discerning
eye could discover any meaning at all in the engagement, there are
no resources left for the support of internal government, or the
liquidation of the debts of the State. Every source of revenue is in
the monopoly of Congress, and if the several legislatures in their
enfeebled state, should against their own feelings be necessitated to
attempt a dry tax [9] for the payment of their debts, and the support
of internal police, even this may be required for the purposes of the
general government.
8. As the new Congress are empowered to determine their own salaries,
the requisitions for this purpose may not be very moderate, and the
drain for public moneys will probably rise past all calculation: and
it is to be feared when America has consolidated its despotism, the
world will witness the truth of the assertion—“that the pomp of an
Eastern monarch may impose on the vulgar who may estimate the force of
a nation by the magnificence of its palaces; but the wise man judges
differently, it is by that very magnificence he estimates its weakness.
He sees nothing more in the midst of this imposing pomp, where the
tyrant sets enthroned, than a sumptuous and mournful decoration of the
dead; the apparatus of a fastuous funeral, in the centre of which is a
cold and lifeless lump of unanimated earth, a phantom of power ready to
disappear before the enemy, by whom it is despised!”
9. There is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the
perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little
well timed bribery, will probably be done, to the exclusion of men of
the best abilities from their share in the offices of government.—By
this neglect we lose the advantages of that check to the overbearing
insolence of office, which by rendering him ineligible at certain
periods, keeps the mind of man in equilibrio, and teaches him the
feelings of the governed, and better qualifies him to govern in his
turn.
10. The inhabitants of the United States, are liable to be dragged from
the vicinity of their own country, or state, to answer the litigious
or unjust suit of an adversary, on the most distant borders of the
Continent: in short the appelate jurisdiction of the Supreme Federal
Court, includes an unwarrantable stretch of power over the liberty,
life, and property of the subject, through the wide Continent of
America.
11. One Representative to thirty thousand inhabitants is a very
inadequate representation; and every man who is not lost to all sense
of freedom to his country, must reprobate the idea of Congress altering
by law, or on any pretence whatever, interfering with any regulations
for time, places, and manner of choosing our own Representatives.
12. If the sovereignty of America is designed to be elective, the
circumscribing the votes to only ten electors in this State, [10] and
the same proportion in all the others, is nearly tantamount to the
exclusion of the voice of the people in the choice of their first
magistrate. It is vesting the choice solely in an aristocratic junto,
who may easily combine in each State to place at the head of the Union
the most convenient instrument for despotic sway.
13. A Senate chosen for six years will, in most instances, be an
appointment for life, as the influence of such a body over the minds
of the people will be coequal to the extensive powers with which they
are vested, and they will not only forget, but be forgotten by their
constituents—a branch of the Supreme Legislature thus set beyond
all responsibility is totally repugnant to every principle of a free
government.
14. There is no provision by a bill of rights to guard against the
dangerous encroachments of power in too many instances to be named: but
I cannot pass over in silence the insecurity in which we are left with
regard to warrants unsupported by evidence—the daring experiment of
granting _writs of assistance_ in a former arbitrary administration
is not yet forgotten in the Massachusetts; nor can we be so ungrateful
to the memory of the patriots who counteracted their operation, as so
soon after their manly exertions to save us from such a detestable
instrument of arbitrary power, to subject ourselves to the insolence
of any petty revenue officer to enter our houses, search, insult, and
seize at pleasure. We are told by a gentleman of too much virtue and
real probity to suspect he has a design to deceive—“that the whole
constitution is a declaration of rights,”—but mankind must think for
themselves, and to many very judicious and discerning characters, the
whole constitution with very few exceptions appears a perversion of
the rights of particular states, and of private citizens.——But the
gentleman goes on to tell us, “that the primary object is the general
government, and that the rights of individuals are only incidentally
mentioned, and that there was a clear impropriety in being very
particular about them.” But, asking pardon for dissenting from such
respectable authority, who has been led into several mistakes, more
from his predilection in favour of certain modes of government, than
from a want of understanding or veracity. The rights of individuals
ought to be the primary object of all government, and cannot be too
securely guarded by the most explicit declarations in their favor.
This has been the opinion of the Hampdens, the Pyms, and [11] many
other illustrious names, that have stood forth in defence of English
liberties; and even the Italian master in politicks, the subtle and
renowned Machiavel acknowledges, that no republic ever yet stood on a
stable foundation without satisfying the common people.
15. The difficulty, if not impracticability, of exercising the equal
and equitable powers of government by a single legislature over an
extent of territory that reaches from the Mississippi to the Western
lakes, and from them to the Atlantic Ocean, is an insuperable objection
to the adoption of the new system.—Mr. _Hutchinson_, the great
champion for arbitrary power, in the multitude of his machinations to
subvert the liberties in this country, was obliged to acknowledge in
one of his letters, that, “from the extent of country from north to
south, the scheme of one government was impracticable.” But if the
authors of the present visionary project, can by the arts of deception,
precipitation and address, obtain a majority of suffrages in the
conventions of the states to try the hazardous experiment, they may
then make the same inglorious boast with this insidious politician, who
may perhaps be their model, that “the union of the colonies was pretty
well broken, “and that he hoped to never see it renewed.”
16. It is an undisputed fact that not one legislature in the United
States had the most distant idea when they first appointed members for
a convention, entirely commercial, or when they afterwards authorized
them to consider on some amendments of the Federal union, that they
would without any warrant from their constituents, presume on so bold
and daring a stride, as ultimately to destroy the state governments,
and offer a _consolidated system_, irreversible but on conditions that
the smallest degree of penetration must discover to be impracticable.
17. The first appearance of the article which declares the ratification
of nine states sufficient for the establishment of the new system,
wears the face of dissension, is a subversion of the union of
Confederated States, and tends to the introduction of anarchy and civil
convulsions, and may be a means of involving the whole country in blood.
18. The mode in which this constitution is recommended to the people to
judge without either the advice of Congress, or the legislatures of the
several states is very reprehensible—it is an attempt to force it upon
them before it could be thoroughly [12] understood, and may leave us in
that situation, that in the first moments of slavery in the minds of
the people agitated by the remembrance of their lost liberties, will be
like the sea in a tempest, that sweeps down every mound of security.
But it is needless to enumerate other instances, in which the proposed
constitution appears contradictory to the first principles which ought
to govern mankind; and it is equally so to enquire into the motives
that induced to so bold a step as the annihilation of the independence
and sovereignty of the thirteen distinct states.——They are but
too obvious through the whole progress of the business, from the
first shutting up the doors of the federal convention and resolving
that no member should correspond with gentlemen in the different
states on the subject under discussion; till the trivial proposition
of _recommending_ a few amendments was artfully ushered into the
convention of the Massachusetts. The questions that were then before
that honorable assembly were profound and important, they were of such
magnitude and extent, that the consequences may run parallel with the
existence of the country; and to see them waved and hastily terminated
by a measure too absurd to require a serious refutation, raises the
honest indignation of every true lover of his country. Nor are they
less grieved that the ill policy and arbitrary disposition of some of
the sons of America has thus precipitated to the contemplation and
discussion of questions that no one could rationally suppose would
have been agitated among us, till time had blotted out the principles
on which the late revolution was grounded; or till the last traits of
the many political tracts, which defended the separation from Britain,
and the rights of men were consigned to everlasting oblivion. After
the severe conflicts this country has suffered, it is presumed that
they are disposed to make every reasonable sacrifice before the altar
of peace.——But when we contemplate the nature of men and consider
them originally on an equal footing, subject to the same feelings,
stimulated by the same passions, and recollecting the struggles
they have recently made, for the security of their civil rights; it
cannot be expected that the inhabitants of the Massachusetts, can be
easily lulled into a fatal security, by the declamatory effusions of
gentlemen, who, contrary to the experience of all ages would persuade
them there is no danger to be apprehended, from vesting discretionary
powers in the hands of man, which he may, or may not abuse. The very
suggestion, that [13] we ought to trust to the precarious hope of
amendments and redress, after we have voluntarily fixed the shackles on
our own necks should have awakened to a double degree of caution.—This
people have not forgotten the artful insinuations of a former
Governor, when pleading the unlimited authority of parliament before
the legislature of the Massachusetts; nor that his arguments were very
similar to some lately urged by gentlemen who boast of opposing his
measures, “_with halters about their necks_.”
We were then told by him, in all the soft language of insinuation,
that no form of government, of human construction can be perfect—that
we had nothing to fear—that we had no reason to complain—that we
had only to acquiesce in their illegal claims, and to submit to
the requisition of parliament, and doubtless the lenient hand of
government would redress all grievances, and remove the oppressions
of the people:—Yet we soon saw armies of mercenaries encamped on
our plains—our commerce ruined—our harbours blockaded—and our
cities burnt. It may be replied that this was in consequence of an
obstinate defence of our privileges; this may be true; and when the
“_ultima ratio_” is called to aid, the weakest must fall. But let the
best informed historian produce an instance when bodies of men were
entrusted with power, and the proper checks relinquished, if they were
ever found destitute of ingenuity sufficient to furnish pretences
to abuse it. And the people at large are already sensible, that the
liberties which America has claimed, which reason has justified, and
which have been so gloriously defended by the swords of the brave; are
not about to fall before the tyranny of foreign conquest: it is native
usurpation that is shaking the foundations of peace, and spreading
the sable curtain of despotism over the United States. The banners of
freedom were erected in the wilds of America by our ancestors, while
the wolf prowled for his prey on the one hand, and more savage man
on the other; they have been since rescued from the invading hand of
foreign power, by the valor and blood of their posterity; and there
was reason to hope they would continue for ages to illumine a quarter
of the globe, by nature kindly separated from the proud monarchies of
Europe, and the infernal darkness of Asiatic slavery.—And it is to
be feared we shall soon see this country rushing into the extremes of
confusion and violence, in consequence of the proceeding of a set of
gentlemen, who disregarding [14] the purposes of their appointment,
have assumed powers unauthorized by any commission, have unnecessarily
rejected the confederation of the United States, and annihilated the
sovereignty and independence of the individual governments.—The causes
which have inspired a few men to assemble for very different purposes
with such a degree of temerity as to break with a single stroke the
union of America, and disseminate the seeds of discord through the land
may be easily investigated, when we survey the partizans of monarchy in
the state conventions, urging the adoption of a mode of government that
militates with the former professions and exertions of this country,
and with all ideas of republicanism, and the equal rights of men.
Passion, prejudice, and error, are characteristics of human nature;
and as it cannot be accounted for on any principles of philosophy,
religion, or good policy; to these shades in the human character
must be attributed the mad zeal of some, to precipitate to a blind
adoption of the measures of the late federal convention, without giving
opportunity for better information to those who are misled by influence
or ignorance into erroneous opinions.——Litterary talents may be
prostituted, and the powers of genius debased to subserve the purposes
of ambition or avarice; but the feelings of the heart will dictate the
language of truth, and the simplicity of her accents will proclaim
the infamy of those, who betray the rights of the people, under the
specious, and popular pretence of _justice_, _consolidation_, and
_dignity_.
It is presumed the great body of the people unite in sentiment with
the writer of these observations, who most devoutly prays that public
credit may rear her declining head, and remunerative justice pervade
the land; nor is there a doubt if a free government is continued, that
time and industry will enable both the public and private debtor to
liquidate their arrearages in the most equitable manner. They wish to
see the Confederated States bound together by the most indissoluble
union, but without renouncing their separate sovereignties and
independence, and becoming tributaries to a consolidated fabrick of
aristocratick tyranny.——They wish to see government established,
and peaceably holding the reins with honour, energy, and dignity;
but they wish for no _federal city_ whose “_cloud cap’t towers_”
may screen the state culprit from the hand of justice; while its
exclusive jurisdiction may [15] protect the riot of armies encamped
within its limits.—They deprecate discord and civil convulsions, but
they are not yet generally prepared with the ungrateful Israelites
to ask a King, nor are their spirits sufficiently broken to yield
the best of their olive grounds to his servants, and to see their
sons appointed to run before his chariots.—It has been observed by
a zealous advocate for the new system, that most governments are the
result of fraud or violence, and this with design to recommend its
acceptance—but has not almost every step towards its fabrication
been fraudulent in the extreme? Did not the prohibition strictly
enjoined by the general Convention, that no member should make any
communication to his Constituents, or to gentlemen of consideration
and abilities in the other States, bear evident marks of fraudulent
designs?—This circumstance is regretted in strong terms by Mr.
Martin, a member from Maryland, who acknowledges “He had no idea that
all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of the States was contained
in that Convention, and that he wished to have corresponded with
gentlemen of eminent political characters abroad, and to give their
sentiments due weight”—he adds, “so extremely solicitous were they,
that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were
prohibited from taking copies of their resolutions, or extracts
from the Journals, without express permission, by vote.”——And the
hurry with which it has been urged to the acceptance of the people,
without giving time, by adjournments, for better information, and
more unanimity has a deceptive appearance; and if finally driven to
resistance, as the only alternative between that and servitude, till in
the confusion of discord, the reins should be seized by the violence
of some enterprizing genius, that may sweep down the last barrier of
liberty, it must be added to the score of criminality with which the
fraudulent usurpation at Philadelphia, may be chargeable.——Heaven
avert such a tremendous scence! and let us still hope a more happy
termination of the present ferment:—may the people be calm and wait
a legal redress; may the mad transport of some of our infatuated
capitals subside; and every influential character through the States,
make the most prudent exertions for a new general Convention, who
may vest adequate powers in Congress, for all national purposes,
without annihilating the individual governments, and drawing blood
from every pore by taxes, impositions and illegal restrictions.—This
step might [16] again re-establish the Union, restore tranquility
to the ruffled mind of the inhabitants, and save America from the
distresses, dreadful even in contemplation.——“The great art of
governing is to lay aside all prejudices and attachments to particular
opinions, classes or individual characters to consult the spirit of
the people; to give way to it; and in so doing, to give it a turn
capable of inspiring those sentiments, which may induce them to relish
a change, which an alteration of circumstances may hereafter make
necessary.”——The education of the advocates for monarchy should have
taught them, and their memory should have suggested that “monarchy
is a species of government fit only for a people too much corrupted
by luxury, avarice, and a passion for pleasure, to have any love for
their country, and whose vices the fear of punishment alone is able to
restrain; but by no means calculated for a nation that is poor, and
at the same time tenacious of their liberty—animated with a disgust
to tyranny—and inspired with the generous feeling of patriotism and
liberty, and at the same time, like the ancient Spartans have been
hardened by temperance and manly exertions, and equally despising
the fatigues of the field, and the fear of enemies,”——and while
they change their ground they should recollect, that Aristocracy is
a still more formidable foe to public virtue, and the prosperity
of a nation—that under such a government her patriots become
mercenaries—her soldiers cowards, and the people slaves.——Though
several State Conventions have assented to, and ratified, yet the voice
of the people appears at present strong against the adoption of the
Constitution.——By the chicanery, intrigue, and false colouring of
those who plume themselves, more on their education and abilities,
than their political, patriotic, or private virtues—by the imbecility
of some, and the duplicity of others, a majority of the Convention of
Massachusetts have been flattered with the ideas of amendments, when it
will be too late to complain——While several very worthy characters,
too timid for their situation, magnified the hopeless alternative,
between the dissolution of the bands of all government, and receiving
the proffered system _in toto_, after long endeavouring to reconcile
it to their consciences, swallowed the indigestible panacea, and in a
kind of sudden desperation lent their signature to the dereliction of
the honourable station they held in the Union, and have broken over the
solemn compact, by which they were bound to support their own excellent
constitution till the period [17] of revision. Yet Virginia, equally
large and respectable, and who have done honour to themselves, by
their vigorous exertions from the first dawn of independence, have not
yet acted upon the question; they have wisely taken time to consider
before they introduce innovations of a most dangerous nature:——her
inhabitants are brave, her burgesses are free, and they have a Governor
who dares to think for himself, and to speak his opinion (without first
pouring libations on the altar of popularity) though it should militate
with some of the most accomplished and illustrious characters.
Maryland, who has no local interest to lead her to adopt, will
doubtless reject the system——I hope the same characters still
live, and that the same spirit which dictated to them a wise and
cautious care, against sudden revolutions in government, and made
them the last State that acceded to the independence of America, will
lead them to support what they so deliberately claimed.——Georgia
apprehensive of a war with the Savages, has acceded in order to insure
protection.——Pennsylvania has struggled through much in the same
manner, as the Massachusetts, against the manly feelings, and the
masterly reasonings of a very respectable part of the Convention:
They have adopted the system, and seen some of its authors burnt in
effigy—their towns thrown into riot and confusion, and the minds of
the people agitated by apprehension and discord.
New-Jersey and Delaware have united in the measure, from the locality
of their situation, and the selfish motives which too generally govern
mankind; the Federal City, and the seat of government, will naturally
attract the intercourse of strangers—the youth of enterprise, and the
wealth of the nation to the central States.
Connecticut has pushed it through with the precipitation of her
neighbour, with few dissentient voices;—but more from irritation and
resentment to a sister State, perhaps partiality to herself in her
commercial regulations, than from a comprehensive view of the system,
as a regard to the welfare of all.——But New York has motives, that
will undoubtedly lead her to rejection, without being afraid to appeal
to the understanding of mankind, to justify the grounds of their
refusal to adopt a Constitution, that even the framers dare not to
risque to the hazard of revision, amendment, or reconsideration, least
the whole superstructure should be demolished by more skilful and
discreet architects.——I know not what part the Carolinas [18] will
take; but I hope their determinations will comport with the dignity and
freedom of this country—their decisions will have great weight in the
scale.——But equally important are the small States of New Hampshire
and Rhode Island:—New York, the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and
these two lesser States may yet support the liberties of the Continent;
if they refuse a ratification, or postpone their proceedings till the
spirits of the community have time to cool, there is little doubt but
the wise measure of another federal convention will be adopted, when
the members would have the advantage of viewing, at large, through
the medium of truth, the objections that have been made from various
quarters; such a measure might be attended with the most salutary
effects, and prevent the dread consequences of civil feuds.——But
even if some of those large states should hastily accede, yet we have
frequently seen in the story of revolution, relief spring from a
quarter least expected.
Though the virtues of a Cato could not save Rome, nor the abilities of
a Padilla defend the citizens of Castile from falling under the yoke
of Charles; yet a _Tell_ once suddenly rose from a little obscure
city, and boldly rescued the liberties of his country.——Every age
has its Bruti and its Decci, as well as its Cæsars and Sejani:—The
happiness of mankind depends much on the modes of government, and the
virtues of the governors; and America may yet produce characters who
have genius and capacity sufficient to form the manners and correct
the morals of the people, and virtue enough to lead their country to
freedom. Since their dismemberment from the British empire, America
has, in many instances, resembled the conduct of a restless, vigorous,
luxurious youth, prematurely emancipated from the authority of a
parent, but without the experience necessary to direct him to act
with dignity or discretion. Thus we have seen her break the shackles
of foreign dominion, and all the blessings of peace restored on the
most honourable terms: She acquired the liberty of framing her own
laws, choosing her own magistrates, and adopting manners and modes of
government the most favourable to the freedom and happiness of society.
But how little have we availed ourselves of these superior advantages:
The glorious fabric of liberty successfully reared with so much labor
and assiduity totters to the foundation, and may be blown away as
the bubble of fancy by the rude breath of military combinations, and
politicians of yesterday.
[19] It is true this country lately armed in opposition to regal
despotism—impoverished by the expenses of a long war, and unable
immediately to fulfil their public or private engagements that appeared
in some instances, with a boldness of spirit that seemed to set at
defiance all authority, government, or order, on the one hand; while
on the other, there has been, not only a secret wish, but an open
avowal of the necessity of drawing the reins of government much too
taught, not only for a republicanism, but for a wise and limited
monarchy.——But the character of this people is not averse to a degree
of subordination, the truth of this appears from the easy restoration
of tranquility, after a dangerous insurrection in one of the states;
this also evinces a little necessity of a complete revolution of
government throughout the union. But it is a republican principle
that the majority should rule; and if a spirit of moderation should
be cultivated on both sides, till the voice of the people at large
could be fairly heard it should be held sacred.—And if, on such a
scrutiny, the proposed constitution should appear repugnant to their
character and wishes; if they, in the language of a late elegant pen,
should acknowledge that “no confusion in my mind, is more terrible
to them than the stern disciplined regularity and vaunted police of
arbitrary governments, where every heart is depraved by fear, where
mankind dare not assume their natural characters, where the free spirit
must crouch to the slave in office, where genius must repress her
effusions, or like the Egyptian worshippers, offer them in sacrifice
to the calves in power, and where the human mind, always in shackles,
shrinks from every generous effort.” Who would then have the effrontery
to say, it ought not to be thrown out with indignation, however some
respectable names have appeared to support it.——But if after all, on
a dispassionate and fair discussion, the people generally give their
voices for a voluntary dereliction of their privileges, let every
individual who chooses the active scenes of life strive to support the
peace and unanimity of his country, though every other blessing may
expire—And while the statesman is plodding for power, and the courtier
practising the arts of dissimulation without check—while the rapacious
are growing rich by oppression, and fortune throwing her gifts into
the lap of fools, let the sublimer characters, the philosophic lovers
of freedom who have wept over her exit, retire to the calm shades of
contemplation, there they may look down with pity on the inconsistency
of human nature, the revolutions of states, the rise of kingdoms, and
the fall of empires.
An / Examination / into the / leading principles / of the /
Federal Constitution / proposed by the late / Convention / held at
Philadelphia. / With / Answers to the principal objections / that have
been raised against the system. / By a Citizen of America. /—Ut patria
sua felicitate cæteris præstaret, efficit. / Xenoph. Lacedæm. Resp. /
Philadelphia: / Printed and sold by Prichard & Hall, in Market Street,
/ the second door above Lætitia Court. / M.DCC.LXXXVII.
8 vo., pp. 55.
Written by Noah Webster. This is reprinted from his own copy
of the pamphlet, and the foot notes _in brackets_ show his
corrections and additions.
“This is a hasty production, written at the request
of Mr. Fitzsimmons, of Philadelphia, a member of the
Convention.”—Indorsement by Noah Webster.
P. L. F.
TO
HIS EXCELLENCY
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, ESQ.
PRESIDENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
AND
MEMBER OF THE LATE CONVENTION,
HELD AT PHILADELPHIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEVISING A CONSTITUTION FOR THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
THE FOLLOWING REMARKS UPON THE SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED BY THAT CONVENTION,
ARE MOST HUMBLY INSCRIBED
BY
HIS EXCELLENCY’S
MOST OBEDIENT
HUMBLE SERVANT,
THE AUTHOR.
PHILADELPHIA, }
October 10, 1787. }
Of all the memorable æras that have marked the progress of men from
the savage state to the refinements of luxury, that which has combined
them into society, under a wise system of government, and given
form to a nation, has ever been recorded and celebrated as the most
important. Legislators have ever been deemed the greatest benefactors
of mankind—respected when living, and often deified after their death.
Hence the fame of Fohi and Confucius—of Moses, Solon and Lycurgus—of
Romulus and Numa—of Alfred, Peter the Great, and Mango Capac; whose
names will be celebrated through all ages, for framing and improving
constitutions of government, which introduced order into society and
secured the benefits of law to millions of the human race.
This western world now beholds an æra important beyond conception,
and which posterity will number with the age of Czar of Muscovy, and
with the promulgation of the Jewish laws at Mount Sinai. The names
of those men who have digested a system of constitutions for the
American empire, will be enrolled with those of Zamolxis and Odin, and
celebrated by posterity with the honors which less enlightened nations
have paid to the fabled demi-gods of antiquity.
[6] But the origin of the AMERICAN REPUBLIC is distinguished by
peculiar circumstances. Other nations have been driven together by
fear and necessity—the governments have generally been the result of
a single man’s observations; or the offspring of particular interests.
In the formation of our constitution, the wisdom of all ages is
collected—the legislators of antiquity are consulted—as well as the
opinions and interests of the millions who are concerned. In short, it
is _an empire of reason_.
In the formation of such a government, it is not only the _right_, but
the indispensable _duty_ of every citizen to examine the principles of
it, to compare them with the principles of other governments, with a
constant eye to our particular situation and circumstances, and thus
endeavor to foresee the future operations of our own system, and its
effects upon human happiness.
Convinced of this truth, I have no apology to offer for the following
remarks, but an earnest desire to be useful to my country.
In attending to the proposed Federal Constitution, the first thing
that presents itself to our consideration, is the division of the
legislative into two branches. This article has so many advocates
in America, that it needs not any vindication.(3)—But it has its
opposers, among whom are some respectable characters, especially in
Pennsylvania; for which reason, I will state [7] some of the arguments
and facts which incline me to favor the proposed division.
On the first view of men in society, we should suppose that no man
would be bound by a law to which he had not given his consent. Such
would be our first idea of political obligation. But experience, from
time immemorial, has proved it to be impossible to unite the opinions
of all the members of a community, in every case; and hence the
doctrine, that the opinions of a _majority_ must give law to the _whole
State_: a doctrine as universally received, as any intuitive truth.
Another idea that naturally presents itself to our minds, on a slight
consideration of the subject, is, that in a perfect government, all the
members of a society should be present, and each give his suffrage in
acts of legislation, by which he is to be bound. This is impracticable
in large states; and even were it not, it is very questionable whether
it would be the _best_ mode of legislation. It was however practised
in the free states of antiquity; and was the cause of innumerable
evils. To avoid these evils, the moderns have invented the doctrine of
_representation_, which seems to be the perfection of human government.
Another idea, which is very natural, is, that to complete the mode
of legislation, all the representatives should be collected into
_one body_, for the purpose of debating questions and enacting laws.
Speculation would suggest the idea;
[8] and the desire of improving upon the systems of government in the
old world, would operate powerfully in its favor.
But men are ever running into extremes. The passions, after a violent
constraint, are apt to run into licentiousness; and even the reason of
men, who have experienced evils from the _defects_ of a government,
will sometimes coolly condemn the _whole system_.
Every person, moderately acquainted with human nature, knows that
public bodies, as well as individuals, are liable to the influence of
sudden and violent passions, under the operation of which, the voice of
reason is silenced. Instances of such influence are not so frequent,
as in individuals; but its effects are extensive in proportion to the
numbers that compose the public body. This fact suggests the expediency
of dividing the powers of legislation between the two bodies of men,
whose debates shall be separate and not dependent on each other;
that, if at any time, one part should appear to be under any undue
influence, either from passion, obstinacy, jealousy of particular
men, attachment to a popular speaker, or other extraordinary causes,
there might be a power in the legislature sufficient to check every
pernicious measure. Even in a small republic, composed of men, equal
in property and abilities, and all meeting for the purpose of making
laws, like the old Romans in the field of Mars, a division of the
body into two independent branches, would be a necessary step to
prevent the disorders, which arise from [9] the pride, irritability
and stubborness of mankind. This will ever be the case, while men
possess passions, easily inflamed, which may bias their reason and lead
them to erroneous conclusions.
Another consideration has weight: A single body of men may be led
astray by one person of abilities and address, who, on the first
starting a proposition, may throw a plausible appearance on one side of
the question, and give a lead to the whole debate. To prevent any ill
consequence from such a circumstance, a separate discussion, before a
different body of men, and taken up on new grounds, is a very eligible
expedient.
Besides, the design of a senate is not merely to check the legislative
assembly, but to collect wisdom and experience. In most of our
constitutions, and particularly in the proposed federal system, greater
age and longer residence are required to qualify for the senate,
than for the house of representatives. This is a wise provision. The
house of representatives may be composed of new and unexperienced
members—strangers to the forms of proceeding, and the science of
legislation. But either positive institutions, or customs, which may
supply their place, fill the senate with men venerable for age and
respectability, experienced in the ways of men, and in the art of
governing, and who are not liable to the bias of passions that govern
the young. If the senate of Rhode Island is an exception to this
observation, it is a proof that the mass of the people are corrupted,
and that the senate should be elected [10] ess frequently than the
other house: Had the old senate in Rhode Island held their seats for
three years; had they not been chosen, amidst a popular rage for paper
money, the honor of that state would probably have been saved. The
old senate would have stopped the measure for a year or two, till the
people could have had time to deliberate upon its consequences. I
consider it as a capital excellence of the proposed constitution, that
the senate can be wholly renewed but once in six years.
Experience is the best instructor—it is better than a thousand
theories. The history of every government on earth affords proof of
the utility of different branches in a legislature. But I appeal
only to our own experience in America. To what cause can we ascribe
the absurd measures of Congress, in times past, and the speedy
recision of whole measures, but to the want of some check? I feel
the most profound deference for that honorable body, and perfect
respect for their opinions; but some of their steps betray a great
want of consideration—a defect, which perhaps nothing can remedy,
but a division of their deliberations. I will instance only their
_resolution_ to build a _Federal Town_. When we were involved in a
debt, of which we could hardly pay the interest, and when Congress
could not command a shilling, the very proposition was extremely
absurd. Congress themselves became ashamed of the resolution, and
rescinded it with as much silence as possible. Many other acts of that
body are equally reprehensible—but respect forbids me to mention them.
[11] Several states, since the war, have experienced the necessity of a
division of the legislature. Maryland was saved from a most pernicious
measure, by her senate. A rage for paper money, bordering on madness,
prevailed in their house of delegates—an emission of £.500,000 was
proposed; a sum equal to the circulating medium of the State. Had the
sum been emitted, every shilling of specie would have been driven from
circulation, and most of it from the state. Such a loss would not have
been repaired in seven years—not to mention the whole catalogue of
frauds which would have followed the measure. The senate, like honest,
judicious men, and the protectors of the interests of the state, firmly
resisted the rage, and gave the people time to cool and to think. Their
resistance was effectual—the people acquiesced, and the honor and
interest of the state were secured.
The house of representatives in Connecticut, soon after the war, had
taken offence at a certain act of Congress. The upper house, who
understood the necessity and expediency of the measure, better than the
people, refused to concur in a remonstrance to Congress. Several other
circumstances gave umbrage to the lower house; and to weaken or destroy
the influence of the senate, the representatives, among other violent
proceedings, resolved, not merely to remove the seat of government,
but to make every county town in the state the seat of government, by
rotation. This foolish resolution would have disgraced school-boys—the
senate saved the honor of the state, by rejecting it with disdain— [12]
and within two months, every representative was ashamed of the conduct
of the house. All public bodies have these fits of passion, when their
conduct seems to be perfectly boyish; and in these paroxisms, a check
is highly necessary.
Pennsylvania exhibits many instances of this hasty conduct. At
one session of the legislature, an armed force is ordered, by a
precipitate resolution, to expel the settlers at Wioming from their
possessions—at a succeeding session, the same people are confirmed
in their possessions. At one session, a charter is wrested from a
corporation—at another, restored. The whole state is split into
parties—everything is decided by party—any proposition from one side
of the house, is sure to be damned by the other—and when one party
perceives the other has the advantage, they play truant—and an officer
or a mob hunt the absconding members in all the streets and alleys
in town. Such farces have been repeated in Philadelphia—and _there
alone_. Had the legislature been framed with some check upon rash
proceedings, the honor of the state would have been saved—the party
spirit would have died with the measures proposed in the legislature.
But now, any measure may be carried by party in the house; it then
becomes a law, and sows the seeds of dissension throughout the state.(4)
[13] A thousand examples similar to the foregoing may be produced, both
in ancient and modern history. Many plausible things may be said in
favor of pure democracy—many in favor of uniting the representatives
of the people in one single house—but uniform experience proves both
to be inconsistent with the peace of society, and the rights of freemen.
The state of Georgia has already discovered such inconveniences in its
constitution, that a proposition has been made for altering it; and
there is a prospect that a revisal will take place.
People who have heard and read of the European governments, founded on
the different ranks of _monarch, nobility and people_, seem to view the
_senate_ in America, where there is no difference of ranks and titles,
as a useless branch—or as a servile imitation of foreign constitutions
of government, without the same reasons. This is a capital mistake.
Our senates, it is true, are not composed of a different order of
men; but the same reasons, the same necessity for distinct branches of
the legislature exists in all governments. But in most of our American
constitutions, we have all the advantages of checks and balance,
without the danger which may arise [14] from a superior and independent
order of men.
It is worth our while to institute a brief comparison between our
American forms of government, and the two _best constitutions_ that
ever existed in Europe, the _Roman_ and the _British_.
In England, the king or supreme executive officer, is hereditary. In
America, the president of the United States, is elective. That this is
an advantage will hardly be disputed.
In ancient Rome, the king was elective, and so were the consuls, who
were the executive officers in the republic. But they were elected
by the body of the people, in their public assemblies; and this
circumstance paved the way for such excessive bribery and corruption
as are wholly unknown in modern times. The president of the United
States is also elective; but by a few men—chosen by the several
legislatures—under their inspection—separated at a vast distance—and
holding no office under the United States. Such a mode of election
almost precludes the possibility of corruption. Besides, no state
however large, has the power of chusing a president in that state; for
each elector must choose at least one man, who is not an inhabitant of
that State to which he belongs.
The crown of England is hereditary—the consuls of Rome were chosen
annually—both these extremes are guarded against in our proposed
constitution. The president is not dis- [15] missed from his office, as
soon as he is acquainted with business—he continues four years, and is
re-eligible, if the people approve his conduct. Nor can he canvass for
his office, by reason of the distance of the electors; and the pride
and jealousy of the states will prevent his continuing too long in
office.
The age requisite to qualify for this office is thirty-five
years.(5) The age requisite for admittance to the Roman consulship
was forty-three years. For this difference, good reasons may be
assigned—the improvements in science, and particularly in government,
render it practicable for a man to qualify himself for an important
office, much earlier in life, than he could among the Romans;
especially in the early part of their commonwealth, when the office was
instituted. Besides it is very questionable whether any inconvenience
would have attended admission to the consulship at an earlier age.(6)
The powers vested in the president resemble the powers of the supreme
magistrates in Rome. They are not so extensive as those of the British
king; but in one instance, the president, with concurrence of the
senate, has powers exceeding those of the Roman consuls; I mean in the
appointment of judges and other subordinate executive officers. The
prætors or judges in Rome were chosen annually by the people. This was
a defect in the Roman government. [16] One half the evils in a state
arise from a lax execution of the laws; and it is impossible that an
executive officer can act with vigor and impartiality, when his office
depends on the popular voice. An annual popular election of executive
officers is the sure source of a negligent, partial and corrupt
administration. The independence of the judges in England has produced
a course of the most just, impartial and energetic judicial decisions,
for many centuries, that can be exhibited in any nation on earth. In
this point therefore I conceive the plan proposed in America to be an
improvement on the Roman constitution. In all free governments, that
is, in all countries, where _laws govern_, and not _men_, the supreme
magistrate should have it in his power to execute any law, however
unpopular, without hazarding his person or office. The laws are the
sole _guardians_ of right, and when the magistrate dares not act, every
person is insecure.
Let us now attend to the constitution and the powers of the senate.
The house of lords in England is wholly independent on(7) the people.
The lords spiritual hold their seats by office; and the people at
large have no voice in disposing of the ecclesiastical dignities. The
temporal lords hold their seats by hereditary right or by grant from
the king: And it is a branch of the king’s prerogative to make what
peers he pleases.
[17] The senate in Rome was elective; but a senator held his seat for
life.(8)
[18] The proposed senate in America is constituted on principles more
favorable to liberty: The members are elective, and by the separate
legislatures: They hold their seats for six years—they are thus
rendered sufficiently dependent on their constituents; and yet are not
dismissed from their office as soon as they become acquainted with the
forms of proceeding.
It may be objected by the larger states, that the representation is not
equal; the smallest states having the privilege of sending the same
number of senators as the largest. To obviate this objection, I would
suggest but two or three ideas.
1. If each state had a representation and a right in deciding
questions, proportional to its property, three states would almost
command the whole. Such a constitution would gradually annihilate the
small states; and finally melt down the whole United States into one
undivided sovereignty. The free states of Spain and the heptarchy in
England, afford striking examples of this.
[19] Should it be said that such an event is desirable, I answer; the
states are all entitled to their respective sovereignties, and while
they claim independence in international jurisdiction, the federal
constitution ought to guarantee their sovereignty.
Another consideration has weight—There is, in all nations, a
tendency toward an accumulation of power in some point. It is the
business of the legislator to establish some barriers to check the
tendency. In small societies, a man worth £.100,000 has but one vote,
when his neighbors, who are worth but fifty pounds, have each one
vote likewise. To make property the sole basis of authority, would
expose many of the best citizens to violence and oppression. To make
the number of inhabitants(9) in a state, the rule of apportioning
power, is more equitable; and were the United States one indivisible
interest, would be a perfect rule for representation. But the detached
situation of the states has created some separate interests—some local
institutions, which they will not resign nor throw into the hands of
other states. For these peculiar interests, the states have an _equal_
attachment—for the preservation and enjoyment of these, an _equal_
sovereignty is necessary; and the sovereignty of each state would not
be secure, had each state, in both branches of the legislature an
authority in passing laws, proportioned to its inhabitants.
3. But the senate should be considered as representing the confederacy
in a body. It is a [20] false principle in the vulgar idea of
representation, that a man delegated by a particular district in
a state, is the representative of that district only; whereas in
truth a member of the legislature from any town or county, is the
representative of the whole state. In passing laws, he is to view the
whole collective interest of the state, and act from that view; not
from a partial regard to the interest of the town or county where he is
chosen.
The same principle extends to the Congress of the United States.
A delegate is bound to represent the true local interest of his
constituents—to state in its true light to the whole body—but when
each provincial interest is thus stated, every member should act
for the _aggregate interest_ of the whole confederacy. The design
of representation is to bring the collective interest into view—a
delegate is not the legislator of a single state—he is as much the
legislator of the whole confederacy as of the particular state where
he is chosen; and if he gives his vote for a law which he believes to
be beneficial to his own state only, and pernicious to the rest, he
betrays his trust and violates his oath. It is indeed difficult for a
man to divest himself of local attachments and act from an impartial
regard to the general good; but he who cannot for the most part do
this, is not a good legislator.
These considerations suggest the propriety of continuing the senators
in office, for a longer period, than the representatives. They
gradually lose their partiality, generalize their views, [21] and
consider themselves as acting for the whole confederacy. Hence in the
senate we may expect union and firmness—here we may find the _general
good_ the object of legislation, and a check upon the more partial and
interested acts of the other branch.
These considerations obviate the complaint, that the representation
in the senate is not equal; for the senators represent the whole
confederacy; and all that is wanted of the members is information
of the true situation and interest of each state. As they act under
the direction of the several legislatures, two men may as fully and
completely represent a state, as twenty; and when the true interest
of each state is known, if the senators perform the part of good
legislators, and act impartially for the whole collective body of the
United States, it is totally immaterial where they are chosen.(10)
[22] The house of representatives is the more immediate voice of the
separate states—here the states are represented in proportion to
their number of inhabitants—here the separate interests will operate
with their full force, and the violence of parties and the jealousies
produced by interfering interests, can be restrained and quieted only
by a body of men, less local and dependent.
It may be objected that no separate interests should exist in a state;
and a division of the legislature has a tendency to create them.
But this objection is founded on mere jealousy, or a very imperfect
comparison of the Roman and British governments, with the proposed
federal constitution.
The house of peers in England is a body originally and totally
independent on(11) the people—the senate in Rome was mostly composed of
patrician or noble families, and after the first election of a senator,
he was no longer dependent on the people—he held his seat for life.
But the senate of the United States can have no separate interests from
the body of the people; for they live among them—they are chosen by
them—they _must_ be dismissed from their place once in six years and
_may_ at any time be impeached for mal-practices—their property is
si- [23]tuated among the people, and with their persons, subject to the
same laws. No title can be granted, but the temporary titles of office,
bestowed by the voluntary election of the people; and no pre-eminence
can be acquired but by the same means.
The separation of the legislature divides the
power—checks—restrains—amends the proceedings—at the same time,
it creates no division of interest, that can tempt either branch to
encroach upon the other, or upon the people. In turbulent times, such
restraint is our greatest safety—in calm times, and in measures
obviously calculated for the general good, both branches must always be
unanimous.
A man must be thirty years of age before he can be admitted into
the senate—which was likewise a requisite in the Roman government.
What property was requisite for a senator in the early ages of
Rome, I cannot inform myself; but Augustus fixed it at six hundred
sestertia—between six and seven thousand pounds sterling. In the
federal constitution, money is not made a requisite—the places of
senators are wisely left open to all persons of suitable age and merit,
and who have been citizens of the United States for nine years; a term
in which foreigners may acquire the feelings and acquaint themselves
with the interests, of the native Americans.
The house of representatives is formed on very equitable principles;
and is calculated to guard the privileges of the people. The English
[24] house of commons is chosen by a small part of the people of
England, and continues for seven years. The Romans never discovered the
secret of representation—the whole body of citizens assembled for the
purposes of legislation—a circumstance that exposed their government
to frequent convulsions, and to capricious measures. The federal house
of representatives is chosen by the people qualified to vote for state
representatives,(12) and continues two years.
[25] Some may object to their continuance in power _two years_. But I
cannot see any danger arising from this quarter. On the contrary, it
creates less trouble for the representatives, who by such choice are
taken from their professions and obliged to attend Congress, some of
them at the distance of at least seven hundred miles. While men are
chosen by the people, and responsible to them, there is but little
danger from ambition or corruption.
If it should be said that Congress may in time become triennial, and
even septennial, like the English parliaments, I answer, this is not
in their power. The English parliament had power to prolong the period
of their existence—but Congress will be restrained by the different
legislatures, without whose constitutional concurrence, no alteration
can be made in the proposed system.
The fourth section, article I, of the new constitution declares that
“The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and
representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature
thereof; _but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such
regulations, except as to the places of chusing senators_.” Here let
us pause——What did the convention mean by giving Congress power to
_make regulations_, prescribed by the legislatures? Is this expression
accurate or intelligible? But the word _alter_ is very intelligible,
and the clause puts the election of representatives _wholly_, and [26]
the senators _almost wholly_, in the power of Congress.
The views of the convention I believe to be perfectly upright—They
might mean to place the election of representatives and senators beyond
the reach of faction—They doubtless had good reasons, in _their_
minds, for the clause—But I see no occasion for any power in Congress
to interfere with the choice of their own body—They will have power
to suppress insurrections, as they ought to have; but the clause in
_Italics_ gives _needless_ and _dangerous_ powers—I hope the states
will reject it with decency, and adopt the whole system, without
altering another syllable.(13)
The method of passing laws in Congress is much preferable to that of
ancient Rome or modern Britain. Not to mention other defects in Rome,
it lay in the power of a single tribune to obstruct the passing of
a law. As the tribunes were popular magistrates, the right was often
exercised in favor of liberty; but it was also abused, and the best
regulations were prevented, to gratify the spleen, the ambition, or the
resentment of an individual.
The king of Great-Britain has the same power, but seldom exercises it.
It is however a dangerous power—it is absurd and hazardous to lodge in
_one man_ the right of controlling the will of a state.
Every bill that passes a majority of both houses of Congress, must be
sent to the president for [27] his approbation; but it must be returned
in ten days, whether approved by him or not; and the concurrence of
two thirds of both houses passes the bill into a law, notwithstanding
any objections of the president. The constitution therefore gives the
supreme executive a check but no negative, upon the sense of Congress.
The powers lodged in Congress are extensive; but it is presumed that
they are not too extensive. The first object of the constitution is
to _unite_ the states into one _compact society_, for the purpose of
government. If such _union_ must exist, or the states be exposed to
foreign invasions, internal discord, reciprocal encroachments upon each
others property—to weakness and infamy, which no person will dispute;
what powers must be collected and lodged in the supreme head or
legislature of these states. The answer is easy: This legislature must
have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters in which the states have a
mutual interest. There are some regulations in which all the states
are equally concerned—there are others, which in their operation,
are limited to one state. The first belongs to Congress—the last
to the respective legislatures. No one state has a right to supreme
control, in any affair in which the other states have an interest,
nor should Congress interfere in any affair which respects one state
only. This is the general line of division, which the convention have
endeavored to draw, between the powers of Congress and the rights of
the individual states. The only question therefore is, whether the new
constitution delegates to Congress any powers which [28] do not respect
the general interest and welfare of the United States. If these powers
intrench upon the present sovereignty of any _state_, without having
for an object the _collective interest_ of the whole, the powers are
too extensive. But if they do not extend to all concerns, in which
the states have a mutual interest, they are too limited. If in any
instance, the powers necessary for protecting the _general_ interest,
interfere with the constitutional rights of an _individual state_, such
state has assumed powers that are inconsistent with the safety of the
United States, and which ought instantly to be resigned. Considering
the states as individuals, on equal terms, entering into a social
compact, no state has a right to any power which may prejudice its
neighbors. If therefore the federal constitution has collected into the
federal legislature no more power than is necessary for the _common
defence and interest_, it should be recognized by the states, however
particular clauses may supersede the exercise of certain powers by the
individual states.
This question is of vast magnitude. The states have very high ideas
of their separate sovereignty; altho’ it is certain, that while each
exists in its full latitude, we can have no _Federal sovereignty_.
However flattered each state may be by its independent sovereignty, we
can have no union, no respectability, no national character, and what
is more, no national justice, till the states resign to one _supreme
head_ the exclusive power of _legislating, judging and executing_,
in all matters of a general nature. Every thing of [29] a private or
provincial nature, must still rest on the ground of the respective
state constitutions.
After examining the limits of the proposed congressional powers, I
confess I do not think them too extensive—I firmly believe that the
life, liberty and property of every man, and the peace and independence
of each state, will be more fully secured under such a constitution
of federal government, than they will under a constitution with more
limited powers; and infinitely more safe than under our boasted
distinct sovereignties. It appears to me that Congress will have no
more power than will be necessary for our union and general welfare;
and such power they must have or we are in a wretched state. On the
adoption of this constitution, I should value real estate twenty per
cent. higher than I do at this moment.
I will not examine into the extent of the powers proposed to be
lodged in the supreme federal head; the subject would be extensive
and require more time than I could bestow upon it. But I will take up
some objections, that have been made to particular points of the new
constitution.
Most of the objections I have yet heard to the constitution, consist
in mere insinuations unsupported by reasoning or fact. They are thrown
out to instil groundless jealousies into the minds of the people, and
probably with a view to prevent all government; for there are, in
every society, some turbulent geniuses whose importance [30] depends
solely on faction. To seek the insidious and detestable nature of
these insinuations, it is necessary to mention, and to remark on a few
particulars.
1. The first objection against the constitution is, that the
legislature will be more expensive than our present confederation.
This is so far from being true, that the money we actually lose by our
present weakness, disunion and _want of government_ would support the
civil government of every state in the confederacy. Our public poverty
does not proceed from the expensiveness of Congress, nor of the civil
list; but from want of power to command our own advantages. We pay more
money to foreign nations, in the course of business, and merely for
_want of government_, than would, under an efficient government, pay
the annual interest of our domestic debt. Every man in business knows
this to be _truth_; and the objection can be designed only to delude
the ignorant.
2. Another objection to the constitution, is the division of the
legislature into two branches. Luckily this objection has no advocates
but in Pennsylvania; and even here their number is dwindling. The
factions that reign in this state, the internal discord and passions
that disturb the government and the peace of the inhabitants, have
detected the errors of the constitution, and will some time or other
produce a reformation. The division of the legislature has been the
subject of discussion in the beginning of this essay; and will be
deemed, by nineteen-twentieths of [31] the Americans, one of the
principal excellencies of the constitution.
3. A third insinuation, is that the proposed federal government will
annihilate the several legislatures. This is extremely disingenuous.
Every person, capable of reading, must discover, that the convention
have labored to draw the line between the federal and provincial
powers—to define the powers of Congress, and limit them to those
general concerns which _must_ come under federal jurisdiction, and
which _cannot_ be managed in the separate legislatures—that in all
internal regulations, whether of civil or criminal nature, the states
retain their sovereignty, and have it guaranteed to them by this very
constitution. Such a groundless insinuation, or rather mere surmise,
must proceed from dark designs or extreme ignorance, and deserves the
severest reprobation.
4. It is alledged that the liberty of the press is not guaranteed by
the new constitution. But this objection is wholly unfounded. The
liberty of the press does not come within the jurisdiction of federal
government. It is firmly established in all the states either by law,
or positive declarations in _bills of right_; and not being mentioned
in the federal constitution, is not—and cannot be abridged by
Congress. It stands on the basis of the respective state-constitutions.
Should any state resign to Congress the exclusive jurisdiction of a
certain district, which should include any town where presses are
already established, it is in the power of the state to reserve [32]
the liberty of the press, or any other fundamental privilege, and make
it an immutable condition of the grant, that such rights shall never
be violated. All objections therefore on this score are “_baseless
visions_.”
5. It is insinuated that the constitution gives Congress the power of
levying internal taxes at pleasure. This insinuation seems founded on
the eighth section of the first article, which declares, that “Congress
shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare
of the United States.”
That Congress should have power to collect duties, imposts and
excises, in order to render them uniform throughout the United States
will hardly be controverted. The whole objection is to the right of
levying internal taxes.
But it will be conceded that the supreme head of the states must have
power, competent to the purposes of our union, or it will be, as it now
is, a _useless body_, a mere expense, without any advantage. To pay our
public debt, to support foreign ministers and our own civil government,
money must be raised; and if the duties and imposts are not adequate to
these purposes, where shall the money be obtained? It will be answered,
let Congress apportion the sum to be raised, and leave the legislatures
to collect the money. Well this is all that is intended by the clause
under consideration; with the addition of a fe- [33] deral power that
shall be sufficient to oblige a delinquent state to comply with the
requisition.(14) Such power must exist somewhere, or the debts of the
United States can never be paid. For want of such power, our credit is
lost and our national faith is a bye-word.
For want of such power, one state now complies fully with a
requisition, another partially, and a third absolutely refuses or
neglects to grant a shilling. Thus the honest and punctual are doubly
loaded—and the knave triumphs in his negligence. In short, no honest
man will dread a power that shall enforce an equitable system of
taxation. The dis-honest are ever apprehensive of a power that shall
oblige them to do what honest men are ready to do voluntarily.
Permit me to ask those who object to this power of taxation, how shall
money be raised to discharge our honest debts which are universally
acknowledged to be just? Have we not already experienced the inefficacy
of a system without power? Has it not been proved to demonstration,
that a voluntary compliance with the demands of the union can never
be expected? To what expedient shall we have recourse? What is the
resort of all governments in cases of delinquency? Do not the states
vest in the legislature, or even in the governor and council, a power
to enforce laws, even with the militia of the states? And how rarely
does there exist the necessity of exerting such a power? Why should
such a power be more dangerous in Congress than in a legislature? Why
should [34] more confidence be reposed in a member of one legislature
than of another? Why should we choose the best men in the state
to represent us in Congress, and the moment they are elected arm
ourselves against them as against tyrants and robbers? Do we not, in
this conduct, act the part of a man, who, as soon as he has married
a woman of unsuspected chastity, locks her up in a dungeon? Is there
any spell or charm, that instantly changes a delegate to Congress
from an honest man into a knave—a tyrant? I confess freely that I am
willing to trust Congress with any powers that I should dare lodge in a
state-legislature. I believe life, liberty, and property is as safe in
the hands of a federal legislature, organized in the manner proposed by
the convention, as in the hands of any legislature, that has ever been
or ever will be chosen in any particular state.
But the idea that Congress can levy taxes _at pleasure_ is false, and
the suggestion wholly unsupported. The preamble to the constitution
is declaratory of the purposes of our union and the assumption of
any powers not necessary to _establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity_, will be unconstitutional, and endanger the existence of
Congress. Besides, in the very clause which gives the power of levying
duties and taxes, the purposes to which the money shall be appropriated
are specified, viz. _to pay the debts and provide for the common
de-_ [35] _fence and general welfare of the United States_.(15) For these
purposes money must be collected, and the power of collection must be
lodged, sooner or later, in a federal head; or the common defence and
general welfare must be neglected.
The states in their separate capacity, cannot provide for the common
defence; nay in case of a civil war, a state cannot secure its own
existence. The only question therefore is, whether it is necessary to
unite, and provide for our _common defence and general welfare_. For
this question being once decided in the affirmative, leaves no room to
controvert the propriety of constituting a power over the whole United
States, adequate to these general purposes.
The states, by granting such power, do not throw it out of their own
hands—they only throw, each its proportion, into a common stock—they
merely combine the powers of the several states into one point, where
they _must_ be collected, before they _can_ be exerted. But the powers
are still in their own hands; and cannot be alienated, till they create
a body independent of them- [36] selves, with a force at their command,
superior to the whole yeomanry of the country.
6. It is said there is no provision made in the new constitution
against a standing army in time of peace. Why do not people object
that no provision is made against the introduction of a body of
Turkish Janizaries; or against making the Alcoran the rule of faith
and practice, instead of the Bible? The answer to such objections is
simply this—_no such provision is necessary_. The people in this
country cannot forget their apprehensions from a British standing
army, quartered in America; and they turn their fears and jealousies
against themselves. Why do not the people of most of the states
apprehend danger from standing armies from their own legislatures?
Pennsylvania and North Carolina, I believe, are the only states that
have provided against this danger at all events. Other states have
declared that “no standing armies shall be kept up without the consent
of the legislature.” But this leaves the power entirely in the hands of
the legislature. Many of the states however have made _no provision_
against this evil. What hazards these states suffer! Why does not a
man pass a law in his family, that no armed soldier shall be quartered
in his house by his consent? The reason is very plain: no man will
suffer his liberty to be abridged, or endangered—his disposition and
his power are uniformly opposed to any infringement of his rights. In
the same manner, the principles and habits, as well as the power of
the Americans are directly opposed to standing armies: and there is as
little [37] necessity to guard against them by positive constitutions,
as to prohibit the establishment of the Mahometan religion. But the
constitution provides for our safety; and while it gives Congress power
to raise armies, it declares that no appropriation of money to their
support shall be for a longer term than two years.
Congress likewise are to have power to provide for organizing, arming
and disciplining the militia, but have no other command of them, except
when in actual service. Nor are they at liberty to call out the militia
at pleasure—but only, to execute the laws of the union, suppress
insurrections, and repel invasions. For these purposes, government must
always be armed with a military force, if the occasion should require
it; otherwise laws are nugatory, and life and property insecure.
7. Some persons have ventured to publish an intimation, that by the
proposed constitution, the trial by jury is abolished in all _civil
cases_. Others very modestly insinuate, that it is in _some cases_
only. The fact is, that trial by jury is not affected in _any_ case,
by the constitution; except in cases of impeachment, which are to be
tried by the senate. None but persons in office in or under Congress
can be impeached; and even after a judgment upon an impeachment, the
offender is liable to a prosecution, before a common jury, in a regular
course of law. The insinuation therefore that trials by jury are to
be abolished, is groundless, and beyond conception, wicked. It must
be wicked, because the circu- [38] lation of a barefaced falsehood,
respecting a privilege, dear to freemen, can proceed only from a
depraved heart and the worst intentions.
8. It is also intimated as a probable event, that the federal courts
will absorb the judiciaries of the federal states. This is a mere
suspicion, without the least foundation. The jurisdiction of the
federal states is very accurately defined and easily understood.
It extends to the cases mentioned in the constitution, and to the
execution of the laws of Congress, respecting commerce, revenue, and
other general concerns.
With respect to other civil and criminal actions, the powers and
jurisdiction of the several judiciaries of each state, remain
unimpaired. Nor is there anything novel in allowing appeals to
the supreme court. Actions are mostly to be tried in the state
where the crimes are committed—But appeals are allowed under our
present confederation, and no person complains; nay, were there no
appeal, every man would have reason to complain, especially when a
final judgement, in an inferior court, should affect property to a
large amount. But why is an objection raised against an appellate
jurisdiction in the supreme court, respecting _fact_ as well as _law_?
Is it less safe to have the opinions of two juries than of one? I
suspect many people will think this is no defect in the constitution.
But perhaps it will destroy a material requisite of a good jury, viz.
their vicinity to the cause of action. I have no doubt, that when
causes were tried, in periods prior to the Christian æra, before [39]
twelve men, seated upon twelve stones, arranged in a circular form,
under a huge oak, there was great propriety in submitting causes to
men _in the vicinity_. The difficulty of collecting evidence, in those
rude times, rendered it necessary that juries should judge mostly
from their own knowledge of facts or from information obtained out of
court. But in these polished ages, when juries depend almost wholly
on the testimony of witnesses; and when a complication of interests,
introduced by commerce and other causes, renders it almost impossible
to collect men, in the vicinity of the parties, who are wholly
disinterested, it is no disadvantage to have a cause tried by a jury of
strangers. Indeed the latter is generally the most eligible.
But the truth is, the creation of all inferior courts is in the power
of Congress; and the constitution provides that Congress may make such
exceptions from the right of appeals as they shall judge proper. When
these courts are erected, their jurisdictions will be ascertained, and
in small actions, Congress will doubtless direct that a sentence in a
subordinate court shall, to a certain amount, be definite and final.
All objections therefore to the judicial powers of the federal courts
appear to me as trifling as any of the preceding.
9. But, say the enemies of slavery, negroes may be imported for
twenty-one years. This exception is addressed to the quakers; and a
very pitiful exception it is.
[40] The truth is, Congress cannot prohibit the importation of
slaves during that period; but the laws against the importation into
particular states, stand unrepealed. An immediate abolition of slavery
would bring ruin upon the whites, and misery upon the blacks, in the
southern states. The constitution has therefore wisely left each
state to pursue its own measures, with respect to this article of
legislation, during the period of twenty-one years.
Such are the principal objections that have yet been made by the
enemies of the new constitution. They are mostly frivolous, or founded
on false constructions, and a misrepresentation of the true state of
facts. They are evidently designed to raise groundless jealousies
in the minds of well meaning people, who have little leisure and
opportunity to examine into the principles of government. But a little
time and reflection will enable most people to detect such mischievous
intentions; and the spirit and firmness which have distinguished the
conduct of the Americans, during the conflict for independence, will
eventually triumph over the enemies of union, and bury them in disgrace
or oblivion.
But I cannot quit this subject without attempting to correct some of
the erroneous opinions respecting _freedom_ and _tyranny_, and the
principles by which they are supported. Many people seem to entertain
an idea, that liberty consists in _a power to act without any control_.
This is more liberty than even the savages enjoy. But in civil society,
political liberty consists in [41] _acting conformably to a sense
of a majority of the society_. In a free government every man binds
himself to obey the _public voice_, or the opinions of a majority; and
the _whole society_ engages to _protect each individual_. In such a
government a man is _free_ and safe. But reverse the case; suppose
every man to act without control or fear of punishment—every man would
be free, but no man would be sure of his freedom one moment. Each would
have the power of taking his neighbor’s life, liberty, or property; and
no man would command more than his own strength to repel the invasion.
The case is the same with states. If the states should not unite into
one compact society, every state may trespass upon its neighbor, and
the injured state has no means of redress but its own military force.
The present situation of our American states is very little better
than a state of nature—Our boasted state sovereignties are so far
from securing our liberty and property, that they, every moment,
expose us to the loss of both. That state which commands the heaviest
purse and longest sword, may at any moment, lay its weaker neighbor
under tribute; and there is no superior power now existing, that can
regularly oppose the invasion or redress the injury. From such liberty,
O(16) Lord, deliver us!
But what is tyranny? Or how can a free people be deprived of their
liberties? Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is
not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can
never be deprived of [42] their liberties, while they retain in their
own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state. This
position leads me directly to enquire, in what consists the power of a
nation or of an order of men?
In some nations, legislators have derived much of their power from the
influence of religion, or from that implicit belief which an ignorant
and superstitious people entertain of the gods, and their interposition
in every transaction of life. The Roman senate sometimes availed
themselves of this engine to carry their decrees and maintain their
authority. This was particularly the case, under the aristocracy which
succeeded the abolition of the monarchy. The augurs and priests were
taken wholly from patrician families.(17) They constituted a distinct
order of men—had power to negative any law of the people, by declaring
that it was passed during the taking of the auspices.(18)(19) This
influence derived from the authority of opinion, was less perceptible,
but as tyrannical as a military force. The same influence constitutes,
at this day, a principal support of federal governments on the Eastern
continent, and perhaps in South America. But in North America, by a
singular concurrence of circumstances, the possibility of establishing
this influence, as a pillar of government, is totally precluded.
[43] Another source of power in government is a military force. But
this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among
the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would
be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a
standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in
almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people
are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular
troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A
military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but
such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they
will possess the _power_, and jealousy will instantly inspire the
_inclination_, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them
unjust and oppressive. In spite of all the nominal powers, vested in
Congress by the constitution, were the system once adopted in its
fullest latitude, still the actual exercise of them would be frequently
interrupted by popular jealousy. I am bold to say, that _ten_ just
and constitutional measures would be resisted, where _one_ unjust or
oppressive law would be enforced.
The powers vested in Congress are little more than _nominal_; nay
_real_ power cannot be vested in them, nor in any body, but in the
_people_. The source of power is in the _people_ of this country, and
cannot for ages, and probably never will, be removed.(20)
In what then does _real_ power consist? The answer is short and
plain—in _property_. Could [44] we want any proofs of this, which are
not exhibited in this country, the uniform testimony of history will
furnish us with multitudes. But I will go no farther for proof, than
the two governments already mentioned, the Roman and the British.
Rome exhibited a demonstrative proof of the inseparable connexion
between property and dominion. The first form of its government was an
elective monarchy—its second, an aristocracy; but these forms could
not be permanent, because they were not supported by property. The
kings at first and afterwards the patricians had nominally most of the
power; but the people, possessing most of the lands, never ceased to
assert their privileges, till they established a commonwealth. And the
kings and senate could not have held the reigns of government in their
hands so long as they did, had they not artfully contrived to manage
the established religion, and play off the superstitious credulity of
the people against their own power. “Thus this weak constitution of
government,” says the ingenious Mr. Moyle, speaking of the aristocracy
of Rome, “not founded on the true _center of dominion_, _land_, nor on
any standing foundation of authority, nor rivetted in the esteem and
affections of the people; and being attacked by strong passion, general
interest and the joint forces of the people, mouldered away of course,
and pined of a lingering consumption, till it was totally swallowed
up by the prevailing faction, and the nobility were moulded into the
mass of the people.”(21) The people, notwithstanding [45] the nominal
authority of the patricians, proceeded regularly in enlarging their
own powers. They first extorted from the senate, the right of electing
_tribunes_, with a negative upon the proceedings of the senate.(22)
They obtained the right of proposing and debating laws; which before
had been vested in the senate; and finally advanced to the power of
enacting laws, without the authority of the senate.(23) They regained
the rights of election in their comitia, of which they had been
deprived by Servius Tullius.(24) They procured a permanent body of laws,
collected from the Grecian institutions. They destroyed the influence
of augurs, or diviners, by establishing the _tributa comitia_, in which
they were not allowed to consult the gods. They increased their power
by large accessions of conquered lands. They procured a repeal of the
law which prohibited marriages between the patricians and plebians.(25)
The Licinian law limited all possessions to five hundred acres of
land; which, had it been fully executed, would have secured the
commonwealth.(26)
The Romans proceeded thus step by step to triumph over the aristocracy,
and to crown their privileges, they procured the right of being elected
to the highest offices of the state. By acquiring _the property_ of the
plebians, the nobility, several times, held most of the power of the
state; but the people, by reducing the interest of money, abolishing
debts, or by forcing [46] other advantages from the patricians,
generally held the power of governing in their own hands.
In America, we begin our empire with more popular privileges than the
Romans ever enjoyed. We have not to struggle against a monarch or an
aristocracy—power is lodged in the mass of the people.
On reviewing the English history, we observe a progress similar to
that in Rome—an incessant struggle for liberty from the date of
Magna Charta, in John’s reign, to the revolution. The struggle has
been successful, by abridging the enormous power of the nobility.
But we observe that the power of the people has increased in an
exact proportion to their acquisitions of property. Wherever the
right of primogeniture is established, property must accumulate and
remain in families. Thus the landed property in England will never be
sufficiently distributed, to give the powers of government wholly
into the hands of the people. But to assist the struggle for liberty,
commerce has interposed, and in conjunction with manufacturers,
thrown a vast weight of property into the democratic scale. Wherever
we cast our eyes, we see this truth, that _property_ is the basis of
_power_; and this, being established as a cardinal point, directs
us to the means of preserving our freedom. Make laws, irrevocable
laws in every state, destroying and barring entailments; leave real
estates to revolve from hand to hand, as time and accident may
direct; and no family influence can be acquired and established for
a series of genera- [47] tions—no man can obtain dominion over a
large territory—the laborious and saving, who are generally the best
citizens, will possess each his share of property and power, and thus
the balance of wealth and power will continue where it is, in the _body
of the people_.
_A general and tolerably equal distribution of landed property is the
whole basis of national freedom_: The system of the great Montesquieu
will ever be erroneous, till the words _property or lands in fee
simple_ are substituted for _virtue_, throughout his _Spirit of Laws_.
_Virtue_, patriotism, or love of country, never was and never will
be, till mens’ natures are changed, a fixed, permanent principle and
support of government. But in an agricultural country, a general
possession of land in fee simple, may be rendered perpetual, and the
inequalities introduced by commerce, are too fluctuating to endanger
government. An equality of property, with a necessity of alienation,
constantly operating to destroy combinations of powerful families, is
the very _soul of a republic_—While this continues, the people will
inevitably possess both _power_ and _freedom_; when this is lost, power
departs, liberty expires, and a commonwealth will inevitably assume
some other form.
The liberty of the press, trial by jury, the Habeas Corpus writ,
even Magna Charta itself, although justly deemed the palladia of
freedom, are all inferior considerations, when compared with a general
distribution of real property among [48] every class of people.(27)
The power of entailing estates is more dangerous to liberty and
republican government, than all the constitutions that can be written
on paper, or even than a standing army. Let the people have property,
and they _will_ have power—a power that will for ever be exerted to
prevent a restriction of the press, and abolition of trial by jury,
or the abridgement of any other privilege. The liberties of America,
therefore, and her forms of government, stand on the broadest basis.
Removed from the fears of a foreign invasion and conquest, they are
[49] not exposed to the convulsions that shake other governments; and
the principles of freedom are so general and energetic, as to exclude
the possibility of a change in our republican constitutions.
But while _property_ is considered as the _basis_ of the freedom of
the American yeomanry, there are other auxiliary supports; among which
is the _information of the people_. In no country, is education so
general—in no country, have the body of the people such a knowledge of
the rights of men and the principles of government. This knowledge,
joined with a keen sense of liberty and a watchful jealousy, will guard
our constitutions, and awaken the people to an instantaneous resistance
of encroachments.
But a principal bulwark of freedom is the _right of election_. An
equal distribution of property is the _foundation_ of a republic; but
_popular elections_ form the _great barrier_, which defends it from
assault, and guards it from the slow and imperceptible approaches of
corruption. Americans! never resign that right. It is not very material
whether your representatives are elected for one year or two—but the
_right_ is the Magna Charta of your governments. For this reason,
expunge that clause of the new constitution before mentioned, which
gives Congress an influence in the election of their own body. The
_time_, _place_ and _manner_ of chusing senators or representatives are
of little or no consequence to Congress. The number of members and time
of meeting in Congress are fixed; but the _choice_ should rest with the
several states. [50] I repeat it—reject the clause with decency, but
with unanimity and firmness.(28)
Excepting that clause the constitution is good(29)—it guarantees the
_fundamental principles_ of our several constitutions—it guards our
rights—and while it vests extensive powers in Congress, it vests no
more than are necessary for our union. Without powers lodged somewhere
in a single body, fully competent to lay and collect equal taxes
and duties—to adjust controversies between different states—to
silence contending interests—to suppress insurrections—to regulate
commerce—to treat with foreign nations, our confederation is a
cobweb—liable to be blown asunder by every blast of faction that is
raised in the remotest corner of the United States.
Every motive that can possibly influence men ever to unite under civil
government, now urges the unanimous adoption of the new constitution.
But in America we are urged to it by a singular necessity. By the local
situation of the several states _a few_ command _all_ the advantages of
commerce. Those states which have no advantages, made equal exertions
for independence, loaded themselves with immense debts, and now are
utterly(30) unable to discharge them; while their richer neighbors
are taxing them for their own benefit, merely because they _can_. I
can prove to a demonstration that Connecticut, which has the heaviest
internal or state debt, in proportion to its number of inhabitants,
of any in the union, cannot discharge its debt, on any principles of
taxation ever yet practised. Yet [51] the state pays in duties, at
least 100,000 dollars annually, on goods consumed by its own people,
but imported by New York. This sum, could it be saved to the state by
an equal system of revenue, would enable that state to gradually sink
its debt.(31)(32)
New Jersey and some other states are in the same situation, except
that their debts are not so large, in proportion to their wealth and
population.
The boundaries of the several states were not drawn with a view to
independence; and while this country was subject to Great Britain,
they produced no commercial or political inconveniences. But the
revolution has placed things on a different footing. The advantages
of some states, and the disadvantages of others are so great—and so
materially affect the business and interest of each, that nothing but
an equalizing system of revenue, that shall reduce the advantages
to some equitable proportion, can prevent a civil war and save the
national debt. Such a system of revenue is the _sine qua non_ of public
justice and tranquillity.
It is absurd for a man to oppose the adoption of the constitution,
because _he_ thinks some part of it defective or exceptionable.
Let every man be at liberty to expunge what _he_ judges to be
exceptionable, and not a syllable of the constitution [52] will
survive the scrutiny. A painter, after executing a masterly piece,
requested every spectator to draw a pencil mark over the part that
did not please him; but to his surprise, he soon found the _whole
piece_ defaced. Let every man examine the most perfect building by his
_own_ taste, and like some microscopic critics, condemn the _whole_
for small deviations from the rules of architecture, and not a part
of the _best_ constructed fabric would escape. But let _any_ man take
a _comprehensive view_ of the whole, and he will be pleased with the
general beauty and proportions, and admire the structure. The same
remarks apply to the new constitution. I have no doubt that _every_
member of the late convention has exceptions to _some part_ of the
system proposed. Their constituents have the same, and if _every_
objection must be removed, before we have a national government, the
Lord have mercy on us.
Perfection is not the lot of humanity. Instead of censuring the small
faults of the constitution, I am astonished that so many clashing
interests have been reconciled—and so many sacrifices made to the
_general interest_! The mutual concessions made by the gentlemen of the
convention, reflect the highest honor on their candor and liberality;
at the same time, they prove that their minds were deeply impressed
with a conviction, that such mutual sacrifices are _essential to
our union_. They _must_ be made sooner or later by every state; or
jealousies, local interests and prejudices will unsheath the sword, and
some Cæsar or Cromwell will avail himself [53] of our divisions, and
wade to a throne through streams of blood.
It is not our duty as freemen, to receive the opinions of any men
however great and respectable, without an examination. But when
we reflect that(33) some of the greatest men in America, with the
venerable FRANKLIN and the illustrious WASHINGTON at their head; _some_
of them the _fathers_ and _saviors_ of their country, men who have
labored at the helm during a long and violent tempest, and guided us to
the haven of peace—and _all_ of them distinguished for their abilities
their acquaintance with ancient and modern governments, as well as
with the temper, the passions, the interests and the wishes of the
Americans;—when we reflect on these circumstances, it is impossible to
resist impressions of respect, and we are almost impelled to suspect
our own judgements, when we call in question any part of the system,
which they have recommended for adoption. Not having the same means of
information, we are more liable to mistake the nature and tendency of
particular articles of the constitution, or the reasons on which they
were admitted. Great confidence therefore should be reposed in the
abilities, the zeal and integrity of that respectable body. But after
all, if the constitution should, in its future operation, be found
defective or inconvenient, two-thirds of both houses of Congress or the
application of two-thirds of the legislatures, may open the door for
amendments. Such improvements may then be made, as experience shall
dictate.
[54] Let us then consider the _New Federal Constitution_, as it really
is, an _improvement_ on the _best_ constitutions that the world ever
saw. In the house of representatives, the people of America have
an equal voice and suffrage. The choice of men is placed in the
freemen or electors at large; and the frequency of elections, and the
responsibility of the members, will render them sufficiently dependent
on their constituents. The senate will be composed of older men;
and while their regular dismission from office, once in six years,
will preserve their dependence on their constituents, the duration
of their existence will give firmness to their decisions, and temper
the factions which must necessarily prevail in the other branch. The
president of the United States is elective, and what is a capital
improvement on the best governments, the mode of chusing him excludes
the danger of faction and corruption.(34) As the supreme executive, he
is invested with power to enforce the laws of the union and give energy
to the federal government.
The constitution defines the powers of Congress; and every power
not expressly delegated to that body, remains in the several
state-legislatures. The sovereignty and the republican form of
government of each state is guaranteed by the constitution; and the
bounds of jurisdiction between the federal and respective state
governments, are marked with precision. In theory, it has all the
energy and freedom of the British and Roman governments, without their
defects. In short, the privileges of freemen are [55] interwoven into
the feelings and habits of the Americans; _liberty_ stands on the
immoveable basis of a general distribution of property and diffusion
of knowledge; but the Americans must cease to contend, to fear, and
to hate, before they can realize the benefits of independence and
government, or enjoy the blessings, which heaven has lavished, in rich
profusion, upon this western world.
An / Address / to the / People / of the / State of New-York / On the
Subject of the / Constitution, / Agreed upon at Philadelphia, / The
17th of September, 1787. / New-York: / Printed by Samuel Loudon, /
Printer to the State. [1788].
Sm. 4to., pp. 19.
By John Jay, member of the New York State Convention. The pamphlet has
been partially reprinted in Elliot, I, 496.
“The good sense, forcible observations, temper and moderation with
which the pamphlet is written, cannot fail, I should think, of making
a serious impression upon the anti-federal mind, where it is not under
the influence of such local views as will yield to no argument, no
proof.”—George Washington.
“I likewise send you a small pamphlet written by John Jay about
ten days since, and which has had a most astonishing influence in
converting anti-federalism to a knowledge and belief that the new
Constitution was their only political salvation.”—S. B. Webb, 27
April, 1788.
“This pamphlet contains a brief recapitulation of the most striking
arguments in favor of adopting the proposed Federal Constitution.
Several of the observations are new, and all are penned with such
moderation of temper, and sound judgment, that they cannot fail to make
an impression favorable to the Constitution on minds which are open to
conviction. It is wished that every friend to good order and government
might ‘receive this address with the same candor with which it is
written,’ as it is believed the author’s arguments against appointing
a new general Convention, for the purpose of altering and amending the
constitution, are altogether unanswerable.” [Noah Webster] in _American
Magazine_ for April, 1788.
See Jay’s _Life of Jay_, I, 362; _The Federalist_, LXXXV; and
the “Postcript” of _An Address to the People of the State of New
York_.—_By a Plebian_, infra.
P. L. F.
_Friends and Fellow Citizens_:
There are times and seasons, when _general evils_ spread general
alarm and uneasiness, and yet arise from causes too complicated, and
too little understood by many, to produce an unanimity of opinions
respecting their remedies. Hence it is, that on such occasions, the
conflict of arguments too often excites a conflict of passions, and
introduces a degree of discord and animosity, which, by agitating the
public mind dispose it to precipitation and extravagance. They who on
the ocean have been unexpectedly enveloped with tempests, or suddenly
entangled among rocks and shoals, know the value of that serene,
self-possession and presence of mind, to which in such cases they owed
their preservation; nor will the heroes who have given us victory and
peace, hesitate to acknowledge that we are as much indebted for those
blessings to the calm prevision, and cool intrepidity which planned and
conducted our military measures, as to the glowing animation with which
they were executed.
While reason retains her rule, while men are as ready to receive as to
give advice, and as willing to be convinced themselves, as to convince
others, there are few political evils from which a free and enlightened
people cannot deliver themselves. It is unquestionably true, that the
great body of the people love their country, and wish it prosperity;
and this observation is particularly applicable to the people of a
_free_ country, for they have more and stronger reasons for loving it
than others. It is not therefore to vicious motives that the unhappy
divisions which sometimes prevail among them are to be imputed; the
people at large always mean well, and although they may on certain
oc- [4] casions be misled by the counsels, or injured by the efforts
of the few who expect more advantage from the wreck, than from the
preservation of national prosperity, yet the motives of these few, are
by no means to be confounded with those of the community in general.
That such seeds of discord and danger have been disseminated and begin
to take root in America, as unless eradicated will soon poison our
gardens and our fields, is a truth much to be lamented; and the more
so, as their growth rapidly increases, while we are wasting the season
in honestly but imprudently disputing, not whether they shall be pulled
up, but by whom, in what manner, and with what instruments, the work
shall be done.
When the king of Great Britain, misguided by men who did not merit
his confidence, asserted the unjust claim of binding us in all cases
whatsoever, and prepared to obtain our submission by force, the object
which engrossed our attention, however important, was nevertheless
plain and simple, “What shall we do?” was the question—the people
answered, let us unite our counsels and our arms. They sent Delegates
to Congress, and soldiers to the field. Confiding in the probity
and wisdom of Congress, they received their recommendations as if
they had been laws; and that ready acquiesence in their advice
enabled those patriots to save their country. Then there was little
leisure or disposition for controversy respecting the expediency of
measures—hostile fleets soon filled our ports, and hostile armies
spread desolation on our shores. Union was then considered as the most
essential of human means and we almost worshipped it with as much
fervor, as pagans in distress formerly implored the protection of their
tutelar deities. That union was the child of wisdom—heaven blessed it,
and it wrought out our political salvation.
That glorious war was succeeded by an advantageous peace. When danger
disappeared, ease, tranquility, and a sense of security loosened the
bands of union; and Congress and soldiers and good faith depreciated
with their apparent importance. Recommendations lost their influence,
and requisitions were rendered nugatory, not by their want of
propriety, but by their want of power. The spirit of private gain
expelled the spirit of public good, and men became more intent on the
means of enriching and aggrandizing themselves, than of enriching and
aggrandizing their country. Hence the war-worn veteran, whose re- [5]
ward for toils and wounds existed in written promises, found Congress
without the means, and too many of the States without the disposition,
to do him justice. Hard necessity compelled him, and others under
similar circumstances, to sell their honest claims on the public for a
little bread; and thus unmerited misfortunes and patriotic distresses
became articles of speculation and commerce.
These and many other evils, too well known to require enumeration,
imperceptibly stole in upon us, and acquired an unhappy influence on
our public affairs. But such evils, like the worst of weeds, will
naturally spring up in so rich a soil; and a good Government is as
necessary to subdue the one, as an attentive gardener or husbandman
is to destroy the other—Even the garden of Paradise required to be
dressed, and while men continue to be constantly impelled to error and
to wrong by innumerable circumstances and temptations, so long will
society experience the unceasing necessity of government.
It is a pity that the expectations which actuated the authors of the
existing confederation, neither have nor can be realized:—accustomed
to see and admire the glorious spirit which moved all ranks of people
in the most gloomy moments of the war, observing their steadfast
attachment to Union, and the wisdom they so often manifested both in
choosing and confiding in their rulers, those gentlemen were led to
flatter themselves that the people of America only required to know
what ought to be done, to do it. This amiable mistake induced them to
institute a national government in such a manner, as though very fit to
give advice, was yet destitute of power, and so constructed as to be
very unfit to be trusted with it. They seem not to have been sensible
that mere advice is a sad substitute for laws; nor to have recollected
that the advice even of the all-wise and best of Beings, has been always
disregarded by a great majority of all the men that ever lived.
Experience is a severe preceptor, but it teaches useful truths, and
however harsh, is always honest—Be calm and dispassionate, and listen
to what it tells us.
Prior to the revolution we had little occasion to inquire or know much
about national affairs, for although they existed and were managed, yet
they were managed _for_ us, but not _by_ us. Intent on our domestic
concerns, our internal legislative business, our agriculture, and our
buying and selling, we were seldom anxious about what passed or was [6]
doing in foreign Courts. As we had nothing to do with that department
of policy, so the affairs of it were not detailed to us, and we took as
little pains to inform ourselves, as others did to inform us of them.
War, and peace, alliances, and treaties, and commerce, and navigation,
were conducted and regulated without our advice or controul. While
we had liberty and justice, and in security enjoyed the fruits of
our “vine and fig tree,” we were in general too content and too much
occupied, to be at the trouble of investigating the various political
combinations in this department, or to examine and perceive how
exceedingly important they often were to the advancement and protection
of our prosperity. This habit and turn of thinking affords one reason
why so much more care was taken, and so much more wisdom displayed, in
forming our State Governments, than in forming our Federal or national
one.
By the Confederation as it now stands, the direction of general and
national affairs is committed to a single body of men, viz. the
Congress. They may make war, but are not empowered to raise men or
money to carry it on. They may make peace, but without power to
see the terms of it observed—They may form alliances, but without
ability to comply with the stipulations on their part—They may
enter into treaties of commerce, but without power to enforce them
at home or abroad—They may borrow money, but without having the
means of repayment—They may partly regulate commerce, but without
authority to execute their ordinances—They may appoint ministers and
other officers of trust, but without power to try or punish them for
misdemeanors—They may resolve, but cannot execute either with dispatch
or with secrecy—In short, they may consult, and deliberate, and
recommend, and make requisitions, and they who please, may regard them.
From this new and wonderful system of Government, it has come to
pass, that almost every national object of every kind, is at this
day unprovided for; and other nations taking the advantage of its
imbecility, are daily multiplying commercial restraints upon us. Our
fur trade is gone to Canada, and British garrisons keep the keys of
it. Our shipyards have almost ceased to disturb the repose of the
neighborhood by the noise of the axe and hammer; and while foreign
flags fly triumphantly above our highest houses, the American Stars
seldom do more than shed a few feeble rays about the humble masts of
river sloops and coasting schooners. The greater part of our hardy
seamen, are [7] plowing the ocean in foreign pay; and not a few of
our ingenious shipwrights are now building vessels on alien shores.
Although our increasing agriculture and industry extend and multiply
our productions, yet they constantly diminish in value; and although
we permit all nations to fill our country with their merchandises,
yet their best markets are shut against us. Is there an English, or
a French, or a Spanish island or port in the West-Indies, to which
an American vessel can carry a cargo of flour for sale? Not one. The
Algerines exclude us from the Mediterranean, and adjacent countries;
and we are neither able to purchase, nor to command the free use of
those seas. Can our little towns or larger cities consume the immense
productions of our fertile country? or will they without trade be able
to pay a good price for the proportion which they do consume? The last
season gave a very unequivocal answer to these questions—What numbers
of fine cattle have returned from this city to the country for want
of buyers? What great quantities of salted and other provisions still
lie useless in the stores? To how much below the former price, is our
corn, and wheat and flour and lumber rapidly falling? Our debts remain
undiminished, and the interest on them accumulating—our credit abroad
is nearly extinguished, and at home unrestored—they who had money have
sent it beyond the reach of our laws, and scarcely any man can borrow
of his neighbor. Nay, does not experience also tell us, that it is as
difficult to pay as to borrow? That even our houses and lands cannot
command money—that law suits and usurious contracts abound—that
our farms sell on executions for less than half their value, and that
distress in various forms, and in various ways, is approaching fast to
the doors of our best citizens.
These things have been gradually coming upon us ever since the
peace—they have been perceived and proclaimed, but the universal
rage and pursuit of private gain conspired with other causes, to
prevent any proper efforts being made to meliorate our condition by
due attention to our national affairs, until the late Convention was
convened for that purpose. From the result of their deliberations, the
States expected to derive much good, and should they be disappointed,
it will probably be not less their misfortune than their fault. That
Convention was in general composed of excellent and tried men—men who
had become conspicuous for their wisdom and public services, and whose
names [8] and characters will be venerated by posterity. Generous and
candid minds cannot perceive without pain, the illiberal manner in
which some have taken the liberty to treat them; nor forbear to impute
it to impure and improper motives, zeal for public good, like zeal for
religion, may sometimes carry men beyond the bounds of reason, but it
is not conceivable, that on this occasion, it should find means so to
inebriate any _candid_ American, as to make him forget what he owed to
truth and to decency, or induce him either to believe or to say, that
the almost unanimous advice of the Convention, proceeded from a wicked
combination and conspiracy against the liberties of their country.
This is not the temper with which we should receive and consider
their recommendations, nor the treatment that would be worthy either
of us or them. Let us continue careful therefore that facts do not
warrant historians to tell future generations, that envy, malice and
uncharitableness pursued our patriotic benefactors to their graves, and
that not even pre-eminence in virtue, nor lives devoted to the public,
could shield them from obloquy and detraction. On the contrary, let
our bosoms always retain a sufficient degree of honest indignation to
disappoint and discourage those who expect our thanks or applause for
calumniating our most faithful and meritorious friends.
The Convention concurred in opinion with the people, that a national
government, _competent to every national object_, was indispensibly
necessary; and it was as plain to them, as it now is to all America,
that the present confederation does not provide for such a government.
These points being agreed, they proceeded to consider how and in what
manner such a government could be formed, as on the one hand, should be
sufficiently energetic to raise us from our prostrate and distressed
situation, and on the other be perfectly consistent with the liberties
of the people of every State. Like men to whom the experience of other
ages and countries had taught wisdom, they not only determined that
it should be erected by, and depend on the people; but remembering
the many instances in which governments vested solely in one man, or
one body of men, had degenerated into tyrannies, they judged it most
prudent that the three great branches of power should be committed to
different hands, and therefore that the executive should be separated
from the legislative, and the judicial from both. Thus far the
propriety of their work is easily seen and understood, and therefore is
thus far _almost_ uni- [9] versally approved—for no one man or thing
under the sun ever yet pleased every body.
The next question was, what particular powers should be given to these
three branches? Here the different views and interests of the different
states, as well as the different abstract opinions of their members on
such points, interposed many difficulties. Here the business became
complicated, and presented a wide field for investigation; too wide for
every eye to take a quick and comprehensive view of it.
It is said that “in a multitude of counsellors there is safety,”
because in the first place, there is greater security for probity; and
in the next, if every member cast in only his mite of information and
argument, their joint stock of both will thereby become greater than
the stock possessed by any one single man out of doors. Gentlemen out
of doors therefore should not be hasty in condemning a system, which
probably rests on more good reasons than they are aware of, especially
when formed under such advantages, and recommended by so many men of
distinguished worth and abilities.
The difficulties before mentioned occupied the Convention a long time
and it was not without mutual concessions that they were at last
surmounted. These concessions serve to explain to us the reason why
some parts of the system please in some states, which displease in
others; and why many of the objections which have been made to it,
are so contradictory and inconsistent with one another. It does great
credit to the temper and talents of the Convention, that they were able
so to reconcile the different views and interests of the different
States, and the clashing opinions of their members as to unite with
such singular and almost perfect unanimity in any plan whatever, on a
subject so intricate and perplexed. It shews that it must have been
thoroughly discussed and understood; and probably if the community
at large had the same lights and reasons before them, they would, if
equally candid and uninfluenced, be equally unanimous.
It would be arduous, and indeed impossible, to comprise within the
limits of this address, a full discussion of every part of the plan.
Such a task would require a volume, and few men have leisure or
inclination to read volumes on any subject. The objections made to
it are almost without number, and many of them without reason—some
of them are real and honest, and others merely ostensible. There are
friends to [10] Union and a national Government who have serious
doubts, who wish to be informed, and to be convinced; and there are
others who, neither wishing for union, nor any national Government at
all, will oppose and object to any plan that can be contrived.
We are told, among other strange things, that the liberty of the
press is left insecure by the proposed Constitution, and yet that
Constitution says neither more nor less about it, than the Constitution
of the State of New York does. We are told that it deprives us of trial
by jury, whereas the fact is, that it expressly secures it in certain
cases, and takes it away in none—it is absurd to construe the silence
of this, or of our own constitution, relative to a great number of
our rights, into a total extinction of them—silence and blank paper
neither grant nor take away anything. Complaints are also made that
the proposed constitution is not accompanied by a bill of rights;
and yet they who would make these complaints, know and are content
that no bill of rights accompanied the Constitution of this State. In
days and countries, where Monarchs and their subjects were frequently
disputing about prerogative and privileges, the latter often found it
necessary, as it were to run out the line between them, and oblige the
former to admit by solemn acts, called bills of rights, that certain
enumerated rights belonged to the people, and were not comprehended in
the royal prerogative. But thank God we have no such disputes—we have
no Monarchs to contend with, or demand admission from—the proposed
Government is to be the government of the people—all its officers are
to be their officers, and to exercise no rights but such as the people
commit to them. The Constitution only serves to point out that part
of the people’s business, which they think proper by it to refer to
the management of the persons therein designated—those persons are to
receive that business to manage, not for themselves and as their own,
but as agents and overseers for the people to whom they are constantly
responsible, and by whom only they are to be appointed.
But the design of this address is not to investigate the merits of
the plan, nor of the objections to it. They who seriously contemplate
the present state of our affairs will be convinced that other
considerations of at least equal importance demand their attention. Let
it be admitted that this plan, like everything else devised by man, has
its imperfections: That it does not please every body is certain and
there is little [11] reason to expect one that will. It is a question
of great moment to you, whether the probability of your being able
seasonably to obtain a better, is such as to render it prudent and
advisable to reject this, and run the risque. Candidly to consider this
question is the design of this address.
As the importance of this question must be obvious to every man,
whatever his private opinions respecting it may be, it becomes us all
to treat it in that calm and temperate manner, which a subject so
deeply interesting to the future welfare of our country and prosperity
requires. Let us therefore as much as possible repress and compose
that irritation in our minds, which to warm disputes about it may
have excited. Let us endeavour to forget that this or that man, is on
this or that side; and that we ourselves, perhaps without sufficient
reflection, have classed ourselves with one or the other party. Let
us remember that this is not a matter to be regarded as a matter that
only touches our local parties, but as one so great, so general, and so
extensive in its future consequences to America, that for our deciding
upon it according to the best of our unbiassed judgment, we must be
highly responsible both here and hereafter.
The question now before us now naturally leads to _three_ enquiries:
1. Whether it is probable that a better plan can be obtained?
2. Whether, if attainable, it is likely to be in season?
3. What would be our situation, if after rejecting this, all our
efforts to obtain a better should prove fruitless?
The men, who formed this plan are Americans, who had long deserved
and enjoyed our confidence, and who are as much interested in having
a good government as any of us are, or can be. They were appointed
to that business at a time when the States had become very sensible
of the derangement of our national affairs, and of the impossibility
of retrieving them under the existing Confederation. Although well
persuaded that nothing but a good national government could oppose
and divert the tide of evils that was flowing in upon us, yet those
gentlemen met in Convention with minds perfectly unprejudiced in
favour of any particular plan. The minds of their Constituents were
at that time equally unbiased, cool and dispassionate. All agreed in
the necessity of doing something, but no one ventured to say decidedly
what precisely ought to be done—opinions were then fluctuating and
unfixed, and whatever might have been the wishes of a few individuals,
yet while the Convention deliberated, the people remained in [12]
silent suspence. Neither wedded to favourite systems of their own, nor
influenced by popular ones abroad, the members were more desirous to
receive light from, than to impress their private sentiments on, one
another. These circumstances naturally opened the door to that spirit
of candour, of calm enquiry, of mutual accommodation, and mutual
respect, which entered into the Convention with them, and regulated
their debates and proceedings.
The impossibility of agreeing upon any plan that would exactly quadrate
with the local policy and objects of every State, soon became evident;
and they wisely thought it better mutually to concede, and accommodate,
and in that way to fashion their system as much as possible by the
circumstances and wishes of different States, than by pertinaciously
adhering, each to his own ideas, oblige the Convention to rise without
doing anything. They were sensible that obstacles arising from local
circumstances, would not cease while those circumstances continued to
exist; and so far as those circumstances depended on differences of
climate, productions, and commerce, that no change was to be expected.
They were likewise sensible that on a subject so comprehensive, and
involving such a variety of points and questions, the most able, the
most candid, and the most honest men will differ in opinion. The same
proposition seldom strikes many minds exactly in the same point of
light; different habits of thinking, different degrees and modes of
education, different prejudices and opinions early formed and long
entertained, conspire with a multitude of other circumstances, to
produce among men a diversity and contrariety of opinions on questions
of difficulty. Liberality therefore as well as prudence, induced them
to treat each other’s opinions with tenderness, to argue without
asperity, and to endeavor to convince the judgment without hurting
the feelings of each other. Although many weeks were passed in these
discussions, some points remained, on which a unison of opinions could
not be effected. Here again that same happy disposition to unite and
conciliate, induced them to meet each other; and enabled them, by
mutual concessions, finally to complete and agree to the plan they have
recommended, and that too with a degree of unanimity which, considering
the variety of discordant views and ideas, they had to reconcile, is
really astonishing.
They tell us very honestly that this plan is the result of
accommodation—they do not hold it up as the best of all possible ones,
but only as [13] the best which they could unite in, and agree to. If
such men, appointed and meeting under such auspicious circumstances,
and so sincerely disposed to conciliation, could go no further in their
endeavors to please every State, and every body, what reason have we at
present to expect any system that would give more general satisfaction?
Suppose this plan to be rejected, what measures would you propose
for obtaining a better? Some will answer, let us appoint another
Convention, and as everything has been said and written that can well
be said and written on the subject, they will be better informed than
the former one was, and consequently be better able to make and agree
upon a more eligible one.
This reasoning is fair, and as far as it goes has weight; but it
nevertheless takes one thing for granted, which appears very doubtful;
for although the new Convention might have more information, and
perhaps equal abilities, yet it does not from thence follow that they
would be equally _disposed to agree_. The contrary of this position
is the most probable. You must have observed that the same temper and
equanimity which prevailed among the people on the former occasion,
no longer exists. We have unhappily become divided into parties; and
this important subject has been handled with such indiscreet and
offensive acrimony, and with so many little unhandsome artifices and
misrepresentations, that pernicious heats and animosities have been
kindled, and spread their flames far and wide among us. When therefore
it becomes a question who shall be deputed to the new Convention;
we cannot flatter ourselves that the talents and integrity of the
candidates will determine who shall be elected. Federal electors
will vote for Foederal deputies, and anti-Foederal electors for
anti-Foederal ones. Nor will either party prefer the most moderate
of their adherents, for as the most staunch and active partizans
will be the most popular, so the men most willing and able to carry
points, to oppose, and divide, and embarrass their opponents, will be
chosen. A Convention formed at such a season, and of such men, would be
but too exact an epitome of the great body that named them. The same
party views, the same propensity to opposition, the same distrusts and
jealousies, and the same unaccommodating spirit which prevail without,
would be concentred and ferment with still greater violence within.
Each deputy would recollect _who_ sent [14] him, and _why_ he was sent;
and be too apt to consider himself bound in honor, to contend and
act vigorously under the standard of his party, and not hazard their
displeasure by prefering compromise to victory. As vice does not sow
the seeds of virtue, so neither does passion cultivate the fruits of
reason. Suspicions and resentments create no disposition to conciliate,
nor do they infuse a desire of making partial and personal objects
bend to general union and the common good. The utmost efforts of that
excellent disposition were necessary to enable the late Convention to
perform their task; and although contrary causes sometimes operate
similar effects, yet to expect that discord and animosity should
produce the fruits of confidence and agreement, is to expect “grapes
from thorns, and figs from thistles.”
The States of Georgia, Delaware, Jersey, and Connecticut, have adopted
the present plan with unexampled unanimity; they are content with
it as it is, and consequently their deputies, being apprized of the
sentiments of their Constituents, will be little inclined to make
alterations, and cannot be otherwise than averse to changes which they
have no reason to think would be agreeable to their people—some other
States, tho’ less unanimous, have nevertheless adopted it by very
respectable majorities; and for reasons so evidently cogent, that even
the minority in one of them, have nobly pledged themselves for its
promotion and support. From these circumstances, the new Convention
would derive and experience difficulties unknown to the former. Nor are
these the only additional difficulties they would have to encounter.
Few are ignorant that there has lately sprung up a sect of politicians
who teach and profess to believe that the extent of our nation is too
great for the superintendance of one national Government, and on that
principle argue that it ought to be divided into two or three. This
doctrine, however mischievous in its tendency and consequences, has its
advocates; and, should any of them be sent to the Convention, it will
naturally be their policy rather to cherish than to prevent divisions;
for well knowing that the institution of any national Government, would
blast their favourite system, no measures that lead to it can meet with
their aid or approbation.
Nor can we be certain whether or not any and what foreign influence
would, on such an occasion, be indirectly exerted, nor for what
purposes—delicacy forbids an ample discussion of this question. Thus
much [15] may be said, without error or offence, viz. That such foreign
nations as desire the prosperity of America, and would rejoice to see
her become great and powerful, under the auspices of a Government
wisely calculated to extend her commerce, to encourage her navigation
and marine, and to direct the whole weight of her power and resources
as her interest and honour may require, will doubtless be friendly to
the Union of the States, and to the establishment of a Government able
to perpetuate, protect and dignify it. Such other foreign nations, if
any such their be, who, jealous of our growing importance, and fearful
that our commerce and navigation should impair their own—who behold
our rapid population with regret, and apprehend that the enterprising
spirit of our people, when seconded by power and probability of
success, may be directed to objects not consistent with their policy
or interests, cannot fail to wish that we may continue a weak and a
divided people.
These considerations merit much attention, and candid men will judge
how far they render it probable that a new Convention would be able
either to agree in a better plan, or with tolerable unanimity, in any
plan at all. Any plan forcibly carried by a slender majority, must
expect numerous opponents among the people, who, especially in their
present temper, would be more inclined to reject than adopt any system
so made and carried. We should in such case again see the press teeming
with publications for and against it; for as the minority would take
pains to justify their dissent, so would the majority be industrious
to display the wisdom of their proceedings. Hence new divisions, new
parties, and new distractions would ensue, and no one can foresee or
conjecture when or how they would terminate.
Let those who are sanguine in their expectations of a better plan from
a new Convention, also reflect on the delays and risque to which it
would expose us. Let them consider whether we ought, by continuing
much longer in our present humiliated condition, to give other nations
further time to perfect their restrictive systems of commerce, to
reconcile their own people to them, and to fence and guard and
strengthen them by all those regulations and contrivances in which a
jealous policy is ever fruitful. Let them consider whether we ought to
give further opportunities to discord to alienate the hearts of our
citizens from one another, and thereby encourage new Cromwells to bold
exploits. Are we cer- [16] tain that our foreign creditors will continue
patient, and ready to proportion their forbearance to our delays? Are
we sure that our distresses, dissentions and weakness will neither
invite hostility nor insult? If they should, how ill prepared shall we
be for defence! without Union, without Government, without money, and
without credit!
It seems necessary to remind you, that some time must yet elapse,
before all the States will have decided on the present plan. If they
reject it, some time must also pass before the measure of a new
Convention, can be brought about and generally agreed to. A further
space of time will then be requisite to elect their deputies, and send
them on to Convention. What time they may expend when met, cannot be
divined, and it is equally uncertain how much time the several States
may take to deliberate and decide on any plan they may recommend—if
adopted, still a further space of time will be necessary to organize
and set it in motion:—In the mean time our affairs are daily going on
from bad to worse, and it is not rash to say that our distresses are
accumulating like compound interest.
But if for the reasons already mentioned, and others that we cannot
now perceive, the new Convention, instead of producing a better plan,
should give us only a history of their disputes, or should offer us
one still less pleasing than the present, where should we be then? The
old Confederation has done its best, and cannot help us; and is now
so relaxed and feeble, that in all probability it would not survive
so violent a shock. Then “to your tents Oh Israel!” would be the word.
Then every band of union would be severed. Then every State would be
a little nation, jealous of its neighbors, and anxious to strengthen
itself by foreign alliances, against its former friends. Then
farewell to fraternal affection, unsuspecting intercourse; and mutual
participation in commerce, navigation and citizenship. Then would arise
mutual restrictions and fears, mutual garrisons,—and standing armies,
and all those dreadful evils which for so many ages plagued England,
Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, while they continued disunited, and were
played off against each other.
Consider my fellow citizens what you are about, before it is too
late—consider what in such an event would be your particular case. You
know the geography of your State, and the consequences of your local
position. Jersey and Connecticut, to whom your impost laws have been
[17] unkind—Jersey and Connecticut, who have adopted the present plan,
and expect much good from it—will impute its miscarriage and all the
consequent evils to you. They now consider your opposition as dictated
more by your fondness for your impost, than for those rights to which
they have never been behind you in attachment. They cannot, they will
not love you—they border upon you, and are your neighbors; but you
will soon cease to regard their neighborhood as a blessing. You have
but one port and outlet to your commerce, and how you are to keep that
outlet free and uninterrupted, merits consideration.—What advantage
Vermont in combination with others, might take of you, may easily be
conjectured; nor will you be at a loss to perceive how much reason the
people of Long Island, whom you cannot protect, have to deprecate being
constantly exposed to the depredations of every invader.
These are short hints—they ought not to be more developed—you
can easily in your own mind dilate and trace them through all their
relative circumstances and connections.—Pause then for a moment, and
reflect whether the matters you are disputing about, are of sufficient
moment to justify your running such extravagant risques. Reflect that
the present plan comes recommended to you by men and fellow citizens
who have given you the highest proofs that men can give, of their
justice, their love for liberty and their country, of their prudence,
of their application, and of their talents. They tell you it is the
best that they could form; and that in their opinion, it is necessary
to redeem you from those calamities which already begin to be heavy
upon us all. You find that not only those men, but others of similar
characters, and of whom you have also had very ample experience, advise
you to adopt it. You find that whole States concur in the sentiment,
and among them are your next neighbors; both whom have shed much blood
in the cause of liberty, and have manifested as strong and constant
a predilection for a free Republican Government as any State in the
Union, and perhaps in the world. They perceive not those latent
mischiefs in it, with which some double-sighted politicians endeavor to
alarm you. You cannot but be sensible that this plan or constitution
will always be in the hands and power of the people, and that [18]
if on experiment, it should be found defective or incompetent, they
may either remedy its defects, or substitute another in its room.
The objectionable parts of it are certainly very questionable, for
otherwise there would not be such a contrariety of opinions about
them. Experience will better determine such questions than theoretical
arguments, and so far as the danger of abuses is urged against the
institution of a Government, remember that a power to do good, always
involves a power to do harm. We must in the business of Government
as well as in all other business, have some degree of confidence, as
well as a great degree of caution. Who on a sick bed would refuse
medicines from a physician, merely because it is as much in his power
to administer deadly poisons, as salutary remedies.
You cannot be certain, that by rejecting the proposed plan you would
not place yourself in a very awkward situation. Suppose nine States
should nevertheless adopt it, would you not in that case be obliged
either to separate from the Union, or rescind your dissent? The first
would not be eligible, nor could the latter be pleasant—A mere hint is
sufficient on this topic—You cannot but be aware of the consequences.
Consider then, how weighty and how many considerations advise and
persuade the people of America to remain in the safe and easy path
of Union; to continue to move and act as they hitherto have done, as
a _band of brothers_; to have confidence in themselves and in one
another; and since all cannot see with the same eyes, at least to
give the proposed Constitution a fair trial, and to mend it as time,
occasion and experience may dictate. It would little become us to
verify the predictions of those who ventured to prophecy, that _peace_:
instead of blessing us with happiness and tranquility, would serve only
as the signal for factions, discords and civil contentions to rage in
our land, and overwhelm it with misery and distress.
Let us also be mindful that the cause of freedom greatly depends on
the use we make of the singular opportunities we enjoy of governing
ourselves wisely; for if the event should prove, that the people of
this [19] country either cannot or will not govern themselves, who
will hereafter be advocates for systems, which however charming in
theory and prospect, are not reducible to practice. If the people of
our nation, instead of consenting to be governed by laws of their own
making, and rulers of their own choosing, should let licentiousness,
disorder, and confusion reign over them, the minds of men every where,
will insensibly become alienated from republican forms, and prepared
to prefer and acquiesce in Governments, which, though less friendly to
liberty, afford more peace and security.
_Receive this Address with the same candor with which it is written;
and may the spirit of wisdom and patriotism direct and distinguish your
councils and your conduct._
_A citizen of New York._
An / Address / to the / People / of the / State of New-York: / Showing
the necessity of making / Amendments / to the / Constitution, proposed
for the United States, / previous to its Adoption. / By a Plebeian. /
Printed in the State of New York; / M,DCC,LXXX,VIII.
8vo., pp. 26.
Written by Melancthon Smith of New York, a member of the Continental
Congress, (1785-88), and of the New York State Convention, in which
he opposed, but ultimately voted for the ratification of the new
Constitution.
“This address begins with several assertions that are not
fully proved. It declares that ‘the advocates for the proposed
constitution, having been beaten off the field of argument, on its
merits, have taken new ground—admit that it is liable to well founded
objections—that a number of its articles ought to be amended—that
if alterations do not take place a door will be left open for an
undue administration, and encroachments on the liberties of the
people—and many of them go so far as to say, if it should continue
for any considerable period, in its present form, it will lead to a
subversion of our equal republican forms of government.’
“These assertions, it is presumed are too general to be true. _Some_
friends (upon the whole) to the proposed government, may have
acknowledged all this; but the _most enlightened ones_ declare that,
in their opinion, the constitution is as little defective as can ever
be obtained—that it is _not liable to well founded objections_—that
it will _preserve_ our equal republican forms of government; nay,
that it is their only firm support, and the guarantee of their
existence—and if they consent to the additions and alterations
proposed by the Massachusetts Convention, it is not so much because
they think the constitution will be _better_ for them; but because
they think these additions will reconcile the opposition and unite
all parties in a desirable harmony, without making the constitution
_worse_.
“The writer, to show the happy situation of the citizens of this
State, enquires, ‘_Does not every man sit under his own vine and
his own fig tree?_’ Yes, it may be answered, and under the rich
vines and fig trees of his neighbors too, ‘_having none to make him
afraid?_’ This was probably written before the late riot: And if the
inhabitants of this State are not afraid of their neighbors, whose
_vines and fig trees_ they are enjoying, they must be very ignorant
or very insensible.
“‘_Does not every one follow his own calling without impediment
and receive the reward of his well earned industry? The farmer and
mechanic reap the fruits of their labor. The merchant drives his
commerce and none can deprive him of the gain he honestly acquires._’
Had the last assertion been mere queries, the writer might have
saved his reputation. While the _war-worn veteran_ is paid for his
services, at a fourth or fifth of their value; while numbers of
mechanics have no employment; while commerce is restricted abroad,
and tender laws and depreciated paper money exist at home, the public
will not be disposed to believe themselves very happy—no, not even in
this State. In other States, where riots and rebellion have violated
private property, disturbed government and end in bloodshed, the
inhabitants will be more incredulous, and wish for the adoption of
the proposed constitution.”—[Noah Webster] in _American Magazine_ for
April, 1788.
P. L. F.
_Friends and Fellow Citizens_,
The advocates for the proposed new constitution, having been beaten off
the field of argument, on its merits, have now taken new ground. They
admit it is liable to well-founded objections—that a number of its
articles ought to be amended; that if alterations do not take place, a
door will be left open for an undue administration, and encroachments
on the liberties of the people; and many of them go so far as to say,
if it should continue for any considerable period, in its present
form, it will lead to a subversion of our equal republican forms of
government.——But still, although they admit this, they urge that
it ought to be adopted, and that we should confide in procuring the
necessary alterations after we have received it. Most of the leading
characters, who advocate its reception, now profess their readiness
to concur with those who oppose, in bringing about the most material
amendments contended for, provided they will first agree to accept the
proffered system as it is. These concessions afford strong evidence,
that the opposers of the constitution have reason on their side, and
that they have not been influenced, in the part they have taken,
by the mean and unworthy motives of selfish and private interests
with which they have been illiberally charged.—As the favourers of
the constitution seem, if their professions are sincere, to be in a
situation similar to that of Agrippa, when he cried out upon Paul’s
preaching—“almost thou persuadest me to be a christian,” I cannot
help indulging myself in expressing the same wish which St. Paul
uttered on that occasion, “Would to God you were not only almost,
but altogether such an one as I am.” But alas, as we hear no more of
Agrippa’s christianity after this interview with Paul, so it is much
to [4] be feared, that we shall hear nothing of amendments from most
of the warm advocates for adopting the new government, after it gets
into operation. When the government is once organized, and all the
offices under it filled, the inducements which our great men will
have to support it, will be much stronger than they are now to urge
its reception. Many of them will then hold places of great honour and
emolument, and others will then be candidates for such places. It is
much harder to relinquish honours or emoluments, which we have in
possession, than to abandon the pursuit of them, while the attainment
is held in a state of uncertainty.—The amendments contended for as
necessary to be made, are of such a nature, as will tend to limit and
abridge a number of the powers of the government. And is it probable,
that those who enjoy these powers will be so likely to surrender
them after they have them in possession, as to consent to have them
restricted in the act of granting them? Common sense says—they will
not.
When we consider the nature and operation of government, the idea of
receiving a form radically defective, under the notion of making the
necessary amendments, is evidently absurd.
Government is a compact entered into by mankind, in a state of society,
for the promotion of their happiness. In forming this compact, common
sense dictates, that no articles should be admitted that tend to defeat
the end of its institution. If any such are proposed, they should be
rejected. When the compact is once formed and put into operation,
it is too late for individuals to object. The deed is executed—the
conveyance is made—and the power of reassuming the right is gone,
without the consent of the parties.——Besides, when a government is
once in operation, it acquires strength by habit, and stability by
exercise. If it is tolerably mild in its administration, the people sit
down easy under it, be its principles and forms ever so repugnant to
the maxims of liberty.——It steals, by insensible degrees, one right
from the people after another, until it rivets its powers so as to put
it beyond the ability of the community to restrict or limit it. The
history of the world furnishes many instances of a people’s increasing
the powers of their rulers by persuasion, but I believe it would be
difficult to produce one in which the rulers have been persuaded to
relinquish their powers to [5] the people. Wherever this has taken
place, it has always been the effect of compulsion. These observations
are so well-founded, that they are become a kind of axioms in politics;
and the inference to be drawn from them is equally evident, which is
this,—that, in forming a government, care should be taken not to
confer powers which it will be necessary to take back; but if you err
at all, let it be on the contrary side, because it is much easier, as
well as safer, to enlarge the powers of your rulers, if they should
prove not sufficiently extensive, than it is too abridge them if they
should be too great.
It is agreed, the plan is defective—that some of the powers granted,
are dangerous—others not well defined—and amendments are necessary.
Why then not amend it? why not remove the cause of danger, and, if
possible, even the apprehension of it? The instrument is yet in the
hands of the people; it is not signed, sealed, and delivered, and they
have power to give it any form they please.
But it is contended, adopt it first, and then amend it. I ask, why not
amend, and then adopt it? Most certainly the latter mode of proceeding
is more consistent with our ideas of prudence in the ordinary concerns
of life. If men were about entering into a contract respecting their
private concerns, it would be highly absurd in them to sign and seal
an instrument containing stipulations which are contrary to their
interests and wishes, under the expectation, that the parties, after
its execution, would agree to make alterations agreeable to their
desire.——They would insist upon the exceptionable clauses being
altered before they would ratify the contract. And is a compact for
the government of ourselves and our posterity of less moment than
contracts between individuals? certainly not. But to this reasoning,
which at first view would appear to admit of no reply, a variety of
objections are made, and a number of reasons urged for adopting the
system, and afterwards proposing amendments.—Such as have come under
my observation, I shall state, and remark upon.
I. It is insisted, that the present situation of our country is such,
as not to admit of a delay in forming a new government, or of time
sufficient to deliberate and agree upon the amendments which are
proper, without involving ourselves in a state of anarchy and confusion.
[6] On this head, all the powers of rhetoric, and arts of description,
are employed to paint the condition of this country, in the most
hideous and frightful colors. We are told, that agriculture is
without encouragement; trade is languishing; private faith and credit
are disregarded, and public credit is prostrate; that the laws
and magistrates are contemned and set at naught; that a spirit of
licentiousness is rampant, and ready to break over every bound set
to it by the government; that private embarrassments and distresses
invade the house of every man of middling property, and insecurity
threatens every man in affluent circumstances: in short, that we are
in a state of the most grievous calamity at home, and that we are
contemptible abroad, the scorn of foreign nations, and the ridicule
of the world. From this high-wrought picture, one would suppose that
we were in a condition the most deplorable of any people upon earth.
But suffer me, my countrymen, to call your attention to a serious
and sober estimate of the situation in which you are placed, while I
trace the embarrassments under which you labor, to their true sources.
What is your condition? Does not every man sit under his own vine and
under his own fig-tree, having none to make him afraid? Does not every
one follow his calling without impediments and receive the reward of
his well-earned industry? The farmer cultivates his land, and reaps
the fruit which the bounty of heaven bestows on his honest toil. The
mechanic is exercised in his art, and receives the reward of his
labour. The merchant drives his commerce, and none can deprive him of
the gain he honestly acquires; all classes and callings of men amongst
us are protected in their various pursuits, and secured by the laws
in the possession and enjoyment of the property obtained in those
pursuits. The laws are as well executed as they ever were, in this or
any other country. Neither the hand of private violence, nor the more
to be dreaded hand of legal oppression, are reached out to distress us.
It is true, many individuals labour under embarrassments, but these are
to be imputed to the unavoidable circumstances of things, rather than
to any defect in our governments. We have just emerged from a long and
expensive war. During its existence few people were in a situation to
increase their fortunes, but many to diminish them. Debts contracted
before the war were left unpaid [7] while it existed, and these were
left a burden too heavy to be borne at the commencement of peace.
Add to these, that when the war was over, too many of us, instead of
reassuming our old habits of frugality, and industry, by which alone
every country must be placed in a prosperous condition, took up the
profuse use of foreign commodities. The country was deluged with
articles imported from abroad, and the cash of the country has been
sent to pay for them, and still left us labouring under the weight of a
huge debt to persons abroad. These are the true sources to which we are
to trace all the private difficulties of individuals: But will a new
government relieve you from these? The advocates for it have not yet
told you how it will do it—And I will venture to pronounce, that there
is but one way in which it can be effected, and that is by industry and
economy; limit your expences within your earnings; sell more than you
buy, and everything will be well on this score. Your present condition
is such as is common to take place after the conclusion of a war.
Those who can remember our situation after the termination of the war
preceding the last, will recollect that our condition was similar to
the present, but time and industry soon recovered us from it. Money was
scare, the produce of the country much lower than it has been since the
peace, and many individuals were extremely embarrassed with debts; and
this happened although we did not experience the ravages, desolations,
and loss of property, that were suffered during the late war.
With regard to our public and national concerns, what is there in our
condition that threatens us with any immediate danger? We are at peace
with all the world; no nation menaces us with war; nor are we called
upon by any cause of sufficient importance to attack any nation. The
state governments answer the purposes of preserving the peace, and
providing for present exigencies. Our condition as a nation is in no
respect worse than it has been for several years past. Our public debt
has been lessened in various ways, and the western territory, which has
been relied upon as a productive fund to discharge the national debt
has at length been brought to market, and a considerable part actually
applied to its reduction. I mention these things to shew, that there is
nothing special, in our present situation, as it respects our national
affairs, that should induce us to accept the prof- [8] fered system,
without taking sufficient time to consider and amend it. I do not mean
by this, to insinuate, that our government does not stand in need of a
reform. It is admitted by all parties, that alterations are necessary
in our federal constitution, but the circumstances of our case do by
no means oblige us to precipitate this business, or require that we
should adopt a system materially defective. We may safely take time to
deliberate and amend, without in the meantime hazarding a condition, in
any considerable degree, worse than the present.
But it is said that if we postpone the ratification of this system
until the necessary amendments are first incorporated, the consequence
will be a civil war among the states. On this head weak minds
are alarmed with being told, that the militia of Connecticut and
Massachusetts, on the one side, and of New Jersey and Pennsylvania on
the other, will attack us with hostile fury; and either destroy us from
the face of the earth, or at best divide us between the two states
adjoining on either side. The apprehension of danger is one of the
most powerful incentives to human action, and is therefore generally
excited on political questions: But still, a prudent man, though he
foreseeth the evil and avoideth it, yet he will not be terrified by
imaginary dangers. We ought therefore to enquire what ground there is
to fear such an event?—There can be no reason to apprehend, that the
other states will make war with us for not receiving the constitution
proposed, until it is amended, but from one of the following causes:
either that they will have just cause to do it, or that they have a
disposition to do it. We will examine each of these:—That they will
have no just cause to quarrel with us for not acceding, is evident,
because we are under no obligation to do it, arising from any existing
compact or previous stipulation. The confederation is the only compact
now existing between the states: By the terms of it, it cannot be
changed without the consent of every one of the parties to it. Nothing
therefore can be more unreasonable than for part of the states to claim
of the others, as matter of right, an accession to a system to which
they have material objections. No war can therefore arise from this
principle, but on the contrary, it is to be presumed, it will operate
strongly the opposite way.—The states will reason on the subject in
the following manner: On this momentous question, every state has an
in- [9] dubitable right to judge for itself: This is secured to it by
solemn compact, and if any of our sister states disagree with us upon
the question, we ought to attend to their objections, and accommodate
ourselves as far as possible to the amendments they propose.
As to the inclination of the states to make war with us, for declining
to accede, until it is amended, this is highly improbable, not only
because such a procedure would be most unjust and unreasonable in
itself, but for various other reasons.
The idea of a civil war among the states is abhorrent to the principles
and feelings of almost every man of every rank in the union. It is so
obvious to every one of the least reflection, that in such an event
we should hazard the loss of all things, without the hope of gaining
anything, that the man who should entertain a thought of this kind,
would be justly deemed more fit to be shut up in Bedlam, than to be
reasoned with. But the idea of one or more states attacking another,
for insisting upon alterations upon the system, before it is adopted,
is more extravagent still; it is contradicting every principle of
liberty which has been entertained by the states, violating the most
solemn compact, and taking from the state the right of deliberation.
Indeed to suppose, that a people, entertaining such refined ideas
of the rights of human nature as to be induced to wage war with the
most powerful nation on earth, upon a speculative point, and from the
mere apprehension of danger only, should be so far lost to their
own feelings and principles as to deny to their brethren, who were
associated with them in the arduous conflict, the right of deliberation
on a question of the first importance to their political happiness and
safety, is equally an insult to the character of the people of America,
and to common sense, and could only be suggested by a vicious heart and
a corrupt mind.
The idea of being attacked by the other states, will appear visionary
and chimerical, if we consider that tho’ several of them have adopted
the new constitution, yet the opposition to it has been numerous and
formidable. The eastern states from whom we are told we have most
to fear, should a civil war be blown up, would have full employ to
keep in awe those who are opposed to it in their own governments.
Massachusetts, after a long and dubious contest [10] in their
convention, has adopted it by an inconsiderable majority, and in the
very act has marked it with a stigma in its present form. No man of
candour, judging from their public proceedings, will undertake to say
on which side the majority of the people are. Connecticut, it is true,
have acceded to it, by a large majority of their convention; but it
is a fact well known, that a large proportion of the yeomanry of the
country are against it:—And it is equally true, that a considerable
part of those who voted for it in the convention, wish to see it
altered. In both these states the body of the common people, who always
do the fighting of a country, would be more likely to fight against
than for it: Can it then be presumed, that a country divided among
themselves, upon a question where even the advocates for it, admit the
system they contend for needs amendments, would make war upon a sister
state, who only insist that that should be done before they receive it,
which it is granted ought to be done after, and where it is confessed
no obligation lies upon them by compact to do it. Can it, I say, be
imagined, that in such a case, they would make war on a sister state?
The idea is preposterous and chimerical.
It is further urged we must adopt this plan because we have no chance
of getting a better. This idea is inconsistent with the principles of
those who advance it. They say, it must be altered, but it should
be left until after it is put in operation. But if this objection is
valid, the proposal of altering, after it is received, is mere delusion.
It is granted, that amendments ought to be made; that the exceptions
taken to the constitution, are grounded on just principles, but it
is still insisted, that alterations are not to be attempted until
after it is received: But why not? Because it is said, there is no
probability of agreeing in amendments previous to the adoption, but
they may be easily made after it. I wish to be informed what there is
in our situation or circumstances that renders it more probable that
we shall agree in amendments better after, than before submitting to
it? No good reason has as yet been given; it is evident none can be
given: On the contrary, there are several considerations which induce
a belief, that alterations may be obtained with more ease before than
after its reception, and if so, every one must agree [11] it is much
the safest. The importance of preserving an union, and of establishing
a government equal to the purpose of maintaining that union, is a
sentiment deeply impressed on the mind of every citizen of America.
It is now no longer doubted, that the confederation, in its present
form, is inadequate to that end: Some reform in our government must
take place: In this, all parties agree: It is therefore to be presumed,
that this object will be pursued with ardour and perseverance, until
it is attained by all parties. But when a government is adopted that
promises to effect this, we are to expect the ardour of many, yea,
of most people, will be abated;—their exertions will cease or be
languid, and they will sit down easy, although they may see that the
constitution which provides for this, does not sufficiently guard the
rights of the people, or secure them against the encroachments of their
rulers. The great end they had in view, the security of the union, they
will consider effected, and this will divert their attention from that
which is equally interesting, safety to their liberties. Besides, the
human mind cannot continue intensely engaged for any great length of
time upon one object. As after a storm, a calm generally succeeds, so
after the minds of a people have been ardently employed upon a subject,
especially upon that of government, we commonly find that they become
cool and inattentive: Add to this that those in the community who urge
the adoption of this system, because they hope to be raised above the
common level of their fellow citizens; because they expect to be among
the number of the few who will be benefitted by it, will more easily
be induced to consent to the amendments before it is received than
afterwards. Before its reception they will be inclined to be pliant and
condescending; if they cannot obtain all they wish, they will consent
to take less. They will yield part to obtain the rest. But when the
plan is once agreed to, they will be tenacious of every power, they
will strenuously contend to retain all they have got; this is natural
to human nature, and it is consonant to the experience of mankind.
For history affords us no examples of persons once possessed of power
resigning it willingly.
The reasonings made use of to persuade us, that no alterations can be
agreed upon previous to the adoption of the system, are as curious as
they are futile. It is alledged [12], that there was great diversity of
sentiments in forming the proposed constitution; that it was the effect
of mutual concessions and a spirit of accommodation, and from hence it
is inferred, that farther changes cannot be hoped for. I should suppose
that the contrary inference was the fair one. If the convention,
who framed this plan, were possessed of such a spirit of moderation
and condescension, as to be induced to yield to each other certain
points, and to accommodate themselves to each other’s opinions, and
even prejudices, there is reason to expect, that this same spirit will
continue and prevail in a future convention, and produce an union of
sentiments on the points objected to. There is more reason to hope for
this, because the subject has received a full discussion, and the minds
of the people much better known than they were when the convention sat.
Previous to the meeting of the convention, the subject of a new form
of government had been little thought of, and scarcely written upon at
all. It is true, it was the general opinion, that some alterations were
requisite in the federal system. This subject had been contemplated by
almost every thinking man in the union. It had been the subject of many
well-written essays, and it was the anxious wish of every true friend
to America. But it was never in the contemplation of one in a thousand
of those who had reflected on the matter, to have an entire change in
the nature of our federal government—to alter it from a confederation
of states, to that of one entire government, which will swallow up that
of the individual states. I will venture to say, that the idea of a
government similar to the one proposed, never entered the minds of the
legislatures who appointed the convention, and of but very few of the
members who composed it, until they had assembled and heard it proposed
in that body: much less had the people any conception of such a plan
until after it was promulgated. While it was agitated, the debates of
the convention were kept an impenetrable secret, and no opportunity
was given for well informed men to offer their sentiments upon the
subject. The system was therefore never publicly discussed, nor indeed
could be, because it was not known to the people until after it was
proposed. Since that, it has been the object of universal attention—it
has been thought of by every reflecting man—been discussed in a
public and private manner, in conversation and in print; [13] its
defects have been pointed out, and every objection to it stated; able
advocates have written in its favour, and able opponents have written
against it. And what is the result? It cannot be denied but that the
general opinion is, that it contains material errors, and requires
important amendments. This then being the general sentiment, both of
the friends and foes of the system, can it be doubted, that another
convention would concur in such amendments as would quiet the fears of
the opposers, and effect a great degree of union on the subject?—An
event most devoutly to be wished. But it is farther said, that there
can be no prospect of procuring alterations before it is acceded to,
because those who oppose it do not agree among themselves with respect
to the amendments that are necessary. To this I reply, that this may
be urged against attempting alterations after it is received, with as
much force as before; and therefore, if it concludes anything, it is
that we must receive any system of government proposed to us, because
those who object to it do not entirely concur in their objections.
But the assertion is not true to any considerable extent. There is
a remarkable uniformity in the objections made to the constitution,
on the most important points. It is also worthy of notice, that very
few of the matters found fault with in it, are of a local nature, or
such as affect any particular state; on the contrary, they are such as
concern the principles of general liberty, in which the people of New
Hampshire, New York and Georgia are equally interested.
It would be easy to shew, that in the leading and most important
objections that have been made to the plan, there has been and is an
entire concurrence of opinion among
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/47110