Search this site

To the People. To prevent any mistakes, or misapprehensions of the argument, stated in my last paper, to prove that the proposed constitution is an actual consolidation of the separate states into one extensive commonwealth, the reader is desired to observe, that in the course of the argument, the new plan is considered as an intire system. It is not dependent on any other book for an explanation, and contains no references to any other book. All the defences of it, therefore, so far as they are drawn from the state constitutions, or from maxims of the common law, are foreign to the purpose. It is only by comparing the different parts of it together, that the meaning of the whole is to be understood. For instance — We find in it, that there is to be a legislative assembly, with authority to constitute courts for the trial of all kinds of civil causes, between citizens of different states. The right to appoint such courts necessarily involves in it the right of defining their powers, and determining the rules by which their judgment shall be regulated; and the grant of the former of those rights is nugatory without the latter. It is vain to tell us, that a maxim of common law requires contracts to be determined by the law existing where the contract was made: for it is also a maxim, that the legislature has a right to alter the common law. Such a power forms an essential part of legislation. Here, then a declaration of rights is of inestimable value. It contains those principles which the government never can invade without an open violation of the compact between them and the citizens. Such a declaration ought to have come to the new constitution in favour of the legislative rights of the several states, by which their sovereignty over their own citizens within the state should be secured. Without such an express declaration the states are annihilated in reality upon receiving this constitution — the forms will be preserved only during the pleasure of Congress. The idea of consolidation is further kept up in the right given to regulate trade. Though this power under certain limitations would be a proper one for the department of Congress; it is in this system carried much too far, and much farther than is necessary. This is, without exception, the most commercial state upon the continent. Our extensive coasts, cold climate, small estates, and equality of rights, with a variety of subordinate and concurring circumstances, place us in this respect at the head of the union. We must, therefore, be indulged if a point which so nearly relates to our welfare be rigidly examined. The new constitution not only prohibits vessels, bound from one state to another, from paying any duties, but even from entering and clearing. The only use of such a regulation is, to keep each state in complete ignorance of its own resources. It certainly is no hardship to enter and clear at the custom house, and the expense is too small to be an object. The unlimitted right to regulate trade, includes the right of granting exclusive charters. This, in all old countries, is considered as one principal branch of prerogative. We find hardly a country in Europe which has not felt the ill effects of such a power. Holland has carried the exercise of it farther than any other state; and the reason why that country has felt less evil from it is, that the territory is very small, and they have drawn large revenues from their colonies in the East and West Indies. In this respect, the whole country is to be considered as a trading company, having exclusive privileges. The colonies are large in proportion to the parent state; so that, upon the whole, the latter may gain by such a system. We are also to take into consideration the industry which the genius of a free government inspires. But in the British islands all these circumstances together have not prevented them from being injured by the monopolies created there. Individuals have been enriched, but the country at large has been hurt. Some valuable branches of trade being granted to companies, who transact their business in London, that city is, perhaps, the place of the greatest trade in the world. But Ireland, under such influence, suffers exceedingly, and is impoverished; and Scotland is a mere bye-word. Bristol, the second city in England, ranks not much above this town in population. These things must be accounted for by the incorporation of trading companies; and if they are felt so severely in countries of small extent, they will operate with tenfold severity upon us, who inhabit an immense tract; and living towards one extreme of an extensive empire, shall feel the evil, without retaining that influence in government, which may enable us to procure redress. There ought, then, to have been inserted a restraining clause which might prevent the Congress from making any such grant, because they consequentially defeat the trade of the out-ports, and are also injurious to the general commerce, by enhancing prices and destroying that rivalship which is the great stimulus to industry. Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/agrippa-vi/

To the People. In the course of inquiry it has appeared, that for the purposes of internal regulation and domestick tranquillity, our small and separate governments are not only admirably suited in theory, but have been remarkably successful in practice. It is also found, that the direct tendency of the proposed system, is to consolidate the whole empire into one mass, and, like the tyrant’s bed, to reduce all to one standard. Though this idea has been stated in different parts of the continent, and is the most important trait of this draft, the reasoning ought to be extensively understood. I therefore hope to be indulged in a particular statement of it. Causes of all kinds, between citizens of different states, are to be tried before a continental court. This court is not bound to try it according to the local laws where the controversies happen; for in that case it may as well be tried in a state court. The rule which is to govern the new courts, must, therefore, be made by the court itself, or by its employers, the Congress. If by the former, the legislative and judicial departments will be blended; and if by the Congress, though these departments will be kept separate, still the power of legislation departs from the state in all those cases. The Congress, therefore, have the right to make rules for trying all kinds of questions relating to property between citizens of different states. The sixth article of the new constitution provides, that the continental laws shall be the supreme law of the land, and that all judges in the separate states shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. All the state officers are also bound by oath to support this constitution. These provisions cannot be understood otherwise than as binding the state judges and other officers, to execute the continental laws in their own proper departments within the state. For all questions, other than those between citizens of the same state, are at once put within the jurisdiction of the continental courts. As no authority remains to the state judges, but to decide questions between citizens of the same state, and those judges are to be bound by the laws of Congress, it clearly follows, that all questions between citizens of the same state are to be decided by the general laws and not by the local ones. Authority is also given to the continental courts, to try all causes between a state and its own citizens. A question of property between these parties rarely occurs. But if such questions were more frequent than they are, the proper process is not to sue the state before an higher authority; but to apply to the supreme authority of the state, by way of petition. This is the universal practice of all states, and any other mode of redress destroys the sovereignty of the state over its own subjects. The only case of the kind in which the state would probably be sued, would be upon the state notes. The endless confusion that would arise from making the estates of individuals answerable, must be obvious to every one. There is another sense in which the clause relating to causes between the state and individuals is to be understood, and it is more probable than the other, as it will be eternal in its duration, and increasing in its extent. This is the whole branch of the law relating to criminal prosecutions. In all such cases the state is plaintiff, and the person accused is defendant. The process, therefore, will be, for the attorney-general of the state to commence his suit before a continental court. Considering the state as a party, the cause must be tried in another, and all the expense of the transporting witnesses incurred. The individual is to take his trial among strangers, friendless and unsupported, without its being known whether he is habitually a good or a bad man; and consequently with one essential circumstance wanting by which to determine whether the action was performed maliciously or accidentally. All these inconveniences are avoided by the present important restriction, that the cause shall be tried by a jury of the vicinity, and tried in the county where the offence was commited. But by the proposed derangement, I can call it by no softer name, a man must be ruined to prove his innocence. This is far from being a forced construction of the proposed form. The words appear to me not intelligible, upon the idea that it is to be a system of government, unless the construction now given, both for civil and criminal processes, be admitted. I do not say that it is intended that all these changes should take place within one year, but they probably will in the course of a half a dozen years, if this system is adopted. In the mean time we shall be subject to all the horrors of a divided sovereignty, not knowing whether to obey the Congress or the state. We shall find it impossible to please two masters. In such a state frequent broils will ensue. Advantage will be taken of a popular commotion, and even the venerable forms of the state be done away, while the new system will be enforced in its utmost rigour by an army. I am the more apprehensive of a standing army, on account of a clause in the new constitution which empowers Congress to keep one at all times; but this constitution is evidently such that it cannot stand any considerable time without an army. Upon this principle one is very wisely provided. Our present government knows of no such thing. Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/agrippa-v/

To the People, Having considered some of the principal advantages of the happy form of government under which it is our peculiar good fortune to live, we find by experience, that it is the best calculated of any form hitherto invented, to secure to us the rights of our persons and of our property, and that the general circumstances of the people shew an advanced state of improvement never before known. We have found the shock given by the war in a great measure obliterated, and the publick debt contracted at that time to be considerably reduced in the nominal sum. The Congress lands are fully adequate to the redemption of the principal of their debt, and are selling and populating very fast. The lands of this state, at the west, are, at the moderate price of eighteen pence an acre, worth near half a million pounds in our money. They ought, therefore, to be sold as quick as possible. An application was made lately for a large tract at that price, and continual applications are made for other lands in the eastern part of the state. Our resources are daily augmenting. We find, then, that after the experience of near two centuries our separate governments are in full vigour. They discover, for all the purposes of internal regulation, every symptom of strength, and none of decay. The new system is, therefore, for such purposes, useless and burdensome. Let us now consider how far it is practicable consistent with the happiness of the people and their freedom. It is the opinion of the ablest writers on the subject, that no extensive empire can be governed upon republican principles, and that such a government will degenerate to a despotism, unless it be made up of a confederacy of smaller states, each having the full powers of internal regulation. This is precisely the principle which has hitherto preserved our freedom. No instance can be found of any free government of considerable extent which has been supported upon any other plan. Large and consolidated empires may indeed dazzle the eyes of a distant spectator with their splendour, but if examined more nearly are always found to be full of misery. The reason is obvious. In large states the same principles of legislation will not apply to all the parts. The inhabitants of warmer climates are more dissolute in their manners, and less industrious, than in colder countries. A degree of severity is, therefore, necessary with one which would cramp the spirit of the other. We accordingly find that the very great empires have always been despotick. They have indeed tried to remedy the inconveniences to which the people were exposed by local regulations; but these contrivances have never answered the end. The laws not being made by the people, who felt the inconveniences, did not suit their circumstances. It is under such tyranny that the Spanish provinces languish, and such would be our misfortune and degradation, if we should submit to have the concerns of the whole empire managed by one legislature. To promote the happiness of the people it is necessary that there should be local laws; and it is necessary that those laws should be made by the representatives of those who are immediately subject to the want of them. By endeavouring to suit both extremes, both are injured. It is impossible for one code of laws to suit Georgia and Massachusetts. They must, therefore, legislate for themselves. Yet there is, I believe, not one point of legislation that is not surrendered in the proposed plan. Questions of every kind respecting property are determinable in a continental court, and so are all kinds of criminal causes. The continental legislature has, therefore, a right to make rules in all cases by which their judicial courts shall proceed and decide causes. No rights are reserved to the citizens. The laws of Congress are in all cases to be the supreme law of the land, and paramount to the constitutions of the individual states. The Congress may institute what modes of trial they please, and no plea drawn from the constitution of any state can avail. This new system is, therefore, a consolidation of all the states into one large mass, however diverse the parts may be of which it is to be composed. The idea of an uncompounded republick, on an average, one thousand miles in length, and eight hundred in breadth, and containing six millions of white inhabitants all reduced to the same standard of morals, or habits, and of laws, is in itself an absurdity, and contrary to the whole experience of mankind. The attempt made by Great-Britain to introduce such a system, struck us with horrour, and when it was proposed by some theorist that we should be represented in parliament, we uniformly declared that one legislature could not represent so many different interests for the purposes of legislation and taxation. This was the leading principle of the revolution, and makes an essential article in our creed. All that part, therefore, of the new system, which relates to the internal government of the states, ought at once to be rejected. AGRIPPA Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/agrippa-iv/

To the People. It has been proved, from the clearest evidence, in two former papers, that a free government, I mean one in which the power frequently returns to the body of the people, is in principle the most stable and efficient of any kind; that such a government affords the most ready and effectual remedy for all injuries done to persons and the rights of property. It is true we have had a tender act. But what government has not some law in favour of debtors? The difficulty consists in finding one that is not more unfriendly to the creditors than ours. I am far from justifying such things. On the contrary I believe that it is universally true, that acts made to favour a part of the community are wrong in principle. All that is now intended is, to remark that we are not worse than other people in that respect which we most condemn. Probably the inquiry will be made, whence the complaints arise. This is easily answered. Let any man look round his own neighbourhood, and see if the people are not, with a very few exceptions, peaceable and attached to the government; if the country had ever within their knowledge more appearance of industry, improvement and tranquillity; if there was ever more of the produce of all kinds together for the market; if their stock does not rapidly increase; if there was ever a more ready vent for their surplus; and if the average of prices is not about as high as was usual in a plentiful year before the war. These circumstances all denote a general prosperity. Some classes of citizens indeed suffer greatly. Two descriptions I at present recollect. The publick creditors form the first of these classes and they ought to, and will be provided for. Let us for a moment consider their situation and prospects. The embarrassments consequent upon a war, and the usual reduction of prices immediately after a war, necessarily occasioned a want of punctuality in publick payments. Still however the publick debt has been very considerably reduced, not by the dirty and delusive scheme of depreciation, but the nominal sum. Applications are continually making for purchases in our eastern and western lands. Great exertions are making for clearing off the arrears of outstanding taxes, so that the certificates for interest on the state debt have considerably increased in value. This is a certain indication of returning credit. Congress this year disposed of a large tract of their lands towards paying the principal of their debt. Pennsylvania has discharged the whole of their part of the continental debt. New-York has nearly cleared its state debt, and has located a large part of their new lands towards paying the continental demands. Other states have made considerable payments. Every day from these considerations the publick ability and inclination to satisfy their creditors increases. The exertions of last winter were as much to support publick as private credit. The prospect therefore of the publick creditors is brightening under the present system. If the new system should take effect without amendments, which however is hardly probable, the increase of expense will be death to the hopes of all creditors both of the continental and of the state. With respect however to our publick delays of payment we have the precedent of the best established countries in Europe. The other class of citizens to which I alluded was the ship-carpenters. All agree that their business is dull; but as nobody objects against a system of commercial regulations for the whole continent, that business may be relieved without subverting all the ancient foundations and laws which have the respect of the people. It is a very serious question whether giving to Congress the unlimited right to regulate trade would not injure them still further. It is evidently for the interest of the state to encourage our own trade as much as possible. But in a very large empire, as the whole states consolidated must be, there will always be a desire of the government to increase the trade of the capital, and to weaken the extremes. We should in that case be one of the extremes, and should feel all the impoverishment incident to that situation. Besides, a jealousy of our enterprising spirit, would always be an inducement to cramp our exertions. We must then be impoverished or we must rebel. The alternative is dreadful. At present this state is one of the most respectable and one of the most influential in the union. If we alone should object to receiving the system without amendments, there is no doubt but it would be amended. But the case is not quite so bad. New-York appears to have no disposition even to call a convention. If they should neglect, are we to lend our assistance to compel them by arms, and thus to kindle a civil war without any provocation on their part. Virginia has put off their convention till May, and appears to have no disposition to receive the new plan without amendments. Pennsylvania does not seem to be disposed to receive it as it is. The same objections are made in all the states, that the civil government which they have adopted and which secures their rights will be subverted. All the defenders of this system undertake to prove that the rights of the states and of the citizens are kept safe. The opposers of it agree that they will receive the least burdensome system which shall defend those rights. Both parties therefore found their arguments on the idea that these rights ought to be held sacred. With this disposition is it not in every man’s mind better to recommit it to a new convention, or to Congress, which is a regular convention for the purpose, and to instruct our delegates to confine the system to the general purposes of the union, than to endeavour to force it through in its present form, and with so many opposers as it must have in every state on the continent. The case is not of such pressing necessity as some have represented. Europe is engaged and we are tranquil. Never therefore was an happier time for deliberation. The supporters of the measure are by no means afraid of insurrections taking place, but they are afraid that the present government will prove superiour to their assaults. Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/agrippa-iii/

To the People of Massachusetts. In the Gazette of the 23d instant, I ascertained from the state of other countries and the experience of mankind, that free countries are most friendly to commerce and to the rights of property. This produces greater internal tranquillity. For every man, finding sufficient employment for his active powers in the way of trade, agriculture and manufactures, feels no disposition to quarrel with his neighbour, nor with the government which protects him, and of which he is a constituent part. Of the truth of these positions we have abundant evidence in the history of our own country. Soon after the settlement of Massachusetts, and its formation into a commonwealth, in the earlier part of the last century, there was a sedition at Hingham and Weymouth. The governour passing by at that time with his guard, seized some of the mutineers and imprisoned them. This was complained of as a violation of their rights, and the govenour lost his election the next year; but the year afterwards was restored and continued to be re-elected for several years. The government does not appear to have been disturbed again till the revocation of the charter in 1686, being a period of about half a century. Connecticut set out originally on the same principles, and has continued uniformly to exercise the powers of government to this time. During the last year, we had decisive evidences of the vigour of this kind of government. In Connecticut, the treason was restrained while it existed only in the form of conspiracy. In Vermont, the conspirators assembled in arms, but were suppressed by the exertions of the militia, under the direction of their sheriffs. In New-Hampshire, the attack was made on the legislature, but the insurrection was in a very few hours suppressed, and has never been renewed. In Massachusetts, the danger was, by delay, suffered to increase. One judicial court after another was stopped, and even the capital trembled. Still, however, when the supreme executive gave the signal, a force of many thousands of active, resolute men, took the field, during the severities of winter, and every difficulty vanished before them. Since that time we have been continually coalescing. The people have applied with diligence to their several occupations, and the whole country wears one face of improvement. Agriculture has been improved, manufactures multiplied, and trade prodigiously enlarged. These are the advantages of freedom in a growing country. While our resources have been thus rapidly increasing, the courts have set in every part of the commonwealth, without any guard to defend them; have tried causes of every kind, whether civil or criminal, and the sheriffs, have in no case been interrupted in the execution of their office. In those cases indeed, where the government was more particularly interested, mercy has been extended, but in civil causes, and in the case of moral offences, the law has been punctually executed. Damage done to individuals, during the tumults, has been repaired, by judgment of the courts of law, and the award has been carried into effect. This is the present state of affairs, when we are asked to relinquish that freedomwhich produces such happy effects. The attempt has been made to deprive us of such a beneficial system, and to substitute a rigid one in its stead, by criminally alarming our fears, exalting certain characters on one side, and villifying them on the other. I wish to say nothing of the merits or demerits of individuals; such arguments always do hurt. But assuredly my countrymen cannot fail to consider and determine who are the most worthy of confidence in a business of this magnitude. –; Whether they will trust persons, who have, from their cradles, been incapable of comprehending any other principles of government, than those of absolute power, and who have, in this very affair, tried to deprive them of their constitutional liberty, by a pitiful trick. They cannot avoid prefering those who have uniformly exerted themselves to establish a limited government, and to secure to individuals all the liberty that is consistent with justice, between man and man, and whose efforts, by the smiles of Providence, have hitherto been crowned with the most splendid success. After the treatment we have received, we have a right to be jealous, and to guard our present constitution with the strictest care. It is the right of the people to judge, and they will do wisely to give an explicit instruction to their delegates in the proposed convention, not to agree to any proposition that will, in any degree, militate with that happy system of government under which Heaven has placed them. Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/agrippa-ii/

To the People of Connecticut. You do not hate to read Newspaper Essays on the new constitution, more than I hate to write them. Then we will be short-which I have often found the best expression in a dull sermon, except the last. Whether the mode of election pointed out in the proposed constitution is well calculated to support the principles which were designed to be established in the different branches of the legislature, may perhaps be justly doubted;-and may perhaps in some future day be discussed. The design undoubtedly was, that the house of representatives should be a popular assembly,—that the senate should, in its nature, be somewhat more permanent, and that the two houses should be completely independent of each other. These principles are right.—For the present we will suppose they will be supported—there then remains to be considered no considerable difference between the continental government which is proposed, and your present government, except that the time for which you choose your present rulers is only for six and twelve months, and the time for which you are to choose your continental rulers is for two, four, and six years. The convention were mistaken if they supposed they should lessen the evils of tumultuous elections by making elections less frequent—But are your liberties endangered by this measure? Philosophy may mislead you. Ask experience.—Are not the liberties of the people of England as safe as yours?—They are not as free as you, because much of their government is in the hands of hereditary majesty and nobility. But is not that part of the government which is under the controul of the commons exceedingly well guarded? But still the house of commons is only a third branch—the only branch who are appointed by the people,—and they are chosen but once in seven years. Is there then any danger to be apprehended from the length of time that your rulers are to serve? when none are to serve more than six years—one whole house but two years, and your President but four. The great power and influence of an hereditary monarch of Britain has spread many alarms, from an apprehension that the commons would sacrifice the liberties of the people to the money or influence of the crown: But the influence of a powerful hereditary monarch, with the national Treasury—Army—and fleet at his command—and the whole executive government—and one third of the legislative in his hands,–constantly operating on a house of commons, whose duration is never less than seven years, unless this same monarch should end it, (which he can do in an hour) has never yet been sufficient to obtain one vote of the house of commons which has taken from the people the liberty of the press,—trial by jury,—the rights of conscience, or of private property. —Can you then apprehend danger of oppression and tyranny from the too great duration of the power of your rulers. Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/a-countryman-v/

(December 6, 1787) To the People of Connecticut. If the propriety of trusting your government in the hands of your representatives was now a perfectly new question, the expediency of the measure might be doubted. A very great portion of the objections which we daily find made against adopting the new constitution, (and which are just as weighty objections against our present government, or against any government in existence) would doubtless have their influence; and perhaps would determine you against trusting the powers of sovereignty out of your own hands. The best theory, the best philosophy on the subject, would be too uncertain for you to hazard your freedom upon. But your freedom in that sense of the expression (if it could be called sense) is already totally gone. Your Legislature is not only supreme in the usual sense of the word, but they have, LITERALLY, all the powers of society.-Can you-can you possibly grant any thing new-Have you any power which is not already granted to your General Assembly? You are indeed called on to say whether a part of the powers now exercised by the General Assembly, shall not, in future, be exercised by Congress. And it is clearly much better for your interest, that Congress should exercise those powers, than that they should continue in the General Assembly, provided you can trust Congress as safely as the General Assembly. What forms your security under the General Assembly? Nothing, save that the interest of the members is the same as yours. Will it be the same with Congress? There are essentially only two differences between the formation of Congress and of your General Assembly-One is,-that Congress are to govern a much larger tract of country, and a much greater number of people, consequently your proportion of the government will be much smaller than at present. The other difference is-that the members of Congress when elected, hold their places for two, four, and six years, and the members of Assembly only six and twelve months. The first of these differences was discussed pretty fully in the first number, (when there was no idea of proceeding thus far on the subject) and has all the force as an objection against the powers of Congress, that it would have if applied to a proposal to give up the sovereignty of the several towns of the state, (if such sovereignty had existed) and unite in state government. It would be only a repetition to enter into a consideration of this difference between Congress and your assembly. It has been suggested that the six or eight members which we shall send to Congress will be men of property, who can little feel any burthens they may lay on society. How far is this idea supported by experience? As the members are to pay their proportion, will they not be as careful of laying too great burthens as poorer people? Are the rich less careful of their money than the poor? This objection would be much stronger against trusting the power out of your hands at all. If the several towns were now independent, this objection would be much more forcible against uniting in state government, and sending one or two of your most wealthy men to Hartford or New-Haven, to vote away your money. But this you have tried, and have found that assemblies of representatives are less willing to vote away money than even their constituents. An individual of any tolerable economy, pays all his debts, and, perhaps has money beforehand. A small school district, or a small parish, will see what sum they want, and usually provide sufficiently for their wants, and often have a little money at interest. Town voters are partly representatives: i.e. many people pay town taxes who have no right to vote, but the money they vote away is principally their own. The towns in this state tax themselves less willingly than smaller bodies. They generally however tax themselves sufficiently to nearly pay the demands against them within the year, very seldom raise money beforehand by taxes. The General Assembly of this state could never be induced to attempt to do more than pay the annual interest of what they owe, and occasionally sink very small parts of the principal, and they never in fact did thus much. And we are all witnesses that they are full as careful of the public money as we can wish. It never was a complaint that they were too ready to allow individuals large sums. A man who has a claim against a town, and applies to a townmeeting, is very likely to obtain justice: But he who has a claim against the state, and applies to the General Assembly, stands but a poor chance to obtain justice. Some rule will be found to exclude his claim,-or to lessen it,-or he will be paid in a security-not worth half the money. You have uniformly experienced that your representatives are as careful, if not more so, of your money, than you yourselves are in your town-meetings; but still your representatives generally men of property, and those of them who are most independent, and those whom youhave sent to Congress, have not been by any means the least careful. Source: https://www.consource.org/document/a-countryman-iv-1787-12-6/20130122080307/

To the People, Many inconveniencies and difficulties in the new plan of government have been mentioned by different writers on that subject. Mr Gerry has given the publick his objections against it, with a manly freedom. The seceding members from the Pennsylvania Assembly also published theirs. Various anonymous writers have mentioned reasons of great weight. Among the many objections have been stated the unlimited right of taxation–; a standing army–; an inadequate representation of the people–; a right to destroy the constitution of the separate states, and all the barriers that have been set up in defence of liberty–; the right to try causes between private persons in many cases without a jury; without trying in the vicinity of either party; and without any limitation of the value which is to be tried. To none of these or any other objections has any answer been given, but such as have acknowledged the truth of the objection while they insulted the objector. This conduct has much the appearance of trying to force a general sentiment upon the people. The idea of promoting the happiness of the people by opposing all their habits of business, and by subverting the laws to which they are habituated, appears to me to be at least a mistaken proceeding. If to this we add the limitations of trade, restraints on its freedom, and the alteration of its course, and transfer of the market, all under the pretence of regulation for federal purposes, we shall not find any additional reason to be pleased with the plan. It is now conceded on all sides that the laws relating to civil causes were never better executed than at present. It is confessed by a warm federalist in answer to mr. Gerry’s sensible letter, that the courts are so arranged at present that no inconvenience is found, and that if the new plan takes place great difficulties may arise. With this confession before him, can any reasonable man doubt whether he shall exchange a system, found by experience to be convenient, for one that is in many respects inconvenient, and dangerous? The expense of the new plan is terrifying, if there was no other objection. But they are multiplied. Let us consider that of the representation. There is to be one representative for every thirty thousand people. Boston would nearly send one, but with regard to another there is hardly a county in the state which would have one. The representatives are to be chosen for two years. In this space, when it is considered that their residence is from two hundred to five [hundred?] miles from their constituents, it is difficult to suppose that they will retain any great affection for the welfare of the people. They will have an army to support them, and may bid defiance to the clamours of their subjects. Should the people cry aloud the representative mayavail himself of the right to alter the time of election and postpone it for another year. In truth, the question before the people is, whether they will have a limited government or an absolute one? It is a fact justified by the experience of all mankind from the earliest antiquity down to the present time, that freedom is necessary to industry. We accordingly find that in absolute governments, the people, be the climate what it may, are [in] general lazy, cowardly, turbulent, and vicious to an extreme. On the other hand, in free countries are found in general, activity, industry, arts, courage, generosity, and all the manly virtues. Can there be any doubt which to choose? He that hesitates must be base indeed. A favourite objection against a free government is drawn from the irregularities of the Greek and Roman republicks. But it is to be considered that war was the employment which they considered as most becoming freemen. Agriculture, arts, and most domestick employment were committed chiefly to slaves. But Carthage, the great commercial republick of antiquity, though resembling Rome in the form of its government, and her rival for power, retained her freedom longer than Rome, and was never disturbed by sedition during the long period of her duration. This is a striking proof that the fault of the Greek and Roman republicks was not owing to the form of their government, and that the spirit of commerce is the great bond of union among citizens. This furnishes employment for their activity, supplies their mutual wants, defends the rights of property, and producing reciprocal dependencies, renders the whole system harmonious and energetick. Our great object therefore ought to be to encourage this spirit. If we examine the present state of the world we shall find that most of the business is done in the freest states, and that industry decreases in proportion to the rigour of government. Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/agrippa-i/

(May 1, 1788) OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONSTITUTION proposed by the FEDERAL CONVENTION. When the sentiments of some objectors, concerning the British constitution, are considered, it is surprizing, that they should apprehend so much danger to United America, as they say, will attend the ratification of the plan proposed to us, by the late federal convention. These gentlemen will acknowledge, that Britain has sustained many internal convulsions, and many foreign wars, with a gradual advancement in freedom, power and prosperity. They will acknowledge, that no nation that has existed, ever so perfectly united those distant extremes, private security of life, liberty and property, with exertion of public force; so advantageously combined the various powers of militia, troops, and fleets; or so happily blended together arms, arts, commerce, and agriculture. From what spring has flowed this stream of happiness? The gentlemen will acknowledge, that these advantages are derived from a single democratical branch in her legislature. They will also acknowledge, that in this branch, called the house of commons, only 131 are members for counties, that nearly one half of the whole house is chosen by about 5700 persons mostly of no property, that 56 members are elected by about 370 persons, and the rest in an enormous disproportion to the numbers of inhabitants who ought to vote. Thus are all the millions of people in that kingdom, said to be represented in the house of commons. Let the gentlemen be so good, on a subject so familiar to them, as to make a comparison between the British constitution, and that proposed to us. Questions like these will then probably present themselves. Is there more danger to our liberty, from such a president as we are to have, than to that of Britons, from an hereditary monarch, with avast revenue; absolute in the erection and disposal of offices, and in the exercise of the whole executive power; in the command of the militia, fleets, and armies, and the direction of their operations; in the establishment of fairs and markets, the regulation of weights and measures, and coining of money; who can call parliaments with a breath, and dissolve them with a nod; who can at his will, make war, peace, and treaties irrevocably binding the nation; and who can grant pardons or titles of nobility, as it pleases him?1 Is there more danger to us, from 26 senators, or double the number, than to Britons, from an hereditary aristocratic body, consisting of many hundreds, possessed of immense wealth in lands and money, strengthened by a host of dependents, and who availing themselves of defects in the constitution, send many of these into the house of commons; who hold a third part of the legislative power in their own hands; and, who form the highest court of judicature in the nation?2 Is there more danger to us, from a house of representatives to be chosen by ALL THE FREEMEN OF THE UNION EVERY TWO YEARS, than to Britons, from such a sort representation as they have in the house of commons, the members of which, too, are chosen but every seven years? Is there more danger to us from the intended fœderal officers, than to Britons, from such a monarch, aristocracy, and house of commons together? What bodies are there in Britain, vested with such capacities for enquiring into, checking, and regulating the conduct of national affairs, as our sovereignty states? What proportion does the number of freeholders in Britain bear to the number of people? And what is the proportion in United America? If any person, after considering such questions, shall say, there will be more danger to our freedom under the proposed plan, than to that of Britons under their constitution, he must mean, that Americans are, or will be, beyond all comparison inferior to Britons in understanding and virtue; otherwise with a constitution and government, every branch of which is so extremely popular, they certainly might guard their rights, at least as well, as Britons can guard their rights, under such political institutions as they have; unless, the person has some inclination to an opinion, that monarchy and aristocracy are favourable to the preservation of their rights. If he has, he cannot too soon recover himself If ever monarchy or aristocracy appear in this country, it must be in the hideous forms of despotism. What an infatuated, depraved people must Americans become, if with such unequalled advantages, committed to their trust in a manner almost miraculous, they lose their liberty? Through single diseased organ representation, in the legislature only, of the kingdom just mentioned, such portions of popular sense and integrity, have been conveyed into the national councils, as have purified other parts, and preserved the whole in its present state of healthfulness. To their own vigor and attention, therefore, is that people, under providence, indebted for the blessings they enjoy. They have held, and now hold the true balance in their government. While they retain their enlightened spirit, they will continue to hold it, and, if they regard what they owe to others as well as what they owe to themselves, most probably, to be happy. They know, that there are powers that cannot be expressly limitted, without injury to themselves, and their magnanimity scorns any fear of such powers. This magnanimity taught Charles the first, that he was but a royal servant; and this magnanimity caused James the second's army, raised, paid and kept up by himself to counfound him with huzzas for liberty. They ask not for compacts, of which the national welfare, and in some cases its existence, may demand violations. They despise such dangerous provisions against danger. They know, that all powers whatever, even those that according to the forms of the constitution are irresistable and absolute, of which there are very many, ought to be exercised for the public good; and that when they are used to the public detriment, they are unconstitutionally exerted. This plain text, commented upon by their experienced intelligence, has led them safe through hazards of every kind, and they now are, what we see them. Upon the review, one is almost tempted to believe, that their insular situation, soil, climate, and some other circumstances, have compounded a peculiarity of temperature-uncommonly favourable to the union of reason and passion. Certainly, 'tis very memorable with what life, impartiality, and prudence, they have interposed on great occasions; have by their patriotism communicated temporary soundness to their disordered representation; and have bid public confusions to cease. Two instances out of many may suffice. The excellent William the third, was distressed by a house of commons. He dissolved the parliament, and appealed to the people. They relieved him. His successor, the present king, in the like distress, made the same appeal; and received equal relief. Thus they have acted: but, Americans, who have the same blood in their veins, have, it seems, very different heads and hearts. We shall be enslaved by a president senators and representatives, chosen by ourselves, and continually rotating within the period of time assigned for the continuance in office of members, in the house of commons? 'Tis strange. But, we are told, 'tis true. It may be so. As we have our all at stake, let us enquire, in what way this event is to be brought about. Is it to be before or after a general corruption of manners? If after, it is not worth attention. The loss of happiness then following of course. If before, how is it to be accomplished? Will a virtuous and sensible people chuse villains or fools for their officers? Or, if they should chuse men of wisdom and integrity, will these lose both or either, by taking their seats? If they should, will not their places be quickly supplied by another choice? Is the like derangment again, and again, and again, to be expected? Can any man believe, that such astonishing phenomena are to be looked for? Was there ever an instance, where rulers thus selected by the people from their own body, have in the manner apprehended, outraged their own tender connections, and the interests, feelings, and sentiments of their affectionate and confiding countrymen? Is such a conduct more likely to prevail in this age of mankind, than in the darker periods that have preceded? Are men more disposed now than formerly, to prefer uncertainties to certainties, things perilous and infamous, to those that are safe and honourable? Can all the misteries of such iniquity, be so wonderfully managed by treacherous rulers, that none of their enlightened constituents, nor any of their honest associates acting with them in public bodies, shall ever be able to discover the conspiracy, till at last it shall burst with destruction to the whole federal constitution? Is it not ten thousand times less probable, that such transactions will happen, than it is, that we shall be exposed to innumerable calamities, by rejecting the plan proposed, or even by delaying to accept it? Let us consider our affairs in another light, and take council from those who cannot love us, any farther than as we may be subservient to their views. Not a monarch or sovereignty in Europe, can desire to see these states formed into one flourishing empire. Difference of government, participation in commerce, improvement in policy, and magnitude of power, can be no favourite objects of their attention. Our loss will be their gain-Our fall, their rise-Our shame, their triumph. Divided, they may distract, dictate, and destroy. United, their efforts will be waves dashing themselves into foam against a rock. May our national character be-an animated moderation, that seeks only its own, and will not be satisfied with less. To his beloved fellow-citizens of United America, the writer dedicates this imperfect testimony of his affection, with fervent prayers, for a perpetuity of freedom, virtue, piety and felicity, to them and their posterity. (a) No member of parliament ought to be elected by fewer than the majority of 800, upon the most moderate calculation, according to Doctor Price. (b) By the constitution proposed to us, a majority of the house of representatives, and of the senate, makes a quorum to do business: But, if the writer is not mistaken, about a fourteenth part of the members of the house of commons, makes a quorum to do business. Source: https://www.consource.org/document/fabius-ix-1788-5-1/20130122075715/

(April 29, 1788) OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONSTITUTION proposed by the FEDERAL CONVENTION. The proposed confederation offers to us a system of diversified representation in the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, as essentially necessary to the good government of an extensive republican empire. Every argument to recommend it, receives new force, by contemplating events, that must take place. The number of states in America will encrease. If not united to the present, the consequences are evident. If united, it must be by a plan that will communicate equal liberty and assure just protection to them. These ends can never be attained, but by a close combination of the several states. It has been asserted, that a very extensive territory cannot be ruled by a government of republican form. What is meant by this proposition Is it intended to abolish all ideas of connection, and to precipitate us into the miseries of division, either as single states, or partial confederacies? To stupify us into despondence, that destruction may certainly seize us?1 The fancy of poets never feign'd so dire a Metamorphosis, as is now held up to us. The Egis of their Minerva was only said to turn men into stones. This spell is to turn "a band of brethren into a monster, preying upon itself and prey'd upon by all its enemies. If hope is not to be abandoned, common sense teaches us to attempt the best means of preservation. This is all that men can do, and this they ought to do. Will it be said, that any kind of disunion, or a connection tending to it, is preferable to a firm union? Or, is there any charm in that despotism, which is said, to be alone competent to the rule of such an empire? There is no evidence of fact, nor any deduction of reason, that justifies the assertion. It is true, that extensive territory has in general been arbitrarily governed; and it is as true, that a number of republics, in such territory, loosely connected, must inevitably rot into despotism. Such territory has never been governed by a confederacy of republics. Granted. But, Where was there ever a confederacy of republics, in such territory, united, as these states are to be by the proposed constitution? Where was there ever a confederacy, in which, the sovereignty of each state was equally represented in one legislative body, the people of each state equally represented in another, and the sovereignties & people of all the states conjointly represented in a third branch? Or, in which, no law could be made, but by the agreement of three such branches? Or, in which, the appointment to federal offices was vested in a chief magistrate chosen as our president is to be, with the concurrence of a senate elected by the sovereignties of each state? Or, in which, the other acts of the executive department were regulated, as they are to be with us? Or, in which, the federal judges were to hold their offices independently and during good behaviour? Or, in which, the authority over the militia and troops was so distributed and controuled, as it is to be with us? Or, in which, the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners and customs, undisturbed by former feuds or prejudices? Or, in which, the affairs relating to the whole union, were to be managed by an assembly of several representative bodies, invested with different powers that became efficient only in concert, without their being embarrassed by attention to other business? Or, in which, a provision was made for the federal revenue, without recurring to coertion, the miserable expedient of every other confederacy that has existed, an expedient always attended with odium, & often with a delay productive of irreparable damage? Where was there ever a confederacy, that thus adhered to the first principle of society, obliging by its direct authority every individual, to contribute, when the public good necessarily required it, a just proportion of aid to the support of the commonwealth protecting him-without disturbing him in the discharge of the duties owing by him to the state of which he is an inhabitant; and at the same time so amply, so anxiously provided, for bringing the interests, and even the wishes of every sovereignty and of every person of the union, under all their various modifications and impressions, into their full operation and efficacy in the national councils? The instance never existed. The conclusion ought not to be made. It is without premises. It has been said, that the varied representation of sovereignties and people in the legislature, was a mere compromise. This is a great and dangerous mistake. The equal representation of each state in one branch of the legislature, was an original substantive proposition, as the writer is instructed, made in Convention, very soon after the draft offered by Virginia, to which state United America is much indebted not only in other respects, but for her merit in the origination and prosecution of this momentous business. The proposition was expressly made upon this principle, that a territory of such extent as that of United America, could not be safely and advantageously governed, but by a combination of republics, each retaining - all the rights of supreme sovereignty, excepting such as ought to be contributed to the union; that for the securer preservation of these sovereignties, they ought to be represented in a body by themselves, and with equal suffrage; and that they would be annihilated, if both branches of the legislature were to be formed representatives of the people, in proportion to the number of inhabitants in each state. The principle appears to be well founded in reason. Why cannot a very extensive territory be ruled by a government of republican form? Because, its power must languish through distance of parts. Granted, if it be not a "body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered and knit together." If it be such a body, the objection is removed8 . Instead of such a perfect body, framed upon the principle that commands men to associate, and societies to confederate; that which by communicating and extending happiness, corresponds with the gracious intentions of our maker towards us his creatures; what is proposed? Truly, that the natural legs and arms of this body should be cut off because they are too weak, and their places supplied by stronger limbs of wood and iron. Arbitrary princes rule extensive territories, by sending viceroys tog overn certain districts. America is, and will be, divided into several sovereign states, each possessing every power proper for governing within its own limits for its own purposes, and also for acting as a member of the union. They will be civil and military stations, conveniently planted throughout the empire, with lively and regular communications. A stroke, a touch upon any part, will be immediately felt by the whole. Rome famed for imperial arts, had a glimpse of this great truth; and endeavoured, as well as her hard hearted policy would permit, to realize it in her COLONIES. They were miniatures of the capital: But wanted the vital principle of sovereignty, and were too small. They were melted down into, or overwhelmed by the nations around them. Were they now existing, they might be called, little statues-something like to our living originals. These will bear a remarkable resemblance to the mild features of patriarchal government, in which each son ruled his own houshold, and in other matters the whole family was directed by the common ancestor. Will a people thus happily situated, and attached as they will naturally be, with an ardor of affection to their own state, ever desire to exchange their condition, for subjection to an absolute ruler, or can they ever look but with veneration, or act but with deference to that union, that alone can, under providence, preserve them from such subjection? Can any government be devised, that will be more suited to citizens, who wish for equal freedom and common prosperity? better calculated for preventing corruption of manners? for advancing the improvements that endear or adorn life? or that can be more conformed to the nature and understanding, to the best and the last end of man? What harvests of happiness may grow from the seeds of liberty that are now sowing? The cultivation will indeed demand continual care, unceasing diligence, and frequent conflicts with difficulties. This too is consonant to the laws of our nature. As we pass through night in today, so we do through trouble into joy. Generally, the higher the prize, the deeper the suffering. We die into immortality. To object against the benefits offered to us by our Creator, by excepting to the terms annexed, is a crime to be equalled only by its folly. Delightful are the prospects that will open to the view of United America-her sons well prepared to defend their own happiness, and ready to relieve the misery of others-her fleets formidable, but only to the unjust-her revenue sufficient, yet unoppressive-her commerce affluent, without debasing-peace and plenty within her borders and the glory that arises from a proper use of power, encircling them. Whatever regions may be destined for servitude, let us hope, that some portions of this land may be blessed with liberty; let us be convinced, that nothing short of such an union as has been proposed, can preserve the blessing; and therefore let us be resolved to adopt it. As to alterations, a little experience will cast more light upon the subject, than a multitude of debates. Whatever qualities are possessed by those who object, they will have the candor to confess, that they will be encountered by opponents, not in any respect inferior, and yet differing from them in judgment, upon every point they have mentioned. Such untired industry to serve their country, did the delegates to the federal convention exert, that they not only laboured to form the best plan they could, but, provided for making at any time amendments on the authority of the people, without shaking the stability of the government. For this end, the Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to the constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, SHALL call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress. Thus, by a gradual progress, as has been done in England, we may from time to time introduce every improvement in our constitution, that shall be suitable to our situation. For this purpose, it may perhaps be adviseable, for every state, as it sees occasion, to form with the utmost deliberation, drafts of alterations respectively required by them, and to enjoin their representatives, to employ every proper method to obtain a ratification. In this way of proceeding the undoubted sense of every state, collected - in the coolest manner, not the sense of individuals, will be laid before the whole union in Congress, and that body will be enabled with the clearest light that can be afforded by every part of it, and with the least occasion of irritation, to compare and weigh the sentiments of all United America; forthwith to adopt such alterations as are recommended by general unanimity; by degrees to devise modes of conciliation upon contradictory propositions; and to give the revered advice of our common country, upon those, if any such there should be, that in her judgment are inadmissible, because they are incompatible with the happiness of these states. It cannot be with reason apprehended, that Congress will refuse to act upon any articles calculated to promote the common welfare, tho' they may be unwilling to act upon such as are designed to advance PARTIAL interests: but, whatever their sentiments may be, they MUST call a Convention for proposing amendments, on applications of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states. May those good citizens, who have sometimes turned their thoughts towards a second Convention, be pleased to consider, that there are men who speak as they do, yet do not mean as they do. These borrow the sanction of their respected names, to conceal desperate designs. May they also consider, whether persisting in the suggested plan, in preference to the constitutional provision, may not kindle flames of jealousy and discord, which all their abilities and virtues can never extinguish. Source: https://www.consource.org/document/fabius-viii-1788-4-29/20130122080616/

(April 26, 1788) OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONSTITUTION Proposed by the FEDERAL CONVENTION. Thus happily mistaken was the ingenious, learned, and patriotic Lord Belhaven, in his prediction concerning the fate of his country and thus happily mistaken, it is hoped, that some of our fellow-citizens will be, in their prediction concerning the fate of their country. Had they taken larger scope, and assumed in their proposition the vicissitude of human affairs, and the passions that so often confound them, their prediction might have been a tolerably good guess. Amidst the mutabilities of terrestial things, the liberty of United America may be destroyed. As to that point, it is our duty, humbly, constantly, fervently, to implore the protection of our most gracious maker, "who doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men and incessantly to strive, as we are commanded, to recommend ourselves to that protection, by "doing his will," diligently exercising our reason in fulfilling the purposes for which that and our existence were given to us. How the liberty of this country is to be destroyed, is another question. Here, the gentlemen assign a cause, in no manner proportioned, as it is apprehended, to the effect. The uniform tenor of history is against them. That holds up the licentiousness of the people, and turbulent temper of some of the states, as the only causes to be dreaded, not the conspiracies of federal officers. Therefore, it is highly probable, that, if our liberty is ever subverted, it will be by one of the two causes first mentioned. Our tragedy will then have the same acts, with those of the nations that have gone before us; and we shall add one more example to the number already too great, of a people that would not take warning, not "know the things which belong to their peace." But, we ought not to pass such a sentence against our country, & the interests of freedom: Though, no sentence whatever can be equal to the atrocity of our guilt, if through enormity of obstinacy or baseness, we betray the cause of our posterity and of mankind, by providence committed to our parental and fraternal care. "Detur venia verbis"—The calamities of nations are the punishments of their sins. As to the first mentioned cause, it seems unnecessary to say any more upon it. As to the second, we find, that the misbehaviour of the constituent parts acting separately, or in partial confederacies, debilitated the Greeks under "the Amphictionic Council," and under the Achaean League, and that this misbehaviour ruined Greece. As to the former, it was not entirely an assembly of strictly democratical republics. Besides, it wanted a sufficiently close connection of its parts. Tyrants and aristocracies sprung up. After these observations, we may call our attention from it. 'Tis true, the Achcean League was disturbed, by the misconduct of some parts, but, it is as true, that it surmounted these difficulties, and wonderfully prospered, until it was dissolved in the manner that has been described. The glorious operations of its principles bear the clearest testimony to this distant age and people, that the wit of man never invented such an antidote against monarchical and aristocratical projects, as a strong combination of truly democratical republics. By strictly or truly democratical republics, the writer means republics, in which all the officers are from time to time chosen by the people. The reason is plain. As liberty and equality, or as termed by Polybius, benignity, were the foundations of their institutions, and the energy of the government pervaded all the parts in things relating to the whole, it counteracted for the common welfare, the designs hatched by selfishness in separate councils. If folly or wickedness prevailed in any parts, friendly offices and salutary measures restored tranquility. Thus the public good was maintained. In its very formation, tyrannies and aristocracies submitted, by consent or compulsion. Thus, the Ceraunians, Trezenians, Epidaurians, Megalopolitans, Argives, Hermionians, and Phlyarians, were received into the league. A happy exchange! For history informs us, that so true were they to their noble and benevolent principles, that, in their diet, "no resolutions were taken, but what were equally advantageous to the whole confederacy, and the interest of each part so consulted, as to leave no room for complaints." How degrading would be the thought to a citizen of United America, that the people of these states, with institutions beyond comparison preferable to those of the Achcean league, and so vast a superiority in other respects, should not have wisdom & virtue enough, to manage their affairs, with as much prudence and affection of one for another, as these antients did. Would this be doing justice to our country? The composition of her temper is excellent, and seems to be acknowledged equal to that of any nation in the world. Her prudence will guard its warmth against two faults, to which it may be exposed—The one an imitation of foreign fashions, which from small things may lead to great. May her citizens aspire at a national dignity in every part of conduct, private as well as public. This will be influenced by the former. May simplicity be the characteristic feature of their manners, which inlaid in their other virtues and their forms of government, may then indeed be compared, in the eastern stile, to "apples of gold in pictures of silver." Thus will they long, and may they, while their rivers run, escape the curse of luxury–the issue of innocence debauched by folly, and the lineal predecessor of tyranny generated in rape and incest. The other fault, of which, as yet, there are no symptoms among us, is the thirst of empire. This is a vice, that ever has been, and from the nature of things, ever must be, fatal to republican forms of government. Our wants, are sources of happiness: our desires, of misery. The abuse of prosperity, is rebellion against Heaven: and succeeds accordingly. Do the propositions of gentlemen who object, offer to our view, any of the great points upon which, the fate, fame, or freedom of nations has turned, excepting what some of them have said about trial by jury, which has been frequently and fully answered? Is there one of them calculated to regulate, and if needful, to controul, those tempers and measures of constituent parts of an union, that have been so baneful to the weal of every confederacy that has existed? Do not some of them tend to enervate the authority evidently designed thus to regulate and controul? Do not others of them discover a bias in their advocates to particular connections, that if indulged to them, would enable persons of less understanding and virtue, to repeat the disorders, that have so often violated public peace and honor? Taking them altogether, would they afford as strong a security to our liberty, as the frequent election of the federal officers by the people, and the repartition of power among those officers, according to the proposed system? It may be answered, that, they would be an additional security. In reply, let the writer be permitted at present to refer to what has been said. The principal argument of gentlemen who object, involves a direct proof of the point contended for by the writer of this address, and as far as it may be supposed to be founded, a plain confirmation of, Historic evidence. They generally agree, that the great danger of a monarchy or aristocracy among us, will arise from the federal senate. The members of this senate, are to be chosen by men exercising the sovereignty of their respective states. These men therefore, must be monarchically aristocratically disposed, before they will chuse federal senators thus disposed; and what merits particular attention, is, that these men must have obtained an overbearing influence in their respective states, before they could with such disposition arrive at the exercise of the sovereignty in them: or else, the like disposition must be prevalent among the people of such states. Taking the case either way, is not this a disorder in parts of the union, and ought it not to be rectified by the rest? Is it reasonable to expect, that the disease will seize all at the same time? If it is not, ought not the sound to possess a right and power, by which they may prevent the infection from spreading. From the annals of mankind, these conclusions are deducible–that states together may act prudently and honestly, and a part foolishly and knavishly; but, that it is a defiance of all probability, to suppose, that states conjointly shall act with folly and wickedness, and yet separately with wisdom and virtue. Source: https://www.consource.org/document/fabius-vii-1788-4-26/20130122083157/

(April 24, 1788) OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONSTITUTION proposed by the FEDERAL CONVENTION. Some of our fellow-citizens have ventured to predict the future fate of United America, if the system proposed to us, shall be adopted. Though, every branch of the constitution and government is to be popular, and guarded by all the balances, that until this day have occurred to mankind, yet the system will end, they say, in the oppression of a monarchy or aristocracy by the federal servants or some of them. Such a conclusion seems not in any manner suited to the premises. It startles, yet, not so much from its novelty, as from the respectability of the characters by which it is drawn. We must not be too much influenced by our esteem for those char- acters: But, should recollect, that when the fancy is warmed, and the judgment inclined, by the proximity or pressure of particular objects, very extraordinary declarations are sometimes made. Such are the frail- ties of our nature, that genius and integrity sometimes2 afford no protection against them. Probably, there never was, and never will be, such an instance of dreadful denunciation, concerning the fate of a country, as was published while the union was in agitation between England and Scotland. The English were for a joint legislature, many of the Scots for separate legislatures, and urged, that they should be in a manner swallowed up and lost in the other, as then they would not possess one eleventh part in it. Upon that occasion Lord Belhaven, one of the most distinguished orators of the age, made in the Scottish parliament a famous speech, of which the following extract is parts "My Lord Chancellor, "When I consider this affair of an union between the two nations, as it is expressed in the several articles thereof, and now the subject of our deliberation at this time, I find my mind crowded with a variety of very melancholy thoughts, and I think it my duty to disburthen myself of some of them, by laying them before and exposing them to the serious consideration of this honorable house. "I think, I SEE A FREE AND INDEPENDENT KINGDOM delivering up that, which all the world hath been fighting for since the days of Nimrod; yea, that, for which most of all the empires, kingdoms, states, principalities and dukedoms of Europe, are at this very time engaged in the most bloody and cruel wars that ever were; to wit, A POWER TO MANAGE THEIR OWN AFFAIRS BY THEMSELVES, WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE AND COUNCIL OF ANY OTHER. "I think, I see A NATIONAL CHURCH, founded upon a rock, secured by a claim of right, hedged and fenced about by the strictest and pointedest legal sanction that sovereignty could contrive, voluntarily descending into a plain, upon an equal level with Jews, Papists, Socinians, Arminians, Anabaptists, and other Sectaries, &c. "I think, I see THE NOBLE AND HONORABLE PEERAGE OF SCOTLAND, whose valiant predecessors led armies against their enemies upon their own proper charges and expences, now divested of their followers and vassalages, and put upon such an equal foot with their vassals, that I think, I see a petty English Exciseman receive more homage and respect, than what was paid formerly to their quondam Mackallamors. "I think, I see THE PRESENT PEERS OF SCOTLAND, whose noble ancestors conquered provinces, over-run countries, reduced and subjected towns and fortified places, exacted tribute through the greatest part of England, now walking in the court of requests, like so many English Attornies, laying aside their walking swords when in company with the English Peers, lest their self-defence should be found murder. "I think, I see THE HONORABLE ESTATE OF BARONS, the bold assertors of the nation's rights and liberties in the worst of times, now setting A WATCH UPON THEIR LIPS and A GUARD UPON THEIR TONGUES, lest they be found guilty of SCANDALUM MAGNATUM. "I think, I see THE ROYAL STATE OF BOROUGHS, walking their DESOLATE STREETS, hanging down their heads UNDER DISAPPOINTMENTS; wormed out of ALL THE BRANCHES OF THEIR OLD TRADE, uncertain WHAT HAND TO TURN TO, necessitated to become 'prentices to their unkind neighbours, and yet after all finding their TRADE so FORTIFIED BY COMPANIES and secured by prescriptions, that they despair of any success therein. "I think, I see OUR LEARNED JUDGES laying aside their practiques & decisions, studying the common law of England, gravelled with certioraris, nisi priuses, writs of error, verdicts in dovar, ejectiones firmce, injunctions, demurrers, &c. and frighted with APPEALS and AVOCATIONS, because of THE NEW REGULATIONS, and RECTIFICATIONS they meet with. "I think, I see THE VALIANT AND GALLANT SOLDIERY, either sent to learn the plantation trade abroad, or at home petitioning for A SMALL SUBSISTANCE, as the reward of their honorable exploits, while their old corps are broken, the common soldiers left to beg, and the youngest English corps kept standing. "I think, I see THE HONEST INDUSTRIOUS TRADESMAN loaded with NEW TAXES AND IMPOSITIONS, disappointed of the equivalents, drinking water in place of ale, eating his saltless pottage, petitioning for ENCOURAGEMENT TO HIS MANUFACTORIES, and answered by counter petitions. "In short, I think I see THE LABORIOUS PLOUGHMAN, with his corn spoiling upon his hands FOR WANT OF SALE, cursing the day of his birth; dreading the expence of his burial, and uncertain whether to marry, or do worse. "I think, I see the incurable difficulties of LANDED MEN, fettered under the golden chain of equivalents, their pretty daughters petitioning for want of husbands, and their sons for want of employments. "I think, I see OUR MARINERS DELIVERING UP THEIR SHIPS to their Dutch partners, and what through PRESSES AND NECESSITY earning their bread as underlings in the English navy. But above all, my lord, I think,I see OUR ANTIENT MOTHER CALEDONIA, like Cesar, sitting in the mids to four senate, ruefully looking round about her, covering herself with her royal garment, attending the fatal blow, and breathing out her last with a-Et tu quoque mi fill. "Are not these, my lord, very afflicting thoughts? And yet they are the least part suggested to me by these dishonorable articles. Should not the considerations of these things vivify these dry bones of ours? Should not the memory of our noble predecessors valour and constancy rouse up our drooping spirits? Are our noble predecessors souls got so far into the English cabbage stocks and colliflowers, that we should shew the least indignation that way? Are our eyes so blinded Are our ears so deafened? Are our hearts so burdened? Are our tongues so faltered? Are our hands so fettered? that in this our day, I say, my lord, that in this our day, we should not mind the things that concern the very being and well being of our antient kingdom, before the day be hid from our eyes. "When I consider this treaty as it hath been explained, & spoke to, before us these three weeks by past; I see the ENGLISH constitution remaining firm, the same two houses of Parliament, the same taxes, the same customs, the same excises, the same TRADING COMPANIES, the same municipal laws and courts of judicature; and ALL OURS EITHER SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS OR ANNIHILATIONS, only we are to have THE HONOUR to pay THEIR OLD DEBTS, and to have some few persons present for witnesses to the validity of the deed, when they are pleased to contract more." Let any candid American deliberately compare that transaction with the present, and laying his hand upon his heart, solemnly answer this question to himself-Whether, he does not verily believe the eloquent Peer before mentioned, had ten-fold more cause to apprehend evils from such an unequal match between the two kingdoms, than any citizen of these states has to apprehend them from the system proposed. Indeed not only that Peer, but other persons of distinction, and large numbers of the people of Scotland were filled with the utmost aversion to the union; and if the greatest diligence & prudence had not been employed by its friends in removing misapprehensions and refuting misrepresentations, and by the then subsisting government for preserving the public peace, there would certainly have been a rebellion. Yet, what were the consequences to Scotland of that dreaded union with England-The cultivation of her virtues and the correction of her errors-The emancipation of one class of her citizens from the yoke of their superiors-A relief of other classes from the injuries and insults of the great-Improvements in agriculture, science, arts, trade, and manufactures-The profits of industry and ingenuity enjoyed under - the protection of laws, peace and security at home, and encrease respectability abroad. Her Church is still eminent Her laws and courts of judicature are safe-Her boroughs grown into cities-Her mariners and soldiery possessing larger subsistance, than she could have afforded them, and her tradesmen, ploughmen, landed men, and her people of every rank, in a more flourishing condition, not only than they ever were, but in a more flourishing condition, than the clearest understanding could, at the time, have thought it possible for them to attain in so short a period, or even in many ages. England participated in the blessings. The stock of their union or ingraftment, as perhaps it may be called, being strong, and capable of drawing better nutriment and in greater abundance, than they could ever have done apart. "Ere long, to Heaven the soaring branches shoot, and wonder at their height, and more than native fruit." Source: https://www.consource.org/document/fabius-vi-1788-4-24/20130122080204/