Fabius IV, concluded ...
by John Dickinson
May 19, 1788
There seems to be a disposition in men to find fault, no difficult matter, rather than to do right.
The works of creation itself have been objected to: and one learned prince declared, that if he had been consulted, they would have been improved.
With what book has so much fault been found, as with the Bible?
Perhaps, principally, because it so clearly and strongly enjoins men to do right.
How many, how plausible objections have been made against it, with how much ardor, with how much pains?
Yet, the book has done an immensity of good in the world; would do more, if duly regarded; and might lead the objectors themselves and their posterity to perpetual happiness, if they would value it as they ought.
When objections are made to a system of high import, should they not be weighed against the benefits?
Are these great, positive, immediate?
Is there a chance of endangering them by rejection or delay?
May they not be attained without admitting the objections, supposing the objections to be well founded?
If the objections are well founded, may they not be hereafter admitted, without danger disgust, or inconvenience?
Is the system so formed, that they may be thus admitted?
May they not be of less efficacy, than they are thought to be by their authors?
Are they not designed to hinder evils, which are generally deemed to be sufficiently provided against?
May not the admission of them prevent benefits, that might otherwise be obtained?
In political affairs, is it not more safe and advantageous, for all to agree in measures that may not be best, than to quarrel among themselves, what are best?
When questions of this kind with regard to the plan proposed, are calmly considered, it seems reasonable to hope, that every faithful citizen of United America, will make up his mind, with much satisfaction to himself, and advantage to his country.
(a) Blackstone, III, 379.4.
(b) Idem, IV, 350.
(c) Idem, III, 381.
(d) See an enumeration of defects in trials by jury, Blackstone, III, 381.
(e) Idem, IIII, 350.
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (1788)
by James Madison
May 22, 1788
The proposed Constitution still engrosses the public attention.
The elections for the Convention here are but just over and promulged.
From the returns, (excepting those from Kentucky, which are not yet known,) it seems probably, though not absolutely certain, that a majority of the members elect are friends to the Constitution.
The superiority of abilities, at least seems to lie on that side.
The characters of most note which occur to me are marshaled thus: For the Constitution, Pendleton, Wythe, Blair, Innes, Marshall, Doctor W. Jones, G. Nicholas, Wilson Nicholas, Gabl Jones, Thomas Lewis, F. Corbin, Ralph Wormley Jr., White of Frederick, General Gates, General A. Stephens, Archibald Stuart, Zachy Johnson, Doctor Stuart, Parson Andrews, H. Lee, Jr., Bushrod Washington, considered as a young gentleman of talents; against the Constitution, Mr. Henry, Mason, Harrison, Grayson, Tyler, M. Smith, W. Ronald, Lawson, Bland, Wm. Cabell, Dawson.
The Governor is so temperate in his opposition, and goes so far with the friends of the Constitution, that he cannot properly be classed with its enemies.
Monroe is considered by some as an enemy; but I believe him to be a friend.
There are other individuals of weight whose opinions are unknown to me.
R. H. Lee is not elected.
His brother, F. L. Lee, is a warm friend to the Constitution, as I am told; but, also, is not elected.
So are John and Mann Page.
The adversaries take very different grounds of opposition.
Some are opposed to the substance of the plan; others, to particular modifications only.
Mr. Henry is supposed to aim at disunion.
Col. Mason is growing every day more bitter and outrageous in his efforts to carry his point, and will probably, in the end, be thrown by the violence of his passions into the politics of Mr. Henry.
The preliminary question will be, whether previous alterations shall be insisted on or not.
Should this be carried in the affirmative, either a conditional ratification or a proposal for a new Convention will ensue.
In either event, I think the Constitution and the Union will be both endangered.
It is not to be expected that the States which have ratified will reconsider their determinations, and submit to the alterations prescribed by Virginia.
And if a second Convention should be formed, it is as little to be expected that the same spirit of compromise will prevail in it as produced an amicable result to the first.
It will be easy, also, for those who have latent views of disunion, to carry them on under the mask of contending for alterations, popular in some, but inadmissible in other parts of the United States.
by James Madison
May 22, 1788
The proposed Constitution still engrosses the public attention.
The elections for the Convention here are but just over and promulged.
From the returns, (excepting those from Kentucky, which are not yet known,) it seems probably, though not absolutely certain, that a majority of the members elect are friends to the Constitution.
The superiority of abilities, at least seems to lie on that side.
The characters of most note which occur to me are marshaled thus: For the Constitution, Pendleton, Wythe, Blair, Innes, Marshall, Doctor W. Jones, G. Nicholas, Wilson Nicholas, Gabl Jones, Thomas Lewis, F. Corbin, Ralph Wormley Jr., White of Frederick, General Gates, General A. Stephens, Archibald Stuart, Zachy Johnson, Doctor Stuart, Parson Andrews, H. Lee, Jr., Bushrod Washington, considered as a young gentleman of talents; against the Constitution, Mr. Henry, Mason, Harrison, Grayson, Tyler, M. Smith, W. Ronald, Lawson, Bland, Wm. Cabell, Dawson.
The Governor is so temperate in his opposition, and goes so far with the friends of the Constitution, that he cannot properly be classed with its enemies.
Monroe is considered by some as an enemy; but I believe him to be a friend.
There are other individuals of weight whose opinions are unknown to me.
R. H. Lee is not elected.
His brother, F. L. Lee, is a warm friend to the Constitution, as I am told; but, also, is not elected.
So are John and Mann Page.
The adversaries take very different grounds of opposition.
Some are opposed to the substance of the plan; others, to particular modifications only.
Mr. Henry is supposed to aim at disunion.
Col. Mason is growing every day more bitter and outrageous in his efforts to carry his point, and will probably, in the end, be thrown by the violence of his passions into the politics of Mr. Henry.
The preliminary question will be, whether previous alterations shall be insisted on or not.
Should this be carried in the affirmative, either a conditional ratification or a proposal for a new Convention will ensue.
In either event, I think the Constitution and the Union will be both endangered.
It is not to be expected that the States which have ratified will reconsider their determinations, and submit to the alterations prescribed by Virginia.
And if a second Convention should be formed, it is as little to be expected that the same spirit of compromise will prevail in it as produced an amicable result to the first.
It will be easy, also, for those who have latent views of disunion, to carry them on under the mask of contending for alterations, popular in some, but inadmissible in other parts of the United States.
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (1788)
by James Madison
July 24, 1788
DEAR SIR
Your two last unacknowledged favors were of Decr. 20. and Feby. 6.
They were received in Virginia, and no opportunity till the present percarious one b the way of Holland, has enabled me to thank you for them.
I returned here about ten days ago from Richmond which I left a day or two after the dissolution of the Convention.
The final question on the new Government was put on the 25th of June.
It was twofold: 1. whether previous amendments should be made a condition of ratification. 2. directly on the Constitution in the form it bore.
On the first the decision was in the negative, 88 being no, 80 only ay.
On the second & definitive question, the ratification was affirmed by 89 ayes against 79. noes.
A number of alterations were then recommended to be considered in the mode pointed out in the Constitution itself.
The meeting was remarkably full; two members only being absent and those known to be on the opposite sides of the question.
The debates also were conducted on the whole with a very laudable moderation and decorum, and continued until both sides declared themselves ready for the question.
And it may be safely concluded that no irregular opposition to the System will follow in that State, at least with the countenance of the leaders on that side.
What local eruptions may be occasioned by ill—timed or rigorous executions of the Treaty of peace against British debtors, I will not pretend to say.
But although the leaders, particularly H– and M-s-n, will give no countenance to popular violences, it is not to be inferred that they are reconciled to the event, or will give it a positive support.
On the contrary both of them declared they could not go that length, and an attempt was made under their auspices to induce the minority to sign an address to the people, which, if it had not been defeated by the general moderation of the party, would probably have done mischief.
Among a variety of expedients employed by the opponents to gain proselytes, Mr. Henry first, and after him Col. Mason, introduced the opinions expressed in a letter from a correspondent, (Mr. Donald or Skipwith, I believe,) and endeavoured to turn the influence of your name even against parts of which I knew you approved.
In this situation, I thought it due to truth as well as that it would be most agreeable to yourself and accordingly took the liberty to state some of your opinions on the favorable side.
I am informed that copies or extracts of a letter from you were handed about at the Maryland Convention with a like view of impeding the ratification.
N. Hampshire ratified the Constitution on the 21th Ult., and made the ninth state.
The votes stood 57 for, and 46 agst the measure.
S. Carolina had previously ratified by a very great majority.
The Convention of N. Carolina is now sitting.
At one moment the sense of that State was considered as strongly opposed to the system.
It is now said that the time has been for some time turning, which with the example of other States and particularly, of Virginia prognosticates a ratification there also.
The Convention of N. York has been in Session ever since the 17th. Utl: without having yet arrived at any final vote.
Two thirds of the members assembled with a determination to reject the Constitution, and are still opposed to it in their hearts.
The local situation of N. York, the number of ratifying States and the hope of retaining the federal Government in this City afford however powerful arguments to such men as Jay, Hamilton, the Chancellor, Duane and several others; and it is not improbably that some form of ratification will yet be devised by which the dislike of the opposition may be gratified, and the State notwithstanding made a member of the New Union.
At Fredericksburg on my way hither I found the box with Cork Acorns Sulla & peas, addressed to me.
I immediately had it forwarded to Orange from whence the Contests will be disposed of according to your order.
I fear the advanced season wil defeat the experiments.
The few seeds taken out here by the President at my request & sown in his garden have not come up.
I left directions in Virginia for obtaining acorns of the Wilow Oak this fall, which shall be sent you as soon as possible.
Col. Carrington tells me your request as to the Philosophical Transactions was complied with in part only, the 1st. volume being not to be had.
I have enquired of a Delegate here from Rhode Island for further information converning W. S. Brown, but can learn nothng precise.
I shall continue my enquires, and let you know hereafter the result.
July. 26.
We just hear that the Convention of this State have determined by a small majority to exclude from the ratification every thing involving a condition & to content themsleves with recommending the alterations wished for.
As this will go by way of Holland I consider its reaching you as extremely uncertain.
I forbear therefore to enter further into our public affairs at this time.
If the packets should not be discontinued, which is surmissed by some, I shall soon have an oppurtunity of writing again.
In the mean time I remain with the sincerst affaction Your friend & Servt.
Js. Madision JR.
P. S. Crops in Virginia of all sorts were very promising when I left the State. This was the case also generally thought. the States I passed thro’, with local exceptions produced in the Wheat fields by a destructive inscet which goes under the name of the Hessian fly. It made its first appearance several years ago on Long Island, from which it has spread over half this State, and a great part of New-Jersey; and seems to be making an annual progess in every direction.
by James Madison
July 24, 1788
DEAR SIR
Your two last unacknowledged favors were of Decr. 20. and Feby. 6.
They were received in Virginia, and no opportunity till the present percarious one b the way of Holland, has enabled me to thank you for them.
I returned here about ten days ago from Richmond which I left a day or two after the dissolution of the Convention.
The final question on the new Government was put on the 25th of June.
It was twofold: 1. whether previous amendments should be made a condition of ratification. 2. directly on the Constitution in the form it bore.
On the first the decision was in the negative, 88 being no, 80 only ay.
On the second & definitive question, the ratification was affirmed by 89 ayes against 79. noes.
A number of alterations were then recommended to be considered in the mode pointed out in the Constitution itself.
The meeting was remarkably full; two members only being absent and those known to be on the opposite sides of the question.
The debates also were conducted on the whole with a very laudable moderation and decorum, and continued until both sides declared themselves ready for the question.
And it may be safely concluded that no irregular opposition to the System will follow in that State, at least with the countenance of the leaders on that side.
What local eruptions may be occasioned by ill—timed or rigorous executions of the Treaty of peace against British debtors, I will not pretend to say.
But although the leaders, particularly H– and M-s-n, will give no countenance to popular violences, it is not to be inferred that they are reconciled to the event, or will give it a positive support.
On the contrary both of them declared they could not go that length, and an attempt was made under their auspices to induce the minority to sign an address to the people, which, if it had not been defeated by the general moderation of the party, would probably have done mischief.
Among a variety of expedients employed by the opponents to gain proselytes, Mr. Henry first, and after him Col. Mason, introduced the opinions expressed in a letter from a correspondent, (Mr. Donald or Skipwith, I believe,) and endeavoured to turn the influence of your name even against parts of which I knew you approved.
In this situation, I thought it due to truth as well as that it would be most agreeable to yourself and accordingly took the liberty to state some of your opinions on the favorable side.
I am informed that copies or extracts of a letter from you were handed about at the Maryland Convention with a like view of impeding the ratification.
N. Hampshire ratified the Constitution on the 21th Ult., and made the ninth state.
The votes stood 57 for, and 46 agst the measure.
S. Carolina had previously ratified by a very great majority.
The Convention of N. Carolina is now sitting.
At one moment the sense of that State was considered as strongly opposed to the system.
It is now said that the time has been for some time turning, which with the example of other States and particularly, of Virginia prognosticates a ratification there also.
The Convention of N. York has been in Session ever since the 17th. Utl: without having yet arrived at any final vote.
Two thirds of the members assembled with a determination to reject the Constitution, and are still opposed to it in their hearts.
The local situation of N. York, the number of ratifying States and the hope of retaining the federal Government in this City afford however powerful arguments to such men as Jay, Hamilton, the Chancellor, Duane and several others; and it is not improbably that some form of ratification will yet be devised by which the dislike of the opposition may be gratified, and the State notwithstanding made a member of the New Union.
At Fredericksburg on my way hither I found the box with Cork Acorns Sulla & peas, addressed to me.
I immediately had it forwarded to Orange from whence the Contests will be disposed of according to your order.
I fear the advanced season wil defeat the experiments.
The few seeds taken out here by the President at my request & sown in his garden have not come up.
I left directions in Virginia for obtaining acorns of the Wilow Oak this fall, which shall be sent you as soon as possible.
Col. Carrington tells me your request as to the Philosophical Transactions was complied with in part only, the 1st. volume being not to be had.
I have enquired of a Delegate here from Rhode Island for further information converning W. S. Brown, but can learn nothng precise.
I shall continue my enquires, and let you know hereafter the result.
July. 26.
We just hear that the Convention of this State have determined by a small majority to exclude from the ratification every thing involving a condition & to content themsleves with recommending the alterations wished for.
As this will go by way of Holland I consider its reaching you as extremely uncertain.
I forbear therefore to enter further into our public affairs at this time.
If the packets should not be discontinued, which is surmissed by some, I shall soon have an oppurtunity of writing again.
In the mean time I remain with the sincerst affaction Your friend & Servt.
Js. Madision JR.
P. S. Crops in Virginia of all sorts were very promising when I left the State. This was the case also generally thought. the States I passed thro’, with local exceptions produced in the Wheat fields by a destructive inscet which goes under the name of the Hessian fly. It made its first appearance several years ago on Long Island, from which it has spread over half this State, and a great part of New-Jersey; and seems to be making an annual progess in every direction.
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (1788): Improving the Constitution"
by Thomas Jefferson
July 31, 1788
EDITED AND INTRODUCED BY GORDON LLOYD
What rights does Thomas Jefferson think that the general voice of America is calling for?
Which of these rights does James Madison include in his proposals to Congress? (See James Madison's "Speech on Amendments to the Constitution." (1789).)
How does Thomas Jefferson’s list of rights compare with those requested at the Virginia and New York Ratifying Conventions? (See the "Virginia Ratifying Convention" (1788).)
Has his list expanded or contracted from those contained in Thomas Jefferson's letter to James Madison?
Introduction
James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson in Paris, where Jefferson was serving as Ambassador, that the U.S. Constitution had been ratified, thus avoiding the danger of a second convention, as well as the adoption of unfriendly amendments as a condition for ratification.
Madison was relieved and optimistic.
In this response, Jefferson reminded Madison that there was still much work to be done: the Constitution is a “good canvas” that needs to be retouched with a bill of rights.
Madison had heard this argument before, but in 1787–1788 he was focused on creating the Constitution, and then seeing it adopted.
With the adoption of the Constitution, Madison was finally willing to entertain the idea of adopting a bill of rights.
But this adoption, he would argue, must not undermine the Constitution.
There was no going back to the Articles of Confederation in the move forward to incorporate a bill of rights.
Jefferson, less worried by the dangers of constitutional revision, would soon experience the tumult of the French Revolution.
—Gordon Lloyd
Source: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 31 July 1788 (Founders Online), https://goo.gl/m1Jz4E. For ease of reading, we have added paragraph divisions.
. . . I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new Constitution by nine states.
It is a good canvas, on which some strokes only want retouching.
What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from north to south, which calls for a bill of rights.
It seems pretty generally understood, that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies.
I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modifications of these, suited to the habits of all the states.
But if such cannot be found, then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies in all cases, than not to do it in any.
The few cases wherein these things may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil.
In disputes between a foreigner and a native, a trial by jury may be improper.
But if this exception cannot be agreed to, the remedy will be to model the jury by giving the mediatas linguae,[1] in civil as well as criminal cases.
Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions?
The parties who may be arrested, may be charged instantly with a well-defined crime.
Of course, the judge will remand them.
If the public safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government, for damages. . .
A declaration, that the federal government will never restrain the presses from printing any thing they please, will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed.
The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished, does not give impunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error.
The saying there shall be no monopolies, lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression.
If no check can be found to keep the number of standing troops within safe bounds, while they are tolerated as far as necessary, abandon them altogether, discipline well the militia, and guard the magazines with them.
More than magazine guards will be useless, if few, and dangerous, if many.
No European nation can ever send against us such a regular army as we need fear, and it is hard if our militia are not equal to those of Canada or Florida.
My idea, then, is that though proper exceptions to these general rules are desirable and probably practicable, yet if the exceptions cannot be agreed on, the establishment of the rules, in all cases, will do ill in very few.
I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government, as they are already guarded against their state governments, in most instances.
The abandoning the principle of necessary rotation in the Senate has, I see, been disapproved by many; in the case of the President, by none.
I readily therefore suppose my opinion is wrong, when opposed by the majority as in the former instance, and the totality as in the latter.
In this however I should have done it with more complete satisfaction, had we all judged from the same position. . . .
FOOTNOTES
1. Medietas linguae, a Latin expression meaning “half tongue,” indicates that in the criminal trial of a foreigner or alien, a jury has been composed one half of natives and one half of foreigners.
by Thomas Jefferson
July 31, 1788
EDITED AND INTRODUCED BY GORDON LLOYD
What rights does Thomas Jefferson think that the general voice of America is calling for?
Which of these rights does James Madison include in his proposals to Congress? (See James Madison's "Speech on Amendments to the Constitution." (1789).)
How does Thomas Jefferson’s list of rights compare with those requested at the Virginia and New York Ratifying Conventions? (See the "Virginia Ratifying Convention" (1788).)
Has his list expanded or contracted from those contained in Thomas Jefferson's letter to James Madison?
Introduction
James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson in Paris, where Jefferson was serving as Ambassador, that the U.S. Constitution had been ratified, thus avoiding the danger of a second convention, as well as the adoption of unfriendly amendments as a condition for ratification.
Madison was relieved and optimistic.
In this response, Jefferson reminded Madison that there was still much work to be done: the Constitution is a “good canvas” that needs to be retouched with a bill of rights.
Madison had heard this argument before, but in 1787–1788 he was focused on creating the Constitution, and then seeing it adopted.
With the adoption of the Constitution, Madison was finally willing to entertain the idea of adopting a bill of rights.
But this adoption, he would argue, must not undermine the Constitution.
There was no going back to the Articles of Confederation in the move forward to incorporate a bill of rights.
Jefferson, less worried by the dangers of constitutional revision, would soon experience the tumult of the French Revolution.
—Gordon Lloyd
Source: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 31 July 1788 (Founders Online), https://goo.gl/m1Jz4E. For ease of reading, we have added paragraph divisions.
. . . I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new Constitution by nine states.
It is a good canvas, on which some strokes only want retouching.
What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from north to south, which calls for a bill of rights.
It seems pretty generally understood, that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies.
I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modifications of these, suited to the habits of all the states.
But if such cannot be found, then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies in all cases, than not to do it in any.
The few cases wherein these things may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil.
In disputes between a foreigner and a native, a trial by jury may be improper.
But if this exception cannot be agreed to, the remedy will be to model the jury by giving the mediatas linguae,[1] in civil as well as criminal cases.
Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions?
The parties who may be arrested, may be charged instantly with a well-defined crime.
Of course, the judge will remand them.
If the public safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government, for damages. . .
A declaration, that the federal government will never restrain the presses from printing any thing they please, will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed.
The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished, does not give impunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error.
The saying there shall be no monopolies, lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression.
If no check can be found to keep the number of standing troops within safe bounds, while they are tolerated as far as necessary, abandon them altogether, discipline well the militia, and guard the magazines with them.
More than magazine guards will be useless, if few, and dangerous, if many.
No European nation can ever send against us such a regular army as we need fear, and it is hard if our militia are not equal to those of Canada or Florida.
My idea, then, is that though proper exceptions to these general rules are desirable and probably practicable, yet if the exceptions cannot be agreed on, the establishment of the rules, in all cases, will do ill in very few.
I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government, as they are already guarded against their state governments, in most instances.
The abandoning the principle of necessary rotation in the Senate has, I see, been disapproved by many; in the case of the President, by none.
I readily therefore suppose my opinion is wrong, when opposed by the majority as in the former instance, and the totality as in the latter.
In this however I should have done it with more complete satisfaction, had we all judged from the same position. . . .
FOOTNOTES
1. Medietas linguae, a Latin expression meaning “half tongue,” indicates that in the criminal trial of a foreigner or alien, a jury has been composed one half of natives and one half of foreigners.
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson (1788)
by George Washington
August 31, 1788
Dear Sir:
I was very much gratified by the receipt of your letter, dated the 3d. of May.
You have my best thanks for the political information contained in it, as well as for the satisfactory account of the Canal of Languedoc.
It gives me pleasure to be made acquainted with the particulars of that stupendous Work, tho’ I do not expect to derive any but speculative advantages from it.
When America will be able to embark in projects of such pecuniary extent, I know not; probably not for very many years to come; but it will be a good example and not without its use, if we can carry our present undertakings happily into effect.
Of this we have now the fairest prospect.
Notwithstanding the real scarcity of money, and the difficulty of collecting it, the labourers employed by the Potomack Company have made very great progress in removing the obstructions at the Shenandoah, Seneca and Great Falls.
Insomuch that, if this Summer had not proved unusually rainy and if we could have had a favourable autumn, the Navigation might have been sufficiently opened (though not completed) for Boats to have passed from Fort Cumberland to within nine miles of a Shipping port by the first of January next.
There remains now no doubt of the practicability of the Plan, or that, upon the ulterior operations being performed, this will become the great avenue into the Western Country; a country which is now settg. in an extraordinarily rapid manner, under uncommonly favorable circumstances, and which promises to afford a capacious asylum for the poor and persecuted of the Earth.
I do not pretend to judge how far the flames of war, which are kindled in the North of Europe, may be scattered; or how soon they will be extinguished.
The European politics have taken so strange a turn, and the Nations formerly allied have become so curiously severed, that there are fewer sure premises for calculation, than are usually afforded, even on that precarious and doubtful subject.
But it appears probable to me, that peace will either take place this year, or hostility be greatly extended in the course of the next.
The want of a hearty co-operation between the two Imperial Powers against the Porte; or the failure of success from any other cause, may accelerate the first contingency; the irritable state into wch. several of the other Potentates seem to have been drawn, may open the way to the secd.
Hitherto the event of the contest has proved different from the general expectation.
If, in our speculations, we might count upon discipline, system and resource, and certainly these are the articles which generally give decisive advantages in War, I had thought full—surely the Turks must, at least, have been driven out of Europe.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by George Washington
August 31, 1788
Dear Sir:
I was very much gratified by the receipt of your letter, dated the 3d. of May.
You have my best thanks for the political information contained in it, as well as for the satisfactory account of the Canal of Languedoc.
It gives me pleasure to be made acquainted with the particulars of that stupendous Work, tho’ I do not expect to derive any but speculative advantages from it.
When America will be able to embark in projects of such pecuniary extent, I know not; probably not for very many years to come; but it will be a good example and not without its use, if we can carry our present undertakings happily into effect.
Of this we have now the fairest prospect.
Notwithstanding the real scarcity of money, and the difficulty of collecting it, the labourers employed by the Potomack Company have made very great progress in removing the obstructions at the Shenandoah, Seneca and Great Falls.
Insomuch that, if this Summer had not proved unusually rainy and if we could have had a favourable autumn, the Navigation might have been sufficiently opened (though not completed) for Boats to have passed from Fort Cumberland to within nine miles of a Shipping port by the first of January next.
There remains now no doubt of the practicability of the Plan, or that, upon the ulterior operations being performed, this will become the great avenue into the Western Country; a country which is now settg. in an extraordinarily rapid manner, under uncommonly favorable circumstances, and which promises to afford a capacious asylum for the poor and persecuted of the Earth.
I do not pretend to judge how far the flames of war, which are kindled in the North of Europe, may be scattered; or how soon they will be extinguished.
The European politics have taken so strange a turn, and the Nations formerly allied have become so curiously severed, that there are fewer sure premises for calculation, than are usually afforded, even on that precarious and doubtful subject.
But it appears probable to me, that peace will either take place this year, or hostility be greatly extended in the course of the next.
The want of a hearty co-operation between the two Imperial Powers against the Porte; or the failure of success from any other cause, may accelerate the first contingency; the irritable state into wch. several of the other Potentates seem to have been drawn, may open the way to the secd.
Hitherto the event of the contest has proved different from the general expectation.
If, in our speculations, we might count upon discipline, system and resource, and certainly these are the articles which generally give decisive advantages in War, I had thought full—surely the Turks must, at least, have been driven out of Europe.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson (1788)
by George Washington
August 31, 1788
Is it not unaccountable that the Russians and Germans combined, are not able to effect so much, as the former did alone in the late War?
But perhaps these things are all for the best and may afford room for pacification.
I am glad our Commodore Paul Jones has got employment, and heartily wish him success.
His new situation may possibly render his talents and services more useful to us at some future day.
I was unapprised of the circumstances which you mention, that Congress had once in contemplation to give him promotion.
They will judge now how far it may be expedient.
By what we can learn from the late foreign Gazettes, affairs seem to have come to a crisis in France; and I hope they are beginning to meliorate.
Should the contest between the King and the Parliaments result in a well constituted National Assembly, it might ultimately be a happy event for the kingdom.
But I fear that Kingdom will not recover its reputation and influence with the Dutch for a long time to come.
Combinations appear also to be forming in other quarters.
It is reported by the last European accounts that England has actually entered into a Treaty with Prussia; and that the French Ambassador at the Court of London has asked to be informed of its tenor.
In whatever manner the Nations of Europe shall endeavor to keep up their prowess in war and their ballance of power in peace, it will be obviously our policy to cultivate tranquility at home and abroad; and extend our agriculture and commerce as far as possible.
I am much obliged by the information you give respecting the credit of different Nations among the Dutch Money—holders; and fully accord with you with regard to the manner in which our own ought to be used.
I am strongly impressed with the expediency of establishing our National faith beyond imputation, and of having recourse to loans only on critical occasions.
Your proposal for transferring the whole foreign debt to Holland is highly worthy of consideration.
I feel mortified that there should have been any just grd. for the clamour of the foreign Officers who served with us; but, after having received a quarter of their whole debt in specie and their interest in the same for sometime, they have infinitely less reason for complaint than our native Officers, of whom the suffering and neglect have only been equalled by their patience and patriotism.
A great proportion of the Officers and Soldiers of the American Army have been compelled by indigence to part with their securities for one eighth of the nominal value.
Yet their conduct is very different from what you represented that of the French Officers to have been.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by George Washington
August 31, 1788
Is it not unaccountable that the Russians and Germans combined, are not able to effect so much, as the former did alone in the late War?
But perhaps these things are all for the best and may afford room for pacification.
I am glad our Commodore Paul Jones has got employment, and heartily wish him success.
His new situation may possibly render his talents and services more useful to us at some future day.
I was unapprised of the circumstances which you mention, that Congress had once in contemplation to give him promotion.
They will judge now how far it may be expedient.
By what we can learn from the late foreign Gazettes, affairs seem to have come to a crisis in France; and I hope they are beginning to meliorate.
Should the contest between the King and the Parliaments result in a well constituted National Assembly, it might ultimately be a happy event for the kingdom.
But I fear that Kingdom will not recover its reputation and influence with the Dutch for a long time to come.
Combinations appear also to be forming in other quarters.
It is reported by the last European accounts that England has actually entered into a Treaty with Prussia; and that the French Ambassador at the Court of London has asked to be informed of its tenor.
In whatever manner the Nations of Europe shall endeavor to keep up their prowess in war and their ballance of power in peace, it will be obviously our policy to cultivate tranquility at home and abroad; and extend our agriculture and commerce as far as possible.
I am much obliged by the information you give respecting the credit of different Nations among the Dutch Money—holders; and fully accord with you with regard to the manner in which our own ought to be used.
I am strongly impressed with the expediency of establishing our National faith beyond imputation, and of having recourse to loans only on critical occasions.
Your proposal for transferring the whole foreign debt to Holland is highly worthy of consideration.
I feel mortified that there should have been any just grd. for the clamour of the foreign Officers who served with us; but, after having received a quarter of their whole debt in specie and their interest in the same for sometime, they have infinitely less reason for complaint than our native Officers, of whom the suffering and neglect have only been equalled by their patience and patriotism.
A great proportion of the Officers and Soldiers of the American Army have been compelled by indigence to part with their securities for one eighth of the nominal value.
Yet their conduct is very different from what you represented that of the French Officers to have been.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson (1788), concluded ...
by George Washington
August 31, 1788
The merits and defects of the proposed Constitution have been largely and ably discussed.
For myself, I was ready to have embraced any tolerable compromise that was competent to save us from impending ruin; and I can say, there are scarcely any of the amendments which have been suggested, to which I have much objection, except that which goes to the prevention of direct taxation; and that, I presume, will be more strenously advocated and insisted upon hereafter, than any other.
I had indulged the expectation, that the New Government would enable those entrusted with its Administration to do justice to the public creditors and retrieve the National character.
But if no means are to be employed but requisitions, that expectation was vain and we may as well recur to the old Confoederation.
If the system can be put in operation without touching much the Pockets of the People, perhaps, it may be done; but, in my judgment, infinite circumspection and prudence are yet necessary in the experiment.
It is nearly impossible for anybody who has not been on the spot to conceive (from any description) what the delicacy and danger of our situation have been.
Though the peril is not past entirely; thank God! the prospect is somewhat brightening.
You will probably have heard before the receipt of this letter, that the general government has been adopted by eleven States; and that the actual Congress have been prevented from issuing their ordinance for carrying it into execution, in consequence of a dispute about the place at which the future Congress shall meet.
It is probable that Philadelphia or New York will soon be agreed upon.
I will just touch on the bright side of our national State, before I conclude: and we may perhaps rejoice that the People have been ripened by misfortune for the reception of a good government.
They are emerging from the gulf of dissipation and debt into which they had precipitated themselves at the close of the war.
Our economy and industry are evidently gaining ground.
Not only Agriculture; but even Manufactures are much more attended to than formerly.
Notwithstanding the shackles under which our trade in general labours; commerce to the East Indies is prosecuted with considerable success: Salted provisions and other produce (particularly from Massachusetts) have found an advantageous market there.
The Voyages are so much shorter and the vessels are navigated at so much less expence, that we hope to rival and supply (at least through the West Indies) some part of Europe, with commodities from thence.
This year the exports from Massachusetts have amounted to a great deal more than their exports [sic].
I wish this was the case everywhere.
On the subject of our commerce with France, I have received several quaeries from the Count de Moustiers; besides the information he desired relative to articles of importation from and exportation to France, he wished to know my opinion of the advantage or detriment of the Contract between Mr. Morris and the Farm; as also what emoluments we had to to give in return for the favors we solicited in our intercourse with the Islands.
As I knew that these topics were also in agitation in France, I gave him the most faithful and satisfactory advice I could: but in such a cautious manner as might not be likely to contradict your assertions or impede your negotiations in Europe.
With sentiments of the highest regard etc.
by George Washington
August 31, 1788
The merits and defects of the proposed Constitution have been largely and ably discussed.
For myself, I was ready to have embraced any tolerable compromise that was competent to save us from impending ruin; and I can say, there are scarcely any of the amendments which have been suggested, to which I have much objection, except that which goes to the prevention of direct taxation; and that, I presume, will be more strenously advocated and insisted upon hereafter, than any other.
I had indulged the expectation, that the New Government would enable those entrusted with its Administration to do justice to the public creditors and retrieve the National character.
But if no means are to be employed but requisitions, that expectation was vain and we may as well recur to the old Confoederation.
If the system can be put in operation without touching much the Pockets of the People, perhaps, it may be done; but, in my judgment, infinite circumspection and prudence are yet necessary in the experiment.
It is nearly impossible for anybody who has not been on the spot to conceive (from any description) what the delicacy and danger of our situation have been.
Though the peril is not past entirely; thank God! the prospect is somewhat brightening.
You will probably have heard before the receipt of this letter, that the general government has been adopted by eleven States; and that the actual Congress have been prevented from issuing their ordinance for carrying it into execution, in consequence of a dispute about the place at which the future Congress shall meet.
It is probable that Philadelphia or New York will soon be agreed upon.
I will just touch on the bright side of our national State, before I conclude: and we may perhaps rejoice that the People have been ripened by misfortune for the reception of a good government.
They are emerging from the gulf of dissipation and debt into which they had precipitated themselves at the close of the war.
Our economy and industry are evidently gaining ground.
Not only Agriculture; but even Manufactures are much more attended to than formerly.
Notwithstanding the shackles under which our trade in general labours; commerce to the East Indies is prosecuted with considerable success: Salted provisions and other produce (particularly from Massachusetts) have found an advantageous market there.
The Voyages are so much shorter and the vessels are navigated at so much less expence, that we hope to rival and supply (at least through the West Indies) some part of Europe, with commodities from thence.
This year the exports from Massachusetts have amounted to a great deal more than their exports [sic].
I wish this was the case everywhere.
On the subject of our commerce with France, I have received several quaeries from the Count de Moustiers; besides the information he desired relative to articles of importation from and exportation to France, he wished to know my opinion of the advantage or detriment of the Contract between Mr. Morris and the Farm; as also what emoluments we had to to give in return for the favors we solicited in our intercourse with the Islands.
As I knew that these topics were also in agitation in France, I gave him the most faithful and satisfactory advice I could: but in such a cautious manner as might not be likely to contradict your assertions or impede your negotiations in Europe.
With sentiments of the highest regard etc.
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
“If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can”: Madison and Jefferson Discuss the Constitution
by James Madison & Thomas Jefferson
October 17, 1788 - March 15, 1789
Introduction
After the Constitution was presented to the states for ratification in September 1787, a widespread period of public debate over the merits of the plan began.
Newspapers ran editorial essays by both proponents of the new system (who became known as Federalists) and those who opposed it for various reasons (who became known as Anti-Federalists).
Among the many points of contention, the most fundamental issue was whether or not the more energetic national government proposed by the Constitution would (either immediately or eventually) subsume the state governments.
And related to that: could the people of the United States maintain their freedom under such a powerful national government, without the intervening layers of accountability and representation?
These concerns dominated the exchange between the two factions, and, as Robert Yates pointed out in Brutus I, they were fundamental to the discussion of any other features of the plan.
The ratification debates opened up an ongoing reflection on the regional differences between the various member states of the Union that would not be resolved until well after the Civil War.
Federalist 10 considers this important political question of the relationship between liberty and faction, observing that insofar as men are free, they are liable to adopt different opinions and interests that put them into conflict with one another.
Even the proponents of the Constitution did not find the system flawless: among others, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison shared anti-Federalists’ concerns about the lack of a Bill of Rights in the draft presented to the states for ratification.
Explicit protections for individual rights against the power of the new federal government would, they argued, work to mitigate any tendencies towards consolidation and tyranny the new system of government might have.
“From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 17 October 1788,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://goo.gl/pYa9C3; “From Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 15 March 1789,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://goo.gl/cNvZRt.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by James Madison & Thomas Jefferson
October 17, 1788 - March 15, 1789
Introduction
After the Constitution was presented to the states for ratification in September 1787, a widespread period of public debate over the merits of the plan began.
Newspapers ran editorial essays by both proponents of the new system (who became known as Federalists) and those who opposed it for various reasons (who became known as Anti-Federalists).
Among the many points of contention, the most fundamental issue was whether or not the more energetic national government proposed by the Constitution would (either immediately or eventually) subsume the state governments.
And related to that: could the people of the United States maintain their freedom under such a powerful national government, without the intervening layers of accountability and representation?
These concerns dominated the exchange between the two factions, and, as Robert Yates pointed out in Brutus I, they were fundamental to the discussion of any other features of the plan.
The ratification debates opened up an ongoing reflection on the regional differences between the various member states of the Union that would not be resolved until well after the Civil War.
Federalist 10 considers this important political question of the relationship between liberty and faction, observing that insofar as men are free, they are liable to adopt different opinions and interests that put them into conflict with one another.
Even the proponents of the Constitution did not find the system flawless: among others, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison shared anti-Federalists’ concerns about the lack of a Bill of Rights in the draft presented to the states for ratification.
Explicit protections for individual rights against the power of the new federal government would, they argued, work to mitigate any tendencies towards consolidation and tyranny the new system of government might have.
“From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 17 October 1788,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://goo.gl/pYa9C3; “From Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 15 March 1789,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://goo.gl/cNvZRt.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
“If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can”: Madison and Jefferson Discuss the Constitution, continued ...
by James Madison & Thomas Jefferson
October 17, 1788 - March 15, 1789
Madison to Jefferson: New York, October 17, 1788
. . . The little pamphlet1 herewith enclosed will give you a collective view of the alterations which have been proposed for the new Constitution.
Various and numerous as they appear they certainly omit many of the true grounds of opposition.
The articles relating to Treatises, to paper money, and to contracts, created more enemies than all errors in the System positive and negative put together.
It is true nevertheless that not a few, particularly in Virginia have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable and patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty and individual rights.
As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution.
There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety.
My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration.2
At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others.
I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice.
I have not viewed it in an important light.
1. Because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson, the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted.
2. Because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude.
I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to the public definition[,] would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.
One of the objections in New England was that the Constitution by prohibiting religious tests opened a door for Jews, Turks and infidels.
3. Because the limited powers of the federal Government and the jealousy of the subordinate Governments, afford a security which has not existed in the case of the State Governments, and exists in no other.
4. Because experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its control is most needed.
Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State.
In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current.
Notwithstanding the explicit provision contained in that instrument for the rights of Conscience it is well known that a religious establishment would have taken place and on narrower ground than was then proposed, notwithstanding the additional obstacle which the law has since created.
Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by James Madison & Thomas Jefferson
October 17, 1788 - March 15, 1789
Madison to Jefferson: New York, October 17, 1788
. . . The little pamphlet1 herewith enclosed will give you a collective view of the alterations which have been proposed for the new Constitution.
Various and numerous as they appear they certainly omit many of the true grounds of opposition.
The articles relating to Treatises, to paper money, and to contracts, created more enemies than all errors in the System positive and negative put together.
It is true nevertheless that not a few, particularly in Virginia have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable and patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty and individual rights.
As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution.
There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety.
My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration.2
At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others.
I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice.
I have not viewed it in an important light.
1. Because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson, the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted.
2. Because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude.
I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to the public definition[,] would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.
One of the objections in New England was that the Constitution by prohibiting religious tests opened a door for Jews, Turks and infidels.
3. Because the limited powers of the federal Government and the jealousy of the subordinate Governments, afford a security which has not existed in the case of the State Governments, and exists in no other.
4. Because experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its control is most needed.
Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State.
In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current.
Notwithstanding the explicit provision contained in that instrument for the rights of Conscience it is well known that a religious establishment would have taken place and on narrower ground than was then proposed, notwithstanding the additional obstacle which the law has since created.
Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICA
“If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can”: Madison and Jefferson Discuss the Constitution, continued ...
by James Madison & Thomas Jefferson
October 17, 1788 - March 15, 1789
Madison to Jefferson: New York, October 17, 1788, continued ...
In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the majority of the constituents.
This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to: and is probably more strongly impressed on my mind by facts, and reflections suggested by them, than on yours which has contemplated abuses of power issuing from a very different quarter.
Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful and interested party than by a powerful and interested prince.
The difference, so far as it relates to the superiority of republics over monarchies, lies in the less degree of probability that interest may prompt abuses of power in the former than in the latter; and in the security in the former against oppression of more than the smaller part of the Society, whereas in the former [Madison seems to have erred, writing “former” when he meant “latter” – ie., in monarchies] it may be extended in a manner to the whole.
The difference so far as it relates to the point in question – the efficacy of a bill of rights in controlling abuses of power – lies in this: that in a monarchy the latent force of the nation is superior to that of the Sovereign, and a solemn charter of popular rights must have a great effect, as a standard for trying the validity of public acts, and a signal for rousing and uniting the superior force of the community; whereas in a popular Government, the political and physical power may be considered as vested in the same hands, that is in a majority of the people, and consequently the tyrannical will of the sovereign is not to be controlled by the dread of an appeal to any other force within the community.
What use then it may be asked can a bill of rights serve in popular Governments?
I answer the two following, which, though less essential than in other Governments, sufficiently recommend the precaution.
1. The political truths declared that in solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion.
2. Although it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter sources; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community.
Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers, may by gradual and well-timed advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty.
Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard against it, especially when the precaution can do no injury.
At the same time I must own that I see no tendency in our governments to danger on that side.
It has been remarked that there is a tendency in all Governments to an augmentation of power at the expense of liberty.
But the remark as usually understood does not appear to me well founded.
Power when it has attained a certain degree of energy and independence goes on generally to further degrees.
But when below that degree, the direct tendency is to further degrees of relaxation, until the abuses of liberty beget a sudden transition to an undue degree of power.
With this explanation the remark may be true; and in the latter sense only is it in my opinion applicable to the Governments in America.
It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power; and that the line which divides these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by James Madison & Thomas Jefferson
October 17, 1788 - March 15, 1789
Madison to Jefferson: New York, October 17, 1788, continued ...
In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the majority of the constituents.
This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to: and is probably more strongly impressed on my mind by facts, and reflections suggested by them, than on yours which has contemplated abuses of power issuing from a very different quarter.
Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful and interested party than by a powerful and interested prince.
The difference, so far as it relates to the superiority of republics over monarchies, lies in the less degree of probability that interest may prompt abuses of power in the former than in the latter; and in the security in the former against oppression of more than the smaller part of the Society, whereas in the former [Madison seems to have erred, writing “former” when he meant “latter” – ie., in monarchies] it may be extended in a manner to the whole.
The difference so far as it relates to the point in question – the efficacy of a bill of rights in controlling abuses of power – lies in this: that in a monarchy the latent force of the nation is superior to that of the Sovereign, and a solemn charter of popular rights must have a great effect, as a standard for trying the validity of public acts, and a signal for rousing and uniting the superior force of the community; whereas in a popular Government, the political and physical power may be considered as vested in the same hands, that is in a majority of the people, and consequently the tyrannical will of the sovereign is not to be controlled by the dread of an appeal to any other force within the community.
What use then it may be asked can a bill of rights serve in popular Governments?
I answer the two following, which, though less essential than in other Governments, sufficiently recommend the precaution.
1. The political truths declared that in solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion.
2. Although it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter sources; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community.
Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers, may by gradual and well-timed advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty.
Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard against it, especially when the precaution can do no injury.
At the same time I must own that I see no tendency in our governments to danger on that side.
It has been remarked that there is a tendency in all Governments to an augmentation of power at the expense of liberty.
But the remark as usually understood does not appear to me well founded.
Power when it has attained a certain degree of energy and independence goes on generally to further degrees.
But when below that degree, the direct tendency is to further degrees of relaxation, until the abuses of liberty beget a sudden transition to an undue degree of power.
With this explanation the remark may be true; and in the latter sense only is it in my opinion applicable to the Governments in America.
It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power; and that the line which divides these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.
TO BE CONTINUED ...