Brutus II, continued ...
Brutus
November 1, 1787
For the security of life, in criminal prosecutions, the bills of rights of most of the states have declared, that no man shall be held to answer for a crime until he is made fully acquainted with the charge brought against him; he shall not be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself — the witnesses against him shall be brought face to face, and he shall be fully heard by himself or counsel.
That it is essential to the security of life and liberty, that trial of facts be in the vicinity where they happen.
Are not provisions of this kind as necessary in the general government, as in that of a particular state?
The powers vested in the new Congress extend in many cases to life; they are authorized to provide for the punishment of a variety of capital crimes, and no restraint is laid upon them in its exercise, save only that “the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed.”[4]
No man is secure of a trial in the county where he is charged to have committed a crime; he may be brought from Niagara to New York, or carried from Kentucky to Richmond for trial for an offence supposed to be committed.
What security is there that a man shall be furnished with a full and plain description of the charges against him?
That he shall be allowed to produce all proof he can in his favor?
That he shall see the witnesses against him face to face, or that he shall be fully heard in his own defense by himself or counsel?
For the security of liberty it has been declared, “that excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted — that all warrants, without oath or affirmation, to search suspected places, or seize any person, his papers or property, are grievous and oppressive.”[5]
These provisions are as necessary under the general government as under that of the individual states; for the power of the former is as complete to the purpose of requiring bail, imposing fines, inflicting punishments, granting search warrants, and seizing persons, papers, or property, in certain cases, as the other.
For the purpose of securing the property of the citizens, it is declared by all the states, “that in all controversies at law, respecting property, the ancient mode of trial by jury is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.”[6]
Does not the same necessity exist of reserving this right, under this national compact, as in that of these states?
Yet nothing is said respecting it.
In the bills of rights of the states it is declared, that a well regulated militia is the proper and natural defense of a free government — that as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous, they are not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and controlled by the civil power.
The same security is as necessary in this Constitution, and much more so; for the general government will have the sole power to raise and to pay armies, and are under no control in the exercise of it; yet nothing of this is to be found in this new system.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Brutus II, concluded ...
Brutus
November 1, 1787
I might proceed to instance a number of other rights, which were as necessary to be reserved, such as that elections should be free, that the liberty of the press should be held sacred; but the instances adduced are sufficient to prove that this argument is without foundation.
Besides, it is evident, that the reason here assigned was not the true one, why the framers of this Constitution omitted a bill of rights; if it had been, they would not have made certain reservations, while they totally omitted others of more importance.
We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article, declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion — that no bill of attainder or ex-post facto law shall be passed — that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, &c.
If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions?
Does this Constitution anywhere grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex-post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility?
It certainly does not in express terms.
The only answer that can be given is that these are implied in the general powers granted.
With equal truth it may be said that all the powers, which the bills of right guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this constitution.
So far it is from being true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the general Constitution than in those of the states, the contrary is evidently the fact.
This system, if it is possible for the people of America to accede to it, will be an original compact; and being the last will, in the nature of things, vacate every former agreement inconsistent with it.
For it being a plan of government received and ratified by the whole people, all other forms, which are in existence at the time of its adoption, must yield to it.
This is expressed in positive and unequivocal terms, in the sixth article, “That this constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or laws of any state, to the contrary notwithstanding."
“The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, and of the several states, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution.”[7]
It is therefore not only necessarily implied thereby but positively expressed that the different state constitutions are repealed and entirely done away, so far as they are inconsistent with this, with the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, or with treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States; of what avail will the constitutions of the respective states be to preserve the rights of its citizens?
Should they be plead, the answer would be, the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof is the supreme law, and all legislatures and judicial officers, whether of the general or state governments are bound by oath to support it.
No privilege reserved by the bills of rights, or secured by the state government, can limit the power granted by this or restrain any laws made in pursuance of it.
It stands therefore on its own bottom, and must receive a construction by itself without any reference to any other — and hence it was of the highest importance that the most precise and express declarations and reservations of rights should have been made.
This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the constitutions of all the states.
The power to make treaties is vested in the president by and with the advice and consent of two thirds of the senate.
I do not find any limitation, or restriction, to the exercise of this power.
The most important article in any constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act.
Ought not a government vested with such extensive and indefinite authority to have been restricted by a declaration of rights?
It certainly ought.
So clear a point is this that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the states are willfully endeavoring to deceive and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.
Footnotes
A charter signed in 1215 by English barons and King John specifying certain limits on the power of the king.
An act of Parliament in 1689 that specified limits on the power of the crown
Document 10
Constitution, Article III, section 2
Language taken from amendments to the Constitution proposed at the Virginia ratifying convention.
North Carolina Constitution
Also Article VI
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... brutus-ii/
Brutus
November 1, 1787
I might proceed to instance a number of other rights, which were as necessary to be reserved, such as that elections should be free, that the liberty of the press should be held sacred; but the instances adduced are sufficient to prove that this argument is without foundation.
Besides, it is evident, that the reason here assigned was not the true one, why the framers of this Constitution omitted a bill of rights; if it had been, they would not have made certain reservations, while they totally omitted others of more importance.
We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article, declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion — that no bill of attainder or ex-post facto law shall be passed — that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, &c.
If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions?
Does this Constitution anywhere grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex-post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility?
It certainly does not in express terms.
The only answer that can be given is that these are implied in the general powers granted.
With equal truth it may be said that all the powers, which the bills of right guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this constitution.
So far it is from being true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the general Constitution than in those of the states, the contrary is evidently the fact.
This system, if it is possible for the people of America to accede to it, will be an original compact; and being the last will, in the nature of things, vacate every former agreement inconsistent with it.
For it being a plan of government received and ratified by the whole people, all other forms, which are in existence at the time of its adoption, must yield to it.
This is expressed in positive and unequivocal terms, in the sixth article, “That this constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or laws of any state, to the contrary notwithstanding."
“The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, and of the several states, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution.”[7]
It is therefore not only necessarily implied thereby but positively expressed that the different state constitutions are repealed and entirely done away, so far as they are inconsistent with this, with the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, or with treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States; of what avail will the constitutions of the respective states be to preserve the rights of its citizens?
Should they be plead, the answer would be, the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof is the supreme law, and all legislatures and judicial officers, whether of the general or state governments are bound by oath to support it.
No privilege reserved by the bills of rights, or secured by the state government, can limit the power granted by this or restrain any laws made in pursuance of it.
It stands therefore on its own bottom, and must receive a construction by itself without any reference to any other — and hence it was of the highest importance that the most precise and express declarations and reservations of rights should have been made.
This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the constitutions of all the states.
The power to make treaties is vested in the president by and with the advice and consent of two thirds of the senate.
I do not find any limitation, or restriction, to the exercise of this power.
The most important article in any constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act.
Ought not a government vested with such extensive and indefinite authority to have been restricted by a declaration of rights?
It certainly ought.
So clear a point is this that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the states are willfully endeavoring to deceive and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.
Footnotes
A charter signed in 1215 by English barons and King John specifying certain limits on the power of the king.
An act of Parliament in 1689 that specified limits on the power of the crown
Document 10
Constitution, Article III, section 2
Language taken from amendments to the Constitution proposed at the Virginia ratifying convention.
North Carolina Constitution
Also Article VI
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... brutus-ii/
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Cincinnatus I: To James Wilson, Esquire
Cincinnatus
November 1, 1787
Sir, You have had the graciousness, Sir, to come forward as the defender and panegyrist of the plan of a new Constitution, of which you was one of the framers.
If the defence you have thought proper to set up, and the explanations you have been pleased to give, should be found, upon a full and fair examination, to be fallacious or inadequate; I am not without hope, that candor, of which no gentleman talks more, will render you a convert to the opinion, that some material parts of the proposed Constitution are so constructed that a monstrous aristocracy springing from it, must necessarily swallow up the democratic rights of the union, and sacrifice the liberties of the people to the power and domination of a few.
If your defence of this new plan of power, has, as you say, been matured by four months constant meditation upon it, and is yet so very weak, as I trust will appear, men will begin to think, that the thing itself is indefensible.
Upon a subject so momentous, the public has a right to the sentiments of every individual that will reason: I therefore do not think any apology necessary for appearing in print; and I hope to avoid, at least, the indiscriminate censure which you have, with so much candor and liberality, thrown on those who will not worship your idol – “that they are industriously endeavouring to prevent and destroy it, by insidious and clandestine attempts.”
Give me leave just to suggest, that perhaps these clandestine attempts might have been owing to the terror of your mob, which so nobly endeavoured to prevent all freedom of action and of speech.
The reptile Doctor who was employed to blow the trumpet of persecution, would have answered the public reasoning of an opponent, by hounding on him the rage of a deluded populace.
It was to such men, and under such impressions, that you made the speech which I am now to examine; no wonder then that it was received with loud and unanimous testamonies of their approbation.
They were vociferating through you the panegyric of their own intemperate opinions.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Cincinnatus
November 1, 1787
Sir, You have had the graciousness, Sir, to come forward as the defender and panegyrist of the plan of a new Constitution, of which you was one of the framers.
If the defence you have thought proper to set up, and the explanations you have been pleased to give, should be found, upon a full and fair examination, to be fallacious or inadequate; I am not without hope, that candor, of which no gentleman talks more, will render you a convert to the opinion, that some material parts of the proposed Constitution are so constructed that a monstrous aristocracy springing from it, must necessarily swallow up the democratic rights of the union, and sacrifice the liberties of the people to the power and domination of a few.
If your defence of this new plan of power, has, as you say, been matured by four months constant meditation upon it, and is yet so very weak, as I trust will appear, men will begin to think, that the thing itself is indefensible.
Upon a subject so momentous, the public has a right to the sentiments of every individual that will reason: I therefore do not think any apology necessary for appearing in print; and I hope to avoid, at least, the indiscriminate censure which you have, with so much candor and liberality, thrown on those who will not worship your idol – “that they are industriously endeavouring to prevent and destroy it, by insidious and clandestine attempts.”
Give me leave just to suggest, that perhaps these clandestine attempts might have been owing to the terror of your mob, which so nobly endeavoured to prevent all freedom of action and of speech.
The reptile Doctor who was employed to blow the trumpet of persecution, would have answered the public reasoning of an opponent, by hounding on him the rage of a deluded populace.
It was to such men, and under such impressions, that you made the speech which I am now to examine; no wonder then that it was received with loud and unanimous testamonies of their approbation.
They were vociferating through you the panegyric of their own intemperate opinions.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Cincinnatus I: To James Wilson, Esquire, continued ...
Cincinnatus
November 1, 1787
Your first attempt is to apologize for so very obvious a defect as the omission of a declaration of rights.
This apology consists in a very ingenious discovery; that in the state constitutions, whatever is not reserved is given; but in the congressional constitution, whatever is not given, is reserved.
This has more the quaintness of a conundrum, than the dignity of an argument.
The conventions that made the state and the general constitutions, sprang from the same source, were delegated for the same purpose – that is, for framing rules by which we should be governed, and ascertaining those powers which it was necessary to vest in our rulers.
Where then is this distinction to be found, but in your assumption?
Is it in the powers given to the members of convention?
No!
Is it in the constitution?
Not a word of it
And yet on this play of words, this dictum of yours, this distinction without a difference, you would persuade us to rest our most essential rights.
I trust, however, that the good sense of this free people cannot be so easily imposed on by professional figments.
The confederation, in its very outset, declares that what is not expressly given, is reserved.
This constitution makes no such reservation.
The presumption therefore is, that the framers of the proposed constitution, did not mean to subject it to the same exception.
You instance, Sir, the liberty of the press; which you would persuade us, is in no danger, though not secured, because there is no express power granted to regulate literary publications.
But you surely know, Sir, that where general powers are expressly granted, the particular ones comprehended within them, must also be granted.
For instance, the proposed Congress are empowered to define and punish offences against the law of nations – mark well, Sir, if you please – to define and punish.
Will you, will any one say, can any one even think that does not comprehend a power to define and declare all publications from the press against the conduct of government, in making treaties, or in any other foreign transactions, an offence against the law of nations?
If there should ever be an influential president, or arbitrary senate, who do not choose that their transactions with foreign powers should be discussed or examined in the public prints, they will easily find pretexts to prevail upon the other branch to concur with them, in restraining what it may please them to call the licentiousness of the press.
And this may be, even without the concurrence of the representative of the people; because the president and senate are empowered to make treaties, and these treaties are declared the supreme law of the land.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Cincinnatus
November 1, 1787
Your first attempt is to apologize for so very obvious a defect as the omission of a declaration of rights.
This apology consists in a very ingenious discovery; that in the state constitutions, whatever is not reserved is given; but in the congressional constitution, whatever is not given, is reserved.
This has more the quaintness of a conundrum, than the dignity of an argument.
The conventions that made the state and the general constitutions, sprang from the same source, were delegated for the same purpose – that is, for framing rules by which we should be governed, and ascertaining those powers which it was necessary to vest in our rulers.
Where then is this distinction to be found, but in your assumption?
Is it in the powers given to the members of convention?
No!
Is it in the constitution?
Not a word of it
And yet on this play of words, this dictum of yours, this distinction without a difference, you would persuade us to rest our most essential rights.
I trust, however, that the good sense of this free people cannot be so easily imposed on by professional figments.
The confederation, in its very outset, declares that what is not expressly given, is reserved.
This constitution makes no such reservation.
The presumption therefore is, that the framers of the proposed constitution, did not mean to subject it to the same exception.
You instance, Sir, the liberty of the press; which you would persuade us, is in no danger, though not secured, because there is no express power granted to regulate literary publications.
But you surely know, Sir, that where general powers are expressly granted, the particular ones comprehended within them, must also be granted.
For instance, the proposed Congress are empowered to define and punish offences against the law of nations – mark well, Sir, if you please – to define and punish.
Will you, will any one say, can any one even think that does not comprehend a power to define and declare all publications from the press against the conduct of government, in making treaties, or in any other foreign transactions, an offence against the law of nations?
If there should ever be an influential president, or arbitrary senate, who do not choose that their transactions with foreign powers should be discussed or examined in the public prints, they will easily find pretexts to prevail upon the other branch to concur with them, in restraining what it may please them to call the licentiousness of the press.
And this may be, even without the concurrence of the representative of the people; because the president and senate are empowered to make treaties, and these treaties are declared the supreme law of the land.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Cincinnatus I: To James Wilson, Esquire, continued ...
Cincinnatus
November 1, 1787
What use they will make of this power, is not now the question.
Certain it is, that such power is given, and that power is not restrained by any declaration – that the liberty of the press, which even you term, the sacred palladium of national freedom, shall be forever free and inviolable.
I have proved that the power of restraining the press, is necessarily involved in the unlimited power of defining offences, or of making treaties, which are to be the supreme law of the land.
You acknowledge, that it is not expressly excepted, and consequently it is at the mercy of the powers to be created by this constitution.
Let us suppose then, that what has happened, may happen again: That a patriotic printer, like Peter Zenger, should incur the resentment of our new rulers, by publishing to the world, transactions which they wish to conceal.
If he should be prosecuted, if his judges should be as desirous of punishing him, at all events, as the judges were to punish Peter Zenger, what would his innocence or his virtue avail him?
This constitution is so admirably framed for tyranny, that, by clear construction, the judges might put the verdict of a jury out of the question.
Among the cases in which the court is to have appellate jurisdiction, are controversies, to which the United States are a party: In this appellate jurisdiction, the judges are to determine, both law and fact.
That is, the court is both judge and jury.
The attorney general then would have only to move a question of law in the court below, to ground an appeal to the supreme judicature, and the printer would be delivered up to the mercy of his judges.
Peter Zenger’s case will teach us, what mercy he might expect.
Thus, if the president, vice-president, or any officer, or favorite of state, should be censured in print, he might effectually deprive the printer, or author, of his trial by jury, and subject him to something, that will probably very much resemble the Star Chamber of former times.
The freedom of the press, the sacred palladium of public liberty, would be pulled down; all useful knowledge on the conduct of government would be withheld from the people – the press would become subservient to the purposes of bad and arbitrary rulers, and imposition, not information, would be its object.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Cincinnatus
November 1, 1787
What use they will make of this power, is not now the question.
Certain it is, that such power is given, and that power is not restrained by any declaration – that the liberty of the press, which even you term, the sacred palladium of national freedom, shall be forever free and inviolable.
I have proved that the power of restraining the press, is necessarily involved in the unlimited power of defining offences, or of making treaties, which are to be the supreme law of the land.
You acknowledge, that it is not expressly excepted, and consequently it is at the mercy of the powers to be created by this constitution.
Let us suppose then, that what has happened, may happen again: That a patriotic printer, like Peter Zenger, should incur the resentment of our new rulers, by publishing to the world, transactions which they wish to conceal.
If he should be prosecuted, if his judges should be as desirous of punishing him, at all events, as the judges were to punish Peter Zenger, what would his innocence or his virtue avail him?
This constitution is so admirably framed for tyranny, that, by clear construction, the judges might put the verdict of a jury out of the question.
Among the cases in which the court is to have appellate jurisdiction, are controversies, to which the United States are a party: In this appellate jurisdiction, the judges are to determine, both law and fact.
That is, the court is both judge and jury.
The attorney general then would have only to move a question of law in the court below, to ground an appeal to the supreme judicature, and the printer would be delivered up to the mercy of his judges.
Peter Zenger’s case will teach us, what mercy he might expect.
Thus, if the president, vice-president, or any officer, or favorite of state, should be censured in print, he might effectually deprive the printer, or author, of his trial by jury, and subject him to something, that will probably very much resemble the Star Chamber of former times.
The freedom of the press, the sacred palladium of public liberty, would be pulled down; all useful knowledge on the conduct of government would be withheld from the people – the press would become subservient to the purposes of bad and arbitrary rulers, and imposition, not information, would be its object.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Cincinnatus I: To James Wilson, Esquire, concluded ...
Cincinnatus
November 1, 1787
The printers would do well, to publish the proceedings of the judges, in Peter Zenger’s case – they would do well to publish lord Mansfield’s conduct in, the King against Woodfall; that the public mind may be properly warned of the consequences of agreeing to a constitution, which provides no security for the freedom of the press, and leaves it controversial at least – whether in matter of libels against any of our intended rulers; the printer would even have the security of trial by jury.
Yet it was the jury only, that saved Zenger, it was a jury only, that saved Woodfall, it can only be a jury that will save any future printer from the fangs of power.
Had you, Mr. Wilson, who are so unmerciful against what you are pleased to call, the disingenuous conduct of those who dislike the constitution; had you been ingenuous enough to have stated this fairly to our fellow citizens; had you said to them – gentlemen, it is true, that the freedom of the press is not provided for; it is true, that it may be restrained at pleasure, by our proposed rulers; it is true, that a printer sued for a libel, would not be tried by a jury; all this is true, nay, worse than this is also true; but then it is all necessary to what I think, the best form of government that has ever been offered the world.
To have stated these truths, would at least have been acting like an honest man; and if it did not procure you such unanimous testimonies of approbation, what you would have received, would have been merited.
But you choose to shew our fellow citizens, nothing but what would flatter and mislead them.
You exhibited, that by a rush–light only, which, to dissipate its darkness, required the full force of the meridian sun.
When the people are fully apprized of the chains you have prepared for them, if they choose to put them on, you have nothing to answer for.
If they choose to be tenants at will of their liberties, by the new constitution; instead of having their freehold in them, secured by a declaration of rights; I can only lament it.
There was a time, when our fellow citizens were told, in the words of Sir Edward Coke – For a man to be tenant at will of his liberty, I can never agree to it – Etiam si Dominus non sit molestus, tamen miserremum est, posse, se vebit – Though a despot may not act tyrannically; yet it is dreadful to think, that if he will, he may.
Perhaps you may also remember, Sir, that our fellow citizens were then warned against those “smooth words, with which the most dreadful designs may be glossed over.”
You have given us a lively comment on your own text.
You have varnished over the iron trap that is prepared, and bated with some illustrious names, to catch the liberties of the people.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... n-esquire/
Cincinnatus
November 1, 1787
The printers would do well, to publish the proceedings of the judges, in Peter Zenger’s case – they would do well to publish lord Mansfield’s conduct in, the King against Woodfall; that the public mind may be properly warned of the consequences of agreeing to a constitution, which provides no security for the freedom of the press, and leaves it controversial at least – whether in matter of libels against any of our intended rulers; the printer would even have the security of trial by jury.
Yet it was the jury only, that saved Zenger, it was a jury only, that saved Woodfall, it can only be a jury that will save any future printer from the fangs of power.
Had you, Mr. Wilson, who are so unmerciful against what you are pleased to call, the disingenuous conduct of those who dislike the constitution; had you been ingenuous enough to have stated this fairly to our fellow citizens; had you said to them – gentlemen, it is true, that the freedom of the press is not provided for; it is true, that it may be restrained at pleasure, by our proposed rulers; it is true, that a printer sued for a libel, would not be tried by a jury; all this is true, nay, worse than this is also true; but then it is all necessary to what I think, the best form of government that has ever been offered the world.
To have stated these truths, would at least have been acting like an honest man; and if it did not procure you such unanimous testimonies of approbation, what you would have received, would have been merited.
But you choose to shew our fellow citizens, nothing but what would flatter and mislead them.
You exhibited, that by a rush–light only, which, to dissipate its darkness, required the full force of the meridian sun.
When the people are fully apprized of the chains you have prepared for them, if they choose to put them on, you have nothing to answer for.
If they choose to be tenants at will of their liberties, by the new constitution; instead of having their freehold in them, secured by a declaration of rights; I can only lament it.
There was a time, when our fellow citizens were told, in the words of Sir Edward Coke – For a man to be tenant at will of his liberty, I can never agree to it – Etiam si Dominus non sit molestus, tamen miserremum est, posse, se vebit – Though a despot may not act tyrannically; yet it is dreadful to think, that if he will, he may.
Perhaps you may also remember, Sir, that our fellow citizens were then warned against those “smooth words, with which the most dreadful designs may be glossed over.”
You have given us a lively comment on your own text.
You have varnished over the iron trap that is prepared, and bated with some illustrious names, to catch the liberties of the people.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... n-esquire/
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Foreigner I
November 2, 1787
To the Opposers of the Federal Constitution.
The CHALLENGE of a FOREIGNER, who is materially interested in the Welfare of North-America.
After the establishment of peace and independence on this Continent, all Europe, and in particular the trading nations, looked upon this country as a flourishing empire, which on account of the large quantity of fruitful land it contains, would be the magazine of agricultural produce, for those other countries, which are so much overstocked with people, that a small number only can find employ in the cultivation of the land, and a larger number must apply themselves to the mechanical arts and manufactures; and hoped that they would draw from this part of the world, the necessaries of life, in exchange for the produces of their manufactories.
The first and second year after peace, seemed very much to favour this opinion of the merchants of the world, who would wish to draw the surplus from one part and supply the other that is in want.
But alas! how greatly were they disappointed at the long run; for instead of receiving provisions in return for the goods transmitted to America, this article was dearer in this part of the world, than in Europe; and no other remittance would be made but cash, which was to be sent to Poland and Ireland to buy grain and beef; and when America was drained of its cash, the people feeling their incapacity for making payments for debts contracted, instead of using the imported luxuries more sparingly, and applying themselves with more industry to agriculture, they studied to find out ways and means to defraud their creditors; and being yet habituated, to the legal and illegal oppressions, which escaped unpunished during the war, when large debts were paid with paper of no value; they fell again upon the same mode of proceedings, and framed tender laws, or raised sedition, and opposition to government, and waged war against each other, to gain a chance for plunder.
This was certainly abusing liberty, and greatly disappointing those politicians in Europe, who expected to learn of America, the happiness of a truly Republican empire.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
November 2, 1787
To the Opposers of the Federal Constitution.
The CHALLENGE of a FOREIGNER, who is materially interested in the Welfare of North-America.
After the establishment of peace and independence on this Continent, all Europe, and in particular the trading nations, looked upon this country as a flourishing empire, which on account of the large quantity of fruitful land it contains, would be the magazine of agricultural produce, for those other countries, which are so much overstocked with people, that a small number only can find employ in the cultivation of the land, and a larger number must apply themselves to the mechanical arts and manufactures; and hoped that they would draw from this part of the world, the necessaries of life, in exchange for the produces of their manufactories.
The first and second year after peace, seemed very much to favour this opinion of the merchants of the world, who would wish to draw the surplus from one part and supply the other that is in want.
But alas! how greatly were they disappointed at the long run; for instead of receiving provisions in return for the goods transmitted to America, this article was dearer in this part of the world, than in Europe; and no other remittance would be made but cash, which was to be sent to Poland and Ireland to buy grain and beef; and when America was drained of its cash, the people feeling their incapacity for making payments for debts contracted, instead of using the imported luxuries more sparingly, and applying themselves with more industry to agriculture, they studied to find out ways and means to defraud their creditors; and being yet habituated, to the legal and illegal oppressions, which escaped unpunished during the war, when large debts were paid with paper of no value; they fell again upon the same mode of proceedings, and framed tender laws, or raised sedition, and opposition to government, and waged war against each other, to gain a chance for plunder.
This was certainly abusing liberty, and greatly disappointing those politicians in Europe, who expected to learn of America, the happiness of a truly Republican empire.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Foreigner I, concluded ...
November 2, 1787
All mankind should by their natural rights, enjoy equal liberty, except in such cases which tend to the injury of their neighbours; therefore they should have a government endued with sufficient power, to check the progress of the wicked and to protect the virtuous.
But the nice point in establishing this government, is to prevent it from oppressing the community at large, and that the rulers shall not abuse their power and enslave the subjects.
For bad men will always be active in mischief.
This seems to be the principle and the only apprehension of the old constitutionalists.
But I should think this suspicion to be ill-founded, and that the rights and liberties of the people will remain safe, and be held sacred, if only at the days of the several elections of these rulers, the people will be sure, to the best of their knowledge, to chuse the best man among themselves, and no other should ever rule.
A generous and benevolent representative in Congress, CANNOT be so selfish and act so much against his disposition and principles, as to propose or vote for a law, which would make his constituents miserable; only because it might be of some benefit for himself during the short time he should be in office, and then subject himself and posterity, under the same yoke which he has framed.
No one will ask — Where is that generous and benevolent man, against whose principles and disposition it would be, to introduce and establish an oppressive law when he can do it?
Or is there really one, who dares doubt to find such a man among 30,000 of his fellow citizens?
That one deserves to be enslaved, and all the 29,999 with him, if there is not one honest man among them, that could be trusted for two years, with the office of a representative in Congress; it is much better for the world to have 30,000 slaves more in it, than so many tyrants and villains, which they would be if they were at liberty to act as they pleased.
This argument my antifederalists, will not answer your purpose, it will operate against you; for it is a gross insult upon the characters of all those whom you would wish to join you, it discovers too much of your own heart which, similar to all human nature, will measure other people’s corn with his own bushel.
You must bring more persuasive reasons, if the new constitution shall not be adopted.
The world has long been in doubt, whether mankind is worthy of the free will, the grand gift of the Creator, and capable of a republican government, or if men are the most voracious beasts upon earth, that would devour each other if they had power and liberty.
If this last should prove to be the case in America, it will soon throw the states into the utmost confusion, and the European powers will in pity divide you among themselves, and keep you in future, under better subordination.
Until that will be compleated, he that has the least to lose, will have the best chance of gain.
That either a firm and uniform government should be established, or that the states may soon go to a dissolution, is the ardent wish of a former friend, and principal creditor to American individuals.
October 27th.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... reigner-i/
November 2, 1787
All mankind should by their natural rights, enjoy equal liberty, except in such cases which tend to the injury of their neighbours; therefore they should have a government endued with sufficient power, to check the progress of the wicked and to protect the virtuous.
But the nice point in establishing this government, is to prevent it from oppressing the community at large, and that the rulers shall not abuse their power and enslave the subjects.
For bad men will always be active in mischief.
This seems to be the principle and the only apprehension of the old constitutionalists.
But I should think this suspicion to be ill-founded, and that the rights and liberties of the people will remain safe, and be held sacred, if only at the days of the several elections of these rulers, the people will be sure, to the best of their knowledge, to chuse the best man among themselves, and no other should ever rule.
A generous and benevolent representative in Congress, CANNOT be so selfish and act so much against his disposition and principles, as to propose or vote for a law, which would make his constituents miserable; only because it might be of some benefit for himself during the short time he should be in office, and then subject himself and posterity, under the same yoke which he has framed.
No one will ask — Where is that generous and benevolent man, against whose principles and disposition it would be, to introduce and establish an oppressive law when he can do it?
Or is there really one, who dares doubt to find such a man among 30,000 of his fellow citizens?
That one deserves to be enslaved, and all the 29,999 with him, if there is not one honest man among them, that could be trusted for two years, with the office of a representative in Congress; it is much better for the world to have 30,000 slaves more in it, than so many tyrants and villains, which they would be if they were at liberty to act as they pleased.
This argument my antifederalists, will not answer your purpose, it will operate against you; for it is a gross insult upon the characters of all those whom you would wish to join you, it discovers too much of your own heart which, similar to all human nature, will measure other people’s corn with his own bushel.
You must bring more persuasive reasons, if the new constitution shall not be adopted.
The world has long been in doubt, whether mankind is worthy of the free will, the grand gift of the Creator, and capable of a republican government, or if men are the most voracious beasts upon earth, that would devour each other if they had power and liberty.
If this last should prove to be the case in America, it will soon throw the states into the utmost confusion, and the European powers will in pity divide you among themselves, and keep you in future, under better subordination.
Until that will be compleated, he that has the least to lose, will have the best chance of gain.
That either a firm and uniform government should be established, or that the states may soon go to a dissolution, is the ardent wish of a former friend, and principal creditor to American individuals.
October 27th.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... reigner-i/
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Elbridge Gerry: Defense of Conduct in Constitutional Convention
January 5, 1788
Mr. Russell.
You are desired to inform the publick from good authority, That Mr. GERRY, by giving his dissent to the proposed constitution, could have no motive for preserving an office, for he holds none under the United States, or any of them; that he has not, as has been asserted, exchanged continental for State securities: and if he had, it would have been for his interest to have supported the new system, because thereby the States are restrained from impairing the obligation of contracts, and by a transfer of such securities, they may be recovered in the new federal court: That he never heard in the Convention a motion made, much less did he make any for “the redemption of the old continental money,” but that he proposed, the publick debt should be made neither better or worse by the new system, but stand precisely on the same ground as it now does by the articles of confederation — that had there been such a motion, he was not interested in it, as he did not then, neither does he now own the value of ten pounds in old continental money; that he never was called on for his reasons for not signing, but stated them fully in the progress of the business:
1 - His objections are principally contained in his letter to the legislature:
2 — that he believes his colleagues men of too much honour to assert what is not truth, that his reasons in the convention “were totally different from those which he has published:” that his only motive for dissenting from the new constitution, was a firm persuasion that it would endanger the liberties of America: that if the people are of a different opinion, they have a right to adopt it; but he was not authorised to an act which appeared to him a surrender of their liberties: that as a representative of a free State, he thought he was bound in honour, to vote according to his idea of her true interest, and that he should do the same in similar circumstances.
Cambridge, Jan. 3, 1788.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... -centinel/
January 5, 1788
Mr. Russell.
You are desired to inform the publick from good authority, That Mr. GERRY, by giving his dissent to the proposed constitution, could have no motive for preserving an office, for he holds none under the United States, or any of them; that he has not, as has been asserted, exchanged continental for State securities: and if he had, it would have been for his interest to have supported the new system, because thereby the States are restrained from impairing the obligation of contracts, and by a transfer of such securities, they may be recovered in the new federal court: That he never heard in the Convention a motion made, much less did he make any for “the redemption of the old continental money,” but that he proposed, the publick debt should be made neither better or worse by the new system, but stand precisely on the same ground as it now does by the articles of confederation — that had there been such a motion, he was not interested in it, as he did not then, neither does he now own the value of ten pounds in old continental money; that he never was called on for his reasons for not signing, but stated them fully in the progress of the business:
1 - His objections are principally contained in his letter to the legislature:
2 — that he believes his colleagues men of too much honour to assert what is not truth, that his reasons in the convention “were totally different from those which he has published:” that his only motive for dissenting from the new constitution, was a firm persuasion that it would endanger the liberties of America: that if the people are of a different opinion, they have a right to adopt it; but he was not authorised to an act which appeared to him a surrender of their liberties: that as a representative of a free State, he thought he was bound in honour, to vote according to his idea of her true interest, and that he should do the same in similar circumstances.
Cambridge, Jan. 3, 1788.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/lib ... -centinel/
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
John DeWitt III
John DeWitt
November 5, 1787
To the Free Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Civil liberty, in all countries, hath promoted by a free discussion of publick measures, and the conduct of publick men.
The FREEDOM OF THE PRESS has, in consequence thereof, been esteemed one of its safe guards.
That freedom gives the right, at all times, to every citizen to lay his sentiments, in a decent manner, before the people.
If he will take that trouble upon himself, whether they are in point or not, his countrymen are obliged to him for so doing; for, at least, they lead to an examination of the subject upon which he writes.
If any possible situation makes it a duty, it is our present important one, for in the course of sixty or ninety days you are to approve of or reject the present proceedings of your Convention, which, if established, will certainly effect, in a greater or less degree, during the remainder of your lives, those privileges which you esteem dear to you, and not improbably those of your children for succeeding ages.
Now therefore is unquestionably the proper time to examine it, and see if it really is what, upon paper, it appears to be.
If with yours eyes open, you deliberately accept it, however different it may prove in practice from what it appears in theory, you will have nobody to blame but yourselves; and what is infinitely worse, as I have before endeavoured to observe to you, you will be wholly without a remedy.
It has many zealous advocates, and they have attempted, at least as far as their modesty would permit, to monopolize our gazettes, with their encomiums upon it.
With the people they have to manage, I would hint to them, their zeal is not their best weapon, and exertions of such a kind, artful attempts to seize the moment, do seldom tend either to elucidate and explain principles, or ensure success.
Such conduct ought to be an additional stimulus for those persons who are not its professed admirers, to speak their sentiments with freedom however unpopular.
Such conduct ought to inspire caution, for as a man is invariably known by his company, so is the tendency of principles known by their advocates.
Nay, it ought to lead you to enquire who are its advocates?
Whether ambitious men throughout America, waiting with impatience to make it a stepping stone to posts of honour and emolument, are not of this class?
Whether men who openly profess to be tired of republican governments, and sick to the heart of republican measures; who daily ridicule a government of choice, and pray ardently for one of force, are not of the same class?
And, whether there are not men among us, who disapprove of it only because it is not an absolute monarchy, but who, upon the whole, are among its advocates?
In such examinations as these, you cannot mispend a proportion of the sixty days.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
John DeWitt
November 5, 1787
To the Free Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Civil liberty, in all countries, hath promoted by a free discussion of publick measures, and the conduct of publick men.
The FREEDOM OF THE PRESS has, in consequence thereof, been esteemed one of its safe guards.
That freedom gives the right, at all times, to every citizen to lay his sentiments, in a decent manner, before the people.
If he will take that trouble upon himself, whether they are in point or not, his countrymen are obliged to him for so doing; for, at least, they lead to an examination of the subject upon which he writes.
If any possible situation makes it a duty, it is our present important one, for in the course of sixty or ninety days you are to approve of or reject the present proceedings of your Convention, which, if established, will certainly effect, in a greater or less degree, during the remainder of your lives, those privileges which you esteem dear to you, and not improbably those of your children for succeeding ages.
Now therefore is unquestionably the proper time to examine it, and see if it really is what, upon paper, it appears to be.
If with yours eyes open, you deliberately accept it, however different it may prove in practice from what it appears in theory, you will have nobody to blame but yourselves; and what is infinitely worse, as I have before endeavoured to observe to you, you will be wholly without a remedy.
It has many zealous advocates, and they have attempted, at least as far as their modesty would permit, to monopolize our gazettes, with their encomiums upon it.
With the people they have to manage, I would hint to them, their zeal is not their best weapon, and exertions of such a kind, artful attempts to seize the moment, do seldom tend either to elucidate and explain principles, or ensure success.
Such conduct ought to be an additional stimulus for those persons who are not its professed admirers, to speak their sentiments with freedom however unpopular.
Such conduct ought to inspire caution, for as a man is invariably known by his company, so is the tendency of principles known by their advocates.
Nay, it ought to lead you to enquire who are its advocates?
Whether ambitious men throughout America, waiting with impatience to make it a stepping stone to posts of honour and emolument, are not of this class?
Whether men who openly profess to be tired of republican governments, and sick to the heart of republican measures; who daily ridicule a government of choice, and pray ardently for one of force, are not of the same class?
And, whether there are not men among us, who disapprove of it only because it is not an absolute monarchy, but who, upon the whole, are among its advocates?
In such examinations as these, you cannot mispend a proportion of the sixty days.
TO BE CONTINUED ...