DEAR SIR,

Thus I have examined the federal constitution as far as a few days

leisure would permit. It opens to my mind a new scene; instead of

seeing powers cautiously lodged in the hands of numerous legislators,

and many magistrates, we see all important powers collecting in one

centre, where a few men will possess them almost at discretion. And

instead of checks in the formation of the government, to secure the

rights of the people against the usurpations of those they appoint to

govern, we are to understand the equal division of lands among our

people, and the strong arm furnished them by nature and situation, are

to secure them against those usurpations. If there are advantages in

the equal division of our lands, and the strong and manly habits of our

people, we ought to establish governments calculated to give duration

to them, and not governments which never can work naturally, till

that equality of property, and those free and manly habits shall be

destroyed; these evidently are not the natural basis of the proposed

constitution. No man of reflection, and skilled in the science of

government, can suppose these will move on harmoniously together for

ages, or even for fifty years. As to the little circumstances commented

upon, by some writers, with applause—as the age of a representative,

of the president, &c.—they have, in my mind, no weight in the general

tendency of the system.

There are, however, in my opinion, many good things in the proposed

system. It is founded on elective principles, and the deposits of

powers in different hands, is essentially right. The guards against

those evils we have experienced in some states in legislation are

valuable indeed; but the value of every feature in this system is

vastly lessened for the want of that one important feature in a free

government, a representation of the people. Because we have sometimes

abused democracy, I am not among those men who think a democratic

branch a nuisance; which branch shall be sufficiently numerous to admit

some of the best informed men of each order in the community into the

administration of government.

While the radical defects in the proposed system are not so soon

discovered, some temptations to each state, and to many classes of

men to adopt it, are very visible. It uses the democratic language of

several of the state constitutions, particularly that of Massachusetts;

the eastern states will receive advantages so far as the regulation

of trade, by a bare majority, is committed to it: Connecticut and New

Jersey will receive their share of a [36] general impost: The middle

states will receive the advantages surrounding the seat of government;

The southern states will receive protection, and have their negroes

represented in the legislature, and large back countries will soon have

a majority in it. This system promises a large field of employment

to military gentlemen, and gentlemen of the law; and in case the

government shall be executed without convulsions, it will afford

security to creditors, to the clergy, salary-men and others depending

on money payments. So far as the system promises justice and reasonable

advantages, in these respects, it ought to be supported by all honest

men; but whenever it promises unequal and improper advantages to any

particular states, or orders of men, it ought to be opposed.

I have, in the course of these letters observed, that there are many

good things in the proposed constitution, and I have endeavored to

point out many important defects in it. I have admitted that we want a

federal system—that we have a system presented, which, with several

alterations may be made a tolerable good one—I have admitted there

is a well founded uneasiness among creditors and mercantile men. In

this situation of things, you ask me what I think ought to be done? My

opinion in this case is only the opinion of an individual, and so far

only as it corresponds with the opinions of the honest and substantial

part of the community, is it entitled to consideration. Though I am

fully satisfied that the state conventions ought most seriously to

direct their exertions to altering and amending the system proposed

before they shall adopt it—yet I have not sufficiently examined the

subject, or formed an opinion, how far it will be practicable for those

conventions to carry their amendments. As to the idea, that it will

be in vain for those conventions to attempt amendments, it cannot be

admitted; it is impossible to say whether they can or not until the

attempt shall be made; and when it shall be determined, by experience,

that the conventions cannot agree in amendments, it will then be an

important question before the people of the United States, whether they

will adopt or not the system proposed in its present form. This subject

of consolidating the states is new: and because forty or fifty men

have agreed in a system, to suppose the good sense of this country, an

enlightened nation, must adopt it without examination, and though in a

state of profound peace, without endeavouring to amend those parts they

perceive are defective, dangerous to freedom, and destructive of the

valuable principles of republican government—is truly humiliating. It

is true there may be danger in delay; but there is danger in adopting

the system in its present form; and I see the danger in either case

will arise principally from the conduct and views of [37] two very

unprincipled parties in the United States—two fires, between which

the honest and substantial people have long found themselves situated.

One party is composed of little insurgents, men in debt, who want no

law, and who want a share of the property of others; these are called

levellers, Shayites, &c. The other party is composed of a few, but

more dangerous men, with their servile dependents; these avariciously

grasp at all power and property; you may discover in all the actions of

these men, an evident dislike to free and equal government, and they

will go systematically to work to change, essentially, the forms of

government in this country; these are called aristocrats, m——ites,

&c. &c. Between these two parties is the weight of the community; the

men of middling property, men not in debt on the one hand, and men,

on the other, content with republican governments, and not aiming at

immense fortunes, offices, and power. In 1786, the little insurgents,

the levellers, came forth, invaded the rights of others, and attempted

to establish governments according to their wills. Their movements

evidently gave encouragement to the other party, which, in 1787, has

taken the political field, and with its fashionable dependants, and

the tongue and the pen, is endeavoring to establish in a great haste,

a politer kind of government. These two parties, which will probably

be opposed or united as it may suit their interests and views, are

really insignificant, compared with the solid, free, and independent

part of the community. It is not my intention to suggest, that either

of these parties, and the real friends of the proposed constitution,

are the same men. The fact is, these aristocrats support and hasten the

adoption of the proposed constitution, merely because they think it is

a stepping stone to their favorite object. I think I am well founded

in this idea; I think the general politics of these men support it,

as well as the common observation among them, that the proffered plan

is the best that can be got at present, it will do for a few years,

and lead to something better. The sensible and judicious part of the

community will carefully weigh all these circumstances; they will view

the late convention as a respectable body of men—America probably

never will see an assembly of men, of a like number, more respectable.

But the members of the convention met without knowing the sentiments

of one man in ten thousand in these states respecting the new ground

taken. Their doings are but the first attempts in the most important

scene ever opened. Though each individual in the state conventions will

not, probably, be so respectable as each individual in the federal

convention, yet as the state conventions will probably consist of

fifteen hundred or two thousand men of abilities, and versed in the

science of government, [38] collected from all parts of the community

and from all orders of men, it must be acknowledged that the weight of

respectability will be in them.—In them will be collected the solid

sense and the real political character of the country. Being revisers

of the subject, they will possess peculiar advantages. To say that

these conventions ought not to attempt, coolly and deliberately, the

revision of the system, or that they cannot amend it, is very foolish

or very assuming. If these conventions, after examining the system,

adopt it, I shall be perfectly satisfied, and wish to see men make the

administration of the government an equal blessing to all orders of

men. I believe the great body of our people to be virtuous and friendly

to good government, to the protection of liberty and property; and

it is the duty of all good men, especially of those who are placed

as sentinels to guard their rights—it is their duty to examine into

the prevailing politics of parties, and to disclose them—while they

avoid exciting undue suspicions, to lay facts before the people, which

will enable them to form a proper judgment. Men who wish the people of

this country to determine for themselves, and deliberately to fit the

government to their situation, must feel some degree of indignation at

those attempts to hurry the adoption of a system, and to shut the door

against examination. The very attempts create suspicions, that those

who make them have secret views, or see some defects in the system,

which, in the hurry of affairs, they expect will escape the eye of a

free people.

What can be the views of those gentlemen in Pennsylvania, who

precipitated decisions on this subject? What can be the views of

those gentlemen in Boston, who countenanced the Printers in shutting

up the press against a fair and free investigation of this important

system in the usual way. The members of the convention have done their

duty——why should some of them fly to their states——almost forget a

propriety of behaviour, and precipitate measures for the adoption of a

system of their own making? I confess candidly, when I consider these

circumstances in connection with the unguarded parts of the system I

have mentioned, I feel disposed to proceed with very great caution,

and to pay more attention than usual to the conduct of particular

characters. If the constitution presented be a good one, it will stand

the test with a well informed people: all are agreed that there shall

be state conventions to examine it; and we must believe it will be

adopted, unless we suppose it is a bad one, or that those conventions

will make false divisions respecting it. I admit improper measures

are taken against the adoption of the system as well for it——all

who object to the plan proposed ought to point out the defects [39]

objected to, and to propose those amendments with which they can accept

it, or to propose some other system of government, that the public

mind may be known, and that we may be brought to agree in some system

of government, to strengthen and execute the present, or to provide

a substitute. I consider the field of enquiry just opened, and that

we are to look to the state conventions for ultimate decisions on the

subject before us; it is not to be presumed, that they will differ

about small amendments, and lose a system when they shall have made

it substantially good; but touching the essential amendments, it is

to be presumed the several conventions will pursue the most rational

measures to agree in and obtain them; and such defects as they shall

discover and not remove, they will probably notice, keep them in

view as the ground work of future amendments, and in the firm and

manly language which every free people ought to use, will suggest to

those who may hereafter administer the government, that it is their

expectation, that the system will be so organized by legislative

acts, and the government so administered, as to render those defects

as little injurious as possible. Our countrymen are entitled to an

honest and faithful government; to a government of laws and not of

men; and also to one of their chusing—as a citizen of the country,

I wish to see these objects secured, and licentious, assuming, and

overbearing men restrained; if the constitution or social compact be

vague and unguarded, then we depend wholly upon the prudence, wisdom

and moderation of those who manage the affairs of government; or on

what, probably, is equally uncertain and precarious, the success of the

people oppressed by the abuse of government, in receiving it from the

hands of those who abuse it, and placing it in the hands of those who

will use it well.

In every point of view, therefore, in which I have been able, as yet,

to contemplate this subject, I can discern but one rational mode of

proceeding relative to it: and that is to examine it with freedom and

candour, to have state conventions some months hence, which shall

examine coolly every article, clause, and word in the system proposed,

and to adopt it with such amendments as they shall think fit. How

far the state conventions ought to pursue the mode prescribed by the

federal convention of adopting or rejecting the plan in toto, I leave

it to them to determine. Our examination of the subject hitherto has

been rather of a general nature. The republican characters in the

several states, who wish to make this plan more adequate to security of

liberty and property, and to the duration of the principles of a free

government, will, no doubt, collect their opinions to certain points,

and accurately define those [40] alterations and amendments they wish;

if it shall be found they essentially disagree in them, the conventions

will then be able to determine whether to adopt the plan as it is, or

what will be proper to be done.

Under these impressions, and keeping in view the improper and

unadvisable lodgment of powers in the general government, organized

as it at present is, touching internal taxes, armies and militia, the

elections of its own members, causes between citizens of different

states, &c. and the want of a more perfect bill of rights, &c. I

drop the subject for the present, and when I shall have leisure

to revise and correct my ideas respecting it, and to collect into

points the opinions of those who wish to make the system more secure

and safe, perhaps I may proceed to point out particularly for your

consideration, the amendments which ought to be ingrafted into this

system, not only in conformity to my own, but the deliberate opinions

of others—you will with me perceive, that the objections to the plan

proposed may, by a more leisure examination be set in a stronger point

of view, especially the important one, that there is no substantial

representation of the people provided for in a government in which the

most essential powers, even as to the internal police of the country,

is proposed to be lodged.

I think the honest and substantial part of the community will wish

to see this system altered, permanency and consistency given to the

constitution we shall adopt; and therefore they will be anxious

to apportion the powers to the features and organizations of the

government, and to see abuse in the exercise of power more effectually

guarded against. It is suggested, that state officers, from interested

motives will oppose the constitution presented——I see no reason for

this, their places in general will not be effected, but new openings to

offices and places of profit must evidently be made by the adoption of

the constitution in its present form.

Your’s, &c.

Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States Published During Its Discussion by the People 1787-1788 · 第 79 / 257 题