Reasons for Dissent, continued ...
by Consider Arms, Malachi Maynard & Samuel Field
May 16, 1788
Perhaps we may never be called upon to take up arms for the defence of the southern states, in prosecuting this abominable traffick.
It is true at present there is not much danger to be apprehended, and for this plain reason are those innocent Africans (as to us) pitched upon to drag out their lives in misery and chains.
Such is their local situation - their unpolished manners - their inexperience in the art of war, that those invaders of the rights of mankind know they can, at present, perpetrate those enormities with impunity.
But let us suppose for once, a thing which is by no means impossible, viz. that those Africans should rise superior to all their local and other disadvantages, and attempt to avenge themselves for the wrongs done them?
Or suppose some potent nation should interfere in their behalf, as France in the cause of America, must we not rise and resist them?
Would not the Congress immediately call forth the whole force of the country, if needed, to oppose them, and so attempt more closely to rivet their manacles upon them, and in that way perpetuate the miseries of those unhappy people?
This we think the natural consequence which will flow from the establishment of this constitution, and that it is not a forced, but a very liberal construction of it.
It was said that “the adoption of this Constitution, would be ominous of much good, and betoken the smiles of Heaven upon the country.”
But we view the matter in a very different light; we think this lurch for unjust gains, this lust for slavery, portentous of much evil in America, for the cry of innocent blood, which hath been shed in carrying on this execrable commerce, hath undoubtedly reached to the Heavens, to which that cry is always directed, and will draw down upon them vengeance adequate to the enormity of the crime.
To what other cause, than a full conviction, of the moral evil in this practice, together with some fearful forebodings of punishment therefor arising in the minds of the Congress in the year 1774, can it be imputed, that drew from them at that time, (at least an implied) confession of guilt, and a solemn, explicit promise of reformation?
This is a fact, but lest it should be disputed, we think it most safe for ourselves to lay before our readers, an extract from a certain pamphlet, entitled “Extracts from the votes and proceedings of the American Continental Congress, held at Philadelphia, on the 5th of September, 1774, &c.”
In the 22d page of this same pamphlet, we find the following paragraph, viz. “Second. That we will neither import, nor purchase any slave imported, after the first day of December next; after which time we will wholly discontinue the slave-trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it.”
The inconsistency of opposing slavery, which they thought designed for themselves, and by clandestine means, procuring others to enslave at the same time - it is very natural to suppose would stare them in the face, and at all times guard them against breaking their resolution.
Hence it appears to us unaccountable strange, that any person who signed the above resolve, should sign the federal constitution.
For do they not hold up to view principles diametrically opposite?
Can we suppose that what was morally evil in the year 1774, has become in the year 1788, morally good?
Or shall we change evil into good and good into evil, as often as we find it will serve a turn?
We cannot but say the conduct of those who associated in the year 1774 in the manner above, and now appear advocates for this new constitution, is highly inconsistent, although we find such conduct has the celebrated names of a Washington and an Adams to grace it.
And this may serve as a reason why we could not be wrought upon by another argument, which was made use of in the Convention in favour of the constitution, viz. the weight of names - a solid argument with some people who belonged to the Convention, and would have induced them to comply with measures of almost any kind.
It was urged that the gentlemen who composed the federal Convention, were men of the greatest abilities, integrity and erudition, and had been the greatest contenders for freedom.
We suppose it to be true, and that they have exemplified it, by the manner, in which they have earnestly dogmatized for liberty.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Reasons for Dissent, concluded ...
by Consider Arms, Malachi Maynard & Samuel Field
May 16, 1788
But notwithstanding we could not view this argument, as advancing any where towards infallibility-because long before we entered upon the business of the Convention, we were by some means or other possessed with a notion (and we think from good authority) that “great men are not always wise.”
And to be sure the weight of a name adduced to give efficacy to a measure where liberty is in dispute, cannot be so likely to have its intended effect, when the person designed by that name, at the same time he is brandishing his sword, in the behalf of freedom for himself-is likewise tyranizing over two or three hundred miserable Africans, as free born as himself.
In fine we view this constitution as a curious piece of political mechanism, fabricated in such manner as may finally despoil the people of all their privileges; and we are fully satisfied, that had the same system been offered to the people in the time of the contest with Great-Britain, the person offering the same would not have met the approbation of those who now appear the most strenuous advocates for it.
We cannot slip this opportunity of manifesting our disgust at the unfair methods which were taken in order to obtain a vote in this state, which perhaps was the means of producing the small majority of nineteen, out of nearly three hundred and sixty members.
What those methods were is well known.
It is past dispute that the opposers of the constitution were, in sundry instances, treated in a manner utterly inconsistent with that respect which is due to every freeborn citizen of the commonwealth, especially when acting in the capacity of a representative.
Notwithstanding what has been said, we would not have it understood, that we mean to be disturbers of the peace, should the states receive the constitution; but on the contrary, declare it our intention, as we think it our duty, to be subject to “the powers that be,” wherever our lot may be cast.
CONSIDER ARMS, Conway.
MALICHI MAYNARD, Conway.
SAMUEL FIELD, Deerfield.
by Consider Arms, Malachi Maynard & Samuel Field
May 16, 1788
But notwithstanding we could not view this argument, as advancing any where towards infallibility-because long before we entered upon the business of the Convention, we were by some means or other possessed with a notion (and we think from good authority) that “great men are not always wise.”
And to be sure the weight of a name adduced to give efficacy to a measure where liberty is in dispute, cannot be so likely to have its intended effect, when the person designed by that name, at the same time he is brandishing his sword, in the behalf of freedom for himself-is likewise tyranizing over two or three hundred miserable Africans, as free born as himself.
In fine we view this constitution as a curious piece of political mechanism, fabricated in such manner as may finally despoil the people of all their privileges; and we are fully satisfied, that had the same system been offered to the people in the time of the contest with Great-Britain, the person offering the same would not have met the approbation of those who now appear the most strenuous advocates for it.
We cannot slip this opportunity of manifesting our disgust at the unfair methods which were taken in order to obtain a vote in this state, which perhaps was the means of producing the small majority of nineteen, out of nearly three hundred and sixty members.
What those methods were is well known.
It is past dispute that the opposers of the constitution were, in sundry instances, treated in a manner utterly inconsistent with that respect which is due to every freeborn citizen of the commonwealth, especially when acting in the capacity of a representative.
Notwithstanding what has been said, we would not have it understood, that we mean to be disturbers of the peace, should the states receive the constitution; but on the contrary, declare it our intention, as we think it our duty, to be subject to “the powers that be,” wherever our lot may be cast.
CONSIDER ARMS, Conway.
MALICHI MAYNARD, Conway.
SAMUEL FIELD, Deerfield.
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Fabius III
by John Dickinson
May 17, 1788
The writer of this address hopes that he will not be thought so disengaged from the objections against the principle assumed, that he may be excused for recurring to his assertion, that the power of the people pervading the proposed system, together with the strong confederation of the states, will form an adequate security against every danger that has been apprehended.
It is a mournful, but may be a useful truth, that the liberty of single republics has generally been destroyed by some of the citizens, and of confederated republics, by some of the associated states.
It is more pleasing, and may be more profitable to reflect, that, their tranquility and prosperity have commonly been promoted, in proportion to the strength of their government for protecting the worthy against the licentious.
As in forming a political society, each individual contributes some of his rights, in order that he may form a common stock of rights, derive greater benefits, than he could from merely his own; so, in forming a confederation, each political society should contribute such a share of their rights, as will, from a common stock of these rights, produce the largest quantity of benefits for them.
But, what is that share and, how to be managed?
Momentous questions!
Here, flattery is treason; and error, destruction.
Are they unanswerable?
No.
Our most gracious Creator does not condemn us to sigh for unattainable blessedness.
But one thing he demands – that we should seek for happiness in his way, and not in our own.
Humility and benevolence must take place of pride and overweening selfishness.
Reason, rising above these mists, will then discover to us, that we cannot be true to ourselves, without being true to others – that to love our neighbours as ourselves, is to love ourselves in the best manner – that to give, is to gain – and, that we never consult our own happiness more effectually, than when we most endeavour to correspond with the divine designs, by communicating happiness, as much as we can, to our fellow-creatures.
Inestimable truth!
Sufficient, if they do not barely ask what it is, to melt tyrants into men, and to soothe the inflamed minds of a multitude into mildness.
Inestimable truth! which our Maker in his providence, enables us, not only to talk and write about, but to adopt in practice of vast extent, and of instructive example.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by John Dickinson
May 17, 1788
The writer of this address hopes that he will not be thought so disengaged from the objections against the principle assumed, that he may be excused for recurring to his assertion, that the power of the people pervading the proposed system, together with the strong confederation of the states, will form an adequate security against every danger that has been apprehended.
It is a mournful, but may be a useful truth, that the liberty of single republics has generally been destroyed by some of the citizens, and of confederated republics, by some of the associated states.
It is more pleasing, and may be more profitable to reflect, that, their tranquility and prosperity have commonly been promoted, in proportion to the strength of their government for protecting the worthy against the licentious.
As in forming a political society, each individual contributes some of his rights, in order that he may form a common stock of rights, derive greater benefits, than he could from merely his own; so, in forming a confederation, each political society should contribute such a share of their rights, as will, from a common stock of these rights, produce the largest quantity of benefits for them.
But, what is that share and, how to be managed?
Momentous questions!
Here, flattery is treason; and error, destruction.
Are they unanswerable?
No.
Our most gracious Creator does not condemn us to sigh for unattainable blessedness.
But one thing he demands – that we should seek for happiness in his way, and not in our own.
Humility and benevolence must take place of pride and overweening selfishness.
Reason, rising above these mists, will then discover to us, that we cannot be true to ourselves, without being true to others – that to love our neighbours as ourselves, is to love ourselves in the best manner – that to give, is to gain – and, that we never consult our own happiness more effectually, than when we most endeavour to correspond with the divine designs, by communicating happiness, as much as we can, to our fellow-creatures.
Inestimable truth!
Sufficient, if they do not barely ask what it is, to melt tyrants into men, and to soothe the inflamed minds of a multitude into mildness.
Inestimable truth! which our Maker in his providence, enables us, not only to talk and write about, but to adopt in practice of vast extent, and of instructive example.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Fabius III, continued ...
by John Dickinson
May 17, 1788
Let us now enquire, if there be not some principle, simple as the laws of nature in other instances, from which, as from a source, the many benefits of society are deduced.
We may with reverence say, that our Creator designed men for society, because otherwise they cannot be happy.
They cannot be happy without freedom; nor free without security; that is, without the absence of fear; nor thus secure, without society.
The conclusion is strictly syllogistic – that men cannot be free without society.
Of course, they cannot be equally free without society, which freedom produces the greatest happiness.
As these premises are invincible, we have advanced a considerable way in our enquiry upon this deeply interesting subject.
If we can determine what share of his rights every individual must contribute to the common stock of rights in forming a society, for obtaining equal freedom, we determine at the same time, what share of their rights each political society must contribute to the common stock or rights in forming a confederations.
Which is only a larger society, for obtaining equal freedom.
For, if the deposite be not proportioned to the magnitude of the association in the latter case, it will generate the same mischief among the component parts of it, from their inequality, that would result from a defective contribution to association in the former case, among the component parts of it, from their inequality.
Each individual then must contribute such a share of his rights, as is necessary for attaining that security that is essential to freedom; and he is bound to make this contribution by the law of his nature, which prompts him to a participated happiness; that is, by the command of his creator; therefore, he must submit his will, in what concerns all, to the will of all, that is of the whole society.
What does he lose by this submission?
The power of doing injuries to others–and the dread of suffering injuries from them.
What does he gain by it?
The aid of those associated with him, for his relief from the incommodities of mental or bodily weakness – the pleasure for which his heart is formed–of doing good – protection against injuries – a capacity of enjoying his undelegated rights to the best advantage – a repeal of his fears – and tranquility of mind – or, in other words, that perfect liberty better described in the Holy Scriptures, than any where else, in these expressions – “When every man shall sit under his vine, and under his figtree, and none shall make him afraid.”
The like submission, with a correspondent expansion and accommodation, must be made between states, for obtaining the like benefits in a confederation.
Men are the materials of both.
As the largest number is but a junction of units – a confederation is but an assemblage of individuals.
The auspicious influence of the law of his nature, upon which the happiness of man depends in society, must attend him in confederation, or he becomes unhappy; for confederation should promote the happiness of individuals, or it does not answer the intended purpose.
Herein there is a progression, not a contradiction.
As man, he becomes a citizen; as a citizen, he becomes a federalist.
The generation of one is not the destruction of the other.
He carries into society his naked rights.
These thereby improved, he carries still forward into confederation.
If that sacred law before mentioned, is not here observed, the confederation would not be real, but pretended.
He would confide, and be deceived.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by John Dickinson
May 17, 1788
Let us now enquire, if there be not some principle, simple as the laws of nature in other instances, from which, as from a source, the many benefits of society are deduced.
We may with reverence say, that our Creator designed men for society, because otherwise they cannot be happy.
They cannot be happy without freedom; nor free without security; that is, without the absence of fear; nor thus secure, without society.
The conclusion is strictly syllogistic – that men cannot be free without society.
Of course, they cannot be equally free without society, which freedom produces the greatest happiness.
As these premises are invincible, we have advanced a considerable way in our enquiry upon this deeply interesting subject.
If we can determine what share of his rights every individual must contribute to the common stock of rights in forming a society, for obtaining equal freedom, we determine at the same time, what share of their rights each political society must contribute to the common stock or rights in forming a confederations.
Which is only a larger society, for obtaining equal freedom.
For, if the deposite be not proportioned to the magnitude of the association in the latter case, it will generate the same mischief among the component parts of it, from their inequality, that would result from a defective contribution to association in the former case, among the component parts of it, from their inequality.
Each individual then must contribute such a share of his rights, as is necessary for attaining that security that is essential to freedom; and he is bound to make this contribution by the law of his nature, which prompts him to a participated happiness; that is, by the command of his creator; therefore, he must submit his will, in what concerns all, to the will of all, that is of the whole society.
What does he lose by this submission?
The power of doing injuries to others–and the dread of suffering injuries from them.
What does he gain by it?
The aid of those associated with him, for his relief from the incommodities of mental or bodily weakness – the pleasure for which his heart is formed–of doing good – protection against injuries – a capacity of enjoying his undelegated rights to the best advantage – a repeal of his fears – and tranquility of mind – or, in other words, that perfect liberty better described in the Holy Scriptures, than any where else, in these expressions – “When every man shall sit under his vine, and under his figtree, and none shall make him afraid.”
The like submission, with a correspondent expansion and accommodation, must be made between states, for obtaining the like benefits in a confederation.
Men are the materials of both.
As the largest number is but a junction of units – a confederation is but an assemblage of individuals.
The auspicious influence of the law of his nature, upon which the happiness of man depends in society, must attend him in confederation, or he becomes unhappy; for confederation should promote the happiness of individuals, or it does not answer the intended purpose.
Herein there is a progression, not a contradiction.
As man, he becomes a citizen; as a citizen, he becomes a federalist.
The generation of one is not the destruction of the other.
He carries into society his naked rights.
These thereby improved, he carries still forward into confederation.
If that sacred law before mentioned, is not here observed, the confederation would not be real, but pretended.
He would confide, and be deceived.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Fabius III, continued ...
by John Dickinson
May 17, 1788
The dilemma is inevitable.
There must either be one will, or several wills.
If but one will, all the people are concerned: if several wills, few comparatively are concerned.
Surprizing that this doctrine should be contended for by those, who declare, that the constitution is not founded on a bottom broad enough; and, though the whole people of the United States are to be trebly represented in it in three different modes of representation, and their servants will have the most advantageous situations and opportunities of acquiring all requisite information for the welfare of the whole union, yet insist for a privilege of opposing, obstructing, and confounding all their measures taken with common consent for the general weal, by the delays, negligences, rivalries, or other selfish views of parts of the union.
Thus, while one state should be relied upon by the union for giving aid, upon a recommendation of Congress, to another in distress, the latter might be ruined; and the state relied upon, might suppose, it would gain by such an event.
When any persons speak of a consideration, do they, or do they not acknowledge, that the whole is interested in the safety of every part–in the agreement of parts – in the relation of parts to one another – to the whole – or, to other societies?
If they do – then, the authority of the whole, must be co-extensive with its interests – and if it is, the will of the whole must and ought in such cases to govern; or else the whole would have interests without an authority to manage them – a position which prejudice itself cannot digest.
If they do not acknowledge, that the whole is thus interested, the conversation should cease.
Such persons mean not a confederation, but something else.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by John Dickinson
May 17, 1788
The dilemma is inevitable.
There must either be one will, or several wills.
If but one will, all the people are concerned: if several wills, few comparatively are concerned.
Surprizing that this doctrine should be contended for by those, who declare, that the constitution is not founded on a bottom broad enough; and, though the whole people of the United States are to be trebly represented in it in three different modes of representation, and their servants will have the most advantageous situations and opportunities of acquiring all requisite information for the welfare of the whole union, yet insist for a privilege of opposing, obstructing, and confounding all their measures taken with common consent for the general weal, by the delays, negligences, rivalries, or other selfish views of parts of the union.
Thus, while one state should be relied upon by the union for giving aid, upon a recommendation of Congress, to another in distress, the latter might be ruined; and the state relied upon, might suppose, it would gain by such an event.
When any persons speak of a consideration, do they, or do they not acknowledge, that the whole is interested in the safety of every part–in the agreement of parts – in the relation of parts to one another – to the whole – or, to other societies?
If they do – then, the authority of the whole, must be co-extensive with its interests – and if it is, the will of the whole must and ought in such cases to govern; or else the whole would have interests without an authority to manage them – a position which prejudice itself cannot digest.
If they do not acknowledge, that the whole is thus interested, the conversation should cease.
Such persons mean not a confederation, but something else.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Fabius III, concluded ...
by John Dickinson
May 17, 1788
As to the idea, that this superintending sovereign will must of consequence destroy the subordinate sovereignties of the several states, it is begging a concession of the question, by inferring, that a manifest and great usefulness must necessarily end in abuse; and not only so, but it requires an extinction of the principle of all society: for the subordinate sovereignties, or, in other words, the undelegated rights of individuals in a society, the federal sovereign will being composed of the subordinate sovereign wills of the several confederated states.
As some persons seem to think, a bill of rights is the best security of rights, the sovereignties of the several states have this best security by the proposed constitution, and more than this best security, for they are not barely declared to be rights, but are taken into it as component parts for their perpetual preservation–by themselves.
In short, the government of each state is, and is to be, sovereign and supreme in all matters that relate to each state only.
It is to be subordinate barely in those matters that relate to the whole; and it will be their own faults if the several states suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in things of their respective jurisdictions.
An instance of such interference with regard to any single state, will be a dangerous precedent as to all, and therefore will be guarded against by all, as the trustees or servants of the several states will not dare, if they retain their senses, so to violate the independent sovereignty of their respective states, that justly darling object of American affections, to which they are responsible, besides being endeared by all the charities of life.
The common sense of mankind agrees to the devolutions of individual wills in society, and if it has not been as universally assented to in confederation, the reasons are evident, and worthy of being retained in remembrance by Americans.
They were want of opportunities, or the loss of them, through defects of knowledge and virtue.
The principle, however, has been sufficiently vindicated in imperfect combinations, as their prosperity has generally been commensurate to its operation.
How beautiful and forcibly does the inspired Apostle Paul, argue upon a sublimer subject, with a train of reasoning strictly applicable to the present?
His words are – “If the foot shall say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? and if the ear shall say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?”
As plainly inferring, as could be done in that allegorical manner, the strongest censure of such partial discontents and dissentions, especially, as his meaning is enforced by his description of the benefits of union in these expressions – “But, now they are many members, yet but one body: and the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee.”
When the commons of Rome upon a rupture with the Senate, seceded in arms at the Mons sacer, Menemius Agrippa used the like allusion to the human body, in his famous apologue of a quarrel among some of the members.
The unpolished but honest-hearted Romans of that day, understood him, and were appeased.
Another comparison has been made by the learned, between a natural and a political body; and no wonder indeed, when the title of the latter was borrowed from the resemblance.
It has therefore been justly observed, that if a mortification takes place in one of some of the limbs, and the rest of the body is sound, remedies may be applied, and not only the contagion prevented from spreading, but the diseased part or parts saved by the connection with the body, and restored to former usefulness.
When general putrefaction prevails, death is to be expected.
History sacred and profane tells us that corruption of manners sinks nations into slavery.
by John Dickinson
May 17, 1788
As to the idea, that this superintending sovereign will must of consequence destroy the subordinate sovereignties of the several states, it is begging a concession of the question, by inferring, that a manifest and great usefulness must necessarily end in abuse; and not only so, but it requires an extinction of the principle of all society: for the subordinate sovereignties, or, in other words, the undelegated rights of individuals in a society, the federal sovereign will being composed of the subordinate sovereign wills of the several confederated states.
As some persons seem to think, a bill of rights is the best security of rights, the sovereignties of the several states have this best security by the proposed constitution, and more than this best security, for they are not barely declared to be rights, but are taken into it as component parts for their perpetual preservation–by themselves.
In short, the government of each state is, and is to be, sovereign and supreme in all matters that relate to each state only.
It is to be subordinate barely in those matters that relate to the whole; and it will be their own faults if the several states suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in things of their respective jurisdictions.
An instance of such interference with regard to any single state, will be a dangerous precedent as to all, and therefore will be guarded against by all, as the trustees or servants of the several states will not dare, if they retain their senses, so to violate the independent sovereignty of their respective states, that justly darling object of American affections, to which they are responsible, besides being endeared by all the charities of life.
The common sense of mankind agrees to the devolutions of individual wills in society, and if it has not been as universally assented to in confederation, the reasons are evident, and worthy of being retained in remembrance by Americans.
They were want of opportunities, or the loss of them, through defects of knowledge and virtue.
The principle, however, has been sufficiently vindicated in imperfect combinations, as their prosperity has generally been commensurate to its operation.
How beautiful and forcibly does the inspired Apostle Paul, argue upon a sublimer subject, with a train of reasoning strictly applicable to the present?
His words are – “If the foot shall say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? and if the ear shall say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?”
As plainly inferring, as could be done in that allegorical manner, the strongest censure of such partial discontents and dissentions, especially, as his meaning is enforced by his description of the benefits of union in these expressions – “But, now they are many members, yet but one body: and the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee.”
When the commons of Rome upon a rupture with the Senate, seceded in arms at the Mons sacer, Menemius Agrippa used the like allusion to the human body, in his famous apologue of a quarrel among some of the members.
The unpolished but honest-hearted Romans of that day, understood him, and were appeased.
Another comparison has been made by the learned, between a natural and a political body; and no wonder indeed, when the title of the latter was borrowed from the resemblance.
It has therefore been justly observed, that if a mortification takes place in one of some of the limbs, and the rest of the body is sound, remedies may be applied, and not only the contagion prevented from spreading, but the diseased part or parts saved by the connection with the body, and restored to former usefulness.
When general putrefaction prevails, death is to be expected.
History sacred and profane tells us that corruption of manners sinks nations into slavery.
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Fabius IV
by John Dickinson
May 19, 1788
OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONSTITUTION proposed by the FEDERAL CONVENTION.
Another question remains.
How are the contributed rights to be managed?
The resolution has been in great measure anticipated, by what has been said concerning the system proposed.
Some few reflections may perhaps finish it.
If it can be considered separately, a Constitution is the organization of the contributed rights in society.
Government is certainly the exercise of them.
It is intended for the benefit of the governed; of course can have no just powers but what conduce to that end: & the awefulness of the trust is demonstrated in this — that it is founded on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his MAKER, and is therefore sacred.
Let the reader be pleased to consider the writer, as treating of equal liberty with reference to the people and states of United America, and their meditated confederation.
If the organization of a constitution be defective, it may be amended.
A good constitution promotes, but not always produces a good administration.
The government must never be lodged in a single body.
From such an one, with an unlucky composition of its parts, rash, partial, illegal, and when intoxicated with success, even cruel, insolent, & contemptible edicts, may at times be expected.
By these, if other mischiefs do not follow, the national dignity may be impaired.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by John Dickinson
May 19, 1788
OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONSTITUTION proposed by the FEDERAL CONVENTION.
Another question remains.
How are the contributed rights to be managed?
The resolution has been in great measure anticipated, by what has been said concerning the system proposed.
Some few reflections may perhaps finish it.
If it can be considered separately, a Constitution is the organization of the contributed rights in society.
Government is certainly the exercise of them.
It is intended for the benefit of the governed; of course can have no just powers but what conduce to that end: & the awefulness of the trust is demonstrated in this — that it is founded on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his MAKER, and is therefore sacred.
Let the reader be pleased to consider the writer, as treating of equal liberty with reference to the people and states of United America, and their meditated confederation.
If the organization of a constitution be defective, it may be amended.
A good constitution promotes, but not always produces a good administration.
The government must never be lodged in a single body.
From such an one, with an unlucky composition of its parts, rash, partial, illegal, and when intoxicated with success, even cruel, insolent, & contemptible edicts, may at times be expected.
By these, if other mischiefs do not follow, the national dignity may be impaired.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Fabius IV, continued ...
by John Dickinson
May 19, 1788
Several inconveniences might attend a division of the government into two bodies, that probably would be avoided in another arrangement.
The judgment of the most enlightened among mankind, confirmed by multiplied experiments, points out the propriety of government being committed to such a number of great departments, as can be introduced without confusion, distinct in office, and yet connected in operation.
It seems to be agreed, that three or four of these departments are a competent number.
Such a repartition appears well calculated, to encrease the safety and repose of the governed, which, with the advancement of their happiness in other respects, are the objects of government; as thereby there will be more obstructions interposed, against errors, feuds, and frauds, in the administration, and the interference of the people need be less frequent.
Thus, wars, tumults, and uneasinesses, are avoided.
The departments so constituted, may therefore be said to be balanced.
But, notwithstanding, it must be granted, that a bad administration may take place.
What is then to be done?
The answer is instantly found — Let the Fasces be lowered before — not the Majesty, it is not a term fit for mortals — but, before the supreme sovereignty of the people.
IT IS THEIR DUTY TO WATCH, AND THEIR RIGHT TO TAKE CARE, THAT THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED; Or in the Roman phrase on perilous occasions — TO PROVIDE, THAT THE REPUBLIC RECEIVE NO DAMAGE.
Political bodies are properly said to be balanced, with respect to this primary origination and ultimate destination, not to any intrinsic or constitutional properties.
It is the power from which they proceed, and which they serve, that truly and of right balances them.
But, as a good constitution not always produces a good administration, a defective one not always excludes it.
Thus, in governments very different from those of United America, general manners and customs, improvement in knowledge, and the education and disposition of princes, not unfrequently soften the features, and qualify the defects.
Jewels of value are substituted, in the place of the rare and genuine orient of highest price and brightest lustre: and though the sovereigns cannot even in their ministers, be brought to account by the governed, yet there are instances of their conduct indicating a veneration for the rights of the people, and an internal conviction of the guilt that attends their violation.
Some of them appear to be fathers of their countries.
Revered princes!
Friends of mankind!
May peace be in their lives, and hope sit smiling; in their beds of death.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by John Dickinson
May 19, 1788
Several inconveniences might attend a division of the government into two bodies, that probably would be avoided in another arrangement.
The judgment of the most enlightened among mankind, confirmed by multiplied experiments, points out the propriety of government being committed to such a number of great departments, as can be introduced without confusion, distinct in office, and yet connected in operation.
It seems to be agreed, that three or four of these departments are a competent number.
Such a repartition appears well calculated, to encrease the safety and repose of the governed, which, with the advancement of their happiness in other respects, are the objects of government; as thereby there will be more obstructions interposed, against errors, feuds, and frauds, in the administration, and the interference of the people need be less frequent.
Thus, wars, tumults, and uneasinesses, are avoided.
The departments so constituted, may therefore be said to be balanced.
But, notwithstanding, it must be granted, that a bad administration may take place.
What is then to be done?
The answer is instantly found — Let the Fasces be lowered before — not the Majesty, it is not a term fit for mortals — but, before the supreme sovereignty of the people.
IT IS THEIR DUTY TO WATCH, AND THEIR RIGHT TO TAKE CARE, THAT THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED; Or in the Roman phrase on perilous occasions — TO PROVIDE, THAT THE REPUBLIC RECEIVE NO DAMAGE.
Political bodies are properly said to be balanced, with respect to this primary origination and ultimate destination, not to any intrinsic or constitutional properties.
It is the power from which they proceed, and which they serve, that truly and of right balances them.
But, as a good constitution not always produces a good administration, a defective one not always excludes it.
Thus, in governments very different from those of United America, general manners and customs, improvement in knowledge, and the education and disposition of princes, not unfrequently soften the features, and qualify the defects.
Jewels of value are substituted, in the place of the rare and genuine orient of highest price and brightest lustre: and though the sovereigns cannot even in their ministers, be brought to account by the governed, yet there are instances of their conduct indicating a veneration for the rights of the people, and an internal conviction of the guilt that attends their violation.
Some of them appear to be fathers of their countries.
Revered princes!
Friends of mankind!
May peace be in their lives, and hope sit smiling; in their beds of death.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Fabius IV, continued ...
by John Dickinson
May 19, 1788
By this animating, presiding will of the people, is meant a reasonable, not a distracted will.
When frensy seizes the mass, it would be madness to think of their happiness, that is, of their freedom.
They will infallibly have a Philip or a Caesar, to bleed them into soberness of mind.
At present we are cool; and let us attend to our business.
Our government under the proposed confederation, will be guarded by a repetition of the strongest cautions against excesses.
In the senate the sovereignties of the several states will be equally represented; in the house of representatives, the people of the whole union will be equally represented; and, in the president, and the federal independent judges, so much concerned in the execution of the laws, and in the determination of their constitutionality, the sovereignties of the several states and the people of the whole union, will be conjointly represented.
Where was there ever or where is there now upon the face of the earth, a government so diversified and attempered?
If a work formed with so much deliberation, so respectful and affectionate an attention to the interests, feelings, and sentiments of all United America, will not satisfy, what would satisfy all United America?
It seems highly probable, that those who would reject this labour of public love, would also have rejected the Heaven-taught institution of trial by jury, had they been consulted upon its establishment.
Would they not have cried out, that there never was framed so detestable, so paltry, and so tyrannical a device for extinguishing freedom, and throwing unbounded domination into the hands of the king and barons, under a contemptible pretence of preserving it?
What!
Can freedom be preserved by imprisoning its guardians?
Can freedom be preserved, by keeping twelve men closely confined without meat, drink, fire, or candle, until they unanimously agree, and this to be infinitely repeated?
Can freedom be preserved, by thus delivering up a number of freemen to a monarch and an aristocracy, fortified by dependant and obedient judges and officers, to be shut up, until under duress they speak as they are ordered?
Why can’t the twelve jurors separate, after hearing the evidence, return to their respective homes, and there take time, and think of the matter at their ease?
Is there not a variety of ways, in which causes have been, and can be tried, without this tremendous, unprecedented inquisition?
Why then is it insisted on; but because the fabricators of it know that it will, and intend that it shall reduce the people to slavery?
Away with it — Freemen will never be enthralled by so insolent, so execrable, so pitiful a contrivance.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by John Dickinson
May 19, 1788
By this animating, presiding will of the people, is meant a reasonable, not a distracted will.
When frensy seizes the mass, it would be madness to think of their happiness, that is, of their freedom.
They will infallibly have a Philip or a Caesar, to bleed them into soberness of mind.
At present we are cool; and let us attend to our business.
Our government under the proposed confederation, will be guarded by a repetition of the strongest cautions against excesses.
In the senate the sovereignties of the several states will be equally represented; in the house of representatives, the people of the whole union will be equally represented; and, in the president, and the federal independent judges, so much concerned in the execution of the laws, and in the determination of their constitutionality, the sovereignties of the several states and the people of the whole union, will be conjointly represented.
Where was there ever or where is there now upon the face of the earth, a government so diversified and attempered?
If a work formed with so much deliberation, so respectful and affectionate an attention to the interests, feelings, and sentiments of all United America, will not satisfy, what would satisfy all United America?
It seems highly probable, that those who would reject this labour of public love, would also have rejected the Heaven-taught institution of trial by jury, had they been consulted upon its establishment.
Would they not have cried out, that there never was framed so detestable, so paltry, and so tyrannical a device for extinguishing freedom, and throwing unbounded domination into the hands of the king and barons, under a contemptible pretence of preserving it?
What!
Can freedom be preserved by imprisoning its guardians?
Can freedom be preserved, by keeping twelve men closely confined without meat, drink, fire, or candle, until they unanimously agree, and this to be infinitely repeated?
Can freedom be preserved, by thus delivering up a number of freemen to a monarch and an aristocracy, fortified by dependant and obedient judges and officers, to be shut up, until under duress they speak as they are ordered?
Why can’t the twelve jurors separate, after hearing the evidence, return to their respective homes, and there take time, and think of the matter at their ease?
Is there not a variety of ways, in which causes have been, and can be tried, without this tremendous, unprecedented inquisition?
Why then is it insisted on; but because the fabricators of it know that it will, and intend that it shall reduce the people to slavery?
Away with it — Freemen will never be enthralled by so insolent, so execrable, so pitiful a contrivance.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Fabius IV, continued ...
by John Dickinson
May 19, 1788
Happily for us our ancestors thought otherwise.
They were not so over-nice & curious, as to refuse blessings, because they might possibly be abused.
They perceived, that the uses included were great and manifest.
Perhaps they did not foresee, that from this acorn, as it were, would grow up oaks, that changing their native soil for another element, would bound over raging mountains of waters, bestow and receive benefits around the globe, and secure the just liberties of the nation for a long succession of ages.(a)
As to abuses, they trusted to their own spirit for preventing or correcting them.
And worthy is it of deep consideration by every friend of freedom, that abuses that seem to be but “trifles,”(b) may be attended by fatal consequences.
What can be “trifling,” that diminishes or detracts from the only defence, that ever was found against “open attacks and secret machinations.”(c)
It originates from a knowledge of human nature.
With a superior force, wisdom, and benevolence united, it rives the difficulties that have distressed, or destroyed the rest of mankind.
It reconciles contradictions, immensity of power, with safety of private station.
It is ever new & always the same.
Trial by jury and the dependance of taxation upon representation, those corner stones of liberty, were not obtained by a bill of rights, or any other records, and have not been and cannot be preserved by them.
They and all other rights must be preserved, by soundness of sense and honesty of heart.
Compared with these, what are a bill of rights, or any characters drawn upon paper or parchment, those frail remembrancers?
Do we want to be reminded, that the sun enlightens, warms, invigorates, and cheers or how horrid it would be, to have his blessed beams intercepted, by our being thrust into mines or dungeons?
Liberty is the sun of freemen, and the beams are their rights.
“It is the duty which every man owes to his country, his friends, his posterity, and himself, to maintain to the utmost of his power this valuable palladium in all its rights; to restore it to its antient dignity, if at all impaired by the different value of property, or otherwise deviated from its first institution; to amend it, wherever it is defective;”[d] and above all, to guard with the most jealous circumspection against the new and arbitrary methods of trial, which, under a variety of plausible pretences, may in time imperceptibly undermine this best preservative of liberty.”[e]
Trial by jury is our birth-right; and tempted to his own ruin, by some seducing spirit, must be the man, who in opposition to the genius of United America, shall dare to attempt its subversion.
In the proposed confederation, it is preserved inviolable in criminal cases, and cannot be altered in other respects, but when the genius of United America demands it.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by John Dickinson
May 19, 1788
Happily for us our ancestors thought otherwise.
They were not so over-nice & curious, as to refuse blessings, because they might possibly be abused.
They perceived, that the uses included were great and manifest.
Perhaps they did not foresee, that from this acorn, as it were, would grow up oaks, that changing their native soil for another element, would bound over raging mountains of waters, bestow and receive benefits around the globe, and secure the just liberties of the nation for a long succession of ages.(a)
As to abuses, they trusted to their own spirit for preventing or correcting them.
And worthy is it of deep consideration by every friend of freedom, that abuses that seem to be but “trifles,”(b) may be attended by fatal consequences.
What can be “trifling,” that diminishes or detracts from the only defence, that ever was found against “open attacks and secret machinations.”(c)
It originates from a knowledge of human nature.
With a superior force, wisdom, and benevolence united, it rives the difficulties that have distressed, or destroyed the rest of mankind.
It reconciles contradictions, immensity of power, with safety of private station.
It is ever new & always the same.
Trial by jury and the dependance of taxation upon representation, those corner stones of liberty, were not obtained by a bill of rights, or any other records, and have not been and cannot be preserved by them.
They and all other rights must be preserved, by soundness of sense and honesty of heart.
Compared with these, what are a bill of rights, or any characters drawn upon paper or parchment, those frail remembrancers?
Do we want to be reminded, that the sun enlightens, warms, invigorates, and cheers or how horrid it would be, to have his blessed beams intercepted, by our being thrust into mines or dungeons?
Liberty is the sun of freemen, and the beams are their rights.
“It is the duty which every man owes to his country, his friends, his posterity, and himself, to maintain to the utmost of his power this valuable palladium in all its rights; to restore it to its antient dignity, if at all impaired by the different value of property, or otherwise deviated from its first institution; to amend it, wherever it is defective;”[d] and above all, to guard with the most jealous circumspection against the new and arbitrary methods of trial, which, under a variety of plausible pretences, may in time imperceptibly undermine this best preservative of liberty.”[e]
Trial by jury is our birth-right; and tempted to his own ruin, by some seducing spirit, must be the man, who in opposition to the genius of United America, shall dare to attempt its subversion.
In the proposed confederation, it is preserved inviolable in criminal cases, and cannot be altered in other respects, but when the genius of United America demands it.
TO BE CONTINUED ...