A Landholder VIII
Oliver Ellsworth
December 24, 1787
To the Hon. Elbridge Gerry, Esquire.
Sir, When a man in public life first deviates from the line of truth and rectitude, an uncommon degree of art and attention becomes necessary to secure him from detection.
Duplicity of conduct in him requires more than double caution, a caution which his former habits of simplicity have never furnished him the means of calculating; and his first leap into the region of treachery and falsehood is often as fatal to himself as it was designed to be to his country.
Whether you and Mr. Mason may be ranked in this class of transgressors I pretend not to determine.
Certain it is, that both your management and his for a short time before and after the rising of the federal convention impress us with a favorable opinion, that you are great novices in the arts of dissimulation.
A small degree of forethought would have taught you both a much more successful method of directing the rage of resentment which you caught at the close of the business at Philadelphia, than the one you took.
You ought to have considered that you reside in regions very distant from each other, where different parts were to be acted, and then made your cast accordingly.
Mr. Mason was certainly wrong in telling the world that he acted a double part – he ought not to have published two setts of reasons for his dissent to the constitution.
His New England reasons would have come better from you.
He ought to have contented himself with haranguing in the southern states, that it was too popular, and was calculated too much for the advantage of the eastern states.
At the same time you might have come on, and in the Coffee-House at New York you might have found an excellent sett of objections ready made to your hand, a sett that with very little alteration would have exactly suited the latitude of New England, the whole of which district ought most clearly to have been submitted to your protection and patronage.
A Lamb, a Willet, a Smith, a Clinton, a Yates, or any other gentleman whose salary is paid by the state impost, as they had six months the start of you in considering the subject, would have furnished you with a good discourse upon the “liberty of the press,” the “bill of rights,” the “blending of the executive and legislative,” “internal taxation,” or any other topic which you did not happen to think of while in convention.
It is evident that this mode of proceeding would have been well calculated for the security of Mr. Mason; he there might have vented his antient enmity against the independence of America, and his sore mortification for the loss of his favorite motion respecting the navigation act, and all under the mask of sentiments, which with a proper caution in expressing them, might have gained many adherents in his own state.
But, although Mr. Mason’s conduct might have been easily guarded in this particular, your character would not have been entirely safe even with the precaution above mentioned.
Your policy, Sir, ought to have led you one step farther back.
You have been so precipitate and unwary in your proceedings, that it will be impossible to set you right, even in idea, without recurring to previous transactions and recalling to your view the whole history of your conduct in the convention, as well as the subsequent display of patriotism contained in your publication.
I undertake this business, not that I think it possible to help you out of your present embarassments; but, as those transactions have evidently slipt your memory, the recollection of the blunder into which your inexperience has betrayed you, may be of eminent service in forming future schemes of popularity, should the public ever give you another opportunity to traduce and deceive them.
TO BE CONTINUED …
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
A Landholder VIII, continued ...
Oliver Ellsworth
December 24, 1787
You will doubtless recollect the following state of facts; if you do not, every member of the convention will attest them – that almost the whole time during the setting of the Convention, and until the constitution had received its present form, no man was more plausible and conciliating upon every subject than Mr. Gerry – he was willing to sacrifice every private feeling and opinion – to concede every state interest that should be in the least incompatible with the most substantial and permanent system of general government – that mutual concession and unanimity were the whole burden of his song; and although he originated no idea himself, yet there was nothing in the system as it now stands to which he had the least objection – indeed, Mr. Gerry’s conduct was agreeably surprising to all his acquaintance, and very unlike that turbulent obstinacy of spirit which they had formerly affixed to his character.
Thus stood Mr. Gerry, till, toward the close of the business, he introduced a motion respecting the redemption of the old Continental Money – that it should be placed upon a footing with other liquidated securities of the United States.
As Mr. Gerry was supposed to be possessed of large quantities of this species of paper, his motion appeared to be founded in such barefaced selfishness and injustice, that it at once accounted for all his former plausibility and concession, while the rejection of it by the convention inspired its author with the utmost rage and intemperate opposition to the whole system he had formerly praised.
His resentment could no more than embarrass and delay the completion of the business for a few days; when he refused signing the constitution and was called upon for his reasons.
These reasons were committed to writing by one of his colleagues and likewise by the Secretary, as Mr. Gerry delivered them.
These reasons were totally different from those which he has published, neither was a single objection which is contained in his letter to the legislature of Massachusetts ever offered by him in convention.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Oliver Ellsworth
December 24, 1787
You will doubtless recollect the following state of facts; if you do not, every member of the convention will attest them – that almost the whole time during the setting of the Convention, and until the constitution had received its present form, no man was more plausible and conciliating upon every subject than Mr. Gerry – he was willing to sacrifice every private feeling and opinion – to concede every state interest that should be in the least incompatible with the most substantial and permanent system of general government – that mutual concession and unanimity were the whole burden of his song; and although he originated no idea himself, yet there was nothing in the system as it now stands to which he had the least objection – indeed, Mr. Gerry’s conduct was agreeably surprising to all his acquaintance, and very unlike that turbulent obstinacy of spirit which they had formerly affixed to his character.
Thus stood Mr. Gerry, till, toward the close of the business, he introduced a motion respecting the redemption of the old Continental Money – that it should be placed upon a footing with other liquidated securities of the United States.
As Mr. Gerry was supposed to be possessed of large quantities of this species of paper, his motion appeared to be founded in such barefaced selfishness and injustice, that it at once accounted for all his former plausibility and concession, while the rejection of it by the convention inspired its author with the utmost rage and intemperate opposition to the whole system he had formerly praised.
His resentment could no more than embarrass and delay the completion of the business for a few days; when he refused signing the constitution and was called upon for his reasons.
These reasons were committed to writing by one of his colleagues and likewise by the Secretary, as Mr. Gerry delivered them.
These reasons were totally different from those which he has published, neither was a single objection which is contained in his letter to the legislature of Massachusetts ever offered by him in convention.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
A Landholder VIII, continued ...
Oliver Ellsworth
December 24, 1787
Now, Mr. Gerry, as this is generally known to be the state of facts, and as neither the reasons which you publish nor those retained on the Secretary’s files can be supposed to have the least affinity to truth, or to contain the real motives which induced you to withold your name from the constitution, it appears to me that your plan was not judiciously contrived.
When we act without principle, we ought to be prepared against embarrassments.
You might have expected some difficulties in realizing your continental money; indeed the chance was rather against your motion, even in the most artful shape in which it could have been proposed.
An experienced hand would therefore have laid the whole plan beforehand, and have guarded against a disappointment.
You should have begun the business with doubts, and expressed your sentiments with great ambiguity upon every subject as it passed.
This method would have secured you many advantages.
Your doubts and ambiguities, if artfully managed, might have passed, like those of the Delphic Oracle, for wisdom and deliberation; and at the close of the business you might have acted either for or against the constitution, according to the success of your motion, without appearing dishonest or inconsistent with yourself.
One farther precaution would have brought you off clear.
Instead of waiting till the convention rose, before you consulted your friends at New-York, you ought to have applied to them at an earlier period, to know what objections you should make.
They could have instructed you as well in August as October.
With these advantages you might have past for a complete politician, and your duplicity might never have been detected.
The enemies of America have always been extremely unfortunate in concerting their measures.
They have generally betrayed great ignorance of the true spirit and feeling of the country, and they have failed to act in concert with each other.
This is uniformly conspicuous, from the first Bute Parliament in London to the last Shays Parliament at Pelham.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Oliver Ellsworth
December 24, 1787
Now, Mr. Gerry, as this is generally known to be the state of facts, and as neither the reasons which you publish nor those retained on the Secretary’s files can be supposed to have the least affinity to truth, or to contain the real motives which induced you to withold your name from the constitution, it appears to me that your plan was not judiciously contrived.
When we act without principle, we ought to be prepared against embarrassments.
You might have expected some difficulties in realizing your continental money; indeed the chance was rather against your motion, even in the most artful shape in which it could have been proposed.
An experienced hand would therefore have laid the whole plan beforehand, and have guarded against a disappointment.
You should have begun the business with doubts, and expressed your sentiments with great ambiguity upon every subject as it passed.
This method would have secured you many advantages.
Your doubts and ambiguities, if artfully managed, might have passed, like those of the Delphic Oracle, for wisdom and deliberation; and at the close of the business you might have acted either for or against the constitution, according to the success of your motion, without appearing dishonest or inconsistent with yourself.
One farther precaution would have brought you off clear.
Instead of waiting till the convention rose, before you consulted your friends at New-York, you ought to have applied to them at an earlier period, to know what objections you should make.
They could have instructed you as well in August as October.
With these advantages you might have past for a complete politician, and your duplicity might never have been detected.
The enemies of America have always been extremely unfortunate in concerting their measures.
They have generally betrayed great ignorance of the true spirit and feeling of the country, and they have failed to act in concert with each other.
This is uniformly conspicuous, from the first Bute Parliament in London to the last Shays Parliament at Pelham.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
A Landholder VIII, concluded ...
Oliver Ellsworth
December 24, 1787
The conduct of the enemies of the new constitution compares with that of the other enemies above mentioned only in two particulars, its object and its tendency.
Its object was self interest built on the ruins of the country, and its tendency is the disgrace of its authors and the final prosperity of the same country they meant to depress.
Whether the constitution will be adopted at the first trial in the conventions of nine states is at present doubtful.
It is certain, however, that its enemies have great difficulties to encounter arising from their disunion: in the different states where the opposition rages the most, their principles are totally opposite to each other, and their objections discordant and irreconcilable, so that no regular system can be formed among you, and you will betray each other’s motives.
In Massachusetts the opposition began with you, and from motives most pitifully selfish and despicable, you addressed yourself to the feelings of the Shays faction, and that faction will be your only support.
In New York the opposition is not to this constitution in particular, but to the federal impost, it is confined wholly to salary-men and their connections, men whose salary is paid by the state impost.
This class of citizens are endeavoring to convince the ignorant part of the community that an annual income of fifty thousand pounds, extorted from the citizens of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey, is a great blessing to the state of New York.
And although the regulation of trade and other advantages of a federal government would secure more than five times that sum to the people of that state, yet, as this would not come through the same hands, these men find fault with the constitution.
In Pennsylvania the old quarrel respecting their state constitution has thrown the state into parties for a number of years.
One of these parties happened to declare for the new federal constitution, and this was a sufficient motive for the other to oppose it; the dispute there is not upon the merits of the subject, but it is their old warfare carried on with different weapons, and it was an even chance that the parties had taken different sides from what they have taken, for there is no doubt but either party would sacrifice the whole country to the destruction of their enemies.
In Virginia the opposition wholly originated in two principles; the madness of Mason, and the enmity of the Lee faction to General Washington.
Had the General not attended the convention nor given his sentiments respecting the constitution, the Lee party would undoubtedly have supported it, and Col. Mason would have vented his rage to his own negroes and to the winds.
In Connecticut, our wrongheads are few in number and feeble in their influence.
The opposition here is not one-half so great to the federal government as it was three years ago to the federal impost, and the faction, such as it is, is from the same blindfold party.
I thought it my duty to give you these articles of information, for the reasons above mentioned.
Wishing you more caution and better success in your future manœuvers, I have the honor to be, Sir, with great respect, your very humble servant.
A Landholder.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... lder-viii/
Oliver Ellsworth
December 24, 1787
The conduct of the enemies of the new constitution compares with that of the other enemies above mentioned only in two particulars, its object and its tendency.
Its object was self interest built on the ruins of the country, and its tendency is the disgrace of its authors and the final prosperity of the same country they meant to depress.
Whether the constitution will be adopted at the first trial in the conventions of nine states is at present doubtful.
It is certain, however, that its enemies have great difficulties to encounter arising from their disunion: in the different states where the opposition rages the most, their principles are totally opposite to each other, and their objections discordant and irreconcilable, so that no regular system can be formed among you, and you will betray each other’s motives.
In Massachusetts the opposition began with you, and from motives most pitifully selfish and despicable, you addressed yourself to the feelings of the Shays faction, and that faction will be your only support.
In New York the opposition is not to this constitution in particular, but to the federal impost, it is confined wholly to salary-men and their connections, men whose salary is paid by the state impost.
This class of citizens are endeavoring to convince the ignorant part of the community that an annual income of fifty thousand pounds, extorted from the citizens of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey, is a great blessing to the state of New York.
And although the regulation of trade and other advantages of a federal government would secure more than five times that sum to the people of that state, yet, as this would not come through the same hands, these men find fault with the constitution.
In Pennsylvania the old quarrel respecting their state constitution has thrown the state into parties for a number of years.
One of these parties happened to declare for the new federal constitution, and this was a sufficient motive for the other to oppose it; the dispute there is not upon the merits of the subject, but it is their old warfare carried on with different weapons, and it was an even chance that the parties had taken different sides from what they have taken, for there is no doubt but either party would sacrifice the whole country to the destruction of their enemies.
In Virginia the opposition wholly originated in two principles; the madness of Mason, and the enmity of the Lee faction to General Washington.
Had the General not attended the convention nor given his sentiments respecting the constitution, the Lee party would undoubtedly have supported it, and Col. Mason would have vented his rage to his own negroes and to the winds.
In Connecticut, our wrongheads are few in number and feeble in their influence.
The opposition here is not one-half so great to the federal government as it was three years ago to the federal impost, and the faction, such as it is, is from the same blindfold party.
I thought it my duty to give you these articles of information, for the reasons above mentioned.
Wishing you more caution and better success in your future manœuvers, I have the honor to be, Sir, with great respect, your very humble servant.
A Landholder.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... lder-viii/
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Samuel Adams and the Constitution
Massachusetts Gazette
December 28, 1787
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Salem, to his friend in this town, December 26
The new constitution meets with general approbation in this town; almost every person of property and honesty wishes for the adoption of it.
There are some few, however, whose characters as honest men and good citizens, is thoroughly established, who are rather in opposition to it.
This I much wonder at; but candour obliges me to judge favourably of their motives, because they have ever been decided friends to the welfare and happiness of their country.
I however hope that time will effect a change of their sentiments; and I think I have some foundation for my hopes;
For truth and reason’s bright’ned rays combin’d,
Will force conviction on the candid mind.
I think, my friend, that it can be demonstrated to the conception of every rational mind, that the new constitution is nobly calculated to support and defend those inestimable rights for which the citizens of America so long toiled and bled.
I need not, however delineate its beauties to you, as you are already fully sensible of them.
There is one thing which gives me not a little pain, and it is this.
The hon. SAMUEL ADAMS, I hear, is in opposition to the plan of federal government.
Although he may act from motives truly patriotick in this affair, you know the caprice of human nature is such, that mankind never put the most favourable construction upon the conduct of each other; and if a man does ninety-nine good actions and neglects the hundredth, he often comes under the goading lash of censure.
I may perhaps be mistaken, but it is really my opinion, that Mr. Adams’s opposition to the federal constitution will, in the eyes of America, sully the brightness of those laurels which have so long encircled the brow of that venerable statesman.
You ask me, whether I suppose that there will be much opposition made to the new constitution, in our state convention.
I answer, I hope not.
For before the federalism of a HANCOCK, a BOWDOIN, a DANA, a KING, and many other illustrious characters, who are members of the convention, anti-federalism must droop, and recoil in silent shame.
I think we have every thing to hope, and very little to fear.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... stitution/
Massachusetts Gazette
December 28, 1787
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Salem, to his friend in this town, December 26
The new constitution meets with general approbation in this town; almost every person of property and honesty wishes for the adoption of it.
There are some few, however, whose characters as honest men and good citizens, is thoroughly established, who are rather in opposition to it.
This I much wonder at; but candour obliges me to judge favourably of their motives, because they have ever been decided friends to the welfare and happiness of their country.
I however hope that time will effect a change of their sentiments; and I think I have some foundation for my hopes;
For truth and reason’s bright’ned rays combin’d,
Will force conviction on the candid mind.
I think, my friend, that it can be demonstrated to the conception of every rational mind, that the new constitution is nobly calculated to support and defend those inestimable rights for which the citizens of America so long toiled and bled.
I need not, however delineate its beauties to you, as you are already fully sensible of them.
There is one thing which gives me not a little pain, and it is this.
The hon. SAMUEL ADAMS, I hear, is in opposition to the plan of federal government.
Although he may act from motives truly patriotick in this affair, you know the caprice of human nature is such, that mankind never put the most favourable construction upon the conduct of each other; and if a man does ninety-nine good actions and neglects the hundredth, he often comes under the goading lash of censure.
I may perhaps be mistaken, but it is really my opinion, that Mr. Adams’s opposition to the federal constitution will, in the eyes of America, sully the brightness of those laurels which have so long encircled the brow of that venerable statesman.
You ask me, whether I suppose that there will be much opposition made to the new constitution, in our state convention.
I answer, I hope not.
For before the federalism of a HANCOCK, a BOWDOIN, a DANA, a KING, and many other illustrious characters, who are members of the convention, anti-federalism must droop, and recoil in silent shame.
I think we have every thing to hope, and very little to fear.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... stitution/
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
“A Freeman” Essay to the People of Connecticut
Connecticut Courant, Hartford
December 31, 1787
This is a day, by way of eminence, for political deliberation, and we are amused with reasons against and reasons for the new Constitution from one part of the continent to the other.
Held up to our view as something magnificent are the reasons of the Honorable Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry for not subscribing to the Constitution.
From Virginia, we have the objections of the Honorable George Mason, pompously set forth.
In New York, a factious genius pours a flood of eloquence against the Constitution.
And our printers possess so much candor as to keep their presses open to all parties.
Amid all these publications, a Freeman of Connecticut ventures to make his remarks and professes to do it in the spirit of candor.
In the course of some late publications, several things have been discussed relating to the new Constitution that might have a tendency to prevent prejudices and clear off objections, to give the landholders and farmers an opportunity to judge for themselves as to the defects or excellencies of it.
And, as the season for the sitting of the state Convention approaches, so I would call your attention still further to the interesting subject.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Connecticut Courant, Hartford
December 31, 1787
This is a day, by way of eminence, for political deliberation, and we are amused with reasons against and reasons for the new Constitution from one part of the continent to the other.
Held up to our view as something magnificent are the reasons of the Honorable Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry for not subscribing to the Constitution.
From Virginia, we have the objections of the Honorable George Mason, pompously set forth.
In New York, a factious genius pours a flood of eloquence against the Constitution.
And our printers possess so much candor as to keep their presses open to all parties.
Amid all these publications, a Freeman of Connecticut ventures to make his remarks and professes to do it in the spirit of candor.
In the course of some late publications, several things have been discussed relating to the new Constitution that might have a tendency to prevent prejudices and clear off objections, to give the landholders and farmers an opportunity to judge for themselves as to the defects or excellencies of it.
And, as the season for the sitting of the state Convention approaches, so I would call your attention still further to the interesting subject.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
“A Freeman” Essay to the People of Connecticut, continued ...
Connecticut Courant, Hartford
December 31, 1787
Our country now seems to hang in anxious suspense, not knowing whether she is to have a good and efficient government or none at all, or a despotic one imposed upon her by some daring adventurer.
She has fought, her enemies must do her the justice to own, gallantly with one of the most powerful kingdoms on the globe; a kingdom which had spread the glory of its arms and the terror of its name over every quarter of the world.
She has bled, we are all mournful witnesses, at a thousand veins through a bloody and long way.
She has nobly conquered, to the astonishment of the nations of Europe.
On account of her splendid victories and passion for freedom approaching to enthusiasm, her fame has diffused itself far and wide.
Her generals, her soldiers, her perseverance and patience under every difficulty, her statesmen and her resources are the admiration of distant nations, and probably will be of applauding posterity, if she improve aright the present eligible situation for adopting a good federal system of policy.
The grand question is — shall she be happy in a good or wretched in a bad form of government?
Shall all her blood and treasures expended in the late war be lost?
Shall the advantages which she now possesses, prodigal-like be squandered away?
TO BE CONTINUED …
Connecticut Courant, Hartford
December 31, 1787
Our country now seems to hang in anxious suspense, not knowing whether she is to have a good and efficient government or none at all, or a despotic one imposed upon her by some daring adventurer.
She has fought, her enemies must do her the justice to own, gallantly with one of the most powerful kingdoms on the globe; a kingdom which had spread the glory of its arms and the terror of its name over every quarter of the world.
She has bled, we are all mournful witnesses, at a thousand veins through a bloody and long way.
She has nobly conquered, to the astonishment of the nations of Europe.
On account of her splendid victories and passion for freedom approaching to enthusiasm, her fame has diffused itself far and wide.
Her generals, her soldiers, her perseverance and patience under every difficulty, her statesmen and her resources are the admiration of distant nations, and probably will be of applauding posterity, if she improve aright the present eligible situation for adopting a good federal system of policy.
The grand question is — shall she be happy in a good or wretched in a bad form of government?
Shall all her blood and treasures expended in the late war be lost?
Shall the advantages which she now possesses, prodigal-like be squandered away?
TO BE CONTINUED …
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
“A Freeman” Essay to the People of Connecticut, continued ...
Connecticut Courant, Hartford
December 31, 1787
When peace was established and the horrors of war terminated, the most of us mistakenly concluded that all was done for us, and that we had nothing left but to reach out the eager hand and take hold of happiness.
Independence we fondly believed would cost us little or nothing — good government, national faith, national honor, and national dignity would take place of course, without any exertions of our own.
But an arduous task was still to be performed.
We had an empire to build.
The American Revolution is a distinguished era in the history of mankind.
And the present is to us a period as important, as delicate and as critical, and perhaps more so, than any that has yet been.
To fight battles and vanquish enemies is far less difficult than to curb selfish passions, to liberalize the narrow-minded, to eradicate old prejudices (as the most stupid and silly and ungenerous prejudices have subsisted in the several states against each other), to give up local attachments, and to cement together as one great people, pursuing one general interest.
An opportunity now presents of realizing the richest blessings.
The new Constitution holds out to us national dignity, respectability, and an energetic form of government.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Connecticut Courant, Hartford
December 31, 1787
When peace was established and the horrors of war terminated, the most of us mistakenly concluded that all was done for us, and that we had nothing left but to reach out the eager hand and take hold of happiness.
Independence we fondly believed would cost us little or nothing — good government, national faith, national honor, and national dignity would take place of course, without any exertions of our own.
But an arduous task was still to be performed.
We had an empire to build.
The American Revolution is a distinguished era in the history of mankind.
And the present is to us a period as important, as delicate and as critical, and perhaps more so, than any that has yet been.
To fight battles and vanquish enemies is far less difficult than to curb selfish passions, to liberalize the narrow-minded, to eradicate old prejudices (as the most stupid and silly and ungenerous prejudices have subsisted in the several states against each other), to give up local attachments, and to cement together as one great people, pursuing one general interest.
An opportunity now presents of realizing the richest blessings.
The new Constitution holds out to us national dignity, respectability, and an energetic form of government.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
“A Freeman” Essay to the People of Connecticut, continued ...
Connecticut Courant, Hartford
December 31, 1787
I wish to see candidly discussed the most material objections against it as they may appear in the public papers, be proposed by gentlemen of sense and merit, or be started by the common people and be enlarged upon with malignant pleasure by popular drudges, who clamor plausibly about the rights of the people, but whose intentions invariably are to promote and secure their own lucrative posts or honorable employments.
In this publication, I shall consider that objection to the Constitution upon which much is confidently advanced by many, that if we adopt the Constitution our liberties are gone forever, that moment the nations receives this form of government, that moment we become a nation of slaves.
It is incumbent upon those who make this objection to point out the dangerous clause.
They should be challenged to show where we may find it.
Designing and factious men throw out this objection; and many honest, well-meaning farmers and landholders are frightened with it.
They hear others, of whose wisdom knowledge in politics, and character, they have an exalted opinion, speak of the Constitution as a dangerous one, an insidious one, which is to betray the liberties of the people, while it professes to defend and guard them.
They consequently fear the worst of evils lie hidden under a fair guise.
For themselves, they see no danger, and never would dream of any, were it not from the base surmises of the designing.
With their own eyes they can see no evils, but the more shrewd have eyes to see.
Such, and such characters, important men — men in high posts — men of reputed principles and integrity — object against the Constitution as designed to annihilate the state sovereignties, undermine our rights, and to end either in a corrupt aristocracy or absolute monarchy.
Thus stands the objection.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Connecticut Courant, Hartford
December 31, 1787
I wish to see candidly discussed the most material objections against it as they may appear in the public papers, be proposed by gentlemen of sense and merit, or be started by the common people and be enlarged upon with malignant pleasure by popular drudges, who clamor plausibly about the rights of the people, but whose intentions invariably are to promote and secure their own lucrative posts or honorable employments.
In this publication, I shall consider that objection to the Constitution upon which much is confidently advanced by many, that if we adopt the Constitution our liberties are gone forever, that moment the nations receives this form of government, that moment we become a nation of slaves.
It is incumbent upon those who make this objection to point out the dangerous clause.
They should be challenged to show where we may find it.
Designing and factious men throw out this objection; and many honest, well-meaning farmers and landholders are frightened with it.
They hear others, of whose wisdom knowledge in politics, and character, they have an exalted opinion, speak of the Constitution as a dangerous one, an insidious one, which is to betray the liberties of the people, while it professes to defend and guard them.
They consequently fear the worst of evils lie hidden under a fair guise.
For themselves, they see no danger, and never would dream of any, were it not from the base surmises of the designing.
With their own eyes they can see no evils, but the more shrewd have eyes to see.
Such, and such characters, important men — men in high posts — men of reputed principles and integrity — object against the Constitution as designed to annihilate the state sovereignties, undermine our rights, and to end either in a corrupt aristocracy or absolute monarchy.
Thus stands the objection.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
“A Freeman” Essay to the People of Connecticut, concluded ...
Connecticut Courant, Hartford
December 31, 1787
Let the well-meaning who fear no loss of lucrative posts view the mighty scarecrow.
O ye my countrymen, be not deceived with fair words and plausible speeches.
You have eyes; use them for yourselves — employ your own good sense — read and examine the Constitution — trust not to others to do it for you — narrowly inspect every part of it.
Then, you will be convinced that the objection is wholly groundless, having no existence but in imagination.
Believe for once that many who pretend to be so tender for your rights, and are so deeply concerned for your liberties, and on all occasions boast of their love and veneration for liberty, only mean to dupe you.
I am credibly informed that in a certain town, when the inhabitants were convened in pursuance of the order of the General Court to choose delegates to sit in Convention to determine whether this state will assent to and ratify a Constitution which has for its object the establishment of the dignity, freedom, and happiness of our country, a great man made a great speech, in length two hours, in breadth one hair, and closed with this striking observation: My fellow citizens, this is the day in which you are to vote whether you will be freemen or slaves; if we reject the Constitution, we shall be free; if we adopt it, we shall be slaves.
The candor and justice of this representation, I presume, will be discerned by every man of common sense.
Such an observation not obliquely, but directly insinuates that the Constitution will infallibly make us a nation of slaves.
There certainly is nothing in it that looks this way.
On the contrary it seems to guard you on every side from despotism and shows an uncommon solicitude to prevent any infringement upon the liberties of the people; gives all the liberty which a judicious people could desire.
Liberty, a word that has charms sufficient to captivate a generous mind, is revered in the Constitution; and is totally different from licentiousness.
Many have no other idea of liberty, but for everyone to do as he pleases — to be as honest as he pleases — to be as knavish as he pleases — and to traduce and revile the rulers as much as he pleases.
Such a liberty, which to our shame has for several years been our idol, ought to be done away and never more stop the progress of justice or with its foul streams pollute this beautiful country.
Every government which is worth having and supporting must have a competent degree of power in it to answer the great ends of its creation — the happiness of the people, the protection of their persons, and security of their property.
A government without such a power is only a burden.
That government, provided for us by the concentered wisdom of the states, secures all our liberties that ought to be secured.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... nnecticut/
Connecticut Courant, Hartford
December 31, 1787
Let the well-meaning who fear no loss of lucrative posts view the mighty scarecrow.
O ye my countrymen, be not deceived with fair words and plausible speeches.
You have eyes; use them for yourselves — employ your own good sense — read and examine the Constitution — trust not to others to do it for you — narrowly inspect every part of it.
Then, you will be convinced that the objection is wholly groundless, having no existence but in imagination.
Believe for once that many who pretend to be so tender for your rights, and are so deeply concerned for your liberties, and on all occasions boast of their love and veneration for liberty, only mean to dupe you.
I am credibly informed that in a certain town, when the inhabitants were convened in pursuance of the order of the General Court to choose delegates to sit in Convention to determine whether this state will assent to and ratify a Constitution which has for its object the establishment of the dignity, freedom, and happiness of our country, a great man made a great speech, in length two hours, in breadth one hair, and closed with this striking observation: My fellow citizens, this is the day in which you are to vote whether you will be freemen or slaves; if we reject the Constitution, we shall be free; if we adopt it, we shall be slaves.
The candor and justice of this representation, I presume, will be discerned by every man of common sense.
Such an observation not obliquely, but directly insinuates that the Constitution will infallibly make us a nation of slaves.
There certainly is nothing in it that looks this way.
On the contrary it seems to guard you on every side from despotism and shows an uncommon solicitude to prevent any infringement upon the liberties of the people; gives all the liberty which a judicious people could desire.
Liberty, a word that has charms sufficient to captivate a generous mind, is revered in the Constitution; and is totally different from licentiousness.
Many have no other idea of liberty, but for everyone to do as he pleases — to be as honest as he pleases — to be as knavish as he pleases — and to traduce and revile the rulers as much as he pleases.
Such a liberty, which to our shame has for several years been our idol, ought to be done away and never more stop the progress of justice or with its foul streams pollute this beautiful country.
Every government which is worth having and supporting must have a competent degree of power in it to answer the great ends of its creation — the happiness of the people, the protection of their persons, and security of their property.
A government without such a power is only a burden.
That government, provided for us by the concentered wisdom of the states, secures all our liberties that ought to be secured.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... nnecticut/